The unreflective practitioner: a pilot study on functional stupidity and social work

Figures & data

Table 1. Functional Stupidity: Rationales and Reflective Modes of Compliance (Paulsen, 2017).

Mode	Rationale
Despair:	Healthism
	Constructiveness
Cynicism:	Defeatism
	Ethical empiricism
	Agentic shift
	Work ethic
Authoritarianism:	Adaptationism
	Machismo
	Ego-essentialism
	Fun

Table 2. Functional Stupidity Items: Questionnaire Order, Wording and Rationale.

Item Number and Wording	Rationale
1. I always give my best to get my manager's appreciation, no matter the task	Ego-essentialism (1)
2. The problems we deal with at work will always exist, but I try not to think about that too much	Defeatism (1)
3. Despite all the social problems we face at work, my job is a lot of fun	Fun (1)
4. The work situation doesn’t allow me to do things to a high standard, but things are what they are	Ethical empiricism (1)
5. Putting myself in the role of an official helps me to make a decision that I don’t feel good about	Agentic shift (1)
6. I try to be constructive and get things done, whatever the task	Constructiveness (1)
7. For me, the fun I get from my job balances out the stressful work situation	Fun (2)
8. Rather than dwell on work tasks that make me very anxious, I make sure they get done	Constructiveness (2)
9. I try to think positively about my work so that I don’t get burnt out	Healthism (1)
10. I have to focus on the things that work well in my job in order to feel good	Healthism (2)
11. I try to steel myself when I meet emotional clients	Machismo (1)
12. I manage my work by being ‘tough but fair’	Machismo (2)
13. No matter how I feel about a task, I do what I am employed to do	Work ethic (1)
14. I have learned to adapt to my work situation, even though I wish things were different	Adaptationism (1)
15. I am trying to come to terms with the fact that this work involves the use of power	Ethical empiricism (2)
16. In order to get my work done I try not to get too emotionally involved	Work ethic (2)
17. I try to appreciate all aspects of my work even those I would prefer to avoid	Adaptationism (2)
18. In my work I follow the regulations, even if they don’t mirror my own views	Agentic shift (2)
19. I remind myself that ‘someone has to do the job’ in order to motivate myself for certain tasks	Defeatism (2)
20. Personally I always do my best at work, no matter what tasks I have been given	Ego-essentialism (2)

Table 3. Functional stupidity variables: Means, standard deviations, ranges and correlations within rationales (N=120).

Variable	Min	Max	M	SD	r
Healthism 1^a	0	4	2.61	1.10
Healthism 2	0	4	2.75	.90	.534^a**
Constructiveness 1^b	1	4	3.28	.68
Constructiveness 2^b	0	4	2.48	.94	.344**
Defeatism 1^a	0	4	2.42	.98
Defeatism 2	0	4	1.78	1.16	.177^a
Ethical Empiricism 1^a	0	4	2.19	1.01
Ethical Empiricism 2	0	4	2.39	.99	.166^b
Agentic Shift 1	0	4	2.42	.95
Agentic Shift 2^a	0	4	2.83	.91	.418^a**
Work Ethic 1	0	4	2.77	1.00
Work Ethic 2	0	4	2.09	1.00	.333**
Adaptationism 1	0	4	2.66	.98
Adaptationism 2	0	4	2.24	.87	.186*
Machismo 1	0	4	2.19	.99
Machismo 2	0	4	2.09	1.05	.405**
Ego-essentialism 1	0	4	2.33	.97
Ego-essentialism 2	1	4	3.40	.64	.073
Fun 1	1	4	3.45	.65
Fun 2^a	0	4	2.99	.95	.488^a**

Note: ^a, n=119; ^b, n=118; *p<.05;**p<.01.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics and Correlations for Modes and Rationales.

		N	M	SD	Range
						2	3	4	5	6	Work Satisfaction
Modes	1. Despair	116	11.13	2.62	4–16	.32**	.40**	.24**	.46**	.17	.30**
	2. Cynicism	118	16.53	4.26	6–27		-.06	.46**	.41**	.18	-.18
Rationales	3. Fun	119	6.44	1.39	2–8			-.03	.26**	.05	.62**
	4. Machismo	120	4.28	1.71	0.8				.26**	.04	-.02
	5. Adaptationism	120	4.90	1.43	1–8					.13	.21*
	6. Ego-essentialism 1	120	2.33	0.97	0–4						.03

Table 5. Multiple linear regression of work satisfaction on poor functional stupidity modes and rationales (n=114).

Variable	B	SE B	β	p
Despair Mode	.030	.033	.082	.355
Cynicism Mode	-.064	.021	-.283	.002
Fun Rationale	.373	.056	.542	.000
Machismo Rationale	.056	.048	.098	.249
Adaptationism Rationale	.078	.058	.118	.179
Ego-essentialism Rationale 1	.003	.073	.003	.968

Model: R=.664, R²=.441, R² _adj=.409.

Paulsen, R. (2017). Slipping into functional stupidity: The bifocality of organizational compliance. Human Relations, 70(2), 185–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726716649246

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability

The dataset is available on request from the authors.