Personal and Social Identity in the Workplace - Assignment Example

Question From a managerial perspective, examine the relationships that exist between self-concept/personal identity and social identity in the workplace and the issues raised. Analyse using theory and evidence. Concept of Self and Personal Identity in Organisations Changing environment directly impact organisations in that they change structures, logic and employment practices. Most mode of employment today has undergone major changes from permanent to freelance, outsourcing, flexi time and telecommuting. As a result of changing contemporary work environment individuals have become adaptive to their environment more than ever. This is because earning, communicating, perceiving, motivating, and personality development makes up a large part of how individuals understand, live and work within the community. In society, people are identified by how they perceive and project themselves to others. In this context the personality traits play a great role in modifying or resisting the environment. According to Huczynski and Buchanan (2006, p.167) "personality refers to the psychological qualities that influence an individuals characteristic behaviour patterns in a broadly distinctive and consistent manner, across different situations and through time." This means that individuals are greatly influenced by everyday interactions within their environment whether at work or play. Hence, an introvert employee who is used to bureaucratic type of compartmentalisation will find it daunting to work in an office environment which is open to all levels of management. From the work perspective individuals through their learned experience and craft develop certain personalities which make them distinctive of their trade as well as the way they cope with work pressure. An engineer or a doctor will often have measured and calculative traits ingrained through years of practice and study. In the managerial context, therefore one needs to understand that employees have distinctive behaviours and may have distinctive personalities. To train a group of assembly line labours would be different as compared to motivating executive staffs. Yet at the same time, managers also need to keep in mind that personalities can be measured and influenced through corporate processes and structures. How to influence the individuals requires an understanding of personality traits. Some psychologists argue that personality traits are idiographic - meaning individuals have unique personality structures and some of their cardinal traits differentiate them from others. For example eccentric people have different habits and ways of thinking as compared to others. On the other hand, other experts are of the view that individual personality are made up of traits which are consistent across people, only some have more (or less) of these traits. (Huczynski and Buchanan 2006, p.168). For example individuals have to have motivation to be able to work effectively. The apparent argument is that personalities may be affected by external factors while others believe it does not. This researcher believes that if one takes both idiographic and nomothetic personality traits into account, it could be safely assumed that individuals may have a set of traits consistent across people but some traits are more influenced by external factors and some may not. Storey et al (1033) have noted that with the new form of corporate culturalism, autonomy, self-responsibility and democracy as means of power control to individual identities have become dominant among workers. With power in their hands, employees are difficult to influence because the demarcation between executives and employees has become obscure. Seannett (1998, p.9) explains that todays flexible capitalism system have eroded rigid bureaucracy of yesteryears. Workers have to become highly flexible to adapt to change at short notices and are encouraged to take risks as routine formal procedures. Information and technology is the fundamental factor which has directly impacted employees. Over a period of time, employees’ tendency to learn and reciprocate leaders fast has become part of their personalities and influences the characters of workers. For this reason it is not uncommon to find an engineer or a doctor with a business degree to enhance their marketability in the job market or to find culturally tolerant individuals as compared to predecessors. Seannett writes, "Character particularly focusses upon the long-term aspect of our emotional experience. Character is expressed by loyalty and mutual commitment, or through the pursuit of long-term goals, or by the practice of delayed gratification for the sake of a future end." (p.9). This has been especially true in the bureaucratic type of organisations which dominated industries before the advent of information technology. The emergence of information technology has evolved work design and organisational structures so that workers are forced to adapt to the work personality, and inevitably alter their own personal traits to appeal to employers and peers. Before female workers have been considered to be too fragile to do outdoor work or work involving physical strength but today that is not the case. There are more female pilots in fleets today as well as more female soldiers who bear both physical and emotional challenge at par with male counterparts. Since socialisation is a key part of personality, self-identity is forced to go through transformation as well. Socialisation Identity and Learning Learning, according to Huczynski and Buchanan (2006, p.137), refers to "the process of acquiring knowledge through experience which leads to a change in behaviour." Since learning is part of the individual personality, by this definition, one can assume that learning is socialisation which leads to change in behaviours, and if practiced for long periods of time will alter character traits as well. This is a natural process because human beings are inclined towards adaptation to the environment since age-old. When faced with change of scenario, individuals will learn adapt to it and respond according to experience, social norms or expectations. In terms of contemporary organisations, this refers the adaptive behaviours of employees due to organisational change to global structures with diverse