“The 8th Annual Conference of The Asian Studies Association of Hong Kong” The Hong Kong Institute of Education (HKIEd) 8-9 Mar 2013

Paul Higgins and Ian Roper

Transforming the ‘Soul’ of HR Professionalism in Hong Kong in the 21st Century

This paper examines the agenda for the development of human resource (HR) professional skills in Hong Kong through an analysis of the policy development of the Hong Kong Institute of Human Resource Management. Drawing upon a detailed critical documentary analysis of extant professional standards certifications, industry reports of HR trends and elite interviews with senior association members the paper illuminates the tension that arises out of the attempt to shift the HR profession closer to the source of legitimate decision-making in organizations against other stakeholders and to the detriment of traditional core competences customarily associated with the function. It finds that the strategic role that HR professionals are expected to play in their organizationsmay conflict with the ethical expectations that organizational stakeholders have regarding employmentdiminishing the independent power of the HR function and the professionalswho work within it.

Introduction Professional status for the human resources (HR) discipline in Hong Kong has reached the point of practical reality and is being pursued as such by the leading human resource management (HRM) institute - the Hong Kong Institute of human resource management (HKIHRM). This conclusion is evidenced by the substantial achievements made by the HKIHRM over its 35 history which are commensurate with the traits usually associated with an occupational niche achieving formal professional status (Tobias, 2003; Wilensky, 1964; World Federation of Personnel Management Association [WFPMA]). For example:

The HKIHRM has participated in the development and publication of guidelines that define and delineate the body of knowledge associated with the HR discipline. Compositionally, this is divided into three major elements: knowledge, capabilities and experience.

A rigid test based upon the HR body of knowledge and developed by the institute is used to measure a person’s competency in the body of knowledge and is required of all practitioners who seek professional accreditation.

A minimum experience qualification is required of all practitioners who seek professional accreditation and depending on the professional route taken this must amount to at least be five or eight years.

Accredited practitioners (M.I.H.R.M) who wish to maintain their professional accreditation are required to provide evidence to the HKIHRM on an annual basis for the purpose of showing that they are updating their knowledge. This is achieved through demonstration of ten hours of continuing professional development (CPD) per year.

The HKIHRM maintains a professional code of ethics to which all accredited practitioners are expected to adhere.

The HKIHRM is continuously engaged in developing education programs for the purpose of raising the standards of performance and professionalism in all areas of human resources.

Numerous colleges and universities are adopting the body of knowledge guidelines developed by the HKIHRM and are using them for the purpose of developing their HR curricula. For instance, in 2010-11 the practice of “program endorsement” was launched for higher education HR programs, with the aim to ensure the content of such programs offered by higher education institutions align with the HR “body of knowledge” defined by the Institute.

The HKIHRM and academic institutions are continually policing the human resource body of knowledge in order to keep it current.

A rising number of professional (44%) and associate members (37%) are being registered by the institute.

Despite these numerous advances,HR practitioners may find that the exercise of HR professionalism within their respective organizations carries a potential conflict that might not be noticed in their enthusiasm to gain formal powers of self-regulation. There are three main reasons for this.

First, institutionally, while the HR profession upholds coercive institutional pressure (Di Maggio and Powell, 1983) through its application of relevant employment laws and regulations (see Table 1) and mimetically through networks of best practice with similar professional HR institutions elsewhere across the globe(e.g. the chartered institute of personnel and development [CIPD] (UK), the Society for HRM [SHRM] (US) and the WFPMA) normatively it struggles. Recourse to HR practitioner job advertisements in both

general and industry presses suggests that few public and private organizations seek to recruit, hire, and advance professionally accredited HKIHRM HR practitioners (though examples of HK companies requiring HR job candidates to be a professional member of the HKIHRM at least exist); a situation which contrasts unfairly with, say, the CIPD in the UK where chartered status furnishes coercive, mimetic and normative institutional pressures.

Table 1 Collection of human resource-related laws and ordinances in Hong Kong1. Employees' Compensation Ordinance, Chapter 2822. Employment Ordinance at a Glance - Chapter 573. Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance, Chapter 594. Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance, Chapter 5095. Occupational Safety and Health (Display Screen Equipment) Regulation6. Sex Discrimination Ordinance7. Disability Discrimination Ordinance8. Family Status Discrimination Ordinance9. Tax information for individuals10. MPF - Legislation & Regulations11. Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance

Second, the amount of esteem in which HR practitioners are held by their organizational colleagues is sketchy.Without the life or death criticality of, say, the medical or engineering professions HR is seen by many Hong Kong-based organizations, especially small and medium enterprises, as largely a secondary function.The one important exceptionto this tendency concerns multinational companies who, in an era of cheap finance, are now increasingly competing on human capital or talent (CIPD, 2012). The relatively low, but possibly growing, status of HR is not necessarily an issue confined to Hong Kong, however,since it has been found true of the profession the world over(Galang and Ferris 1997; Russ et al. 1998; Teo and Rodwell, 2007).For instance, a1996 study of 425 HR professionals found that only 48 percent believed that HR has the respect of company leaders, down from 63 percent who felt that way in 1995 (McShulskis, 1996).

Third, it is not entirely clear how the HKIHRM promotes the public interest. Again this reservation is not necessarily an issue unique to HR professionalization in Hong Kong. Recourse to professional institute document and academic literature across the world demonstrates how the HR professiontends to promote a tri-partisan consideration for the individual, the organization and the profession (Wiley) with the ‘public interest’ notably absent from this normative ideal. Note, however, that such ‘public interest’ exclusion does not necessarily afflict other professions, especially when their ethical/conduct codes are considered historically.

