Bilateral (Hong Kong): The professionalization of human resource management in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom

双边（香港）：香港和英国人力资源管理的专业化

基本信息

批准号：
ES/J017299/1
负责人：
Ian Roper
金额：
$ 9.78万
依托单位：
Middlesex University
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Research Grant
财政年份：
2012
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2012 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES%2FJ017299%2F1
关键词：
Bilateral Hong Kong professionalization human

项目摘要

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and the Institute of Human Resource Management (IHRM) represent the major professional institutes of human resource practice in the UK and Hong Kong respectively. Between 2008 and 2010 both bodies were involved in major restructuring of their qualifications, membership standards and continuous personnel development credentials with a view to increasing the perceived value and influence of the HRM profession. In the UK, following a strategic review leading to a vision of the future role of HR, the CIPD launched a new map of the profession built around ten professional areas of competence, eight behavioural areas of practice and four bands of professional transition, from entry-level to director. Likewise, in Hong Kong, the IHRM launched its new membership scheme which is built around the practicing standards of knowledge, experience and capability. Like the CIPD's professional map, the IHRM's professional standards model provides a framework to help navigate HR practitioners' career paths and map their development needs. In the case of the CIPD the latest move seems to symbolise the latest development in a long period of reforming the identity of the discipline away from a reactive transactional support activity into a proactive strategic function. The IHRM's motives are similar. Moreover, in scanning IHRM events and publications over the past two years strongly suggests an agenda inspired by the 'Next Generation HR' narrative: indeed, there is a strong and growing cross-collaboration between the IHRM and the CIPD in both professional events and collaborative projects. However, little is known about how the normative content of the new agenda will have to the stated abilities and workplace experiences of their targeted client base across all levels. In raising the aspired status of the HR practitioner, will those transactional functions be marginalised? In addition, will the new professional standards contribute to the establishment of a greater consensus as to what constitutes a universal best practice HRM? For HRM in general, the professionalization of HR practice has been a somewhat controversial project since it involves the granting of normative institutional legitimacy to what is essentially a 'captured' management function that could, by implication, have important career-changing implications for its own membership base and also for other organisational colleagues whose future development depends on the influence that the HR function is able to yield within organisations. Therefore, in seeking to provide a detailed insight into what it means to be a qualified HR practitioner in Hong Kong and the UK and the role that the respective professional institutes are exerting in developing and maintaining these ideals this study compares the normative content, institutional impact and workplace credibility of the two sets of professional standards arising. Not only will the data provide a timely independent overview of the current status of HR practice in both national contexts but, by comparing the evidence, it will also be possible to gauge a detailed sense of whether HR is achieving international homogeneity which overrides a range of historical, cultural, institutional and economic factors. Working collaboratively the UK and Hong Kong teams will deploy a mixed methodological approach comprising analysis of core documentation, elite interviews with senior members of the two professional institutes, survey of existing practitioners' attitudes and experiences and follow-up interviews designed to explore more deeply the explanations behind participants' experiences and expectations of HR practice. From this extensive range of empirical data the research team will be able to consider the workplace relevance of the normative content of the two professional institutes and from within a variety of industry settings and at different levels of membership.

特许人员发展研究所（CIPD）和人力资源管理研究所（IHRM）分别代表英国和香港的主要人力资源实践研究所。在2008年至2010年之间，这两个机构都参与了其资格，会员标准和持续人事发展证书的重大重组，以增加人力资源管理专业的价值和影响力。在英国，在进行战略性审查导致人力资源的未来作用的愿景之后，CIPD推出了一张新的专业地图，建立了大约十个专业领域的职业能力，八个行为实践领域和从入门级到董事的四个专业过渡。同样，在香港，IHRM启动了其新的会员计划，该计划围绕着知识，经验和能力的实践标准。像CIPD的专业地图一样，IHRM的专业标准模型提供了一个框架，以帮助您浏览人力资源实践者的职业道路并绘制其发展需求。在CIPD的情况下，最新举动似乎象征着在长期改革该学科从反应性交易支持活动转化为主动战略功能的最新发展。 IHRM的动机相似。此外，在过去两年中，在扫描IHRM事件和出版物中，强烈表明了一个受“下一代人力资源”叙事启发的议程：的确，在专业活动和协作项目中，IHRM和CIPD之间存在着强烈而越来越多的交叉合作。但是，关于新议程的规范内容如何在各个级别的目标客户群的既定能力和工作场所经验中都有知之甚少。在提高人力资源实践者的敏锐地位时，这些交易职能会被边缘化吗？此外，新的专业标准是否会促进更大的共识，即什么构成普遍最佳实践人力资源管理？对于人力资源管理总体而言，人力资源实践的专业化是一个有争议的项目，因为它涉及授予规范性的制度性合法性，即实质上是一种“捕获的”管理职能，该职能可能会暗示具有重要的职业影响力对其自身的成员基础的重要意义，并使他们未来的发展依赖于其他组织的发展依赖于该组织的影响力，可以使组织能够在组织中产生影响力。因此，在寻求详细的见解时，要成为香港和英国的合格人力资源从业人员的意义，以及各自的专业机构在发展和维护这些理想方面所发挥的作用，本研究比较了两种专业标准的规范内容，机构的影响和工作场所的可信度。数据不仅可以及时独立概述人力资源实践在这两种情况下的当前状况，而且通过比较证据，还可以详细了解人力资源是否实现国际同质性，从而覆盖了一系列历史，文化，制度和经济因素。英国和香港团队合作，将采用一种混合的方法论方法，包括对核心文档的分析，对两家专业机构的高级成员的精英访谈，对现有从业者的态度和经验的调查以及旨在更深入地探索参与者经验背后的解释和HR实践期望的后续访谈。从这个广泛的经验数据中，研究团队将能够考虑这两个专业机构的规范内容以及各种行业环境和不同级别的会员资格的工作场所相关性。