管理在家工作是新事物吗?评估冠状病毒发生之前、期间和之后的战略、技术和政治影响

IF 4.9 1区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
J. Hassard, Jonathan Morris
{"title":"管理在家工作是新事物吗?评估冠状病毒发生之前、期间和之后的战略、技术和政治影响","authors":"J. Hassard, Jonathan Morris","doi":"10.1177/01708406241242885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In light of the covid-19 pandemic, it is often assumed that working at home represents a fundamental transformation in the way managers work. But is managerial homeworking that new? To answer this question, we draw on labour process theory and three empirical studies to place post-pandemic homeworking in historical sociological perspective. Overall, we find that homeworking is not a novel phenomenon, but has been driven by various logics. Explaining these, we contend initially that recent studies of managers working at home have focussed on the mandated temporal present of the practice under covid-19, which has resulted in homeworking being portrayed idiosyncratically. In contrast, and to attain a more comprehensive understanding of what homeworking means for managers, we argue it is necessary also to understand both the underappreciated past of the phenomenon as well as options for its projected future. A comparative – past, present, future – inquiry therefore portrays how a range of explicit (e.g., corporate restructuring, digital technology, government legislation) and implicit (e.g., responsible autonomy; cultural resistance; work-life balance) factors have influenced and affected the practice of managers working at home in recent times. Through content analysis, these factors are related to broader forces of strategic change, technological innovation, and political regulation in describing the ‘contested terrain’ of modern managerial work. Amid a context of economic neoliberalism, work extensification, and shifting spatio-temporal (home/work) boundaries, the paradoxical nature of homeworking – symptomatic of managers’ contemporary ‘struggle for a normal working day’ (Marx, 1887: 252) – is documented through a series of interview-based narrative investigations (conducted 2002-2006, 2015-2019 and 2020-2021). Ultimately, the paper makes a case not only for greater historical retrospection, but also for deeper critical reflection, in studies of managerial homeworking, and notably when considering whether the practice will likely be extended, ended or otherwise in the coming decades.","PeriodicalId":48423,"journal":{"name":"Organization Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"IS MANAGERIAL HOMEWORKING NEW? ASSESSING STRATEGIC, TECHNOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL INFLUENCES BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER CORONAVIRUS\",\"authors\":\"J. Hassard, Jonathan Morris\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01708406241242885\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In light of the covid-19 pandemic, it is often assumed that working at home represents a fundamental transformation in the way managers work. But is managerial homeworking that new? To answer this question, we draw on labour process theory and three empirical studies to place post-pandemic homeworking in historical sociological perspective. Overall, we find that homeworking is not a novel phenomenon, but has been driven by various logics. Explaining these, we contend initially that recent studies of managers working at home have focussed on the mandated temporal present of the practice under covid-19, which has resulted in homeworking being portrayed idiosyncratically. In contrast, and to attain a more comprehensive understanding of what homeworking means for managers, we argue it is necessary also to understand both the underappreciated past of the phenomenon as well as options for its projected future. A comparative – past, present, future – inquiry therefore portrays how a range of explicit (e.g., corporate restructuring, digital technology, government legislation) and implicit (e.g., responsible autonomy; cultural resistance; work-life balance) factors have influenced and affected the practice of managers working at home in recent times. Through content analysis, these factors are related to broader forces of strategic change, technological innovation, and political regulation in describing the ‘contested terrain’ of modern managerial work. Amid a context of economic neoliberalism, work extensification, and shifting spatio-temporal (home/work) boundaries, the paradoxical nature of homeworking – symptomatic of managers’ contemporary ‘struggle for a normal working day’ (Marx, 1887: 252) – is documented through a series of interview-based narrative investigations (conducted 2002-2006, 2015-2019 and 2020-2021). Ultimately, the paper makes a case not only for greater historical retrospection, but also for deeper critical reflection, in studies of managerial homeworking, and notably when considering whether the practice will likely be extended, ended or otherwise in the coming decades.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48423,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Organization Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Organization Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406241242885\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organization Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406241242885","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

