The Responsibility of the Individual in Everyday Work

The structuration of work at the FAO places an emphasis on individualism.

Caseworkers do not work in teams; instead, they perceive themselves as “lone fight-ers” (Veronika).¹ This is also expressed in the lack of a common goal, as discussed above. Officials are individually responsible for each “case” and for the decision they make regarding an asylum claim. “You have your file and for that, you’re responsi-ble” (Veronika). This fact can be expressed in a “possessive” manner, as illustrated in one of the asylum interviews analyzed above in which the caseworker refers to the claimant as “my Tunisian” (o.i. 3). Sabine mentions that “a Chechen of [my col-league] Roland stabbed my Afghan to death.” The identification with a processed asylum claim also implies that annulments of decisions through the second instance can have a personal dimension. Referring to the annulment of a decision she had made, Veronika complains, “They [the judges] annulled me.” In addition, the impor-tance of caseworkers’ individual attitudes, approaches and strategies was highlighted above. These observations emphasize the ambiguity of the process of individualiza-tion and decollectivizaindividualiza-tion as a characteristic of the modern organizaindividualiza-tion of work (Castel 2003). In the German immigration offices, Eule (2014) also found that case-workers are largely left on their own in managing difficult tasks due to a lack of structural responses; officials compensate this deficit through mutual exchange.

Time and productivity pressures as well as other challenges of everyday work, such as psychological challenges due to the difficult topic and tasks, could theoreti-cally be ameliorated by teamwork. “Team spirit is important in order to be able to cope with the difficult task fields. Even if caseworkers make decisions on their own, the cooperation of staff is at the center” (Pretterebner 2009, own translation).

Although the preceding is a description of work at the FAO in the magazine of the Interior Ministry, in fact, teamwork does not take place in officials’ everyday work.

“I’m a team player … and here [at the FAO], you’re a lone fighter; you’re not a team,” Veronika notes. The only teamwork she can imagine is between her and her assistant; but she eventually concludes that that relationship is not a team because she is a superior as opposed to a team where “all [members] are equal.” At the FAO,

1 Since team leaders were introduced with the organizational reform in 2014, after this study was conducted, it would be interesting to explore how practices have changed since then.

8 Responsibility vs. Dissociation

167

the idea of teamwork fails already at the very beginning, namely, in the definition of a common goal among officials. “A common goal,” Gabi says, “I couldn’t imagine anything really; now, what that could be” other than “settl[ing] the files quickly?”

Veronika asks a counter question, “What did you think of as a common goal?” The fact that neither teamwork nor a common goal is a reality at the FAO is also high-lighted by Sabine, “Well, common goal, I mean we do have the instructions from the headquarters.” As Downs (1967) noted in his seminal work on bureaucracy, indi-viduals in large organizations build coalitions instead of teams since members do not have identical goals. Nevertheless, they have certain goals in common that lead to “biased behavior” (Downs 1967:76), such as how certain asylum “cases” will be decided.

While most interviewed caseworkers seem to perceive themselves as “lone fight-ers” (Veronika), there is still exchange and support among colleagues. “One talks with colleagues about cases … who has decided how; but it’s not team work because one doesn’t work on a case together … For different topics … one asks different persons,” Thomas explains. Colleagues are consulted for their opinions, especially in the context of decision making, but beyond that, the possibility to discuss prob-lems of everyday work among colleagues seems to be crucial since there is no insti-tutionalized form of support in this regard, such as supervision. Instead, “we’re all the psychiatrist of the other,” Gabi notes. Sabine, who explains that before she started working here there was supervision or something similar that no longer exists, thinks that supervision provided by the organization “surely wouldn’t be bad.” In an observed interview with an asylum claimant, she explicitly mentions the psychological burden to which she finds herself exposed. “We who are not on the spot also have to cope with this psychologically. We don’t have psychological care;