For instance, according to the 1957 ethical code of the American Medical Association “A profession has for its prime objective the service it can render to humanity; reward or financial gain should be a subordinate consideration” (cited by MacIver, 1966: 51). Similarly, in 1947 the Engineers’ Council for Professional Development (US based Engineering professional association) explained that “the engineer will endeavor to extend public knowledge of engineering,” having “due regard for the safety of life and health of the public and employees who may be affected by the work for which he is responsible” (Volmer and Mills, 1966: 142-143). The current nearest equivalent of public knowledge dissemination at the HKIHRM is its widely publicized annual conference, with associated newspaper

spreads, and the public availability of standards documentation booklets which in practice tend to be consumed more by company executives, HR practitioners and students than the general public. As one senior HKIHRM member explained “although the general public do not receive the HR function directly through promotion of best practice, people tend to realize what is good HR from their own experience or media coverage”. The problem with this statement, however, is that the HKIHRM’s“promotion of best practice”tends to be pitched at such an abstract level (i.e. conceptualized through standards documentation) that the substantive employment relations tensions prevalent in Hong Kong (e.g. prevailing wage levels, standard working hours and paternity leave) are not addressed directly (see below).

Historically, such public interest statements led many people to ask whether or not management is entitled to be regarded as a profession, arguing that the orientations of the manager should best be linked intimately with the particular work organization which employs him/her as agent (Volmer and Mills, 1966: 162). The same could also be said of HR which is primarily a management function (i.e. HR management). However, it is instructive to note that one of the closest historical predecessors to the HR profession - the Institute of Industrial Administrators (in Great Britain) - stressed the importance of practitioners maintaining a “social obligation” in its1951 code of professional conduct which it described as “amounting to a special obligation to serve the community by supplying goods and services in the quantity required, of the right kind and quality, as economically as possible and by contributing to a higher standard of living” (cited in Meigh, 1966: 166).

According to the 1951, code industrial managers wereexpected to play a prominent part in public service and in human well-being requiring the support of intellectual association with their peers (ibid.). The prevailing reality of monopolistic, over produced, off-shored, outsourced and in-built product obsolescence suggests that contemporaryindustrial management practices are far removed from these ideals, with corporate social responsibility seen by some as merely a therapeutic exercise for corporations to rid their guilty conscience (Needle).

It is, therefore,on the grounds of an appeal to the ‘public good’that business managers are not really considered to be professionalized in the fullest sense of the word. Although they have specialized expertise and standards of ethics, they do not ordinarily have associations that transcend their business enterprises to enforce these standards. As Volmer and Mills (1966) explain it is difficult, if not impossible to serve the interests of two masters, employers and colleagues, in situations where these interests may diverge.There are then grounds for feeling a little confused about the professional status of HRM in Hong Kong (and beyond) and many aspirant HR professionals could find that the exercise of HR professionalism carries a potential for conflict that might not have first been anticipated (Archer, 1986).

The potential for conflict is attributable primarily to two factors: First, professionals participate in two systems – the profession and the organization – and their dual membership could place important restrictions on the organization’s attempt to deploy them in a rational manner with respect to its own goals (Scott, 1966: 266). More specifically, organizations containing professionals become “socially involved” which renders their ability to fully control the criteria by which their professional personnel are to be managed problematic insofar as these members retain an identification with their profession and attempt to adhere to its norms and standards (ibid.). To examine professionals in bureaucracies is, then, to examine the “relation between two institutions not merely between organizations and individuals” (ibid.).

Without the constraint of separate professional identity beyond the organization of employment, the HR profession could be construed analytically as a ‘new’ profession – even a managerial profession – which raises important cultural-historical implications about the

meaning of an ethicalstandards in the modern era and which reflects the demise of guild power and the supremacy of the market versus the state and association (Krause). In such instances, one need not attribute contemporary society as signaling the declineof professionalismper sebut rather the rise of the managerial profession and declining traditionalism. As Leicht and Fennellargue (2001) managers and professionals are changing places in an increasingly unified elite division of labor. Professionals and managers once occupied distinctive niches in the labor market characterized by different organizing principles, goals and aspirations (ibid.). The changes in professional work since the 1970’s combined with changes that have accompanied corporate restructuring have produced a melding of professional and managerial work worlds (ibid.).In the process, elite managers are becoming the new professionals while professionals are being captured by organized stakeholders that consume and pay for professional services (ibid.).

Why then even attempt to professionalize the HR function and not let it retain a supporting function only? Well, particularly for the more powerful multinational organizations, the handling of employees is consideredsuch an important matter (contributing heavily to total costs and providing a source of competitive advantage) that its neglect can be responsible for a variety of wastes and inefficiencies such as high labor turnover, poaching as well as much preventable friction and misunderstanding (Bloomfield 1966: 159-160).

There are, however, otherimportant and separate historical roots of HRM professionalization which can be traced back to thecontingencies affecting management in the post-World War II era and, in particular,to developments in the regulatory, economic and social aspects of employmentrelations (Gold and Bratton, 2003). For instance, in the United Kingdom, it was the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers’Associations (1968), chaired by Lord Donovan, which strengthened the professionalcharacteristics of HR (ibid.). In the context of relatively full employment, the commissionwas concerned mainly with promoting the orderly and effective regulations of unionmanagementrelations (ibid.). Theformalization of workplace bargaining and a multitude of labor laws had the effect ofgiving HR specialists the quasi-exclusive right to engage inthe challenging task of negotiations and an expansion of occupation-relatedknowledge base (ibid.).

