Recognition and accountability in work place talk

Anerkendelse i ledelse er et af samtidens store dyr i åbenbaringen. Tanken er at anerkendelse er katalyserende, at medarbejderes potentialer og evner for problemløsning styrkes når de anerkendes for deres særlige indsats. Den tanke vil denne artikel ikke afvise, men den vil præsentere en mere polemisk tilgang. Gennem kvalitative analyser af lederes og medarbejderes kommunikative adfærd i konkrete samtaler, vil den demonstrere og argumentere for at fokus på anerkendelse ikke nødvendigvis understøtter samtaledeltageres løsning af problemer i arbejdet. Optagetheden af anerkendelse kan tværtimod føre til at samtaledeltagere gør strukturelle organisatoriske problemer til individuelle anliggender og skøjter hen over det faglige indhold.This article approaches the concept of recognition in the work place through a methodology of micro analysis of social interaction. It argues that since recognition is distributed in practices of everyday life by means of communication in social interaction the study of talk in interaction provides a useful point of departure for a practical analysis of recognition. The theoretical framework is on the one hand inspired by the American tradition of pragmatism as conceptualized within ethnomethodology, symbolic interactionism and conversation analysis as formulated by scholars such as Garfinkel, Goffman and Sacks. On the other hand the German social philosopher Axel Honneth of the Frankfurter School is an inspiration representing a European tradition of critical social theory. The suggested shared interest between American and European traditions is the concept of accountability which is argued to constitute an instrument for social agents for gaining recognition in everyday interaction. This point is demonstrated through micro analysis of transcripts of audio recorded appraisal interviews, i.e. conversations between employees and leaders in work place settings aimed at assessing employees’ work performance, personal and professional objectives, job satisfaction, progress in competence and skill, social life in the work setting etc. The article makes the case that leaders’ conveyance of recognition in work place interaction may motivate and promote employees’ participation and sense of responsibility towards the organization. However, simultaneously, leaders’ and employees’ communicative bias towards recognition and organizational proficiency is demonstrated to constitute an ample means for disciplining employees through individualizing their perspectives on working life, thus effectively leading to inadequate and simplistic perceptions of work practices