Advertisement

Agency at Work pp 291-310 | Cite as

Professional Virtues and Agency at Work: An Ethnography of Software Developers

  • Mira Ylén
Chapter
Part of the Professional and Practice-based Learning book series (PPBL, volume 20)

Abstract

This chapter contributes to the discussion on meaningful work by examining professional virtues and agency in the context of software development work. The study referenced in this chapter provides an example of an ethnographic, practice-based research setting. While asking, ‘How do organisational practices enable professional agency?’ the questions, ‘What agency-enabling practices are in the organisation?’ and ‘What kind of professional virtues do these practices enable?’ are discussed. As a result, four practices that enable professional agency were identified: democracy, experimentation, self-directed development and independent project teams. The focus on the moral dimension of work challenges us to think about professional agency in relation to the virtues of a professional practice: This chapter emphasizes that the pursuit of meaningful work is not solely about the asset of universal best practices but also about the virtues important to a particular group of professionals in a particular organisation. As the organisation studied was an award-winning workplace recognized for employee well-being and satisfaction, the findings of this study suggest that one element of a great place to work is the fact that the organisation’s practices provide space for a virtue-driven professional agency, and that these organisational practices have formed with respect to professional virtues. To create a great workplace, organisations should see themselves as spaces for professional agency, enabling such work conditions that it is possible for professionals’ virtues to guide their work.

Keywords

Professional agency Professional practice Virtues Software development Ethnography 

