Professionalism v. Careerism in society
This piece is one of an occasional series of articles produced
under the banner of “social philosophy”
It is with great sadness, disappointment and a degree of bitterness that I note the rise of careerism and the decline of professionalism in society.
In my view, professionalism means acting in the best interests of one’s profession and one’s stakeholders (i.e. those members of society who make use of or need professionals). This involves acting to advance the principles on which the profession is based and applying good impartial practice based on experience and reflection, and a genuine desire to seek the best for stakeholders.
Careerism means acting in the best interests of and for the advancement of one’s career. This need not be based on principle, experience, reflection, and a desire to do what is best for stakeholders, but rather involves following the perceived route to “success”, usually for financial gain or to attain a desired position. A careerist may say and do what is necessary to obtain a post but then fail to adhere to the standards prescribed, or may engage in word-play and rationalisation to justify his or her actions rather than offer sound and objective reasoning.
It appears that position has become more important than principle. If those in positions of power and influence choose to exercise authority and control by applying conditions and regulations that are not in keeping with professional values or conflict with views expressed by professionals, these people may justly be called unprofessional or authoritarian.
Discussion, debate, analysis and criticism are to be encouraged in professionalism. Clarity of objective and discussion of the best means to achieve that objective (albeit within certain physical and financial constraints) are essential. To impose conditions or requirements without considered or knowledgeable regard to objective and the best interests of stakeholders, and without consultation of the professionals who deliver these services, may be considered not only unprofessional, but even counter-productive in that the conditions imposed may actually inhibit the advancement of stakeholders, and may detract from existing provision.
Those in a position to make such impositions would do well to remember their primary purpose – to serve a society or community. While there must be financial constraints, the purpose is not to run a profit-making business, but to provide the best service possible for stakeholders. Nor should regulation be imposed on the basis of personal conviction. Those in authority may believe in the righteousness of their policy but a broad and balanced view must be taken and consultation of professionals must be involved.
Of course, with time and a strict application of conditions and regulations, only a rigid and standardised professional framework will remain in place, and initiative, independence, spontaneity and human engagement may all suffer and eventually disappear.
To accept a situation which is clearly disadvantageous
to members of a profession and its stakeholders may be considered
unprofessional, though a careerist will accept such a situation and may even
reinforce it purely in order to further his or her career. As he or she
advances through the ranks there will be less opportunity to rectify such
situations as there will be fewer individuals available to put forward an
alternative and more professional view.
My thanks for taking the time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
No comments:
Post a Comment