练习空话

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 Q4 SOCIOLOGY
H. Johansson, Ida Seing
{"title":"练习空话","authors":"H. Johansson, Ida Seing","doi":"10.37062/sf.59.23963","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article draws on theories of normative control and critical management studies to investigate caseworkers’ strategies in correspondence to a new leadership philosophy in the Swedish Public Employment Service called self-leadership. Based on 43 interviews and observations at two local offices, we find that managerial models are arbitrary and cause uncertainty at the local level as caseworkers both comply and resist managerial talk of self-leadership. Based on a distinction between types of and grounds for strategic responses, we identify four subject positions defined as “personal embracement”, “personal detachment”, “professional recognition” and “professional dismissal”. The study shows that newly employed comply through practices of personal embracement, while senior employees resist based on professional dismissal. The article concludes that caseworkers are not docile bodies, who adjust to managerial talk, but derive their identity, engagement and esteem linked to a shared-work identity as organisational professionals. This demonstrates the relevance of closing the gap between street-level bureaucracy and critical management studies to further explore the tension between governing “employees” or “professionals” in contemporary public welfare governance.","PeriodicalId":43127,"journal":{"name":"Sociologisk Forskning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Practising empty talk\",\"authors\":\"H. Johansson, Ida Seing\",\"doi\":\"10.37062/sf.59.23963\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article draws on theories of normative control and critical management studies to investigate caseworkers’ strategies in correspondence to a new leadership philosophy in the Swedish Public Employment Service called self-leadership. Based on 43 interviews and observations at two local offices, we find that managerial models are arbitrary and cause uncertainty at the local level as caseworkers both comply and resist managerial talk of self-leadership. Based on a distinction between types of and grounds for strategic responses, we identify four subject positions defined as “personal embracement”, “personal detachment”, “professional recognition” and “professional dismissal”. The study shows that newly employed comply through practices of personal embracement, while senior employees resist based on professional dismissal. The article concludes that caseworkers are not docile bodies, who adjust to managerial talk, but derive their identity, engagement and esteem linked to a shared-work identity as organisational professionals. This demonstrates the relevance of closing the gap between street-level bureaucracy and critical management studies to further explore the tension between governing “employees” or “professionals” in contemporary public welfare governance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43127,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociologisk Forskning\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociologisk Forskning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37062/sf.59.23963\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociologisk Forskning","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37062/sf.59.23963","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文借鉴规范控制和批判性管理研究的理论,调查个案工作者的策略,以符合瑞典公共就业服务局的一种新的领导哲学,即自我领导。根据对两个地方办事处的43次采访和观察,我们发现管理模式是武断的,并在地方一级造成不确定性,因为个案工作者既遵守又抵制管理层关于自我领导的言论。根据战略回应的类型和理由的区别,我们确定了四个主题职位,分别定义为“个人卷入”、“个人超然”、“职业认可”和“职业解雇”。研究表明,新员工通过个人介入的做法来遵守,而高级员工则基于职业解雇来抵制。这篇文章的结论是,个案工作者不是顺从的群体,他们会适应管理层的谈话,而是通过作为组织专业人员的共同工作身份来获得他们的身份、参与度和尊重。这表明了缩小街头官僚机构和批判性管理研究之间的差距,以进一步探索当代公共福利治理中治理“员工”或“专业人员”之间的紧张关系的相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Practising empty talk
This article draws on theories of normative control and critical management studies to investigate caseworkers’ strategies in correspondence to a new leadership philosophy in the Swedish Public Employment Service called self-leadership. Based on 43 interviews and observations at two local offices, we find that managerial models are arbitrary and cause uncertainty at the local level as caseworkers both comply and resist managerial talk of self-leadership. Based on a distinction between types of and grounds for strategic responses, we identify four subject positions defined as “personal embracement”, “personal detachment”, “professional recognition” and “professional dismissal”. The study shows that newly employed comply through practices of personal embracement, while senior employees resist based on professional dismissal. The article concludes that caseworkers are not docile bodies, who adjust to managerial talk, but derive their identity, engagement and esteem linked to a shared-work identity as organisational professionals. This demonstrates the relevance of closing the gap between street-level bureaucracy and critical management studies to further explore the tension between governing “employees” or “professionals” in contemporary public welfare governance.
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
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
×
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