However, the contingencies affecting management havesince profoundly changed with the decline in UK trade unionmembership; the contraction of collective bargaining and strikeactivity; hostile union legislation; and an increasing tendency for employers tocompete in a union-free environment (ibid.). Running parallel with (and not unrelated to)these union-management changes has, of course, been the ascendancy of theHRM model which emerged during the 1980’s in a climate that promoted management ideologies that proactively endorsed free markets, deregulation, and unitarist approaches to employment relations (MacInnes 1987). This was proactive ‘can-do’ management that was seen as lacking in previous decades of compromise and failure. So by association, HRM is often defined in terms of how it fits within this contemporary entrepreneurial climate, whereas personnel management is retrospectively defined through its association with a climate where managements operated under pluralist assumptions and were therefore less able to act assertively.

The second potential source of conflict pertains to the possibility that the HR profession and bureaucracy rest on fundamentally different principles of organization, and these divergent principles of organization generate conflicts between professionals and their employers in certain specific areas (Scott, 1966: 266). This implies that incompatibility may arise between the values and expectations of the organization. When such incompatibility exists the potential for conflict also materializes relating primarily to the core or ‘soul’ of the discipline itself in terms of what it means to be a HR professional. Following Archer (1986) six areas of potential conflict can be identified: expertise, authority, autonomy, ethics,

rewards and recognition and a brief description of each component from the perspective of professionals and organizations is provided in Table 2.

Table 2 Factors contributing to conflict potentialTrait Profession OrganizationExpertise Esoteric knowledge,

specialization, due process and objectivity

Speed, intuitive speculation, hierarchical directives and partiality

Autonomy Because of their specialized knowledge and skills, professionals feel that they ought to be allowed to perform their assigned tasks without the necessity for externalized control over the application of these skills. They desire autonomy and readily assume control over these own decisions and actions.

Within the organization professions are frequently subjected to organizational rules and regulations inconsistent with their specialized training; restricting their abilities to solve problems and make decisions. In addition, the secrecy and confidentiality requirements of the organization may restrict the professional’s belief that knowledge, discoveries and information useful to the organization ought to be shared with professionals outside the organization.

Recognition Professionals seek identification with their profession, peers and association. They desire outside recognition and are externally orientated in their quest for recognition.

Seek identification with stakeholders (e.g. investors, customers and partners). The organization’s desire for secrecy and confidentiality conflicts with the professional’s desire for identification and recognition outside the organization.

Ethics Professionals are bound by an altruistic norm of service and a code of ethics that directs them to represent the welfare and interests of all with whom they deal. The code also implies responsibility to society.

General management foremost promotes the interests of the organization. As aconsequence, conflict can occur between the profession and the organization if the organization promotes self-interest without consideration of the general interests of society.

Authority Prefer their conduct to be governed by ethicscodes, self-imposed standards and peer-group surveillance. Tend to resist bureaucratic authority and often find it difficult to accept hierarchical authority as legitimate.

Source of administrative authority in organizations is derived from the formal hierarchical structure. General management exercises substantial control over subordinates to obey their directives based more upon hierarchical authority than upon expert authority.

Rewards Professionals believe that their performance can best be judged by other professionals, not by managers who do not possess the same professional orientation.

As stewards of the organization managers are the best judge of rewards. Managerial bonuses and the like deserved when interests of organization promoted; should be incentivized as such.

Source: adapted from Archer 1986

Adaption on the part of either the organization or the HR professional may not come easy. Because HR practitioners are usually not independent-fee practitioners and because they need

the sophisticated equipment and systems of the organization to practice their profession, it becomes desirable both economically and practically for HR practitioners to associate with organizations.As Derber (in Krause: 283) maintains unlike their self-employed free ancestors, modern salaried professionals must ultimately serve their employers goals and clients. HR professionals must therefore gain top management’s trust in order to obtain resources, to have autonomy, and to be influential. More importantly, earning top management’s trust is crucial to HR’s impact on critical, strategic decisions that will affect the entire organization over the long term.As one senior HKIRHM member reiterated the purpose of HR is to “help the organization bring human capital, develop and engage employees to deliver business results, to work in partnership with the organization and not in their own silo”.

At the same time, the complex body of knowledge that is associated with the HR discipline (both coercively and developmentally) means that the modern day organization needs the services of the professional HR specialist to achieve its goals. Here therein lies a major source of contention.

According to Gold and Bratton (2003) for HRM professionals toretain their authority and status the nature of their professional work needs tomaintain a large element of indeterminacy; expertise will not be enough. And to findthe moral authority to influence events in organizations, a focus on the locus ofpractice may reveal new ways of ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’ their work. This perspective is to some extent supported by senior members of the HKIHRM in their recognition that “experience is the unique knowledge that HR practitioners can bring to the table, dealing with people, connecting with people; being an architect, a motivator and driving change”.

Conversely, Ulrich andYeung (1989) call for the development of a “shared mindset” as the competitiveedge that will lead to organizational prosperity. They advocate the sharing ofbeliefs about the means and ends of work. However, by adopting a unitarist perspective Ulrich and Yeung (1989) ultimately position management in the key role in defining and developing the competenciesneeded by the organization. Indeed, Ulrich and Yeung (1989) urge HR to assistmanagers to assume this role by contributing to the development anddelivery of improved management practices (e.g., training and development,organizational design, and performance appraisal systems) to nourish a shared mindset and to enhance organizationalcompetitiveness. The deconstruction of their argument,however, emerges through the incompatibility that arises between the deployment of the terms ‘shared’ and ‘assist’.Here it is incumbent to note that the practice of collective bargaining, pace Donovan Commission, arguably produced a superior model of ‘shared’ mindset.

