In this article, Sinéad Munnelly, explores why organisational health is becoming a leadership priority in professional services firms. If you asked most leaders of professional services firms about the biggest risks they face, the answers would be familiar: Increasing regulation Technology disruption Talent shortages Client expectations. These are all legitimate concerns, of course, but there is another risk that rarely appears on leaders’ agendas: Whether the firm is structurally healthy and robust to meet the demands made upon it. Imagine you are standing before your firm at a town hall meeting: partners, managers, trainees and support teams, the people whose judgement, professionalism and integrity underpin the value and reputation of the firm every day. Traditionally, this is where leaders would speak about opportunity, strategy and growth, but this time you ask a different question: Is our firm designed to sustain the level of complexity we now operate in? The environment in which professional services firms operate has changed profoundly in recent years. Artificial intelligence (AI) is being embedded in audit and advisory workflows. Reporting expectations continue to intensify. Clients expect faster insight and broader advice. Teams are increasingly multidisciplinary. In some parts of the profession, new ownership models have introduced additional commercial oversight. None of these developments is inherently negative: indeed, many represent significant opportunities, but collectively they reshape how pressure moves through organisations. And that raises a key leadership question: have our internal structures evolved at the same pace as our environment? Wellbeing is determined not only by how individuals cope, but by how work is organised for and around them: the clarity of roles, the volume and pace of work, the quality of support, and the extent to which people have the space to exercise judgement. In this context, personal wellbeing is no longer a separate people initiative. For accountancy practices, it has become inseparable from service quality, client and talent retention, and profitability. A profession built on judgement Accountancy is a profession built on judgement: Professional scepticism. Careful documentation. The ability to challenge assumptions. The responsibility to raise concerns when something does not look right. These capabilities underpin the trust placed in professional accountants. But they rely on the availability of something that is rarely and openly discussed: time and space to think. Cognitive bandwidth Good judgement requires the time and space to think, the confidence to question decisions and the ability to consider risk from multiple perspectives. Research consistently shows that when demands are high and time, support and clarity of purpose are in short supply, both personal wellbeing and organisational performance deteriorate. The evidence increasingly shows that the environment in which accountants operate is more demanding. For example, research by Chartered Accountants Worldwide has indicated that 55% of chartered accountants report experiencing stress or burnout, while four out of five believe poor mental health is a growing issue within the profession. These figures should not be interpreted purely as relating to personal wellbeing concerns; they are signals about the operating environment for professional services. When cognitive capacity narrows for professionals of whom high levels of judgement is required, the consequences rarely appear as dramatic failures. Instead, they emerge gradually: Risk surfaces more slowly because people have less time to step back, challenge assumptions or notice emerging issues. Documentation becomes increasingly defensive. Rework accumulates quietly as misunderstanding, incomplete scoping and avoidable errors must be corrected later. Discretionary effort declines. Experienced professionals leave organisations earlier than expected. None of these developments appear overnight, but collectively they influence the quality of judgement within the firm. And in high-judgement professions like accountancy, organisational design ultimately shapes the quality of professional judgement. When work is structured in ways that create chronic overload, ambiguity or continuous interruption, strain on individuals increases, the firm loses some of the elements on which good judgement depends: reflection, challenge, learning and timely escalation. Organisational design, therefore, is not an abstract structural issue, but directly affects the conditions in which professional standards are either sustained or eroded. The accumulation of pressure In my conversations with senior leaders of professional services firms, a recurring theme has emerged: pressure rarely comes from a single change; it comes from the accumulation of many small changes. AI tools are introduced to drive productivity; reporting and regulatory requirements expand; new service lines appear; clients expectations grow for faster turnaround and deeper insight. On its own, each change individually appears to be manageable, but over time, these developments are often layered onto organisational structures designed for a less complex operating environment. New technology may be introduced while documentation expectations remain unchanged: people are expected to adopt new tools without any corresponding reduction in legacy tasks, controls or review steps. New reporting sits alongside legacy processes. Growth strategies accelerate while leadership bandwidth remains finite. The result is not necessarily visible disruption, but complexity continues to accumulate and pressure builds. Firms may remain profitable and outwardly successful, yet internally their systems, structures and people experience greater and more prolonged strain. Burnout as organisational feedback The World Health Organization defines burnout as an occupational phenomenon resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. This definition is useful because it reframes the conversation. Burnout is not simply a reflection of an individual’s resilience; it is feedback on how their work is structured. In my experience, professionals rarely express a lack of commitment to their work. More often, they describe sustained cognitive demand with limited space to think. Junior staff quietly question how their roles will evolve as automation reshapes parts of the profession. Senior managers hesitate before challenging established views. Partners carry commercial pressure, regulatory oversight and people leadership simultaneously. In the context of pressures developing gradually as expectations accumulate within structures designed for a different environment, burnout is not only a personal experience – it is also an organisational signal. In fact, in professional services environments, burnout, and conversely wellbeing, can be understood as leading indicators of controllable business