Collegial Relationships

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 24 - Trang 213-229 - 2021
Monika Betzler1, Jörg Löschke2
1Faculty for Philosophy, Chair for Practical Philosophy and Ethics, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
2Center for Ethics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Tóm tắt

Although collegial relationships are among the most prevalent types of interpersonal relationships in our lives, they have not been the subject of much philosophical study. In this paper, we take the first step in the process of developing an ethics of collegiality by establishing what qualifies two people as colleagues and then by determining what it is that gives value to collegial relationships. We argue that A and B are colleagues if both exhibit sameness regarding at least two of the following three features: (i) the same work content or domain of activity; (ii) the same institutional affiliation or common purpose; and/or (iii) the same status or level of responsibility. Moreover, we describe how the potential value of collegial relationships is grounded in the relationship goods that two colleagues have reason to generate qua colleagues, namely, collegial solidarity and collegial recognition. Two interesting conclusions that can be drawn from our analysis are that one has to be proficient at one’s work if one is to be considered a good colleague and that we are also more likely to be better colleagues if we regard the work we do as valuable. Finally, we draw special attention to the working conditions that are conducive to the generation of good collegial relationships and suggest some policies to promote them.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Archard D (2010) The family: a Liberal Defence. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

Archard D, Macleod CM (eds) (2002) The moral and political status of children. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Brandom R (2007) The structure of desire and recognition: self-consciousness and self-constitution. Philos Soc Crit 33:127–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453707071389

Brighouse H, Swift A (2014) Family values. Princeton, Princeton University Press

Bunse R (2001) Die frühe Zensur und die Entstehung der Kollegialität. Historia 50:145–162. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4436609. Accessed 25 Jan. 2021

Chiaburu DS, Harrison DA (2008) Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. J Appl Psychol 93:1082–1103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1082

Clark S (2017) Good work. J Appl Philos 34:61–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12137

Collins English Dictionary, 12th edn (2014) New York, HarperCollins

Daniels N (1996) Justice and justification: reflective equilibrium in theory and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Ebels-Duggan K (2008) Against beneficence: a normative account of love. Ethics 119:142–170. https://doi.org/10.1086/592310

Estlund C (2003) Working together. How workplace bonds strengthen a diverse democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Frega R (2020) Democratic patterns of interaction as a norm for the workplace. J Soc Philos 51:27–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12304

Gaska A, Frey D (1996) Occupation-determined role relationships. In: Auhagen AE, von Salisch M (eds) The diversity of human relationships. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 289–316

Helm B (2010) Love, friendship, and the self: intimacy, identification, and the social nature of persons. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Hills A (2016) Understanding Why. Noûs 50:661–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12092

Hinde RA (1996) Describing relationships. In: Auhagen AE, Salisch M von (eds) The Diversity of Human Relationships Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 7–35

Honohan I (2001) Friends, strangers or countrymen? The ties between citizens as colleagues. Polit Stud 49:51–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00302

Ikäheimo H (2002) On the genus and species of recognition. Inquiry 45:447–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/002017402320947540

Ikäheimo H, Laitinen A (2007) Analyzing recognition: identification, acknowledgment and Recognitive attitudes towards persons. In: van den Brink B, Owen D (eds) Recognition and power: Axel Honneth and the tradition of critical social theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 33–56

Jeske D (2001) Friendship and reasons of intimacy. Philos Phenomenol Res 63:329–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00106.x

Jollimore T (2011) Love’s vision. Princeton, Princeton University Press

Keller S (2007) The limits of loyalty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Keller S (2013) Partiality. Princeton, Princeton University Press

Kolers AH (2012) Dynamics of solidarity. J Polit Philos 20:365–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2010.00391.x

Kolodny N (2003) Love as valuing a relationship. Philos Rev 112:135–189. https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-112-2-135

Kram KE, Isabella LA (1985) Mentoring alternatives: the role of peer relationships in career development. Acad Manag J 28:110–132. https://doi.org/10.2307/256064

Lazar S (2016) The justification of associative duties. J Moral Philos 13:28–55. https://doi.org/10.1163/17455243-4681050

Löschke J (2015): Solidarität als moralische Arbeitsteilung. Münster, mentis

Michaelson C, Pratt MG, Grant AM, Dunn CP (2014) Meaningful work: connecting business ethics and organization studies. J Bus Ethics 121:77–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1675-5

Morgeson FP, Humphrey SE (2006) The work design questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. J Appl Psychol 91:1321–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321

Neuberger O (1996) Relationships between colleagues. In: Auhagen AE, von Salisch M (eds) The diversity of human relationships. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 269–288

Oxford English Dictionary (2013) Oxford, Oxford University Press

Pettit P (2015) The robust demands of the good: ethics with attachment, virtue, and respect. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Prainsack B, Buyx A (2018) The value of work: addressing the future of work through the Lens of solidarity. Bioethics 32:585–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12507

Reuter K, Löschke J, Betzler M (2020) What is a colleague? The descriptive and normative dimension of a dual-character concept. Philos Psychol 33:997–1017. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2020.1817885

Scheffler S (1997) Relationships and responsibilities. Philos Public Aff 26:189–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.1997.tb00053.x

Seglow J (2013) Defending associative duties. Routledge, New York and London

SHRM 2016 Employee job satisfaction and engagement survey: revitalizing a changing workforce. A Research Report by the Society for Human Resource Management. (https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/research-and-surveys/Documents/2016-Employee-Job-Satisfaction-and-Engagement-Report.pdf)

Stroud S (2006) Epistemic partiality in friendship. Ethics 116:498–524. https://doi.org/10.1086/500337

Sunstein CR, Ullmann-Margalit E (2001) Solidarity goods. J Polit Philos 9:129–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00121

van de Voorde K, Paauwe J, van Veldhoven M (2012) Employee well-being and the HRM-organizational performance relationship: a review of quantitative studies. Int J Manage Rev 14:391–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00322.x

Yeoman R (2014) Meaningful work and workplace democracy: a philosophy of work and a politics of meaningfulness. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Tập 24

213-229

Thông tin tác giả