Paper short abstract:

The paper will focus on four mechanisms employed by corporate actors to prevent or induce feelings of guilt in its employees. While prevention mechanisms stabilize social boundaries between staff and clients, inducement mechanisms maintain structural inequalities of employee-corporation relations.

Paper long abstract:

Guilt is seen as a necessary ingredient of viable societies since it keeps individuals in line with moral codes (Turner/Stets 2005). However, corporate actors like business companies and public administrations may (un-)intentionally prevent or induce guilt in its employees to strengthen social boundaries and power structures. On basis of organization and emotion research at least four mechanisms can be distinguished.

The first two mechanisms protect employees from guilt towards clients or customers. 1) In corporations with highly compartmentalized structures and hierarchies (bureaucracies) employees can shift responsibility for their actions to higher authorities or diffuse blame altogether (Kelman/Hamilton 1989). 2) Professional role expectations may equip employees with group specific values which provide accounts to be relieved of guilt. E.g. the professional ethic of "procedural correctness" in the Swedish Migration Board allows for the rejection of asylum seekers while at the same time celebrates humanitarian values (cf. Wettergren 2010).

Two additional mechanisms apply to so called "new organizational cultures" of more flattened organizational structures. 3) The emphasis on metaphors like "team" and "family" with its connotation of sharing, cooperation and belonging may increase commitment to colleagues and hence induce guilt towards them (Casey 1999). 4) Contradictory directives by management may promote guilt in employees owed to the impossible task to accomplish them. E.g. German labour administration asks its employees to respect clients autonomy and be empathetic while simultaneously demands them to realize authority rights (cf. Terpe/Paierl 2010). Both mechanisms can be interpreted as organizational practices of compliance and control discouraging resistance.