Search results

This essay investigates the meaning of rationality in Michel Foucault's notion of “governmental rationality,” both in what he takes rationalities to be and in how they relate to practices of governing. I try to resolve these questions in a sympathetic manner by detailing some of the social dynamics implicit in practices of governing. Pierre Bourdieu provides means to connect such practices with a detailed understanding of social struggle and resistance to power. These insights reveal strong lines of continuity between governmental rationality and collective political resistance to it. On this basis, I suggest a new path of investigation into forms of popular sovereignty as relatively neglected examples of governmental rationality.

Life, in many ways, is simply grief waiting to happen. It is the emotions of death – simultaneously something ordinary and universal as well as extraordinary and unique – that we try to capture and make sense of with the notion of ‘grief’. The so-called ‘corona pandemic’ that has spread throughout the world during the past 2–3 years is in many ways a crisis of global proportions that, at its very core, is caused by and concerned with the fear of death and dying from a deadly disease. So far, six million people have died in the corona pandemic. The ways we grieve and mourn our dead are indicative and informative of the society/culture in which we live and the values, norms and ideas that prevail within it. This chapter deals with the emotion and practice of grief as it is particularly related to experiences of death and dying in a contemporary Western corona-ridden society. I explore challenges relating to the display of emotions, ritual practice and ceremonial closure – as well as the paradoxical way in which the corona pandemic has inaugurated a new great disappearing act of death and grief at a time when death and grief have been paramount experiences for many affected people. Today, we know more about grief than at any other time in human history, but the question remains whether we have become any better at accepting it, dealing with it and living with it.

Behavioral decision research focuses on cognitive biases and other barriers to economic rationality. However, if cognitive biases are costly to eliminate, the second-best solution to bounded rationality may be less rationality rather than more. I define the concept of behavioral rationality and discuss two extreme forms of strategizing, which I call Romantic and Mercenary. Using twentieth century humanitarian Albert Schweitzer as a case study, I discuss the optimization of economic and behavioral rationality. I argue that the success of behavioral strategy as a field does not depend on removing cognitive biases but on helping people deliver more effective strategic actions.

The research aim of this chapter is to understand how different institutional logics affect the day-to-day activities of healthcare providers and whether the cohabitation of professional logics with business-like logics increases medical providers’ effectiveness and gives chance to constrain healthcare costs. This research is based on longitudinal case study about the restructuring of the Canadian healthcare system in Alberta in 1992–2008, described in two papers (Reay & Hinings, 2005, 2009). We identify the situation after encroachment of a new, business-like logic into a healthcare system as more complex than described in the extant literature. We challenge the findings of the case study authors that there are two cohabitating logics in healthcare: the business-like logic supported by the government and the logic of medical professionalism. From our research it appears that there are two other logics: a managerial logic derived from business-like logic, and a hybrid professional logic that is a modification of the logic of medical professionalism. Across the healthcare field in general, business-like logic has been competing with the logic of medical professionalism, but on the medical providers’ level these logics become uncoupled. Within a medical provider, on the external, symbolic layer, physicians follow their professional logic and managers show conformity with governmental principles. But on the backstage layer, where the day-to-day work is actually performed, these two logics are subject to modification, creating a space for compromise and cooperation, leading to a growth of the number of unnecessary medical services preventing cost containments in healthcare.

Purpose – This paper explores differences in decision-making approaches between physician executives and nonphysician executives in a managerial setting.

Design/Methodology/Approach – Fredrickson and Mitchell's (1984) conceptualization of the construct of comprehensiveness in strategic decision making is the central construct of this paper. Theories of professional identity, socialization, and institutional/dominant logics are applied to illustrate their impact on strategic decision-making approaches of physician and nonphysician executives.

Findings – This paper proposes that high-status professionals, specifically physicians, occupying senior management roles are likely to approach decision making in a way that is consistent with their professional identity, and by extension, that departments led by physician executives are less likely to exhibit comprehensiveness in strategic decision-making processes than departments led by nonphysician executives.

Originality/Value – This paper provides conceptual evidence that physicians and nonphysicians approach management differently, and introduces the utility of comprehensiveness as a construct for strategic decision making in the context of health care management.