risk, signalling when work demands are exceeding the system’s capacity to absorb them. Psychological safety and the early surfacing of risk One of the most important leadership responsibilities in professional services firms is protecting the ability of people to speak up. Psychological safety is sometimes misunderstood in professional environments. It does not mean lowering standards or avoiding challenge – it enables the opposite: facing external challenge and disruption, and adapting, and increasing the value provided to clients. In high-judgement professions, psychological safety allows challenge to occur early – when it is most valuable: A trainee must feel able to question an audit judgement. A manager must feel able to flag an unsustainable workload. A consultant must be able to challenge an established process. A partner must be able to acknowledge capacity constraints. When everyone in the firm believes that these challenging conversations are easy to have, risks (and innovations) can be identified sooner. When they are difficult to have, the risks do not disappear – they become harder to detect. In a compliance-driven profession, this makes psychological safety more a governance safeguard than a cultural preference. Technology and the migration of pressure AI is being framed as a productivity solution for professional services and, in many ways, it will be, particularly for the routine-task aspects of accounting and audit work. However, technology and automation rarely remove pressure entirely; more often, they redistribute it, while simultaneously compressing decision-making timelines and concentrating accountability at more senior levels of the organisation. As routine tasks become automated, work shifts toward review, interpretation and dealing with more complex or unusual cases. This means that fewer, more senior professionals are required to make a greater number of higher-stakes judgments, often in shorter timeframes. Automation also creates an expectation of speed, with faster processing assumed to translate into faster insight. The result is that pressure does not disappear, it moves upwards, becoming more concentrated, more cognitive and more time-sensitive, with greater implications for judgment, risk and oversight. If new technologies are layered onto existing workflows without thoughtful redesign, firms can inadvertently create new pressure points. Oversight responsibilities increase. Decision-making accelerates. Documentation expectations remain unchanged. The result is not less intensity – it is a different pattern of intensity. For this reason, technology adoption should be considered not only as a technical investment but also as a driver of an organisational (re)design. Designing work for sustainable performance Many firms have invested in wellbeing initiatives, ranging from employee assistance programmes and flexible working, to wellness sessions, team events, and other supportive measures. These initiatives can play an important role in helping individuals to recover from periods of high intensity work, maintain connection across teams and signal that the organisation values and supports its people. However, where underlying workload, role clarity and capacity remain unchanged, their impact can be limited as they do not address how the work itself is structured. For professionals in highly demanding roles, wellbeing is shaped less by individual initiatives and more by how work is designed. Supportive programmes can signal positive intent but they cannot be the core strategy if day-to-day work remains chronically overloaded. A firm’s wellbeing strategy should at its core include the deliberate, considered design of work: setting clear priorities, aligning workloads with available capacity, defining decision rights, simplifying processes, using technology to reduce unnecessary complexity, and recognising the need for recovery after sustained periods of high intensity work. Therefore, wellbeing is not an add-on initiative and aspiration; it is an outcome of how effectively a firm is structured to support consistent high-quality performance. Designing firms that can absorb complexity Professional services firms will continue to operate in environments characterised by complexity and scrutiny. The objective cannot be to eliminate pressure. Pressure is inherent in the work of professionals that are highly trusted, whose value depends on that trust. Instead, the objective should be to manage intensity and pressure as deliberate operating constraints that must be actively managed, like risk, capacity or cash flow. This means designing organisations that can absorb complexity without eroding good judgement, engagement or professional standards. In this context, engagement is not about general enthusiasm; it is about people being mentally present to their work – willing to contribute, challenge when something does not look right, and take responsibility for the quality of their decisions. In structurally healthy firms, several characteristics tend to be visible: Decision rights – clarity about who decides, who reviews and when issues should be escalated – are well understood. Capacity planning is transparent during peak work cycles. Reporting systems and requirements inform rather than overwhelm. Technology adoption is supported by strategic purpose and thoughtful governance. Leaders encourage early challenge rather than late correction. Recovery following sustained periods of high intensity is recognised as necessary rather than optional. These are not wellbeing initiatives in the traditional sense; they are elements of the firm’s performance infrastructure. Designing firms to perform If we return to that town hall meeting and ask, “How healthy is our firm?”, the answer will not be found in employee surveys alone; it will also be determined by how the organisation is designed. How work flows through the firm. How decisions are made. How pressure is distributed. How easily people can raise concerns. And whether the structures of the firm protect and nurture the quality of judgement expected of its professionals. The accountancy profession has always demonstrated remarkable adaptability. Technical excellence remains strong and innovation continues across the sector. As firms invest heavily in technology, advisory capability and growth strategies, however, equal attention must be paid to organisational design of the systems that allow professionals to exercise judgement effectively under conditions of increasing complexity. For a profession built on trust, the health of the organisation ultimately determines the quality of professional judgement. Organisational health, therefore, is not a soft concern; it is a core strategic capability. And increasingly, it is becoming one of the defining leadership challenges facing professional services firms. Sinéad Munnelly, FCA, is principal at Munnelly Coaching, helping ambitious leaders to think clearly and lead well.

