人力资源管理的专业化与趋同-分化:中国、香港和英国的比较

IF 5.4 2区 管理学 Q1 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR
Paul Higgins, Ian Roper, Lingling Zhao
{"title":"人力资源管理的专业化与趋同-分化:中国、香港和英国的比较","authors":"Paul Higgins,&nbsp;Ian Roper,&nbsp;Lingling Zhao","doi":"10.1111/1748-8583.12562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>HRM has long claimed professional status. The global prevalence of national-level people management associations (PMA) supports this claim. Aside from prescribing practices appropriate for differing national contexts, PMAs simultaneously claim to share international best practices. This divergence/convergence tension raises questions about whether common institutional circumstances trigger PMA formation and if universal associational features develop over time. This article addresses both concerns by extrapolating a <i>reanalysis</i> of two historical accounts of <i>PMA</i> formation in the United Kingdom (from 1913) and Hong Kong (from 1968) to commensurate developments in contemporary China (from 2001). Its application of a modified version of trait theory with institutional analysis finds that a <i>family resemblance</i> occurs between PMAs created by adapting to employment regulation from the state while promoting employers' substantive interests. A <i>path-dependent</i> legacy of these tensions reflects the HR professionalisation project's broader <i>institutional</i> subordination to state and market forces.</p>","PeriodicalId":47916,"journal":{"name":"Human Resource Management Journal","volume":"35 1","pages":"206-228"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1748-8583.12562","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Professionalisation and convergence-divergence of HRM: China, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom compared\",\"authors\":\"Paul Higgins,&nbsp;Ian Roper,&nbsp;Lingling Zhao\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1748-8583.12562\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>HRM has long claimed professional status. The global prevalence of national-level people management associations (PMA) supports this claim. Aside from prescribing practices appropriate for differing national contexts, PMAs simultaneously claim to share international best practices. This divergence/convergence tension raises questions about whether common institutional circumstances trigger PMA formation and if universal associational features develop over time. This article addresses both concerns by extrapolating a <i>reanalysis</i> of two historical accounts of <i>PMA</i> formation in the United Kingdom (from 1913) and Hong Kong (from 1968) to commensurate developments in contemporary China (from 2001). Its application of a modified version of trait theory with institutional analysis finds that a <i>family resemblance</i> occurs between PMAs created by adapting to employment regulation from the state while promoting employers' substantive interests. A <i>path-dependent</i> legacy of these tensions reflects the HR professionalisation project's broader <i>institutional</i> subordination to state and market forces.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47916,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Resource Management Journal\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"206-228\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1748-8583.12562\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Resource Management Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1748-8583.12562\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Resource Management Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1748-8583.12562","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

长期以来,人力资源管理一直享有专业地位。全球流行的国家级人员管理协会(PMA)支持这一说法。除了规定适合不同国家背景的做法外,管理mas还同时声称分享国际最佳做法。这种分化/趋同的紧张关系提出了一些问题,即共同的制度环境是否会引发PMA的形成,以及普遍的关联特征是否会随着时间的推移而发展。本文通过对英国(1913年以来)和香港(1968年以来)的两个PMA形成的历史记录进行再分析,推断当代中国(2001年以来)的相应发展,从而解决了这两个问题。本文运用改良的特质理论和制度分析发现,在适应国家就业监管的同时,促进雇主实体利益的pma之间存在家族相似性。这些紧张关系的路径依赖遗产反映了人力资源专业化项目对国家和市场力量的更广泛的制度服从。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Professionalisation and convergence-divergence of HRM: China, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom compared

HRM has long claimed professional status. The global prevalence of national-level people management associations (PMA) supports this claim. Aside from prescribing practices appropriate for differing national contexts, PMAs simultaneously claim to share international best practices. This divergence/convergence tension raises questions about whether common institutional circumstances trigger PMA formation and if universal associational features develop over time. This article addresses both concerns by extrapolating a reanalysis of two historical accounts of PMA formation in the United Kingdom (from 1913) and Hong Kong (from 1968) to commensurate developments in contemporary China (from 2001). Its application of a modified version of trait theory with institutional analysis finds that a family resemblance occurs between PMAs created by adapting to employment regulation from the state while promoting employers' substantive interests. A path-dependent legacy of these tensions reflects the HR professionalisation project's broader institutional subordination to state and market forces.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
10.90%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: Human Resource Management Journal (CABS/AJG 4*) is a globally orientated HRM journal that promotes the understanding of human resource management to academics and practicing managers. We provide an international forum for discussion and debate, and stress the critical importance of people management to wider economic, political and social concerns. Endorsed by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, HRMJ is essential reading for everyone involved in personnel management, training, industrial relations, employment and human resource management.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信