The Personalistic View Of Responsibility: Case Study

• Authors: Vilma Šliužaitė , Laimutė Anužienė , Aivaras Anužis
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The importance of responsibility in one‘s personal and professional life is undeniable. Employers expect their employees to have a responsible attitude towards their work. „Being responsible“ is seen as one of the necessary characteristics of a professional specialist. But what does „being responsible“ actually mean? What behaviour is expected from a responsible employee? The term responsibility has many different meanings, which may cause problems in communication between employers and their employees setting clear expectations about the results that must be carried out at work. Responding to this problem, the authors of this article have set the goal of presenting the personalistic view of responsibility. Based on the theoretical part, the awareness and attitude of the employees of KMVTC towards the value of responsibility is explored. Research question: what dimensions of the personalistic conception of responsibility show up in KMVTC employees’ attitudes towards responsibility? The survey was conducted by presenting an open-ended questionnaire, designed using the unfinished sentences method. During August, 2014 the questionnaires were distributed among 180 employees. The filled-in questionnaires were returned by 101 employees. The qualitative data analysis applied the qualitative content analysis method. The survey results have shown that the respondents’ statements on their attitude towards responsibility are only partially in line with the dimensions of the personalistic conception of responsibility. While a fair number of respondents identify responsibility with one’s commitment to oneself or others, a number of the survey participants tend to have a legalistic view of responsibility, reducing it to the observance of certain decrees and regulations, making no direct link with the responsibility for another human being or oneself. The survey results indicate that KMVTC employees have quite different interpretations of the value of responsibility, tending to narrow its meaning. This proves the need to foster a deeper understanding of responsibility among employees.

Keywords

EN

Responsibility for oneself; Responsibility for others; Limitless responsibility

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Vocational Training: Research And Realities
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 26
• Issue: 1

Dates

published

2015-11-01

online

2015-12-10

Contributors

author

Vilma Šliužaitė

• St. Ignatius Loyola College, Kaunas, Lithuania

author

Laimutė Anužienė

• St. Ignatius Loyola College, Kaunas, Lithuania

author

Aivaras Anužis

• St. Ignatius Loyola College, Kaunas, Lithuania

References

• Bacevičiūtė, D. (2013). Etika ir ontologija: Hanso Jonaso atsakomybės imperatyvo paieška technikos amžiuje. Religija ir Kultūra, 12, 21-34.
• Banon, D. (2006). Brolybė ir substitucija. Juozapas ir jo broliai, Logos, 46, 86 - 95.
• Bitinas, B., Rupšienė, L., Žydžiūnaitė, V. (2008). Kokybinių tyrimų metodologija. Klaipėda: S. Jokužio leidykla-spaustuvė.
• Dostoyevsky, F. (1999). The Brothers Karamazov. New York: A Signet Classic.
• European Commission. (2008). Learning Opportunities and Qualifications in Europe. Descriptors defining levels in the European Qualifications Framework (EQF), 2008 04 23. Available at (Retrieved on 17/082015).
• Jonas, H. (1985). The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Fromm, E. (2004). Meilės menas. Kaunas: Verba vera.
• Levinas, E. (1994). Etika ir begalybė. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.
• Levinas, E. (1991). Otherwise Than Being or Beyond Essence. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas. (2013). Nutarimas „Dėl Valstybinės Švietimo 2013–2022 metų strategijos patvirtinimo“, 2013 12 23, no. XII-745. Available at (Retrieved on 17/08/2015).
• Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas. (2012). Lietuvos pažangos strategija „Lietuva 2030“, 2012 05 15, no. XI-2015. Available at (Retrieved on 21/08/2015).
• Maceina, A. (1985). Dievas ir laisvė. Oak Lawn: Ateitis.
• Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum:Qualitative Social Research, 1 (2). Available at (Retrieved on 15/09/2015).
• Merton, T. (1983). No Man is an Island. Boston: Shambhala Publications, Inc.
• Nedzinskas, E., Bankauskienė, N. (2009). Sąvokų atsakingumas ir atsakomybė semantiniai ryšiai su etikos kategorijomis. Jaunųjų mokslininkų darbai, 1 (22), 136 – 144.
• Robbins, J. (2001). Is It Righteous to Be? Interviews with Emmanuel Levinas. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Šliogeris, A. (2011). Transcendencijos tyla. Vilnius: Margi raštai.
• Tangyin, K. (2008). Reading Levinas on Ethical Responsibility. In T. Kwan (Ed.), Responsibility and Commitment: Eitghteen Essays in Honor of Gerhold K. Becker (pp. 155-172). Berlin-Marienfelde: Edition Gorz.
• The Federalist 63. (1788). Madison J. The Senate Continued. March 1, 1788. Available at (Retrieved on 19/8/2015).
• Turoldo, F. (2010). Ethics of Responsibility in a multicultural context. A perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 53 (2), 174–185.
• Wojtyla, K. / John Paul II. (1979). The Acting Person. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/vtrr-2015-0003