Ahead of the publication and launch of a new history on 19 March, authors Brenda Clerkin, Brid Murphy and Martin Quinn outline more than a century of the Irish accountancy profession’s work in the public interest and look towards its future. Introduction The amalgamation of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland (the Institute) and CPA Ireland in 2024 created a unified body to strengthen the accountancy profession’s voice and public interest role. CPA Ireland would have marked its centenary on 11 March 2026. In the spirit of this centenary and amalgamation, we were commissioned to write a history of the Irish profession since the Institute’s establishment in 1888. While prior histories have informed our efforts, we also offer updates and new insights. This article summarises our work, covering the changing nature of the accountant’s role, auditing, and technology – three pillars that have defined the profession’s trajectory over time. The expanding role of accountants When the Institute was formed in 1888, accountants’ work was largely confined to bookkeeping, insolvency, and some audit engagements. The Companies Act 1900 introduced a statutory requirement for all companies to appoint auditors, elevating the importance of audit and increasing this element of their work. The First World War broadened the profession’s remit. Accountants were instrumental in administering excess profits duty, with the Institute’s President, David Telford, in 1916 estimating that accountants prepared “80% or so of such returns”. Wartime conditions also accelerated the development of cost accounting, as governments curbed profiteering and ensured equitable pricing for war supplies. The brewer Guinness, for example, adapted its cost centre system to allocate war-related expenses (e.g. additional insurance costs of shipping to Great Britain), demonstrating the profession’s agility in responding to external shocks. More directly related to the war, prior histories of the Institute list 19 Irish accountants who died in active service. Our detailed research – made possible through digitised records of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission – has shown two were associated with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales but worked for Craig Gardner in Dublin. All 19 were honoured at the Institute’s 1918 Annual General Meeting. The interwar years saw Irish accountants become more embedded in industrial enterprises, exemplified by the Electricity Supply Board (ESB). Under Chief Accountant Friedrich Weckler, ESB’s accounting systems evolved to reflect the growing complexity of the organisation. By 1943, ESB’s accounts spanned 21 pages (up from four pages in 1927) and disclosed assets of £18.1 million (about €940 million in 2025 values). The Second World War, or  ‘Emergency’ in Ireland, reinforced accountants’ role in public administration. Government debates reveal their involvement in price control and rationing, underscoring the profession’s contribution to economic resilience during a period of scarcity. Post-war recovery and industrial expansion in the 1950s and 1960s introduced new challenges. The Companies Act 1963 (Ireland) and the Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 1960 mandated group accounts and codified the ‘true and fair view’ standard, shifting accountants’ focus from mere compliance to professional judgement. Decimalisation in 1971 and accession to the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973 further expanded the profession’s responsibilities, requiring system upgrades and acquiring proficiency in new taxation structures such as VAT and corporation tax. The late 20th century witnessed exponential growth in demand for accountants, driven by globalisation and foreign direct investment. From this boom, some weaknesses in regulatory oversight ultimately emerged, leading to the establishment of the Irish Auditing & Accounting Supervisory Authority (IAASA) in 2006 – the UK’s equivalent body, the Financial Reporting Council dates from 1990. The 21st century brought further challenges. The adoption of the euro currency in 2002 required systems reconfiguration, while the mandatory implementation of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) for listed entities in 2005 represented a generational shift in financial reporting. The 2008 global financial crisis tested the robustness of these standards and intensified scrutiny of accountants’ role in safeguarding public trust. More recently, Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic introduced new layers of uncertainty, compelling accountants to confront, amongst other things, regulatory divergence, remote working, and accelerated digital transformation. Auditing: from watchdog to strategic assurance Since 1888, auditing has evolved from a rudimentary check on ledgers to a sophisticated assurance function. In the 19th century, audit reports were perfunctory, often comprising a sentence affirming that accounts were “properly drawn up”. The Companies Act 1900 transformed this landscape by mandating independent audits for all companies and prohibiting directors from serving as auditors. Subsequent legislation, notably the Companies (Consolidation) Act 1908, strengthened auditors’ rights to access books and require explanations, embedding audit within the statutory framework.  