Search results

The purpose of this paper is to suggest a frame of reference about the relations between the responsibility and the commitment of employees on the one side and type of organization on the other. The basis is a discussion of the tension between docility and freedom.

Results from earlier empirical studies of disciplinary practices among teachers and warders form the starting point. In this paper the phenomenon of hedonism is added. Hedonism is investigated from a psychological perspective and applied to work organizations with the help of attribution theories, theories on coping and motivation and theories on the conflict between the individual and the organization, i.e. of power, culture and coherence.

The paper has developed a typology on coping strategies in work contexts, which describes four possible “ideal” roles an individual can take, referring to three dimensions, the dichotomy between freedom and docility, the individual's locus of control as external or internal, and the coherence between individual and organizational values.

The model can be used for empirical studies and contribute to the development of work organizations where people feel committed enough to take responsibility both for monotonous and dull everyday tasks and for exceptional and acute unique problem solving situations.

Most studies on disciplining and docility focus on the painful side of coping. Few studies focus on what people do in order to cope with commitment and responsibility. This paper considers the different power struggles embedded in the work context, and give varying interpretations of them.

The purpose of this study is to put forward examples of disciplinary practices, i.e. to interpret Foucault's ideas with data collected from today's working‐life in schools and prisons. Besides describing disciplinary practices the intention is to describe how individuals cope with the dilemmas that follow. On the grounds of the analysis a discussion about the tension between freedom and docility and different individuals’ strategies for coping with this tension is also promoted.

Data are collected from teachers in schools and warders in prisons. The empirical question relates to how disciplinary practises are expressed and the dilemmas that follow. In the analysis the concepts of Foucault, time, space and visibility, as relations of power, are used.

The article shows examples of disciplining and the dilemmas following from disciplining, both at individual and organisational level. Encountering new demands in their work, teachers tend to stick harder to their profession while warders tend to freely use their life experiences to develop their work. One conclusion is that freedom may be easier when individual values and organisational values are in coherence with one another, and docility is more often used when they differ.

That there are tensions between individuals’ striving for freedom and organisations’ striving for their disciplining is no news but on the grounds of the empirical data dilemmas and how teachers and warders cope with them in their work are described. The data also encourage further discussion while it brings findings of different ways of coping, for example when it comes to professionals and non‐professionals.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss aspects of responsibility in relation to organizational contexts, the main focus being responsibility for consequences we cannot reach. Responsibility is a major underpinning of business administration and management and also an aspect of everyday life. Responsibility is about responding, to act as an answer to previous action/s, but we never know all consequences of our actions.

Literature from management, HRM studies and from philosophy scholars is used to discover different perspectives of responsibility and a typology of responsibility handling is developed.

In total, three types of responsibility are suggested and discussed in relation to managerial and organizational practices. The main contribution is the typology of responsibility combined with the relational focus of managerial and organisational processes. Imagining, fantasy and care are shown as important for the developing of responsibility.

The suggested typology is theoretically developed without empirical studies behind.

A conclusion is that valuing of long‐term survival of humanity and nature must be built into our judgments and our assessments processes in everyday organizational life, if we should be able to act responsibly.

The concept of responsibility is currently intensively discussed, because of successes and disappointments of the CSR movements, because of global economy, and because of climate changes, etc. The suggestion of three types of responsibility in this paper can contribute to sorting out theoretical and practical possibilities in different contexts.