References

  1. Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). Critical leadership studies: The case for critical performativity. Human Relations, 65(3), 367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barley, S., & Kunda, G. (2011). Bringing work back in. Organization Science, 12(1), 76–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beadle, R., & Moore, G. (2011). MacIntyre, Neo-Aristotelianism and organization theory. Philosophy and Organization Theory Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 32, 85–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Billet, S. (2006). Work, subjectivity and learning. In S. Billet, T. Fenwick, & M. Somerville (Eds.), Work, subjectivity and learning. Understanding learning through working life (pp. 1–20). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Chia, R. (2003). Organization theory as a postmodern science. In H. Tsoukas & C. Knudsen (Eds.), The oxford handbook of organization theory. Meta-theoretical perspectives (pp. 113–140). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Collin, K., Lemmetty, S., Herranen, S., Paloniemi, S., Auvinen, T. & Riivari, E. (2017). Professional agency and creativity in information technology work. In M. Gollerm, & S. Paloniemi (Eds.), Agency at work: An agentic perspective on professional learning and development. (pp. 249–270). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Corradi, G., Gherardi, S., & Verzelloni, L. (2010). Through the practice lens: Where is the bandwagon of practice-based studies heading? Management Learning, 41(3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Covaleski, M., Dirsmith, M., Heian, J., & Samuel, S. (1998). The calculated and the avowed: Techniques of discipline and struggles over identity in big six public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 293–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cunliffe, A. (2004). On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. Journal of Management Education, 28(4), 407–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Czarniawska, B. (2008). A theory of organizing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd..Google Scholar
  11. Damarin, A. (2006). Rethinking occupational structure: The case of web site production work. Work and Occupations, 33(4), 429–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dybå, T., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 50(9–10), 833–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (2010). What is agency? The American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2008). Qualitative methods in business research. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eriksson, P., Henttonen, E., & Meriläinen, S. (2008). Managerial work and gender—Ethnography of cooperative relationships in small software companies. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 24(4), 354–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eteläpelto, A., Heiskanen, T., & Collin, K. (2011a). Mahdollisuudet, tilat ja toisin toimimisen paikat työssä ja koulutuksessa [Opportunities, spaces and places for doing things differently in work and education]. In A. Eteläpelto, T. Heiskanen, & K. Collin (Eds.), Valta ja toimijuus aikuiskasvatuksessa [Power and agency in adult education] (pp. 355–365). Helsinki: Kansanvalistusseura.Google Scholar
  17. Eteläpelto, A., Heiskanen, T., & Collin, K. (2011b). Vallan ja toimijuuden monisäikeisyys [The complexity of power and agency]. In A. Eteläpelto, T. Heiskanen, & K. Collin (Eds.), Valta ja toimijuus aikuiskasvatuksessa [Power and agency in adult education] (pp. 9–30). Helsinki: Kansanvalistusseura.Google Scholar
  18. Eteläpelto, A., Heiskanen, T., & Collin, K. (Eds.). (2011c). Valta ja toimijuus aikuiskasvatuksessa [Power and agency in adult education]. Helsinki: Kansanvalistusseura.Google Scholar
  19. Eteläpelto, A., Vähäsantanen, K., Hökkä, P., & Paloniemi, S. (2013). What is agency? Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educational Research Review, 10, 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Feldman, M., & Orlikowski, W. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fleming, P. (2013). ‘Down with big brother!’ The end of ‘corporate culturalism’? Journal of Management Studies, 50(3), 474–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2006). Contesting the corporation: Struggle, power and resistance in organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Fletcher, D., & Watson, T. (2007). Voice, silence and the business of construction: Loud and quiet voices in the construction of personal, organizational and social realities. Organization, 14(2), 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gherardi, S. (2009). Practice? It’s a matter of taste! Management Learning, 40(5), 535–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Giddens, A. (2006). Sociology (5th ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  26. Goller, M., & Harteis, C. (2017). Human agency at work: Towards a clarification and an operationalisation of the concept. In M. Goller, & S. Paloniemi (Eds.), Agency at work: An agentic perspective on professional learning and development. (pp. 85–103). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Green, B. (2009). Introduction: Understanding and researching professional practice. In B. Green (Ed.), Understanding and researching professional practice (pp. 1–18). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Grey, C. (2005). A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying organizations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Henttonen, E., & LaPointe, K. (2015). Työelämän toisinajattelijat [Dissidents of working life]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.Google Scholar
  30. Himanen, P. (2001). The Hacker Ethic and the Spirit of the Information Age. Helsinki: WSOY.Google Scholar
  31. Hökkä, P., Paloniemi, S., Vähäsantanen, K., Herranen, S., Manninen, M., & Eteläpelto, A. (Eds.) (2014). Ammatillisen toimijuuden ja työssä oppimisen vahvistaminen – Luovia voimavaroja työhön! [Promoting professional agency and learning at work – Creative resources for work!] University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
  32. Humphreys, M., & Watson, T. (2009). Ethnographic practices: From ‘Writing-up ethnograpic research’ to ‘Writing ethnography’. In S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels, & F. Kamsteeg (Eds.), Organizational ethnography. Studying the complexities of everyday life (pp. 40–55). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Iivari, J., & Iivari, N. (2011). The relationship between organisational culture and the deployment of agile methods. Information and Software Technology, 53, 509–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Järvensivu, A. (2010). Tapaus työelämä, ja voiko sitä muuttaa? [The case for working life, and how to change it?]. Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kemmis, S. (2009). Understanding professional practice: A synoptic framework. In B. Green (Ed.), Understanding and researching professional practice (pp. 19–38). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Kemmis, S. (2010). What is professional practice? Recognizing and respecting diversity in understandings of practice. In C. Kanes (Ed.), Elaborating professionalism: Studies in practice and theory (pp. 139–166). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Kerosuo, H. (2017). Transformative agency and the development of knotworking in building design. In M. Goller, & S. Paloniemi (Eds.), Agency at work: An agentic perspective on professional learning and development. (pp. 331–349). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering culture. Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kylliäinen, A. (2012). Paksunahkaisuudesta suurisieluisuuteen. Hyveet työssä ja elämässä [From thick-skinness to magnanimity. Virtues in work and life]. Helsinki: Otava.Google Scholar
  40. LaPointe, K., & Tienari, J. (2013). HR, identiteettityö ja ammatillinen eetos [HR, Identity work and professional ethos]. Työn tuuli, 2(2013), 7–18.Google Scholar
  41. Lips-Wiersma, M., & Morris, L. (2009). Discriminating between ‘Meaningful work’ and the ‘Management of meaning’. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3), 491–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. MacIntyre, A. (1987). After virtue: A study in moral theory. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  43. Miettinen, R., Samra-Fredericks, D., & Yanow, D. (2010). Re-turn to practice: An introductory essay. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1309–1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and zooming out: A package of method and theory to study work practices. In S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels, & F. Kamsteeg (Eds.), Organizational ethnography. Studying the complexities of everyday life (pp. 120–138). London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work, and organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., & Yanow, D. (2003). Introduction: Toward a practice-based view of knowing and learning in organizations. In D. Nicolini, S. Gherardi, & D. Yanow (Eds.), Knowing in organizations: A practice-based approach (pp. 3–31). New York: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  47. O’Riain, S. (2010). The missing customer and the ever-present market: Software developers and the service economy. Work and Occupations, 37(3), 320–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Orlikowski, W. J. (2010). Practice in research: Phenomenon, perspective and philosophy. In D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, & E. Vaara (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice (pp. 23–33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Räsänen, K., & Trux, M.-L. (2012). Työkirja. Ammattilaisen paluu [Workbook. Return of the professional]. Helsinki: Kansanvalistusseura.Google Scholar
  50. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2010). Ways of constructing research questions: Gap-spotting or problematization? Organization, 18(1), 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schatzki, T. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 10–23). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Spicer, A., Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2009). Critical performativity: The unfinished business of critical management studies. Human Relations, 62(4), 537–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Swidler, A. (2001). What anchors cultural practices. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 83–101). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Vähäsantanen, K., Paloniemi, S., Hökkä, P. & Eteläpelto, A. (2017). An agency-promoting learning arena for developing shared work practices. In M. Goller, & S. Paloniemi (Eds.), Agency at work: An agentic perspective on professional learning and development. (pp. 351–371). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  56. Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  57. Van Maanen, J. (1995). An end to innocence: The ethnography of ethnography. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Representation in ethnography (pp. 1–35). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  58. Van Maanen, J. (2002). The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. In A. M. Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher’s companion (pp. 101–118). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. Van Maanen, J. (2006). Ethnography then and now. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 1(1), 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Watson, T. (2000). Making sense of managerial work and organizational research processes with caroline and terry. Organization, 7(3), 489–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ylén, M. (2015). Labor, Amor, Vincit. Ohjelmistotalon käytännöt ammatillisen toimijuuden tilana [Labor, Amor, Vincit. Practices of a software house as a space for professional agency]. Master’s thesis, Management studies. Aalto University School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland. Available at: https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/15488

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vincit/Aalto UniversityTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations