Professional judgment and legitimacy work in an organizationally embedded profession

Author:

Suddaby Roy12,Bévort Frans3,Strandgaard Pedersen Jesper3

Affiliation:

1. Peter B. Gustavson School of Business, University of Victoria, 254 Business and Economics Building, 3800 Finnerty Road, Victoria, BC, Canada

2. University of Liverpool Management School, University of Liverpool, Chatham Street, Liverpool, UK and

3. Department of Organization, Copenhagen Business School, Kilevej 14A, Frederiksberg DK, Denmark

Abstract

AbstractProfessions have been traditionally understood as an alternative way of organizing work that stands in opposition to the corporate or bureaucratic organizational form. Increasingly, however, corporations are seen to be the source of new forms of expert knowledge and occupational categories. Yet we have little understanding of how expert judgement forms and is legitimated inside a large organization. In this study, we examine the emergence of standards of professional judgement in a government organization. Using archival and interview data between 2000 and 2012 we examine how experts in the Danish Film Institute generated professional standards of decision making against the backdrop of intense bureaucratic control. Our analysis demonstrates that norms of professional judgement emerge in a process that is inextricably linked to the emergence of professional role identities. Our core theoretical contribution is the discovery that the legitimacy work of managerial professions operates in two spheres; by first grounding claims of professional legitimacy in broad societal norms, and second, by grounding claims of professional identity in localized but increasingly abstract expressions of professional expertise.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management,Strategy and Management,Business and International Management

Reference58 articles.

1. The System of Professions

2. Between the Market and the State: The Legal Profession in Turmoil;Abel;The Modern Law Review,1989

3. Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive;Adler;Administrative Science Quarterly,1996

4. A Reexamination of Accountants’ Organizational-Professional Conflict;Aranya;The Accounting Review,1984

Cited by 9 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3