The 20th century witnessed a steady professionalisation of audit practice. The ‘true and fair view’ requirement, first introduced by the UK Companies Act in 1948, and later incorporated in the Irish Companies Act 1963, elevated auditors’ responsibilities, demanding judgement beyond arithmetical accuracy. Influential publications such as Cooper’s Manual of Auditing (1966) codified best practice, emphasising system evaluation and internal controls over rote checking. Ireland’s accession to the EEC in 1973 further aligned audit standards with European norms, while the establishment of the Auditing Practices Committee in 1976 marked the beginning of formal standard-setting in the UK and Ireland. By the 1980s, auditing standards were consolidated under Statements of Auditing Standards (SASs), and the scope of audit extended to governance and risk management. The Cadbury Report (1992) and subsequent corporate governance codes reinforced auditors’ role in safeguarding stakeholder interests. The introduction of audit exemptions for small companies in 1995 (Northern Ireland) and 1999 (Ireland), while reducing compliance burdens, reshaped the audit market and prompted smaller practices to diversify into advisory services. The 21st century has seen auditing become increasingly regulated and internationally harmonised. IAASA now serves as Ireland’s competent authority for public-interest entity audits, with powers to inspect, sanction, and enforce compliance. EU Directives have introduced mandatory audit firm rotation and restrictions on non-audit services, while global convergence around International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) has enhanced comparability. Yet some post-Brexit divergences between UK and Irish ISAs illustrate the persistent tension between harmonisation and national autonomy. Audit reporting has also expanded dramatically. Contemporary audit reports for listed companies routinely exceed eight pages, incorporating key audit matters and disclosures on sustainability, governance, and risk. The advent of the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) signals a future where auditors will assure not only financial statements but also environmental and social metrics, reinforcing their role as guardians of trust in an era of heightened stakeholder scrutiny. Technology: from ledgers to artificial intelligence Technological innovation has been a key transformative force in accountancy. The journey from mechanical calculators to cloud-based platforms illustrates a profession experiencing perpetual change. As an example of early technology use in accounting in Ireland, in the 1930s firms such as Guinness pioneered the use of accounting machines (typewriters with mathematical functions), reducing clerical labour and accelerating ledger preparation. By the 1950s, electromechanical devices and punched-card systems enabled large-scale data processing, exemplified by the Irish Sugar Company’s adoption of the ICT1201 computer to manage complex contra transactions with thousands of farmers. The 1960s was the era of mainframe computing, with organisations such as the ESB and Aer Lingus deploying IBM systems for billing and reservations. These developments demanded new skills from accountants, who were required to understand data structures and machine logic alongside traditional bookkeeping. The 1970s saw the advent of minicomputers and, later, microcomputers, democratising access to computing power and paving the way for personal computers in the 1980s. Software packages such as Sage and TAS Books revolutionised small business accounting, while spreadsheets became ubiquitous tools for analysis and reporting. The 1990s introduced enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems, integrating accounting with broader business processes. The proliferation of email and broadband facilitated real-time communication and remote collaboration, while the euro conversion and Y2K compliance projects underscored the profession’s reliance on technology. The 2000s witnessed the rise of cloud computing, enabling scalable, secure, and collaborative accounting solutions. Data analytics emerged as a core competency, allowing accountants to extract insights from vast datasets and support strategic decision-making. Today, artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain represent the frontier of technological change. AI-powered tools perform complex tasks such as anomaly detection, predictive forecasting, and natural language processing, augmenting accountants’ analytical capabilities. Blockchain offers immutable transaction records, reducing reconciliation and enhancing transparency. These innovations are reshaping audit methodologies, enabling continuous auditing and full-population testing. However, they also introduce ethical and governance challenges, requiring accountants to act as ‘sense-checkers’ of algorithmic outputs and custodians of data integrity. Education has evolved in tandem, with professional syllabi now including modules on AI, data analytics, cybersecurity, and sustainability reporting, and continuing professional development emphasising digital fluency and ethical oversight.  Looking to the future Reflecting on over a century of history can help us as a profession plan for the future. While the business environment is volatile and uncertain, and faces challenges – sustainability imperatives, rising costs, rapid technological change and talent challenges – history has shown the Irish profession be to adaptable, resilient and exhibiting trusted leadership. The profession has survived through political and economic shifts, war and conflict and financial crises. This resilience can endure and ensure profession continues to serve the public interest as it has done in the past.  Important Work: A History of Irish Chartered & Certified Public Accountants by Brenda Clerkin, Bríd Murphy and Martin Quinn is published on 19 March, when it will be launched at a special commemorative event at Chartered Accountants House, to which all members are invited.

