No abstract

It is characteristic of much professional work that it is performed in ambiguous contexts. Thus, uncertainty, unpredictability, indeterminacy, and recurrent organizational transformations are an integral part of modern work for, e.g., engineers, lawyers, business consultants, and other professionals. Although key performance indicators and other knowledge management systems are used to set standards of excellence for professionals, the character of professional work is still flexible, open to interpretation and heterarchical. The very successfulness (or unsuccessfulness) of the work is established in a complex work context where various goals, interests, and perspectives are mediated, altered, contested, mangled, and negotiated in a process of sense-making. The work context is heterogeneously populated by various actors (e.g., the customer, the manager, the colleagues) and actants (e.g., quality systems and technical equipment) that give “voice” to (conflicting) interpretations of what constitutes successful work. Thus, the professionals must navigate in a very complex environment where the locus of governance is far from stable. These characteristics of professional work seem to have implications for the way professionals make sense of their work and their own identities. The identity work of professionals is interwoven with their professional training and career background. With an academic training and a professional career, the individual typically identifies with the profession’s values and adopts a certain way of seeing and approaching the world. This professional outlook typically will constitute the basis of the individual’s appraisal of the work and lay out a horizon of expectations in relation to fulfillment, self-realization, and job satisfaction. In this way, the construction of self-identity becomes the yardstick for the individual’s sense-making and, a fortiori, for the individual’s sense of meaningful work. In this paper, we will claim that the ambiguity involved in professional work becomes a potential strain on the identity construction of the employees engaged in professional work and a potential source of enthusiasm and self-fulfillment. On a conceptual basis, the paper develops three interpretative frameworks that are useful in understanding how professionals deal with ambiguity in professional work. To illustrate this point, the paper refers to qualitative material from a research project conducted in six Danish knowledge-intensive firms. Referring to this empirical material, we discuss how professionals perceive and relate to their work and the role played by professionalism in this relation. Drawing on neo-institutional theory our paper discusses how professionals draw on different frameworks of meaning in order to stabilize their identities.

Det rapporteres stadig oftere, at veluddannede lider af alvorlig stress. Dette forekommer paradoksalt, fordi de ifølge den meget benyttede krav-kontrolmodel ikke burde befinde sig i risiko.zonen. De har udviklende job med høj grad af indflydelse. Det tyder på, at stressforståelsen og krav-kontrolmodellen trænger til at blive diskuteret. Artiklen viser gennem en historisk beskrivelse, at stressbegrebet er til stadig genfortolkning, og at dette ikke alene skyldes akademisk definitionsarbejde. Stressbegrebet afspejler mange forskellige samfundsmæssige interesser, og de konkrete modeller og stressforståelser har stor betydning for, hvilke jobgrupper der betragtes som udsatte, og for hvilke forbyggende tiltag som kan anbefales. Artiklen argumenterer specielt for, at der er problemer med forståelsen af indflydelse i krav-kontrolmodellen, idet den leder til uhensigtsmæssige anbefalinger til forbedringer af vidensarbejdet.

The aim of this article is to study the learning processes that take place in an interactive research project, which involved university researchers as well as ergonomic practitioners. The project simultaneously developed and tested a new framework—designated Workspace Design—for intervention in workplace design processes in companies. The basic idea in Workspace Design was that ergonomists should take a new role and apply new participatory methods when involved as consultants. The course of the project was evaluated by the application of social learning theory. The goal was to find out if and why the ergonomic practitioners had learned to practice the new concept by themselves. The results confirm that learning to some extent took place with help from two different mechanisms: learning by interacting and learning by practicing. Three factors are of crucial importance to the successful transfer of a new framework to ergonomic practitioners: 1) the practitioners must take part in developing and testing the framework and the subsequent interpretation of results, 2) they must have the opportunity to practice the framework in the daily consultancy setting and then reflect on their experiences, and 3) their consultancy organization must be committed to adopt the new framework. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

In