Hence, as Van Buren et al.(2011) arguethe optimistic story of organization and employee interests intersecting to a high extent – is false. In part,this is because organizations define the employment relationship, offer the role of employee to individuals anddefine success in organizational terms, and by implication what a successful employee does, controlling mechanisms of rewards and promotions. Accordingly, the interests of employers will, by definition, take precedence over those of employees with many of the practices associated with strategic HRM running counter to the interests of employees (ibid.). Further, the extent of overlap of interests between organizations and employees depends on attributes of the employees; thegreater an employee's power, the greater the degree of overlap between the organization’s and employees’ interests as theorganization seeks to achieve alignment, or business partnering. Co-option, alignment, partnering and socialization, therefore, appear as key words in the managerial-organizational professional lexicon.Adaptation mechanismsThe absence of adaptation between the values and expectations of the organization can be measured by the divergence between the values and expectations of each party. In contrast to

non-adaptation, whereby the degree of potential conflict can be measured by the divergence between the values and expectations of each party, four adaptation models have been proposed as distinct method of reducing conflict (Barnett, Archer, 1986), each with different implications for organizational and professional interests respectively (see Figures 1a-1e). They are referred to as 1) the exchange model, 2) the socialization model, 3) the accommodation model and 4) the socio-accommodation model; and a summary of their key features is provided in Table 3.

Table 3 Adaptation mechanismsModel DescriptionNon-adaptation Absence of adaptation between the values and expectations of the

professional and the values and expectations of the organizationExchange Implies that explicit bargaining between the professional and the

organization leads to limited adaptation. The organization allows professionals to adhere to their own values and expectations, and offers material incentives such as compensation pre-requisites and other rewards for their skills. In return, the professional applies those skills to assist the organization in achieving its goals and objectives. The extent of adaptation for the exchange model is likely to be small, in that only a limited number of values and expectations can be integrated without sacrificing either the content of the professional’s values and expectations of the organization’s values and expectations.

Socialization Implies that adaptation can be accomplished by influencing the professional to adopt the organization’s values and expectations as their own to modify the professional’s values and expectations, which do not integrate effectively with the organization’s values and expectations. The implication of the model is that the professional will sacrifice certain values and expectations in order to become accepted by the organization.

Accommodation Implies that the organization will design certain of its values and expectations in such a way that they are not at variance with the professional’s values and expectations. Accommodation affords the integration of values expectations without the sacrifice of professional values and expectations on the part of the professional. Just howfar the organization will go with respect to accommodation depends upon the degree to which the services of the professional are needed, the desire of the organization to be perceived as a professional entity and the professional orientation or status of the general management within the organization.In short, the precepts of the accommodation model move the ideals of the organization toward the ideals of the professional.

Socio-accommodation

Socialization and accommodation working together to increase adaptation and reduce conflict potential. Involves give and take on the part of both the organization and the professional albeit still requiring the professional to sacrifice or modify certain values and expectations

Source: Adapted from Archer 1986

From the standpoint of the HR professional the accommodation model would be the most desirable (Archer 1986). From the standpoint of reality, however, it will probably be the most difficult to obtain (ibid.). Somehow, professional HR institutes seem to know this and orientate their professionalization agendas accordingly. Just how difficult it is to achieve

accommodation will depend more on general management’s acceptance of the professionalization of the HR discipline than on any other factor (ibid.). Concomitantly, accommodation is proof positive that the professionalization of the HR discipline is being accepted by the general management of organizations (ibid.). Without accommodation, the socialization of the values and expectations of the HR professional are likely to occur instead, and may simply disappear in the mainstream of the values and expectations of the organization (ibid). Hence, for the HR profession to achieve and sustain professional impact, it needs tounderstand how its fundamental values align with and differ from those of the organization. However, there has been little research on the sharedbeliefs and biases of human resource professionals in general and those whowork in developmental areas in particular (Hansen and Kahnweiler 1995).

This study explores the professional HR values and biases from the perspective of the HKIHRM’s professionalization agenda. Although the HKIHRM is a comparatively small professional HR institute, with approximately 5000 members, it nonetheless represents a very interesting case. First it is currently engaged in a professionalization project which renders its agenda a very much ‘live’ and unfolding case. In other words, it represents a study of managerial professionalization in action. Second, the economic context to which it pertains nestles besides China whose leadership has identified human resources as one of the most pressing challenges of the twelfth five-year plan. Consequently, the extent to which professionalizing HRM is able to provide the types of tools and strategies deemed necessary to manage the challenges associated with labor force and skills transformations in Hong Kong, and their integration with China, depends on the strength of its organizational influence and the workplace relevance of its professional standards.

More particularly, if HR can be said to hold some coercive (uphold the employment regulations law) and mimetic (international best practice alignment) institutional pressure then what of its normative position? What is the HKIHRM actually seeking to achieve as its own model of professional HR? How is the HKIHRM’s professionalization project actually unfolding? The core argument to be presented here is that socialization is occurring but not in the way strictly identified by Archer (1986) and others (Abrahamson 1964).

