Missions became increasingly professional throughout the nineteenth century, both in ways that reflected the practice of wider British society and, more specifically, in ways that reflected their religious and colonial identities, the theological and national differences between mission societies, and the individuals who involved themselves in mission work. Although begun in a spirit of ecumenism, throughout the nineteenth century the professionalization of the mission movement involved establishing and maintaining a society-specific identity aimed at protecting the source of workers and funds at home and at ensuring spheres of influence in the field. These developments may be charted through administrative changes and through the development of mission polity.

While some general statements are applicable to all three missions, in some ways it is in understanding complications of the specific where profit may be mined. The LMS is the oldest mission of the three in question, and although it quickly became a primarily Congregational mission body, both its workers and supporters were broadly drawn from British nonconformist society. The Scottish missions represent a different administrative perspective. While in many senses the LMS policy was the result of experience, a certain surety of purpose and assurance resulted from the financial backing and theological assurance that was afforded the Church of Scotland and the Free Church mission committees from their grounding in the Presbyterian church. While the assurance of the Scottish missions stemmed from a solid mission base of sound finances, a longstanding commitment to education, and the authority of an established administrative system, the assurance of the CIM was based on the authority of personal faith in God and the remarkable personality and administrative capability of Hudson Taylor. Partly because the CIM was a relative latecomer in the century and partly because of exponential growth it experienced, CIM administrative procedures were forced to develop quickly. Perhaps more importantly, having defined itself against other British missions and British society in general, the CIM's administrative procedures and mission policy required codification in order to protect the ‘special ethos’ of a quickly evolving, wide-ranging and multifaceted organisation. As a result, the CIM most obviously created its own brand of mission profession, the future of which was ensured through intermarriage in the leadership and by moulding the next generation of workers at Chefoo.