https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0578-3767
-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Paul Higgins, Ian Roper, Man Fung Lo, Corporate professional stratification in human resource management: a sequential multi-method Hong Kong and United Kingdom analysis, Journal of Professions and Organization, Volume 12, Issue 1, February 2025, joae015, https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joae015
Close - Share Icon Share
Abstract
The rise of corporate professions reignites a longstanding sociological debate concerning the structure of intra-professional relations within purportedly collegiate entities. However, unlike the classic case of independent professions, research has yet to examine how corporate professions stratify occupationally. The omission is surprising since the motivational prospect of corporate practitioners climbing an embedded career ladder engenders what one might reasonably refer to as ‘stratification by design’. Theoretically, while scholars demarcate several types of intra-professional relations within independent professions (e.g. extraction, protection, and imperialism), how far such arrangements transpose to a corporate professional context lacking occupational autonomy remains uncertain. Addressing the research gap, our study corroborates sequential multi-method Hong Kong and UK data to examine intra-professional stratification in human resource management, a role engendering a distinctly organizational rather than independent professionalizing form. Three discerning research questions guide our investigation. First, how are documented human resources (HR) certification criteria structured by membership level and competency composition? Second, to what extent do the stipulated competencies reflect empirical practice? Third, on what organizational, occupational, and demographic grounds do ‘elite’ HR practitioners claim superordinate status? Across both case contexts, our study finds that while strategic competencies assume a higher certification status than administrative competencies, preserving routine maintenance remains an indispensable organizational activity. The exception concerns a group of predominantly executive-level practitioners abstaining from administrative duties, raising questions about their functional integration, and whether the ascendancy of managerial logics over professional logics produces a compromised form of occupational imperialism.
