关于宽恕和放手

IF 2.8 3区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Management Learning Pub Date : 2022-10-20 DOI:10.1177/13505076221132947
M. Śliwa, Ajnesh Prasad
{"title":"关于宽恕和放手","authors":"M. Śliwa, Ajnesh Prasad","doi":"10.1177/13505076221132947","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have become acutely aware of the need to express and foster care for others – our students and our colleagues – as well as engage in self-care for ourselves. It has been well established in extant research that the working conditions and job characteristics in contemporary academic settings can be conducive to burnout (Watts and Robertson, 2011; Wray and Kinman, 2021), and that academics’ well-being (Prasad, 2022; Richards et al., 2016) and health (Berg et al., 2016; Hurtado et al., 2012) – and, in particular, mental health (Guthrie et al., 2017; Padilla and Thompson, 2016; Urbina-Garcia, 2020) – are often negatively affected as a result of stress related to increasing workloads, audits, performance management and metrics (Morrish, 2019; Morrish and Priaulx, 2020). In order to survive and thrive in academia, we urgently need to establish a new ethic of care – one which meaningfully attends to the needs of each other and ourselves. In the context of business schools, critical management scholars have highlighted the need for us to ‘relate to each other in accordance with an ethics of care’ (Butler et al., 2017: 474). Indeed, there are plenty of real-life examples of caring about, supporting and helping each other, both through ‘institutionalised’ channels – for instance, through professional development workshops held at conferences – and in more informal ways – in and through our daily working practice of ontological empathy (Prasad and Śliwa, 2022). Supporting another person and showing that they are cared for has benefits not only for the supported individual but also for the one who does the supporting. Indeed, being kind to the other is truly rewarding for the giver of kindness. And it is not, actually, that difficult. We are usually well capable of empathising with someone whom a party – either a specific person or, more generally, the ‘organisation’ – has treated unfairly and harmed. We do not wish to be apathetic bystanders; we want to, and often do choose to, stand on the side of equity and justice. There is, however, a caveat here: it is quite easy to empathise with someone when our own ego and professional interests are not at stake; when we are not directly involved as an injurious actor, in a situation in which someone else has been hurt or mistreated. When a colleague tells us about something bad that has happened to them and about someone else having done them wrong, we rarely question what they are","PeriodicalId":47925,"journal":{"name":"Management Learning","volume":"53 1","pages":"753 - 756"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On forgiveness and letting go\",\"authors\":\"M. Śliwa, Ajnesh Prasad\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13505076221132947\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have become acutely aware of the need to express and foster care for others – our students and our colleagues – as well as engage in self-care for ourselves. It has been well established in extant research that the working conditions and job characteristics in contemporary academic settings can be conducive to burnout (Watts and Robertson, 2011; Wray and Kinman, 2021), and that academics’ well-being (Prasad, 2022; Richards et al., 2016) and health (Berg et al., 2016; Hurtado et al., 2012) – and, in particular, mental health (Guthrie et al., 2017; Padilla and Thompson, 2016; Urbina-Garcia, 2020) – are often negatively affected as a result of stress related to increasing workloads, audits, performance management and metrics (Morrish, 2019; Morrish and Priaulx, 2020). In order to survive and thrive in academia, we urgently need to establish a new ethic of care – one which meaningfully attends to the needs of each other and ourselves. In the context of business schools, critical management scholars have highlighted the need for us to ‘relate to each other in accordance with an ethics of care’ (Butler et al., 2017: 474). Indeed, there are plenty of real-life examples of caring about, supporting and helping each other, both through ‘institutionalised’ channels – for instance, through professional development workshops held at conferences – and in more informal ways – in and through our daily working practice of ontological empathy (Prasad and Śliwa, 2022). Supporting another person and showing that they are cared for has benefits not only for the supported individual but also for the one who does the supporting. Indeed, being kind to the other is truly rewarding for the giver of kindness. And it is not, actually, that difficult. We are usually well capable of empathising with someone whom a party – either a specific person or, more generally, the ‘organisation’ – has treated unfairly and harmed. We do not wish to be apathetic bystanders; we want to, and often do choose to, stand on the side of equity and justice. There is, however, a caveat here: it is quite easy to empathise with someone when our own ego and professional interests are not at stake; when we are not directly involved as an injurious actor, in a situation in which someone else has been hurt or mistreated. When a colleague tells us about something bad that has happened to them and about someone else having done them wrong, we rarely question what they are\",\"PeriodicalId\":47925,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Management Learning\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"753 - 756\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Management Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13505076221132947\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Management Learning","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13505076221132947","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在2019冠状病毒病大流行之后,我们已经敏锐地意识到有必要表达和培养对他人的关爱——我们的学生和同事——以及对自己的自我照顾。