In the original prescription the ease with which the professional consents to socialization depends upon the thoroughness of the academic socialization (ibid.). During the early period of professionalization the individual usually demonstrates a strong need to grow professionally and it is during this period that the largest degree of conflict potential with the organization arises (Archer, 1986). But over a period of time, depending upon the nature of academic reinforcement, assignments, organizational rewards, peer acceptance and leadership influence, the values and expectations of the professional may change to a set of that is more conducive to the socialization process (ibid.). In such cases, the values and expectations of the professional will be more easily integrated with the values and expectations of the organization. As a result the degree of potential conflict will decrease – the sacrifice of certain professional values and expectations notwithstanding (ibid).

In contrast, what is being argued here is that the process of socialization is occurring during the very formation of the profession. In other words, HR professionalism is designed with socialization in mind. Consequently, what is likely to emerge from this process of socialized HR professionalization is the outcome of organizational championing par excellence. Hence, the chronic dissatisfaction of professional employees in industry noted by Moor and Renck in 1955, which emerged out of a fundamental conflict between the expectations and values of professional employees and the opportunities which they had to realize their ambitions in the industrial setting, does not apply in the case of HR in Hong Kong. This is because HR practitioners have been socialized to operate with the organization’s interests in mind from day one.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. In the next section the HKIHRM’s professionalization project is broadly described in relation to the theoretical literature on managerial prerogatives. This helps to set the scene and explain why Archer’s (1986) central concern with the conflict resolution problem between professionals and organizations need not necessarily materialize in the case of HR socialization. In particular, the six factors contributing to conflict potential (Table 2) will be applied to the specific case of the HKIRM’s professionalization project, using core documents and elite interviews.Professional projectsFollowing Abbott (1988),Leicht and Fennell (2001: 6-7) refer to activities that attempt to further the professional aspirations of occupational groups as“professional projects”. The activities of most professional projects are directed toward enhancing the legitimate domain of the occupation and defining their interests relative to potential competitors and overseers (ibid). The central mechanism that allows managers to pursue their version of a professional project is the widespread cultural acceptance of managerial prerogativeswhich are at extension of the widely held cultural norm in market economies that the owners of capital have the right to invest, sell, and dispose of financial assets as they see fit, without interference from those who might be affected by those decisionsor outside constituents (ibid. 9). Entrepreneurial prerogatives and property rights become managerial prerogatives when managers are hired as representatives for investors.

Historically, the specific tasks that managers have sought to define as theirs were managing capital and human resources in ways that maximize investor profits. In the case of HR,the concept of human capital management has particularly emerged as a key area of expertise that HR practitioners could claim as their own in their bid to gain organizational recognition via the pursuit of value-added. Such managerial prerogative brings a significant fact to light in the evolution of the profession which is that as soon as a profession emerges, the practitioners are moved by recognition of common interests to attempt to form a professional association (Carr-Saunders, 1966).

In the case of HR, such motivationshave been established and structured, not necessarily by HR practitioners per se, but rather by the qualifying institute and the volunteers that comprise it. Here it is incumbent to note that the origins of the HKIHRM trace back to 1969 when the heads of four companies – ICI HK, Jardines group, Shell Hong Kong Ltd and Swire Group – came together to form the personnel management club to address such issues as recruitment, market rates and employee benefits (Tsui et al. 2009). Later with the introduction of the Employment Ordinance in 1968 there was a perceived need amongst members to facilitate the exchange of ideas and experiences, and to regulate the standard of professionalism within the personnel management field (ibid.).

Related to these objectivesof expertise consolidation and management of the external environment is the tendency towards the dominance of a single professional association in the domain of interest (Carr-Saunders 1966). The professionalization project of the HKIHRM is no different in this respect since it is the largest people management institute in Hong Kong.

The nearest association to it in terms of membership size is the Hong Kong People Management Association (HKPMA) which is concerned with exchanging information about employment terms and conditions of employment and industrial relations. The HKPMAcurrently has around 500 members, one tenth of the membership base of the HKIHRM.

Moreover, professional projects are usually associated with a change in the name of the qualifying institute, which serves the multiple functions of reducing identification with the previous occupational status (especially personnel management), asserting a technological monopoly and providing a title which can be monopolized (Caplow, 1966). Again this factor is prevalent in the development of the HKIHRM which began as the HK Institute of Personnel Management (HKIPM) in 1977. However, following the western trend towards HRM and the increasing responsibility of personnel people, HKIPM was renamed the HKIHRM on October 1994 (Tsui et al. 2009).

Having also designed the minimum standards admitting practitioners to the association and adopted a code of conduct and ethics to impose a real and permanent limitation on internal competition a period of prolongedpolitical agitationhas also been initiated, in line with theorized professional development (Caplow, 1966). The objective here is to obtain the support of the public power for the maintenance of the new occupational barriers (ibid.). Following the appointment of a full-time secretariat in 1983 the HKIPM conducted research projects providing personnel information such as pay trends for its members, government bodies and the general public (Tsui et al. 2009). More recently, the HKIHRM has made extensive efforts to arouse public awareness on a number of unresolved HR issues including, most notably,the minimum wage ordinance (MWO) - instigated in Hong Kong in May 2011. Here, the HKIHRM’s input was technically-orientated around proceduralissues of payment on rest days and for meal breaks as well as the worked hour record-keeping requirement (HKIHRM, 2011).

This case is particularly interesting since no initial government invitation of HKIHRM consultation had been forthcoming on the matter of MWO. Instead, the HKIHRM requested to see the labour department out of concerns about the operational, rather than substantive, implications of the MWO on business. As one senior member of the HKIHRM explained“the devil is in the detail, but the minimum wage commission was oversimplifying the implications of the ordinance on business and we were concerned that HR practitioners might commit technical offences without knowing it”.

