权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

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.

英国特许人事及发展学会（CIPD）及香港人力资源管理学会（IHRM）分别代表英国及香港人力资源实务的主要专业学会。2008年至2010年期间，这两个机构都参与了其资格、成员标准和人员持续发展证书的重大调整，以提高人力资源管理专业的认知价值和影响力。在英国，在对人力资源的未来角色进行战略审查之后，CIPD推出了一个新的职业地图，围绕十个专业能力领域，八个行为实践领域和四个专业过渡范围，从入门级到主管。同样地，在香港，国际人力资源管理协会推出了新的会员计划，以知识、经验和能力为执业标准。与CIPD的职业地图一样，IHRM的职业标准模型提供了一个框架，以帮助导航人力资源从业者的职业道路并绘制他们的发展需求。在CIPD的情况下，最新的举措似乎象征着长期改革学科身份的最新发展，从被动的交易支持活动转变为主动的战略功能。IHRM的动机是相似的。此外，在扫描过去两年的IHRM活动和出版物时，强烈表明议程受到“下一代人力资源”叙述的启发：事实上，IHRM和CIPD在专业活动和合作项目方面都存在着强大且不断增长的交叉合作。然而，人们对新议程的规范性内容将如何影响各级目标客户群的能力和工作经验知之甚少。在提高人力资源从业者的理想地位时，这些事务性职能是否会被边缘化？此外，新的专业标准是否有助于就什么是普遍的人力资源管理最佳做法达成更大的共识？对人力资源管理部门来说，人力资源实践的专业化一直是一个有点争议的项目，因为它涉及到赋予基本上是“被捕获”的管理职能以规范性的机构合法性，有重要的职业-改变对自身成员基础的影响，也改变对其他组织同事的影响，这些同事的未来发展取决于人力资源职能部门能够产生的影响在组织内。因此，在寻求提供一个详细的洞察是什么意思是一个合格的人力资源从业人员在香港和英国，以及各自的专业机构正在发挥在发展和维护这些理想的作用，本研究比较了规范的内容，机构的影响和工作场所的信誉两套专业标准的出现。这些数据不仅可以及时、独立地概述两个国家的人力资源实践现状，而且通过比较证据，还可以详细了解人力资源是否正在实现超越一系列历史、文化、体制和经济因素的国际同质性。英国和香港的团队将采用一种混合的方法，包括分析核心文件、与两个专业学会的高级成员进行精英访谈、调查现有从业人员的态度和经验，以及旨在更深入地探索参与者对人力资源实践的经验和期望背后的解释的后续访谈。从这一广泛的经验数据中，研究小组将能够考虑两个专业协会的规范性内容在工作场所的相关性，并从各种行业环境和不同级别的成员。