"Professionalism" often has more to do with Culture than Competence

By: Jessica Stainton-Simmons

Few accusations sound more objective than calling someone unprofessional. “Professionalism” is among the standards most frequently invoked by employers, universities, and political institutions. Yet the concept itself has become increasingly vague over the last few decades. Beyond basic expectations of respectful conduct, professionalism often operates as an implicit standard of behavior that is far from neutral; it functions as a mechanism through which dominant cultural norms are perpetuated and legitimized through institutionally accredited spaces.

In his essay The Forms of Capital, Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu coined the term “cultural capital", which he defines as the principle that institutions reward not simply competence but compliance with socially dominant behaviors. In practice, "professionalism" frequently privileges accents, speech patterns, clothing, and other forms of self-presentations historically associated with economically or racially privileged backgrounds. What is presented as a meritocratic standard is recurrently inseparable from cultural conformity. 

This understanding becomes particularly evident within political and corporate environments; studies published by the National Bureau of Economic Research have demonstrated that job applicants perceived to speak with “nonstandard” accents are often evaluated less favorably despite similar qualifications. Similarly, hairstyles associated with Black culture have long been subject to discrimination, often labeled as “unkempt” or "distracting". The prevalence of these discrimation became so pervasive that it ultimately prompted legislation such as the CROWN Act, a series of laws designed to prohibit discrimination on the basis of hair texture and protective hairstyles. Standards of professionalism are rarely articulated explicitly, yet they continue to perpetuate a culture of conformity that disadvantages minority communities.

A similar disparity exists regarding what forms of emotional expression are deemed “professional” conduct. Anger expressed by established authority figures on behalf of constituents is often reframed as conviction or passion, while similar expressions of emotion from women or people of color are labeled as historical and irrational. The standards of professional conduct remain inequitable as their application is conducted by those at the top of existing social hierarchies. 

This is not to say standards of conduct are inherently oppressive. Institutions require standardization in order to operate with any semblance of equity. The issue arises in the tendency of those applying the standards to confuse socially dominant behaviors with objective merit. The individuals commonly perceived as “unprofessional” are not those who are inherently less capable, but often those whose speech, appearance, and mannerisms don’t resemble the norms embedded in “professional” environments. Institutions reward familiarity and interpret this familiarity as competence, which perpetuates the cycle for future generations of leadership. Political debates surrounding professionalism aren’t superficial arguments surrounding aesthetic differences; they are part of a broader conversation concerning whose identities are permitted to appear credible in positions of leadership.