we have to pay the psychologist ourselves,” she says to the asylum claimant in a confrontation (o.i. 6). She says very clearly that everyday work is also accompanied by challenges for which she is not necessarily prepared. Veronika also senses a cer-tain danger in her job. “I’m one who racks her brain about many more things … because I just don’t want to lose sight of the human aspect … and I don’t want to become someone who says, ‘Damn asylum seekers;’ I just don’t want to.” The offi-cial’s deliberations on the dangers of stopping to see the human in an asylum claim-ant illustrate that the job does confront the caseworkers with psychological challenges. Stephan is not certain but believes that nothing similar to supervision exists and feels that he does not need it. The caseworker mentions that there was a plan to introduce a burnout commissary from within the ranks of the FAO. While the plan was not realized, he finds that if this were to be realized, “we’d need a [pro-fessional] psychologist.” As the official notes, this would have meant an additional burden for the person concerned: “To bear the psycho terror of the others in addition to one’s own – no.” However, his statement about the “psycho terror” one must bear as an official makes it clear that there would be a potential need for competent and professional support. Since there is a lack of institutional offers, officials are largely on their own when coping with problems of everyday work. Although there is a general unit for psychological support at the Interior Ministry, specialized support opportunities for decision-making officials in the asylum procedure could allow them to be better prepared to deal with delicate situations in everyday work.

8.1 The Responsibility of the Individual in Everyday Work

168

Caseworkers are not only responsible for processing an application from an administrative perspective; with their decision, they also influence the future life of the person concerned. Aware of her position, Veronika finds that her responsibility as decision maker is “enormous.” “I, by myself, decide now whether he receives asylum or not; that’s actually madness, right? So, I don’t decide if he has to pay 300€ or 130€ because he jumped a red light, but I decide upon his future life.”

Veronika, who says that she would not be able to do her work if it were not for the appellate Asylum Court, is overwhelmed by the weightiness of her decisions con-cerning the future lives of others. This example illustrates the difficulty of dealing with the responsibility of decision making in morally and ethically complex situations.

In addition to the administrative task of processing asylum claims and the even-tual decision, another aspect relevant to the responsibilities of caseworkers’ every-day work is the way asylum claimants are treated through the procedure and especially in the bureaucratic encounter. According to Tyler (2003), procedural jus-tice, that is, fair and respectful treatment following the rules, plays a greater role for individuals than obtaining outcomes that can be regarded as fair or favorable to themselves. Therefore, for a legal procedure to be perceived as fair, the quality of treatment in face-to-face encounters is at least as important as the actual outcome.

“Above and beyond the quality of the procedures used in the resolution of their problem, people value being treated with dignity and having their rights acknowl-edged” (Tyler 2003:299). Meeting asylum claimants with respect and recognition, particularly in the interview, can thus contribute to procedural justice in the asylum procedure. The way in which claimants are treated and whether they feel that their concerns are taken seriously can be relevant to their experienced fairness. Hence, these questions also concern officials’ responsibility and room for maneuver and the use they make of that leeway.

As we have seen, the way in which a caseworker meets the claimant – whether she attaches importance to the interview atmosphere and to the creation of a certain degree trust – depends on the specific caseworker. “A human addition” (Thomas) to the bureaucratic encounter can be understood as a voluntary additional effort. In this bureaucratic logic, “dry,” run-of-the-mill interviews are perceived to be more con-ducive to the organization’s output orientation. An official mentions a colleague who “is luckily gone” because he “used to scream; he thought he had to play Rambo in here” (o. 0428). Attempts at intimidation such as the reported one – and its con-demnation – illustrate that officials pursue different practices in everyday work. As a tool for demonstrating superiority, intimidation is fatal to interactions in the bureaucratic encounter, where the power relation is already inherently asymmetric, since it destroys any basis for sensible conversation. Although it is questionable whether an interaction “from human to human” is possible, recognizing and respect-ing “the other” is a fundamental basis not only for interaction but also for procedural justice. Respectful treatment is also related to creating an acceptable atmosphere in the asylum interview.

8 Responsibility vs. Dissociation

169