Gradually, as a result of these “sincere but impartial”inputs the HKIHRM has managed to gain the respect of the Hong Kong government becoming more influential in the process. For instance, in 2012 the HKIHRM was actively involved in the consultation stage of the standard working hours (SWH) debate, which its leadership saw as a big improvement on previous political agitation efforts. As one senior institute member explained: “even though our recommendation was not taken our voice was heard…and this is probably benefitting our professionalization agenda”.

The HKIHRM’s strategy with respect to exerting political influence as a means to gain professional credibility is very is interesting since it is seen as appealing to a stance of mitigation(or middle person) which in the words of one senior member is “sincere and impartial; not on behalf of the employer nor the employee but for the benefit of the community. This message has got through. We deliberately form ourposition.We do not discuss the level (e.g. of the minimum wage or standard working hour) but instead consider the operational implications. Is the policy workable, what are the implications technically?”

In the light of these efforts the institute has been working more closely with the government, announcing to the media its stance on paternity leave and SWH. Again these trends aptly fit the theorized development of professions(Caplow 1966; Carr-Saunders

1966)particularly in cases where problems of legislation and administration become increasingly technical. Here, the government may turn to aspiring professionals and request not only their advice but also their cooperation. Currently, the HKIHRM regularly produces the HK pay trend and pay level survey, training and development needs survey, quarterly survey on manpower statistics and minimum wage ordinance survey.

The connection between status and remuneration is also close in the theoretical development of professions and in their efforts to improve the status of their members professional associations have been led to pay attention to remuneration (Carr-Saunders, 1966). Here it is interesting to observe that most professional persons believe that the maintenance of professional freedom is better achieved through the device of professional associations than through another associational form the labor union (Volmer and Mills, 1966). This distinction is particularly profound in the case of HR since one strand of its potentialprofessional realization, in the UK at least,relates to the Donovan Commission and the practice of collective bargaining (the shared model) compared to its theoretical alignment to HRM and the organization (the subordinate or socialized model). Here it is important to note that senior members and executives of the HKIHRM fully appreciate how the industrial relations climate has become increasing politicized in recent years in Hong Kong with many issues (e.g. labor supply, immigration; wage levels, standard working hours) leading to conflicts between business and unions. Although, in principle, the HKIHRM sees itself very much as balancing these two positions, providing an impartial mediating role; its documented practice is to promote the business interest. This can be seen by the importance stressed on understanding the business, learning to speak its language and dealing with unions (see below).

Hence, having outlined the on-going stages, achievements and tensions in the HKIHRM’s professional project more specific attention can now be turned to its normative values. These have beenformally expressed in the HKIHRM’s ethical code of practice and professional standards documentationand will be supplemented withfurther insights drawn from elite interviews. From this it will be possible to assess the institute’s desired level of adaptability to organizational objectives, pace Archer’s (1986) potential for conflict. Socialization in practiceThe HKIHRM’s code of conduct and ethics of HR professionals aims at achieving the five following purposes which at face value accord with the typically expressed desires of established professionals to promote the public good through their adherence to community interests, credibility, trustworthiness, high standard and ethical values beyond legal compliance:

(a) Contributing to the profession and the community as a whole by providing general guidance on the desirable level of standards;(b) Enhancing awareness of HR professionals as to the standard of their performance;(c) Enhancing credibility and trustworthiness of IHRM members and the HR profession;(d) Maintaining a consistent high standard within the profession and promoting good professional conduct;(e) Enhancing ethical values beyond legal compliance.

Upon closer inspection, however, and referring back to Archer’s (1986) adaptation mechanisms the remainder of the HKIHRM code places the HR profession in a largely subordinate position vis-à-vis organizational interests. For instance, concerning the section on “responsibility to and relationship with their employer” the code states that HKIHRM members should, amongst things, “observe the business ethics of the organization and perform the important role of communicating organization values and standards, as well as

monitoring and enforcing the standards within the organization”; “act as a business partner with line and senior management by adding value towards achieving business goals”; “protect and promote the image of the organization during presentation at public activities” and provide “strategic guidance to enhance the capability of their own organisation and its people.”

Quite clearly the qualified HKIHRM member is expected to be an organizational champion, made achievable through influencing the HR professional to adopt the organization’s values and expectations as their own. According to one senior HKIHRM member the reason for such organizational focus is merely pragmatic: the qualified practitioner must “understand the business in order to be able to recruit and retain the right people”.Without business acumen the contribution of the HR practitioner is gravely reduced. Hence, the major rationale for certifying HR practitioners professionally is to assure “prospective employers that qualified members have a certain skill set that employers need not need to worry about”.

On the contrary, the only manner in which an HKIHRM professional is somehow expected to take an independent stance vis-à-vis the organization concerns its role as an internal consultant on legal issues: that is to“assist and advise the organization on the compliance of HR related legislation and other social responsibility” and to “maintain and devote continuous efforts to attain the level of competency necessary, such as enhancement of knowledge of HR related legislation.”Again, the main reason for this is to protect the organization from the deleterious implications of breaking any rules. As one senior HKIHRM member further explained “HR always has compliance (ordinances) that we cannot bend. This is the bare minimum. Although we are designed to enrich the business there is no negotiation on legal action.”

In contrast, beyond demonstrating a devotion to promoting ethical awareness among fellow professionals” there is very little sense in which HKIHRM members should pursue some higher ethical stance.Instead, the qualified HKIHRM member is expected to be socialized as a subordinate organizational champion, whose remit of independence extends mostly to upholding the law rather than necessarily redirecting the purpose of the business to some ethical role. In many respects, this strategy of HRM professionalization is entirely rational given the dominant managerial prerogative in society which is designed to increase the legitimacy of HRM by adopting the dominant ethos of organizations, which areefficiency and strategy focused (Van Buren et al. 2011).

