Identity types
4
rather than a profit orientation, enshrined in its code of ethics.” (Starr, 1982, p. 15). Some
scholars of the professions have asserted that the extensive medical training and socialization
process physicians undergo act to create a strong sense of connection and identification with the
medical profession (Freidson, 1970; Hall, 1968). While there are various accounts that explain
how the medical profession operates in society, certainly the most influential to date is
Freidson’s professional dominance view.
Freidson (1970) described the medical profession as an autonomous and dominant
profession that exercised control over the content and conditions of medicine. Starr (1982)
labeled medicine a “sovereign” profession in describing the degree of control it developed over
its own work. Freidson’s (1970) professional dominance paradigm maintains that physicians as
a group have gained control of their work conditions and content through political and legal
authority. One of the distinctive characteristics of the professional dominance perspective
(Freidson, 1970) is the emphasis on the degree of autonomy physicians have in their work.
Studies and essays from this perspective share a single view: they assume that all physicians can
be treated as a group and that when it comes to the issue of autonomy, all physicians have similar
beliefs and feelings.
An alternative perspective from Hoff (2001a) contends that physicians should be viewed as
“workers” instead of professionals inevitably in conflict with organizations. Doing so would
allow organizational researchers to get at personal and workplace variables that can reveal key
differences between physicians working in different contexts. If we think of physicians in light
of organizational research rather than professional studies, we can examine the influence of the
organizational environment on physician attitude and behavior. For example, Frankford, Melina,
Patterson, & Konrad (2000) note how organizational values and culture can positively influence