https://doi.org/10.4081/qrmh.2018.7114
Constructing responsibility in social interaction: an analysis of responsibility talk in hospital administrative groups
Submitted: 2 October 2017
Accepted: 28 August 2018
Published: 17 December 2018
Accepted: 28 August 2018
Abstract Views: 1132
PDF: 451
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Authors
The role of responsibility in hospitals is undeniable. Although administrative groups are essential to organizational performance, previous group and team studies of responsibility in hospital organizations have concentrated mainly on healthcare teams. This study aims to describe and understand responsibility construction in the social interaction in hospital administrative group meetings, based on observation and analysis of seven administrative group meetings in a Finnish hospital. Categories generated by thematic content analysis were compared with responsibility types. The findings show that responsibility is constructed by creating co-responsibility, taking individual responsibility, and constructing non-responsibility. Action and role and task responsibilities emerged as types from the interaction. To support employee involvement in responsibility processes, they must also be provided with sufficient resources to deal with that responsibility and to manage its different dimensions. These insights can be utilized to improve administrative groups.
Lenk H. Responsibility for safety and risk minimization: Outline of an attribution‐based approach regarding modern technological and societal systems. Hum Factor Ergon Manuf Serv Ind 2003;1:203-22.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.10035
Bierhoff H-W, Auhagen AE. Responsibility as a fundamental human phenomenon. In: Auhage EA, Bierhoff H-W, eds. Responsibility. The many faces of a social phenomenon. New York, NY: Routledge; 2001. pp 1-8.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203468739
Wright KB, Sparks L, O’Hair HD. Health communication in the 21st century. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013.
Bowles D, McIntosh G, Hemrajani R, et al. Nurse–physician collaboration in an academic medical centre: The influence of organisational and individual factors. J Interprof Care 2016;30:655-60.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2016.1201464
Opel DJ, Wilfond BS, Brownstein D, et al. Characterisation of organisational issues in paediatric clinical ethics consultation: A qualitative study. J Med Ethics 2009;35:477-82.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2008.027896
Rabøl L, McPhail MA, Østergaard D, et al. Promoters and barriers in hospital team communication. A focus group study. J Commun Healthc 2012;5:129-39.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1179/1753807612Y.0000000009
Körner M, Bütof S, Müller C, et al. Interprofessional teamwork and team interventions in chronic care: A systematic review. J Interprof Care 2016;30:15-28.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2015.1051616
Real K, Poole MS. Health care teams: Communication and effectiveness. In: Thompson TR, Parrot R, Nussbaum JF, eds. The Routledge handbook of health communication. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2011. pp 100-116.
von Knorring M, Alexanderson, K, Eliasson MA. Healthcare managers’ construction of the manager role in relation to the medical profession. J Health Organ Manag 2016;30:421-40.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-11-2014-0192
Lammers JC, Barbour JB. An institutional theory of organizational communication. Commun Theory 2006;16:356-77.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00274.x
Pennanen E, Mikkola L. Work coordination as a social interaction process in nursing staff meetings. Nord J Work Life Stud 2016;6:23-41.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.19154/njwls.v6i2.4970
Martin JA. Dynamic managerial capabilities and the multibusiness team: The role of episodic teams in executive leadership groups. Org Sci 2011;22:118-40.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0515
Woolley AW, Gerbasi ME, Chabris CF, et al. Bringing in the experts: How team composition and collaborative planning jointly shape analytic effectiveness. Small Group Res 2008;39:352-71.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408317792
Hoon C. Committees as strategic practice: The role of strategic conversation in a public administration. Hum Relat 2007;60:921-52.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707080081
Liang X, Achidi Ndofor H, Priem RL, Picken JC. Top management team communication networks, environmental uncertainty, and organizational performance: A contingency view. J Manag Issues 2010;22:436-55.
Lenk H, Maring M. Responsibility and technology. In: Auhage EA, Bierhoff H-W, eds. Responsibility. The many faces of a social phenomenon. New York, NY: Routledge; 2001. pp 93-108.
Birnbacher D. Philosophical foundations of responsibility. In: Auhage EA, Bierhoff H-W, eds. Responsibility. The many faces of a social phenomenon. New York, NY: Routledge; 2001. pp 9-22.
Chernev A, Blair S. Doing well by doing good: The benevolent halo of corporate social responsibility. J Consumer Res 2015;41:1412-25.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/680089
Villagra N, Cárdaba MA, Ruiz San Román J. Communicating corporate social responsibility: Re-assessment of classical theories about fit between CSR actions and corporate activities. Commun Society 2016;29:133-46.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15581/003.29.2.133-146
Witt LA. Responsibility in work organisations. In: Auhage EA, Bierhoff H-W, eds. Responsibility. The many faces of a social phenomenon. New York, NY: Routledge; 2001. pp 139-147.
