How Much Stupidity Do Organisations Need? A Psychodynamic Perspective on Functional Stupidity

M@n@gement Pub Date : 2024-03-15 DOI:10.37725/mgmt.2024.9377
Gabriel Lomellini
{"title":"How Much Stupidity Do Organisations Need? A Psychodynamic Perspective on Functional Stupidity","authors":"Gabriel Lomellini","doi":"10.37725/mgmt.2024.9377","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How much stupidity do organisations need to function effectively? The paradox coined by management researchers Spicer and Alvesson may seem baffling. According to these authors, organisations require a certain amount of uncritical obedience to function properly. The idea of ‘functional stupidity’ put forward by the authors to account for this phenomenon is no less ambiguous. In addition to overlooking the ethical implications of such a notion, it fails to provide a coherent explanation of its causes in organisations. Our proposal is based on the psychodynamics of work, founded by Christophe Dejours. We focus primarily on the subjective experience of work, which involves the worker’s body, and the way in which a whole theory of moral sense at work emerges from this experience. Adopting the form of an essay, we will support our argument with illustrative vignettes: stupidity will be interpreted here as the exact opposite of what the psychodynamics of work considers to be subjective intelligence at work, that is, ordinary sublimation. In so doing, we propose to extend the scope of the notion of organisational stupidity by adding a phenomenological, clinical and ethical dimension. We conclude by suggesting future avenues for research, through a ‘re-eroticisation’ of work.","PeriodicalId":155066,"journal":{"name":"M@n@gement","volume":"86 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"M@n@gement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.2024.9377","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

How much stupidity do organisations need to function effectively? The paradox coined by management researchers Spicer and Alvesson may seem baffling. According to these authors, organisations require a certain amount of uncritical obedience to function properly. The idea of ‘functional stupidity’ put forward by the authors to account for this phenomenon is no less ambiguous. In addition to overlooking the ethical implications of such a notion, it fails to provide a coherent explanation of its causes in organisations. Our proposal is based on the psychodynamics of work, founded by Christophe Dejours. We focus primarily on the subjective experience of work, which involves the worker’s body, and the way in which a whole theory of moral sense at work emerges from this experience. Adopting the form of an essay, we will support our argument with illustrative vignettes: stupidity will be interpreted here as the exact opposite of what the psychodynamics of work considers to be subjective intelligence at work, that is, ordinary sublimation. In so doing, we propose to extend the scope of the notion of organisational stupidity by adding a phenomenological, clinical and ethical dimension. We conclude by suggesting future avenues for research, through a ‘re-eroticisation’ of work.
组织需要多少愚蠢?功能性愚蠢的心理动力学视角
组织需要多少愚蠢才能有效运作?管理研究者斯派塞和阿尔维森提出的悖论似乎令人费解。根据这两位作者的观点,组织需要一定程度的不加批判的服从才能正常运转。这两位作者为解释这一现象而提出的 "功能性愚蠢 "观点也同样模棱两可。除了忽略了这一概念的道德含义之外,它也未能对组织中出现这种现象的原因做出连贯的解释。我们的建议是以克里斯托弗-德儒斯(Christophe Dejours)创立的工作心理动力学为基础的。我们主要关注工作的主观体验,其中涉及工人的身体,以及从这种体验中产生工作道德感的整个理论的方式。我们将采用散文的形式,用小故事来支持我们的论点:在这里,愚蠢将被解释为与工作心理动力学所认为的工作中的主观智慧完全相反的东西,即普通的升华。在此过程中,我们建议通过增加现象学、临床和伦理维度来扩展组织愚蠢这一概念的范围。最后,我们通过对工作的 "再色情化",提出了未来的研究方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信