IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02311917.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

To Hive or to Hold? : Professional Authority through Scut Work

Author

Listed:
  • Ruthanne Huising

    (EM - EMLyon Business School)

Abstract

This paper examines how professionals working in bureaucratic organizations, despite having formal authority, struggle to enact authority over the clients they advise, transforming their right to command into deference to commands. Drawing on a comparative ethnographic study of two professional groups overseeing compliance in university laboratories, I identify how choices about their task jurisdiction influence each profession's ability to enact authority over and gain voluntary compliance from the same group of clients. One group constructs its work domain to include not only high-skilled tasks that emphasize members' expertise but also scut work—menial work with contaminated materials—through which they gain regular entry into clients' workspaces, developing knowledge about and relationships with clients. Using these resources to accommodate, discipline, and understand clients, they produce relational authority—the capacity to elicit voluntary compliance with commands. The other group outsources everyday scut work and interacts with lab researchers mostly during annual inspections and training, which leads to complaints by researchers to management and eventual loss of jurisdiction. The findings show the importance of producing relational authority in contemporary professional–client interactions in bureaucratic settings and challenge the relevance of expertise and professional identity in generating relational authority. I show how holding on to, not hiving off, scut work allows professionals to enact authority over clients.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruthanne Huising, 2015. "To Hive or to Hold? : Professional Authority through Scut Work," Post-Print hal-02311917, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02311917
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jillian Chown, 2020. "Financial Incentives and Professionals’ Work Tasks: The Moderating Effects of Jurisdictional Dominance and Prominence," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 887-908, July.
    2. Ruthanne Huising & Susan S. Silbey, 2021. "Accountability infrastructures: Pragmatic compliance inside organizations," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(S1), pages 40-62, November.
    3. Johan Alvehus & Sanna Eklund & Gustaf Kastberg, 2020. "Organizing Professionalism – New Elites, Stratification and Division of Labor," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 163-177, March.
    4. Kurt Sandholtz & Daisy Chung & Isaac Waisberg, 2019. "The Double-Edged Sword of Jurisdictional Entrenchment: Explaining Human Resources Professionals’ Failed Strategic Repositioning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1349-1367, November.
    5. Steven J. Kahl & Brayden G. King & Greg Liegel, 2016. "Occupational Survival Through Field-Level Task Integration: Systems Men, Production Planners, and the Computer, 1940s–1990s," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 1084-1107, October.
    6. Roman V. Galperin, 2020. "Organizational Powers: Contested Innovation and Loss of Professional Jurisdiction in the Case of Retail Medicine," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 508-534, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    professions;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02311917. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.