As AI does more of the routine work of accounting and finance functions, this is a strategic opportunity to develop the trusted business leadership of professional accountants, and from the start of their careers, writes Professor Michelle Carr of UCC. In the ongoing conversations around artificial intelligence (AI), few topics are as paradoxical as the role of AI in accounting and finance. Despite being one of the most vital functions in any organisation, finance is often seen as particularly vulnerable to disruption by AI. This narrative persists, even as CEOs and boards continue to elevate their expectations for the finance function. Today’s organisations are demanding much more from their finance teams than just periodic reporting. They look to finance to provide forward-looking insights, scenario modelling, risk intelligence, and a clear view of organisational resilience. The growing importance of sustainability reporting, geopolitical volatility, and the need for real-time decision-making only reinforce the strategic significance of high-quality financial leadership. However, a structural tension exists. Many finance teams remain tied to the operational workload that has historically defined the accountancy profession: reconciliations, compliance cycles, manual data preparation, and regulatory documentation. While essential, these activities consume valuable capacity that could otherwise be directed toward strategic analysis and value creation. This tension is something I have experienced firsthand. While teaching a group of Chartered Accountants Ireland students preparing for their FAE exams – bright and dedicated future professionals – we were working through models on international pricing decisions, part of the Advanced Performance Management course. In the middle of the session, one student trainee asked me: “Will I ever actually get to use these things? My work is nothing like this.” His question was heartfelt, and it struck a chord. I realised that we train some of the brightest and best for years, yet so often, at least in the initial years of their careers, they are channelled into working at repetitive tasks that fail to utilise their full potential. Surely, there must be a better way. And there is. AI represents that opportunity. Rather than displacing or replacing accounting and finance professionals, AI has the potential to unlock the strategic contributions organisations have long sought from them. Intelligent automation can streamline routine processes, real-time analytics can uncover emerging risks and opportunities, and AI-powered financial systems can significantly accelerate decision-making cycles. The result is not a diminished finance function, but a more trusted and elevated one. When AI handles mechanical tasks, finance professionals can focus on work that truly drives organisational value: guiding strategic decisions with trusted insights; improving capital allocation and financial stewardship; strengthening risk management and organisational resilience; ensuring ESG integrity and long-term sustainability; advising on value creation through responsible leadership; connecting operations, sustainability, and financial impact. These capabilities are at the heart of organisational competitiveness and rely on human reasoning, ethical judgement, and contextual understanding – qualities that cannot be automated. It is these qualities that build trust, trust that accounting professionals will not only safeguard financial integrity but will also lead organisations towards their strategic goals with foresight, responsibility, and a focus on long-term value. For leaders, the message is clear: AI is not a cost-cutting tool, it is a capability-building tool. When implemented thoughtfully, AI enables finance teams to deliver the trusted insight, foresight, and governance that modern organisations require. The future of accounting should not be viewed through the lens of workforce reduction, but as an opportunity for strategic enablement and trusted leadership. AI equips accounting and finance professionals with the tools and bandwidth to step into more influential roles, which align with the priorities of executives and boards and uphold the core values of trust and integrity. At University College Cork, akin to Chartered Accountants Ireland, we view AI not as a threat to the accountancy profession, but as a powerful catalyst for its evolution. The redesign of our BSc Accounting programme and the accounting and finance modules across the business school reflect a deliberate shift away from training students for routine compliance work and towards preparing them for strategic, judgement-intensive roles in AI-enabled finance functions. When This shift is delivered through four interconnected initiatives: Preserving technical excellence while reducing the dominance of mechanistic content increasingly handled by technology. Cultivating a broader perspective and adaptability by exposing students to different institutional, regulatory, and cultural contexts. Embedding AI, digital technologies, and sustainability as foundational elements of modern financial judgement. Fostering integrative, ethical, and strategic thinking through modules focused on ambiguity, trade-offs, and long-term value creation. As machines take on and cover off more of the work of calculation and reporting, accounting education and professional development must focus on human insight, responsibility, and strategic judgement. This is an opportunity to recognise AI not as a threat to the accountancy profession, but as a catalyst for its renewal and ongoing relevance, built on a foundation of trusted business leadership. Dr Michelle Carr is Professor of Accounting, and Head of the Department of Accounting and Finance at Cork University Business School, University College Cork