The relation between professions and organizations has been a long-standing research interest in the sociology of professions and in organizational studies. The integration of professions in organizations is not a new phenomenon for non-dominant professions such as teachers and social workers. Elite professions like lawyers and medical doctors are becoming more and more involved in the organizational game (Adler et al., 2008). Driven by various assumptions regarding the compatibility of these two worlds (Evetts, 2003; Noordegraaf, 2011), researchers have explored the ability of professions to protect themselves from organizational demands, to negotiate a viable modus operandi in a context of increasing organizational pressures or to see opportunities in the growing integration of professions within organizations.
Chapters in this section relate to various manifestations of such a closer connection between professions and organizations. Using some sensitizing concepts such as agency, structuration or leaderism, these authors propose an innovative reading of the co-evolution of organizations and professions in contemporary societies. Hinings provides a critical assessment of the work done on ‘organizations that are primarily owned, staffed, and run by professionals, the professional service firm’. He proposes looking more closely at the transformation of professional status and work as a by-product of organizational evolution. But professions and their context of practice are not all the same, which indicates the need for more comparative work across professional groups, organizations and jurisdictions. Only through comparative research can specificities and commonalities between professional organizations and other types of organizations be properly understood.
Professionals are mutants – they take various roles in organizations and experience various identity tensions and transitions. Not only does their work context change, but also competing demands and changing expectations deeply affect them. Responses to these challenges will vary, partly due to the relative resilience of professionals. Based on an extensive review of published research of managerial-professional roles, mostly from the healthcare sector, Kirkpatrick explores the vertical and horizontal dynamics of hybridization. Professions differentiate from within through a process of restratification and across professions and organizational context. One of the key insights from this chapter is the importance of looking at hybrid roles as a manifestation of a mosaic of organizational and professional projects where co-optation and protective strategies co-exist. Although there are signs of growing hybridization, there is still a lack of accomplished research on the influence of hybrid roles on organizational adaptation and performance.
In the third chapter, Leicht contributes a socio-historical analysis of the professionalization of management, mainly based on research conducted in the US context. Although management does not align well with the ideal type of professional, the access of such professionals to university training and the development of professional associations have provided new credentials to practising managers. With fine empirical details, the chapter traces the evolving context in the twentieth century that provides a basis for the professional aspirations of managers. The professionalization of managers has implications for other professions. The more managers aspire to professional legitimacy, the more their position as agents of corporate interests may erode the professional aspirations of other groups. Such a process opens up a new perspective on control and competition among professional groups.
In the fourth chapter, Reed looks at policies and discourses related to leadership capacities, based on empirical research on public sector reforms in the UK. He explores the various factors that provide ideological legitimacy and political momentum to this call for more leadership as a way to engage professionals (and public servants and managers) in an agenda defined by policy elites. Leadership is relabelled here as an ideology. Leaderism reveals an attempt by reformers to co-opt professionals in neo-liberal reforms. Active participation of professionals in leadership roles may culminate in the erosion of their autonomy and status. In the end they become participants in changes that are not well aligned with their own values and interests.
The fifth chapter, by Denis, van Gestel and Lepage, explores the role of professionals in organizational change. Professionals have often been depicted as victims of change. The authors suggest the need for a more nuanced picture. Their analysis explores the agent capacity of professionals within organizational changes. They argue that the predominant structural approach used to mobilize professionals in change initiatives is too limited. More attention needs to be paid to the dynamics of co-evolution between professionals and organizations. Subtle processes of institutional reflexivity are involved in shaping the relationship between professionals and change. Such processes culminate in various roles enacted by professionals in organizational change, and these roles are broader than the one of leader of change.
Taken together, the chapters in this section reveal a complex and heterogeneous picture of the overlapping of professions and organizations in contemporary societies. One common trend in this research is that organizations and professions are mutually constitutive and transformative. Forces of change in these two worlds may suppress or enhance the status and influence of professionals.
References
Adler, P.S., Kwon, S.W., & Heckscher, C. (2008) ‘Perspective-professional work: The emergence of collaborative community’. Organization Science, 19(2), pp. 359–76.
Evetts, J. (2003) ‘The sociological analysis of professionalism: occupational change in the modern world’. International Sociology, 18(2), pp. 395–415.
Noordegraaf, M. (2011) ‘Risky business: How professionals and professional fields (must) deal with organizational issues’. Organization Studies, 32(10), pp. 1349–71.