Institutional setting therefore matters and compared, say, to the Institute of Industrial Administrator’s 1951 code of conduct which included reference to “serving the community and contributing a higher standard of living”the prevailing values of the market is constructed to accommodate/facilitate global competition compared to interests of the national economy (and its social citizens). What then of the specific factors pertaining to Archer’s (1986) theorised conflict between (HR) professionals and the organisation? To answer this question one must make further recourse to the professional standards content of the HKIHRM which is divided into the themes of knowledge, capabilities and experience and will be related here to the six factors contributing to conflict potential outlined in Table 2.

Regarding “esoteric expertise” (row 2 Table 2) it is useful to make a distinction between a non-professional occupation which has customers and a professional occupation which has clients (Greenwood, 1966). What is the difference? A customer determines what services and/or commodities s/he wants and shops around until s/he finds them (ibid.). In a professional relationship, however, the professional dictates what is good for the client who has no choice but to accede to professional judgment (ibid.). Here the premise is that because the client lacks the requisite theoretical background s/he cannot diagnose her/his own needs or discriminate among the range of possibilities for meeting them. While the HR professional

is expected to demonstrate esoteric knowledge through the “delivery of relevant skills in managing people cost, enhancement of people productivity and capability” the rationale for doing so is merely to “add value to the business”.As a senior HKIHRM member explained the raison d’être of HR professionalization “is to ensure that organizations have the right human capital to deliver business results”

Similarly, in terms of “autonomy”, rather than performing tasks without the necessity for externalized control the HR profession is being socialized to safeguard the confidentiality and integrity of the organization’s data rather than sharing it with the “field”for the greater good. Members must also “refrain from taking up other employment, whether self-employed or part-time, unless authorized by the organization.”Indeed, the rationale behind the knowledge component of the HKIHRM’s professional standards documentation is to professionalize the strategies and solutions provided by HR practitioners so as to effectively solve the challenges faced by corporations, thereby realizing the goal of HR to act as a business partner. Perhaps most explicitly, however, concerns the requirement that the HKIHRM member should “avoid conflict between personal interests and those of the organization and “where such conflict is ormay be inevitable, report fairly and promptly to theorganization the extent and nature of such conflict”.

While it accepted that it is in the relation to the community as a whole that professional codes (ethics statements) are weakest the possibility that there may be an inclusive professional interest – generally but not always an economic one – that at significant points is not harmonized with the community interest (Volmer and Mills, 1966) is nowhere adequately recognized in the HKIHRMs’ documentation. Instead, the HR professional’s chief identity is structured as residing first with the organization and second with the association’s members (e.g. through networking opportunities, which may lead to best practice diffusion through more formal means). As far as the ethical dimension of the profession is concerned the institute endeavors to build “respect towards employees, ensuring confidentially of personal information, preventing discrimination and harassment in the workplace, and equity and justice in handling staff relations”.

This, then, brings us to “authority” and the potential for conflict between self-imposed standards and administrative authority. Again, the very design of the HR professional in Hong Kong sidesteps this potential tension by writing into the professional standards documentation the need for HR practitioners to obey the directives of hierarchical authority which is socialized as legitimate. For instance, in meeting the professional standard of experience via the organization development designer competence, HR practitioners have the responsibility to ensure that the “organization’s culture and values are fulfilled by enhancing performance and adaptability”. Moreover, “HR should act as an adviser to the line management and CEO. HR promotes the values and mission statement of the organization. It solves the problems of the human side of the business. Their expertise makes HR practitioners irreplaceable and unique in their positions”.

Finally, in terms of “rewards”, whereas professionals generally believe that their performance can best be judged by other professionals and not by managers and supervisors who do not possess the same professional orientation, the organizational view favors managers, as stewards of the organization, as the best judge of rewards (Archer 1986). Hence, employee engagement is about developing and realizing employees’ abilities through an ongoing process to “recruit, retrain, reward and retain productive and effective employees by enhancing understanding of organizational practices and employee priorities, attitudes, behaviors and intentions.” Similarly, as the HKIHRM’s code of conduct explains “successful employee engagement policies can increase employees’ job satisfaction and organization commitment, minimize grievances and disputes, and make working with trade unions easier”; note the use of the word “easier” in this last regard which implies that trade union interaction

is usually problematic.Finally, in the standards documentation “reward management is described as being concerned with the formulation and implementation of philosophy, strategies and policies that aim to reward people fairly, equitably and consistently in accordance with their value within the organization” (emphasis added).

In summary, then, in relation to the six factors contributing to the potential conflict between professionals and organizations (Archer 1986) none emerge as particularly problematic in the context of the HKIHRM’s socialization framework (see Table4) paceendorsing the managerial prerogative. Instead, the evidence suggests that HR professionals should acknowledge a primary interest in the organization. This is entirely consistent with the expectation that legitimacy for HRM rests with the function’s ability todevelop credibility as business partners to the organization’s general management. Far removed from a national view of the economy and the wider public interest the overriding discourse in core HKIRM documentationis one of seeking competitive advantage within the context of intensive international competitive pressure.

