joined PwC Luxembourg in 2005 as an auditor. After a short stint with the CSSF from 2009 to 2013, he rejoined the firm and became a partner in 2015. joined the firm from New York in 1994. He became a partner in 1999, then managing partner in 2014. He is now handing over to Mousel, who was a member of his management team during his second term.

Marc Fassone: Why did you want to succeed John Parkhouse as managing partner?

François Mousel: It’s not something I planned. It was more a combination of circumstances in which, at a given moment, there was a convergence with the partners on a certain vision of the firm and on a project to take it forward. After that, a whole process of consultations began which confirmed the support of the partners and which ended with a vote.

You mentioned a project. What are your ambitions and objectives for PwC Luxembourg during your mandate?

Mousel: The common vision is to become the most dynamic and impactful partnership for our clients and all our stakeholders. And the one that generates the most trust. This means firstly that we clearly remain a leader and role model in our key markets.

Secondly, we are firmly on a growth trajectory. After [reaching] €500m in turnover, the next step is €1bn. In 5 years, in 9 years... it doesn’t matter. For me, this is the objective to aim for. As long as Luxembourg as a country does not completely collapse.

How would you describe your management style? What kind of managing partner will you be?

Mousel: In a partnership, the managing partner must be someone who helps the partners and the group to move forward. Top-down management is not the right model. The right model is based on commitment. You don’t force the partners to go in a certain direction, but you convince them to do so. You need very strong interactions. You have to listen a lot and be inclusive. That’s the style I identify with.

How will the transfer of power between you and John Parkhouse work?

Mousel: As smoothly as possible. John and I have known each other for a long time. We have worked very closely together for the last four years. I was on his management team. The next step will be to decide who will be part of the new team and how the old and the new team will be able to work in parallel to ensure that the new management is fully operational by 1 July, the official start of my mandate.

John Parkhouse: Collaboration and proximity will be the key words.

After 8 years at the head of PwC Luxembourg, how would you sum up your two mandates?

Parkhouse: On a personal level, it has been a great experience. And I think we have achieved a lot for the firm. During these years, the firm has been transformed in many ways, whether it be in the area of digital technology, in which we have invested enormously, or in terms of corporate culture, or in the human aspect, on which we have focused. The feedback we get from our team and our customers tells us that we have not gone wrong.

What is your best memory of this period?

Parkhouse: There are many that come to mind. Let’s say the phone call from [the prime minister] to congratulate me on my re-election in 2018. It was a nice gesture that symbolises the whole spirit of a country in which we care about others.

And your worst memory?

Parkhouse: . It was an affair that broke just two months after I took office. The 12 months that followed were as painful for the country as for the firm.

What advice would you give to your successor?

Parkhouse: Stay humble, stay tuned and stay collegial. Be accessible and try to make a difference. As François said, it’s a journey in which you have to get everyone on board.

What are the big challenges for a company like yours today?

Mousel: The biggest one is human resources. Even if the current environment is not easy, there are extremely important market opportunities, both in Luxembourg and abroad. But you need the resources to seize them. PwC is not the only firm facing this challenge. It is up to us to do our best to attract and retain people in Luxembourg, but also from abroad. Not to cut costs, but to secure our service delivery model. This raises many issues, fiscal, social and operational. In particular the integration of these ‘foreign’ teams into our collective.

Is the ‘big resignation’ trend that was much talked about post-covid still relevant?

Parkhouse: I think that the ‘big resignation’ was a catch-all slogan. While some people said they didn’t want to work at all, it was all about changing the way people want to work. This desire for change will continue. We need to provide flexibility to those who demand it without compromising the corporate culture, team spirit, coaching and proximity that is important to a company.

The recruitment market is under pressure. It is up to us to offer relevant career and personal development opportunities. The good news is that we are seeing a decrease in what we call voluntary turnover.

Mousel: I think we are facing a double structural challenge. On the one hand--something that didn’t exist even twenty years ago--part of the population has greater flexibility in their personal lives and can therefore afford not to work full time all the time. On the other hand, the ageing population is slowing down the renewal of the workforce.

Do the careers you offer still appeal to young people who are less focused on the long term? Don’t you fear a ‘shortage’ of partners and managers in the years to come?

Mousel: More than a question of work-life balance, the issue is one of purpose. I think our profession has a hard time explaining its role, its purpose. I think people are motivated when they know why they are doing something and if they are in a team where they feel surrounded. Young people today are not fundamentally different from young people yesterday. They just have higher expectations and higher standards. We can meet these expectations by being closer to them.

As an organisation, we want to be as efficient as possible. But when you are too efficient, you don’t spend much time explaining why you do things in the first place. When you are in a team that understands why you do things and subscribes to that, the rest is much easier. Sometimes in the modern world we need to go back to basics, to the human. Everyone wants to understand why they do what they do.

Parkhouse: More generally, attractiveness is a challenge for our professions. The image in the press is not good and we have to deal with a level of regulation and control that is increasing dramatically. It is hard to live with. We have to support our teams on a daily basis to help them through this and to offer them the best long-term career prospects.

Mousel: At the moment we have a number of experienced partners who are approaching retirement. We will be promoting new, younger partners. That will be the reality for the next four to eight years. We are a firm of opportunities.

The hot topic for your industry is the split of the audit and advisory businesses. What is your opinion on this split? Do you think it is appropriate?

Mousel: I’ll let experience speak for itself...

Parkhouse: We are very clear on this issue. In terms of the value we bring to our clients, in terms of the opportunities we offer our teams and in terms of the wider positive impact we can have in society, our model of multidisciplinary expertise is immensely powerful. Giving it up by moving to an all-audit model is something I would deeply regret. It is certainly not our plan. Our strategy is to grow globally and locally within one firm. And this is something that all the partners agree on.

If one of the Big 4 were to opt for such a split, would it be a game changer in your eyes?

Mousel: Whenever there has been a split of this type in the past, a single firm has been reconstituted, as the synergies are natural and important. The current model has many advantages. Changing it raises more questions than it solves.

Parkhouse: No. The split of the audit and consulting businesses is a value-destroying proposition for me.

Read the original French version of this interview on the site