IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v14y2024i9p183-d1479051.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Translating Values into Quality: How We Can Use Max Weber’s Ethic of Responsibility to Rethink Professional Ethics

Author

Listed:
  • Harald A. Mieg

    (Geography Department, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10099 Berlin, Germany)

Abstract

A risk-based reinterpretation of Weber’s ethic of responsibility can resolve core problems of professional ethics (the role of values, the multilevel problem, etc.) and address current issues—such as the social responsibility of professions or the accountability of professionals. From this perspective, professions as organizations and professionals as their individual members share and distribute responsibility (and risk) in that the primary responsibility of a profession is to provide domain-specific quality standards, while that of individual professionals is to be able to justify service against those standards on a case-by-case basis. In this way, as argued in the paper, professionalism translates (sometimes conflicting) values into a case-specific quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Harald A. Mieg, 2024. "Translating Values into Quality: How We Can Use Max Weber’s Ethic of Responsibility to Rethink Professional Ethics," Societies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:14:y:2024:i:9:p:183-:d:1479051
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/14/9/183/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/14/9/183/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heike Oevermann & Harald A. Mieg, 2021. "Urban Development Planning and World Cultural Heritage: Two Perspectives of Planning Practice Dealing with Industrial Heritage," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(4), pages 430-441, August.
    2. Satkunanandan, Shalini, 2014. "Max Weber and the Ethos of Politics beyond Calculation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 108(1), pages 169-181, February.
    3. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2021. "The Coming of Age of Risk Governance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 544-557, March.
    4. Harvey, Nigel & Fischer, Ilan, 1997. "Taking Advice: Accepting Help, Improving Judgment, and Sharing Responsibility," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 117-133, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gehrig, Thomas & Güth, Werner & Leví0nský, René & Popova, Vera, 2010. "On the evolution of professional consulting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 113-126, October.
    2. Lucas C. Coffman & Alexander Gotthard-Real, 2019. "Moral Perceptions of Advised Actions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(8), pages 3904-3927, August.
    3. Patt, Anthony G. & Bowles, Hannah Riley & Cash, David W., 2006. "Mechanisms for Enhancing the Credibility of an Adviser: Prepayment and Aligned Incentives," Working Paper Series rwp06-010, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    4. Effron, Daniel A. & Raj, Medha, 2021. "Disclosing interpersonal conflicts of interest: Revealing whom we like, but not whom we dislike," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 68-85.
    5. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    6. Bleda, Mercedes & Krupnik, Seweryn, 2024. "Risks of policy failure in direct R&D support," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    7. Bonaccio, Silvia & Dalal, Reeshad S., 2006. "Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 127-151, November.
    8. Benedict G. C. Dellaert & Suzanne B. Shu & Theo A. Arentze & Tom Baker & Kristin Diehl & Bas Donkers & Nathanael J. Fast & Gerald Häubl & Heidi Johnson & Uma R. Karmarkar & Harmen Oppewal & Bernd H. S, 2020. "Consumer decisions with artificially intelligent voice assistants," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 335-347, December.
    9. Palmeira, Mauricio, 2020. "Advice in the presence of external cues: The impact of conflicting judgments on perceptions of expertise," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 82-96.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:349-363 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Jodlbauer, Barbara & Jonas, Eva, 2011. "Forecasting clients' reactions: How does the perception of strategic behavior influence the acceptance of advice?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 121-133, January.
    12. Andrea F.M. Martinangeli & Biljana Meiske, 2022. "The influence premium of monetary rank," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2022-08, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    13. De Baets, Shari & Harvey, Nigel, 2020. "Using judgment to select and adjust forecasts from statistical models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 284(3), pages 882-895.
    14. Irene Scopelliti & Carey K. Morewedge & Erin McCormick & H. Lauren Min & Sophie Lebrecht & Karim S. Kassam, 2015. "Bias Blind Spot: Structure, Measurement, and Consequences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(10), pages 2468-2486, October.
    15. Johannes Müller-Trede & Shoham Choshen-Hillel & Meir Barneron & Ilan Yaniv, 2018. "The Wisdom of Crowds in Matters of Taste," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1779-1803, April.
    16. Spassova, Gerri & Palmeira, Mauricio & Andrade, Eduardo B., 2018. "A ratings pattern heuristic in judgments of expertise: When being right Looks wrong," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 26-47.
    17. Bradley R. Staats & Diwas S. KC & Francesca Gino, 2018. "Maintaining Beliefs in the Face of Negative News: The Moderating Role of Experience," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(2), pages 804-824, February.
    18. Kausel, Edgar E. & Culbertson, Satoris S. & Leiva, Pedro I. & Slaughter, Jerel E. & Jackson, Alexander T., 2015. "Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 33-50.
    19. Albert E. Mannes, 2009. "Are We Wise About the Wisdom of Crowds? The Use of Group Judgments in Belief Revision," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(8), pages 1267-1279, August.
    20. J. Travis Bland & Adam M. Williams, 2019. "Collaborative Ties Within: Public Organizations and the Latent Capacity for Advice Network Formation," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 367-386, September.
    21. Donkers, A.C.D. & Lourenço, C.J.S. & Dellaert, B.G.C. & Goldstein, D.G., 2013. "Using Preferred Outcome Distributions to Estimate Value and Probability Weighting Functions in Decisions under Risk," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2013-005-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.

    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:gam:jsoctx:v:14:y:2024:i:9:p:183-:d:1479051. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.