现有研究已经证实,当代学术环境中的工作条件和工作特征有助于职业倦怠(Watts and Robertson, 2011;Wray和Kinman, 2021),以及学者的幸福感(Prasad, 2022;Richards et al., 2016)和健康(Berg et al., 2016;Hurtado等人,2012),尤其是心理健康(Guthrie等人,2017;帕迪拉和汤普森,2016;Urbina-Garcia, 2020) -往往受到与工作量增加、审计、绩效管理和指标相关的压力的负面影响(Morrish, 2019;Morrish and Priaulx, 2020)。为了在学术界生存和发展,我们迫切需要建立一种新的关怀伦理——一种有意义地关注彼此和我们自己的需求的伦理。在商学院的背景下,批判性管理学者强调了我们需要“按照关怀的道德规范相互联系”(Butler等人,2017:474)。事实上,在现实生活中,有很多关于相互关心、支持和帮助的例子,无论是通过“制度化”的渠道——例如,通过在会议上举行的专业发展研讨会——还是通过更非正式的方式——在我们日常的本体论共情的工作实践中(Prasad和Śliwa, 2022)。支持另一个人并表明他们被关心不仅对被支持的人有好处,对提供支持的人也有好处。的确,善待他人是对给予善良的人的真正回报。实际上,这并不难。我们通常能够很好地同情一方——无论是一个特定的人,还是更普遍的“组织”——不公平对待和伤害的人。我们不愿做无动于衷的旁观者;我们希望,而且经常选择站在公平和正义的一边。然而,这里有一个警告:当我们的自我和职业利益没有受到威胁时,我们很容易同情某人;当我们没有作为一个伤害者直接参与,在别人受到伤害或虐待的情况下。当一个同事告诉我们发生在他们身上的不好的事情和别人做错了他们的事情时,我们很少质疑他们是什么
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
On forgiveness and letting go
In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have become acutely aware of the need to express and foster care for others – our students and our colleagues – as well as engage in self-care for ourselves. It has been well established in extant research that the working conditions and job characteristics in contemporary academic settings can be conducive to burnout (Watts and Robertson, 2011; Wray and Kinman, 2021), and that academics’ well-being (Prasad, 2022; Richards et al., 2016) and health (Berg et al., 2016; Hurtado et al., 2012) – and, in particular, mental health (Guthrie et al., 2017; Padilla and Thompson, 2016; Urbina-Garcia, 2020) – are often negatively affected as a result of stress related to increasing workloads, audits, performance management and metrics (Morrish, 2019; Morrish and Priaulx, 2020). In order to survive and thrive in academia, we urgently need to establish a new ethic of care – one which meaningfully attends to the needs of each other and ourselves. In the context of business schools, critical management scholars have highlighted the need for us to ‘relate to each other in accordance with an ethics of care’ (Butler et al., 2017: 474). Indeed, there are plenty of real-life examples of caring about, supporting and helping each other, both through ‘institutionalised’ channels – for instance, through professional development workshops held at conferences – and in more informal ways – in and through our daily working practice of ontological empathy (Prasad and Śliwa, 2022). Supporting another person and showing that they are cared for has benefits not only for the supported individual but also for the one who does the supporting. Indeed, being kind to the other is truly rewarding for the giver of kindness. And it is not, actually, that difficult. We are usually well capable of empathising with someone whom a party – either a specific person or, more generally, the ‘organisation’ – has treated unfairly and harmed. We do not wish to be apathetic bystanders; we want to, and often do choose to, stand on the side of equity and justice. There is, however, a caveat here: it is quite easy to empathise with someone when our own ego and professional interests are not at stake; when we are not directly involved as an injurious actor, in a situation in which someone else has been hurt or mistreated. When a colleague tells us about something bad that has happened to them and about someone else having done them wrong, we rarely question what they are
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
Management Learning
Management Learning MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
29.20%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: The nature of management learning - the nature of individual and organizational learning, and the relationships between them; "learning" organizations; learning from the past and for the future; the changing nature of management, of organizations, and of learning The process of learning - learning methods and techniques; processes of thinking; experience and learning; perception and reasoning; agendas of management learning Learning and outcomes - the nature of managerial knowledge, thinking, learning and action; ethics values and skills; expertise; competence; personal and organizational change
期刊最新文献
The sensuous governmentality of glitter: Educating managing women scientists with gleaming STEM Barbies How do inclusive leaders emerge? A theory-based model The weaponization of plagiarism accusations in the era of anti-woke politics Responsibility as weight and space: An aesthetic (re)theorising of responsibility and responsible leadership development for youth Turning complexity into a Delight to the Mind: An integrative framework for teaching and learning complex reasoning
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1