鉴于 "covid-19 "大流行,人们往往认为在家办公代表着管理者工作方式的根本转变。但是,管理人员在家工作真的是新事物吗?为了回答这个问题,我们借鉴了劳动过程理论和三项实证研究,从历史社会学的角度来看待大流行后的在家办公现象。总体而言,我们发现,在家办公并非新现象,而是由各种逻辑驱动的。在解释这些逻辑时,我们首先认为,最近对在家工作的管理人员的研究主要集中在 covid-19 规定的这一做法的时间性上,这导致了在家工作被刻画得特立独行。与此相反,为了更全面地了解在家办公对管理人员的意义,我们认为有必要了解这一现象未得到充分重视的过去,以及对其未来的预测。因此,我们通过对过去、现在和未来的比较研究,描绘了一系列显性(如企业重组、数字技术、政府立法)和隐性(如责任自主、文化阻力、工作与生活的平衡)因素是如何影响和作用于近代管理人员在家工作的实践的。通过内容分析,这些因素与更广泛的战略变革、技术创新和政治监管力量相关联,描述了现代经理人工作的 "有争议的地形"。在经济新自由主义、工作扩大化和时空(家庭/工作)界限不断变化的背景下,通过一系列基于访谈的叙事调查(2002-2006 年、2015-2019 年和 2020-2021 年进行),记录了在家工作的矛盾性质--这是管理者当代 "为正常工作日而奋斗"(马克思,1887: 252)的表征。最终,本文不仅提出了加强历史回顾的理由,而且还提出了在研究管理人员在家工作时,尤其是在考虑未来几十年这种做法是否可能扩大、结束或以其他方式进行时,进行更深入的批判性反思的理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
IS MANAGERIAL HOMEWORKING NEW? ASSESSING STRATEGIC, TECHNOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL INFLUENCES BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER CORONAVIRUS
In light of the covid-19 pandemic, it is often assumed that working at home represents a fundamental transformation in the way managers work. But is managerial homeworking that new? To answer this question, we draw on labour process theory and three empirical studies to place post-pandemic homeworking in historical sociological perspective. Overall, we find that homeworking is not a novel phenomenon, but has been driven by various logics. Explaining these, we contend initially that recent studies of managers working at home have focussed on the mandated temporal present of the practice under covid-19, which has resulted in homeworking being portrayed idiosyncratically. In contrast, and to attain a more comprehensive understanding of what homeworking means for managers, we argue it is necessary also to understand both the underappreciated past of the phenomenon as well as options for its projected future. A comparative – past, present, future – inquiry therefore portrays how a range of explicit (e.g., corporate restructuring, digital technology, government legislation) and implicit (e.g., responsible autonomy; cultural resistance; work-life balance) factors have influenced and affected the practice of managers working at home in recent times. Through content analysis, these factors are related to broader forces of strategic change, technological innovation, and political regulation in describing the ‘contested terrain’ of modern managerial work. Amid a context of economic neoliberalism, work extensification, and shifting spatio-temporal (home/work) boundaries, the paradoxical nature of homeworking – symptomatic of managers’ contemporary ‘struggle for a normal working day’ (Marx, 1887: 252) – is documented through a series of interview-based narrative investigations (conducted 2002-2006, 2015-2019 and 2020-2021). Ultimately, the paper makes a case not only for greater historical retrospection, but also for deeper critical reflection, in studies of managerial homeworking, and notably when considering whether the practice will likely be extended, ended or otherwise in the coming decades.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Organization Studies
Organization Studies MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
11.50
自引率
16.70%
发文量
76
期刊介绍: Organisation Studies (OS) aims to promote the understanding of organizations, organizing and the organized, and the social relevance of that understanding. It encourages the interplay between theorizing and empirical research, in the belief that they should be mutually informative. It is a multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal which is open to contributions of high quality, from any perspective relevant to the field and from any country. Organization Studies is, in particular, a supranational journal which gives special attention to national and cultural similarities and differences worldwide. This is reflected by its international editorial board and publisher and its collaboration with EGOS, the European Group for Organizational Studies. OS publishes papers that fully or partly draw on empirical data to make their contribution to organization theory and practice. Thus, OS welcomes work that in any form draws on empirical work to make strong theoretical and empirical contributions. If your paper is not drawing on empirical data in any form, we advise you to submit your work to Organization Theory – another journal under the auspices of the European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS) – instead.
×
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