Lehmann-Willenbrock N, Allen JA, Kauffeld S. A sequential analysis of procedural meeting communication: How teams facilitate their meetings. J Appl Commun Res 2013;41:365-88.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2013.844847
Wilson B, Schullery N. Rotating responsibility reaps rewards. Bus Commun Q 2000;63:68-72.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/108056990006300205
Seibert SE, Wang G, Courtright SH. Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. J Appl Psychol 2011;96:981-1003.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022676
Catalano K. Hand-off communication does affect patient safety. Plast Surg Nurs 2009;29:266-70.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PSN.0b013e3181c20136
Herlitz A, Munthe C, Törner M, Forsander G. The counseling, self-care, adherence approach to person-centered care and shared decision making: Moral psychology, executive autonomy, and ethics in multi-dimensional care decisions. Health Commun 2016;31:964-73.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2015.1025332
Zisman-Ilani Y, Roe D, Scholl I, et al. Shared decision making during active psychiatric hospitalization: Assessment and psychometric properties. Health Commun 2017;32:126-30.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2015.1099504
Brandis S, Rice J, Schleimer S. Dynamic workplace interactions for improving patient safety climate. J Health Org Manag 2017;31:38-53.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-09-2016-0185
Burleson BR. The nature of interpersonal communication: A message-centered approach. In: Berger CR, Roloff ME, Roskos-Ewoldsen D, eds. Handbook of communication science. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2010. pp 145-163.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412982818.n9
Sias PM. Workplace relationships. In: Putnam LL, Mumby DK, eds. The Sage handbook of organizational communication. Advances in theory, research and methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2014. pp 375-400.
Silverman D. Interpreting qualitative data: A guide to the principles of qualitative research. London: Sage; 2011.
Angrosino M, Rosenber J. Observations on observation. Continuities and challenges. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Los Angeles, LA: Sage; 2011. pp 467-478.
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment. Labour legislation. Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment; 2017. Available from: https://tem.fi/en/labour-legislation Accessed: Aug 29, 2017.
National Advisory Board on Research Ethics. Ethical principles of research in the humanities and social and behavioural sciences and proposals for ethical review. National Advisory Board on Research Ethics; 2009. Available from: http://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/ethicalprinciples.pdf Accessed: 2017, Sep 16.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77-101.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Mayan MJ. Essentials of qualitative inquiry. New York, NY: Routledge; 2009.
Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurs Ed Today 2004;24:105-12.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001
Marková I, Linell P, Grossen M, Orvig AS. Dialogue in focus groups. Exploring socially shared knowledge. London, UK: Equinox; 2007.
McGlone MS, Giles H. Language and interpersonal communication. In: Knapp ML, Daly JA, eds. The Sage handbook of interpersonal communication. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2011. pp 201-238.
Montada L. Denial of responsibility. In: Auhage EA, Bierhoff H-W, eds. Responsibility. The many faces of a social phenomenon. New York, NY: Routledge; 2001. pp 79-92.
Harré R. Positioning theory: Moral dimensioms of social-cultural psychology. In: Valsiner J, ed. The Oxford handbook of culture and psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2012. pp 191-206.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396430.013.0010
Henderson LS, Stackman RW, Lindekilde R. The centrality of communication norm alignment, role clarity, and trust in global project teams. Int J Proj Manag 2016;34:1717-30.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.09.012
Ray EB, Apker J. Stress, burnout, and supportive communication. A review of research in health organizations. In: Thompson TR, Parrot R, Nussbaum JF. eds. The Routledge handbook of health communication. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2011. pp 428-440.
Apker J, Propp KM, Ford WS. Negotiating status and identity tensions in healthcare team interactions: An exploration of nurse role dialectics. J Appl Commun Res 2005;33:93-115.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880500044620
Frey LR, Botan CH, Kreps GL. Investigating communication. An introduction to research methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 2000.
Supporting Agencies
The Finnish Work Environment Fund (112304), University of Jyvaskyla, Faculty of HumanitiesHow to Cite
Pennanen, Eveliina, and Leena Mikkola. 2018. “Constructing Responsibility in Social Interaction: An Analysis of Responsibility Talk in Hospital Administrative Groups”. Qualitative Research in Medicine and Healthcare 2 (3). https://doi.org/10.4081/qrmh.2018.7114.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.