How Much Stupidity Do Organisations Need? A Psychodynamic Perspective on Functional Stupidity
How much stupidity do organisations need to function effectively? The paradox coined by management researchers Spicer and Alvesson may seem baffling. According to these authors, organisations require a certain amount of uncritical obedience to function properly. The idea of ‘functional stupidity’ pu...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Association International de Management Stratégique (AIMS)
2024-03-01
|
| Series: | M@n@gement |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://management-aims.com/index.php/mgmt/article/view/9377/17023 |
| _version_ | 1797229419810521088 |
|---|---|
| author | Gabriel Lomellini |
| author_facet | Gabriel Lomellini |
| author_sort | Gabriel Lomellini |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | How much stupidity do organisations need to function effectively? The paradox coined by management researchers Spicer and Alvesson may seem baffling. According to these authors, organisations require a certain amount of uncritical obedience to function properly. The idea of ‘functional stupidity’ put forward by the authors to account for this phenomenon is no less ambiguous. In addition to overlooking the ethical implications of such a notion, it fails to provide a coherent explanation of its causes in organisations. Our proposal is based on the psychodynamics of work, founded by Christophe Dejours. We focus primarily on the subjective experience of work, which involves the worker’s body, and the way in which a whole theory of moral sense at work emerges from this experience. Adopting the form of an essay, we will support our argument with illustrative vignettes: stupidity will be interpreted here as the exact opposite of what the psychodynamics of work considers to be subjective intelligence at work, that is, ordinary sublimation. In so doing, we propose to extend the scope of the notion of organisational stupidity by adding a phenomenological, clinical and ethical dimension. We conclude by suggesting future avenues for research, through a ‘re-eroticisation’ of work. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T15:12:18Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-f7646f88d91945ee960e7abe6e6ba031 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1286-4692 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T15:12:18Z |
| publishDate | 2024-03-01 |
| publisher | Association International de Management Stratégique (AIMS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | M@n@gement |
| spelling | doaj.art-f7646f88d91945ee960e7abe6e6ba0312024-04-02T10:31:48ZengAssociation International de Management Stratégique (AIMS)M@n@gement1286-46922024-03-012711010.37725/mgmt.2024.93779377How Much Stupidity Do Organisations Need? A Psychodynamic Perspective on Functional StupidityGabriel Lomellini0ICN Business School, Human Resources and Organizational Behavior Department, CEREFIGE, Nancy, FranceHow much stupidity do organisations need to function effectively? The paradox coined by management researchers Spicer and Alvesson may seem baffling. According to these authors, organisations require a certain amount of uncritical obedience to function properly. The idea of ‘functional stupidity’ put forward by the authors to account for this phenomenon is no less ambiguous. In addition to overlooking the ethical implications of such a notion, it fails to provide a coherent explanation of its causes in organisations. Our proposal is based on the psychodynamics of work, founded by Christophe Dejours. We focus primarily on the subjective experience of work, which involves the worker’s body, and the way in which a whole theory of moral sense at work emerges from this experience. Adopting the form of an essay, we will support our argument with illustrative vignettes: stupidity will be interpreted here as the exact opposite of what the psychodynamics of work considers to be subjective intelligence at work, that is, ordinary sublimation. In so doing, we propose to extend the scope of the notion of organisational stupidity by adding a phenomenological, clinical and ethical dimension. We conclude by suggesting future avenues for research, through a ‘re-eroticisation’ of work.https://management-aims.com/index.php/mgmt/article/view/9377/17023stupiditypsychodynamics of workintelligencesubjectivitycriticismeroticisation |
| spellingShingle | Gabriel Lomellini How Much Stupidity Do Organisations Need? A Psychodynamic Perspective on Functional Stupidity M@n@gement stupidity psychodynamics of work intelligence subjectivity criticism eroticisation |
| title | How Much Stupidity Do Organisations Need? A Psychodynamic Perspective on Functional Stupidity |
| title_full | How Much Stupidity Do Organisations Need? A Psychodynamic Perspective on Functional Stupidity |
| title_fullStr | How Much Stupidity Do Organisations Need? A Psychodynamic Perspective on Functional Stupidity |
| title_full_unstemmed | How Much Stupidity Do Organisations Need? A Psychodynamic Perspective on Functional Stupidity |
| title_short | How Much Stupidity Do Organisations Need? A Psychodynamic Perspective on Functional Stupidity |
| title_sort | how much stupidity do organisations need a psychodynamic perspective on functional stupidity |
| topic | stupidity psychodynamics of work intelligence subjectivity criticism eroticisation |
| url | https://management-aims.com/index.php/mgmt/article/view/9377/17023 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT gabriellomellini howmuchstupiditydoorganisationsneedapsychodynamicperspectiveonfunctionalstupidity |