The genesis of “personal responsibility” in modern management concepts
In his detailed examination of different philosophical approaches to the principle of “responsibility”, Ludger Heidbrink (2003) explains that the standard theory of “responsibility” is based on three pillars, “the subject of responsibility, the object of responsibility and the instance of responsibility” (ibid.: p. 21 f.; emphasis added by B. H.). In doing so, he refers to some philosophical approaches that understand responsibility in a multi-digit relation: A person has (1) responsibility for something (2) before and towards someone (3) and is judged according to certain criteria (4) (e.g. Lenk/Maring 1993; Höffe 1993). This definition makes it clear that “responsibility” is a profoundly social principle of action, because a person who acts responsibly always interacts in some way with their social environment. For example, parents look after their children; employees manufacture a product or provide a service for a customer as part of a collegial division of labor. Even those who behave responsibly towards an animal or nature fulfill a moral norm that society expects them to comply with. This makes it clear that a person, even if they do not directly relate to other people in their actions, must be accountable to people or authorities for the consequences of their behavior, which means that they ultimately also interact with other people in the context of accountability. Only responsible people can be expected to take responsibility for their actions. The intersubjective nature of the postulate of responsibility normally also allows the persons involved to agree on the conditions under which the required action is or was possible. In most cases, a person’s will alone is not sufficient to assume responsibility