Table 4 HKIHRM’s socialization of HR profession to organizational objectivesTension Summary HKIHRM Expertise Specialization versus

hierarchical directivesEnsure that organizations have the right human capital to deliver business results

Autonomy Org rules versus professional autonomy

To professionalize the strategies and solutions provided by HR practitioners so as to effectively solve the challenges faced by corporations, thereby realizing the goal of HR to act as a business partner.

Recognition Identification with profession versus with organization customer, shareholder value

HR professional’s chief identity resides first with the organization and second with the association.

Ethics Altruistic norm, public welfare versus organizational interests.

Should observe the business ethics of the organization and to act asan internal consultant on legal issues

Authority Governed by code of ethics, hierarchical rules

To obey the directives of hierarchical authority ensuring that the “organization’s culture and values are fulfilled by enhancing performance and adaptability”.

Rewards Peer judgment, organizational based incentives

Recruit, retrain, reward and retain productive and effective employees by enhancing understanding of organizational practices and employee priorities, attitudes, behaviors and intentions

ConclusionThrough an examination of the ‘live’ professionalization project of the HKIHRM this paper has demonstrated how a unitarist non-confrontational socialization process is being pursued which exhibits a strong tendency towards “organizational championing”. Although HRM in Hong Kong appears to be professionalized in some respects – e.g. production of a distinct body of knowledge, the provision of a rigorous standards framework and coercive institutional pressure through employment law – this is not true of all traditional dimensions. In particular, the role that HR professionals are expected to play in their organizations – to develop and implement employment practices that support strategic goals - may conflict with the ethical expectations that organizational stakeholders have regarding

employmentdiminishing the independent power of HR function and the professionalswho work within it.

In theory, just how much or how far organizations will go with respect to accommodation depends upon the degree to which the services of the professional are needed and the desire of the organization to be perceived as a professional entity (Archer, 1986). While the latter characteristic is likely to be unique to different (types of) organization (with possible differences between the public and private sectors and small and medium sized enterprises and multinational ones) the former is likely to depend, in part upon, the degree to which the services of the professional are needed from a broader socio-economic legal perspective. This raises a very interesting point about the timing of the HKIHRM’s professionalization project which because it is occurring in the context of a rapidly ageing population, low unemployment, tight labor market and a more state interventionist government (e.g. MWO, SWH) could result in more compromises being given than the managerial prerogative would desire.

Hence, in terms of institutional power, HRM professionals should be the experts about employment law, ofcourse. But they should also be the experts about employment ethics. Given the importance that employees place on their fairtreatment by organizations, it follows that organizations should have a functional area that is charged with the responsibilities ofunderstanding stakeholder expectations about employment and developing responses to those expectations that allow theorganization to remain legitimate in the eyes of its stakeholders (Van Buren et al. 2011). At the moment these seem to be lacking in the HKIHRM’s professionalization project but could given the prevailing political climate be forced onto the agenda with substantive implications.

Here it is incumbent to note that part of the traditional strength of the HR function has been the stewardship of the employment relationship (ibid).However, organizational re-structuring, wide-scale layoffs, and increased use of flexible work optionsthat often result in weakened employment conditions for peripheral workers have caused employees to re-evaluate their trust inemployers (ibid.). Kochan (2007) in Van Buren et al. (2011) asserts that HRM professionals have lost credibility as stewards of the employment relationshipbecause HRM professionals are not offering a perspective that challenges the strategic choices of general managers. The paradox for the HR professional is that in order to strengthen relationships with employees and with managers who have responsibility for business strategies it has to champion both management and employee priorities and straddle allegiance to both groups (Van Buren et al. 2011). While interviews with senior HKIHRM purport to promote such a mediating role, hard documented evidence of ethics and standards criteria coupled with a lack of substantive positioning regarding pressing employment relations matters suggests otherwise.

The biggest danger, then, is that the HKIRM is not so muchacting to legitimizethe HR profession, but acting instead to legitimize(unregulated) capitalism, when such a system is known to have adverse consequences for employees (low pay, long hours) in its on-going championing of the organization vis-à-vis employee championing and the public interest. Without accommodation, the socialization of the values and expectations of the HR professional are likely to occur, but may simply disappear in the mainstream of the values and expectations of the organization with or without formal recognition. If those values and expectations are not conducive to the genuine enhancement of HR professionalism, given the pressing nature of many current employment relations issues, such an occurrence is one to be devoutly avoided.

What, then, can be done? Well following Van Buren et al. 2011 we also believe that HRM scholarship should better account for the ethical demands that are latent to HRM whilst alsoconsidering the challenge that pluralism offers to dominant frameworks of HRM that are

strategically focused.For HRM to play the role mostconsistent with the organization's obligations to employees and stakeholder expectations of organization with regard to theemployment relationship, it must take on the task of employee advocates and employment ethicists.Concerning the empirical question whether HRprofessionals perceive ethical conflict (ibid.), the research hypothesis from the Hong Kong case considered here is “no” given that practitioners have not been socialized to recognize any potential conflict. According to the evidence compiled for this paper the HKIHRM does not seem to be particularly aware of any ethical dilemmas either, but then again its historical formation was derived fromelites within private industry.References

Galang, M. C., & Ferris, G. R. (1997). Human resource department power and influence through symbolic action. Human Relations, 50, 1403–1426.

Russ, G. S., Galang, M. C., & Ferris, G. R. (1998). Power and influence of the human resources function through boundary spanning and information. Human Resource Management Review, 8, 125–148.

Teo, S. T., & Rodwell, J. J. (2007). To be strategic in the new public sector, HR must remember its operational activities. Human Resource Management, 46(2), 265-284.

Van Buren, HJ; Greenwood, M. and Sheehan, C.