Homepage

Site Map

Content

Occupations

Links

Contact

  

ORGANIZATIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL PROFESSIONALISM

A different interpretation of the concept of professionalism is also developing and this involves examination of professionalism as a discourse of occupational change and control. This interpretation would seem to have much more contemporary relevance in the analysis of occupational groups where the discourse is increasingly applied and utilized.

There is now extensive use of the concept of professionalism in a wide range of occupations and work places. The concept of professionalism is increasingly used in a diverse variety of work, occupational, organizational and institutional contexts. It is used as a marketing slogan in advertising to appeal to customers (Fournier 1999) and in campaigns to attract prospective recruits. It is used in company mission statements and organizational aims and objectives to motivate employees and in policy procedures and manuals. It is an appealing prospect for an occupation to be identified as a profession and for occupational workers and employees to be labelled as professionals. The concept of professionalism has entered the managerial literature and been embodied in training manuals and CPD (Continuing Professional Development) procedures. The concept of professionalism is increasingly used (or misused?) in organizational, commercial, service, financial and security work places and locations. The discourse of professionalism is also claimed by both sides in disputes and political and policy arguments and disagreements between professional workers and governments – particularly in respect of proposed changes in funding, organizational and administrative arrangements in health and in education (Crompton 1990).

In trying to account for the appeal and attraction of the discourse of professionalism in a wide variety of occupational groups with very different working conditions and employment relations, a different interpretation is required. It is suggested that professionalism is being used as a discourse to promote and facilitate particular occupational changes in service work organizations. The interpretation includes the analysis of how the discourse operates at both occupational/organizational (macro), and individual worker (micro) levels.

The occupational, organizational and worker changes required have been summarized by Hanlon (1999:121) who stated that ‘in short the state is engaged in trying to redefine professionalism so that it becomes more commercially aware, budget-focused, managerial, entrepreneurial and so forth'. Hanlon's emphasis on the state is because he was discussing the legal profession. When this analysis is applied to the use of the discourse of professionalism in other occupational groups then the state might be less directly involved and the service company, firm and organization (via its managers and supervisors) would probably be the constructors, promoters and users of the discourse.

In general, then, as organizational budgets become leaner and customers/clients become more demanding, as service work becomes more closely regulated and achievement targets are specified, measured and assessed, so the changes are often characterised as the need to ‘professionalize' the service and knowledge workers concerned. The adoption of New Public Management theory and policy in the operation of service institutions (such as in health and education) clearly illustrates this changed usage of the concept of professionalism. This professionalization will be achieved through increased occupational training and the certification of the workers/employees – a process labelled as credentialism by Collins (1979, 1981). These occupational changes are often perceived by the workers concerned as more paper work and additional responsibilities but with no corresponding increase in either collective or individual status or salary – the rewards usually perceived to accrue from professionalization (Larson 1977). Often such occupational changes are interpreted by workers as increased bureaucratization (i.e. more form-filling) but, as a consequence, the quality of the service to the client is perceived by the workers to decline. One result is a form of occupational identity crisis which can be expressed as forms of discontent perceived particularly by (older? and) more experienced groups of workers. Why, then, and how in the face of such experiential contradictions does the discourse of professionalism continue to be such an effective instrument of occupational change and social control?

It is necessary to clarify and operationalize the concept of discourse. In this paper discourse refers to the ways in which occupational and professional workers themselves are accepting, incorporating and accommodating to the idea of ‘profession' and particularly ‘professionalism' in their work. It is also apparent that in the case of many, if not most, occupational groups the discourse of professionalism is in fact being constructed and used by the managers, supervisors and employers of workers, and it is being utilized in order to bring about occupational change and rationalization as well as to (self-) discipline workers in the conduct of their work. This use of the discourse is very different from the earlier (historical) constructions and uses of ‘professionalism' by the practitioners and professional associations in medicine and law – from where the discourse originated. This analysis of the use of the discourse of professionalism in work and organizations is based on Foucauldian concepts of legitimacy (Foucault 1979), normalization and the control of autonomous subjects exercising appropriate conduct (Foucault 1973, 1980). Using these ideas in her interpretation of professionalism as a disciplinary mechanism, Fournier (1999), following Miller and Rose (1990), has explored professionalism as the control of professional practice ‘at a distance'. These interpretations can also assist in understanding the appeal of professionalism as a mechanism of occupational change in the modern world.

Fournier (1999) has considered the appeal to ‘professionalism' as a disciplinary mechanism in new occupational contexts. She suggests how the use of the discourse in a large privatised service company of managerial labour serves to inculcate ‘appropriate' work identities, conducts and practices. She considers this as ‘a disciplinary logic which inscribes “autonomous” professional practice within a network of accountability and governs professional conduct at a distance' (1999:280).

At the level of occupations the appeal to professionalism can also be seen as a mechanism for promoting social change. In these cases, however, the appeal is to a myth or an ideology of professionalism which includes aspects such as exclusive ownership of an area of expertise, autonomy and discretion in work practices and occupational control of work. In fact the reality of the professionalism that is actually envisaged is very different. The appeal to professionalism most often includes the substitution of organizational for professional values; bureaucratic, hierarchical and managerial controls rather than collegial relations; budgetary restrictions and rationalizations; performance targets, accountability and increased political control. In this sense, then, it can be argued that the appeal to professionalism is an ‘effective' mechanism of social control at micro and macro levels.

One consequence of these new directions in the research field is that in contemporary, advanced societies we seem to be witnessing the development of two different and contrasting forms of professionalism in knowledge-based, service sector work: organizational and occupational professionalism (Evetts 2004, 2005). Organizational professionalism is a discourse of control used increasingly by managers in work organizations. It incorporates rational-legal forms of decision-making, hierarchical structures of authority, the standardization of work practices, accountability, target-setting and performance review and is based on occupational training and certification. In contrast, occupational professionalism is the more traditional, historical form. This involves a discourse constructed within professional groups themselves which involves discretionary decision-making in complex cases, collegial authority, the occupational control of the work and is based on trust in the practitioner by both clients and employers. It is operationalized and controlled by practitioners themselves and is based on shared education and training, a strong socialization process, work culture and occupational identity, and codes of ethics which are monitored and operationalized by professional institutes and associations. These two contrasting forms of professionalism would seem to be in competition in the modern world where systems of new public management, particularly in health and in education, are becoming common.

In general then a focus on the discourse of professionalism offers some new directions and areas of interest for sociologists of professional groups. It is important also to recognise that, at the same time, it can re-focus researchers attention on some of the questions of classical sociology about societal mechanisms of social order and social control. In which case the important comparative research question becomes how and in what ways the discourse of professionalism is being used (by states, by employers and managers, and by some relatively powerful occupational groups themselves) as an instrument of occupational change (including resistance to change) and social control.