Collegial Relationships

Abstract

Although collegial relationships are among the most prevalent types of interpersonal relationships in our lives, they have not been the subject of much philosophical study. In this paper, we take the first step in the process of developing an ethics of collegiality by establishing what qualifies two people as colleagues and then by determining what it is that gives value to collegial relationships. We argue that A and B are colleagues if both exhibit sameness regarding at least two of the following three features: (i) the same work content or domain of activity; (ii) the same institutional affiliation or common purpose; and/or (iii) the same status or level of responsibility. Moreover, we describe how the potential value of collegial relationships is grounded in the relationship goods that two colleagues have reason to generate qua colleagues, namely, collegial solidarity and collegial recognition. Two interesting conclusions that can be drawn from our analysis are that one has to be proficient at one’s work if one is to be considered a good colleague and that we are also more likely to be better colleagues if we regard the work we do as valuable. Finally, we draw special attention to the working conditions that are conducive to the generation of good collegial relationships and suggest some policies to promote them.

The Effectiveness of Utilizing Information and Communication Technology in Instructional Supervision with Collegial Discussion Techniques for the Teacher’s Instructional Process and the Student’s Learning Outcomes

“…Collaborative and nondirective approaches play an important role in enabling teachers to demonstrate self-directed and self-regulated learning [18]. Teachers will be more effective and meaningful when studying together in a collegial study group [19,20]. Collegial supervision can also facilitate senior teachers to share experiences with novice teachers [21].…”

Rethinking Remote Work, Automated Technologies, Meaningful Work and the Future of Work: Making a Case for Relationality

“…This is because of the considerable time we spend at our workplaces. Given the importance of work and the friendship we enjoy with those we work with, it is pertinent to understand the nature of these working relationships and to know if we can create these relationships with robots in the event that there are no human colleagues to relate with (Nyholm & Smids, 2020 :2171; Betzler & Löschke, 2021 :213).…”

“…In their discourse on collegial relationships, Betzler and Löschke ( 2021 ) point out three criteria (which I appraise) that a person must meet to be considered as a colleague in the workplace. First, one has to share the same status as their peers in the workplace (Betzler & Löschke, 2021 : 217). This requirement implies that colleagues must be of equal status in their workplace.…”

“…This requirement implies that colleagues must be of equal status in their workplace. Second, colleagues must share the same work content and activities (Betzler & Löschke, 2021 : 217). For example, a senior lecturer at a university can be colleagues with other lecturers but not with a doctoral candidate.…”

The ethics of partiality

“…See also Brighouse and Swift (2014) and Seglow (2013) for more on these relevant ‘relationship goods’. See also, for example, Betzler and Löschke (2021) on the goods of relationships in the workplace.…”