cultures and diverse range of skill pool. As more and more organisations emphasize on cultural diversity and specialists, more informed employees are churned out who are culturally diverse as well as able to work in highly challenged foreign environments. An Adidas manager in America will have to learn to work with suppliers in Pakistan and Vietnam without any language or culture problems. Individuals are forced to secure their position by establishing their identity within the new socialisation platform. Underlying this behaviour is the psychological contract which Ng and Feldman (2009, p.1053) believes to be critical in understanding how individuals experience their employment relationships. Psychological contract refers to "employees expectations about what they owe their employers and about what their employers owe them in return" (p.1053). In the context of contemporary organisations there are two aspects which needs to be analysed - the employers perspective and the employees. Due to severe competition, changing work environment and the drive to establish ones persona in the community, workers are fast in learning how to adapt to the demands of the new work environment. Especially young workers at food chains such as McDonald’s would find it easier to learn from peers and employers due to less or no experience, and exposure to different cultures within the same organisation. But it is difficult for older workers in organisations such as specialists in laboratories to adapt to the new environment because of learned trade craft and previous experience although it is not impossible to influence their behaviour and ways of thinking. Relationship between Personal Identity and Social Identity Having established that employees adapt and learn to adjust to their contemporary work environment it is imperative now to understand that as employers, managers too have the responsibility of reciprocating the psychological contract. Technological development has been a major force in todays organisational change by altering organisational networks, structures and work design. It has majorly aid in the communication flow, which is imperative for its efficient and smooth operations (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2006, p.201). Managers, as Zagenczyk et al (2009, p.237) identifies, are obligated to employees to facilitate socialisation behaviours and supportive work environments. They are responsible for establishing trust, loyalty and job security for workers to progress and develop to become valuable resources. However, when employers breach psychological contracts through severance, downsizing, outsourcing and rapid change mandates, employees become defunct like in the case of HP and Compaq or Marks and Spencer’s change of organisational structures. They find it difficult to learn, adapt or even socialise which inevitably affect their behaviours, personality and work identity. They distrust their employers which is when it becomes difficult for employers to influence their behaviours. References Huczynski and Buchanan (2006). Organizational Behaviour. Chapter 6 ‘Personality’. Ng, T. and Feldman, D. (2009). Age, work experience and the psychological contract. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 30, 1053-1075. Sennett, R. (1998). The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism, New York, W. W. Norton & Company, chapter 1. Storey, J., G. Salaman and K. Platman (2005). Living With Enterprise in an Enterprise Economy: Freelance and Contract Workers in the Media. Human Relations. 58(8): 1033-1054. Zagenczyk, T. et al. (2009). Mentors, supervisors and role models: do they reduce the effects of psychological contract breach? Human Resource Management Journal, 19(3), 237-259. Question 2 Explain the challenges facing managers in the contemporary organization with respect to organizational design and work design. Analyse using theory and evidence. Organisation and Environment Organisational dynamics are often altered following environmental changes. Since organisations are resource dependent, their functions and internal structures are also directly impacted by external volatility. Thus, a fast food chain depends on the availability of high low-paying labour resource while an apparel manufacturer may be dependent on availability of fabrics and skilled labour. Survival, for organisations, is a constant struggle and never autonomous from external constraints. As a result, organisations need to adapt to their environment through possible strategies by altering external constraints; interdependency through mergers, diversifications or growth; negotiate with the environment or change its legality or legitimacy. Although the most common strategy companies tend to adopt is negotiation through trade agreements, control over supplies, joint ventures and staying up-to-date with the technologies, the most effective one is to adjust through levels of differentiation and integration (Huczynski and Buchanan 2006, p.510). Organisations and Downsizing Lawrence and Lorsch (in Huczynski and Buchanan, 2006, p.453) through their organisation and environment approach discovered that organisations and people are interlinked. The key elements that make organisations are people with purposes; people choosing to interact and coordinate activities in organisations; and transactions carried out within the environment (in Huczynski and Buchanan, 2006, p.453). This concept leads to the understanding that people and in turn organisational constituents must keep up with the external environment and can be gauged for effectiveness on the same basis. Contemporary managers are constantly faced with such challenges as technological development, organisational structural changes, altering work load and most of all constantly changing external constraints like customers, suppliers, partners and competitors. Challenges of such natures are not new. In fact organisations have evolved dramatically since yester years from bureaucratic structures to becoming business processing units or mega organisations with operations spread across the globe in the form of multinationals. It is the high expectations from within organisations from peers and leaders to keep up with external environment that have motivated managers and workers to cope with them (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2006, p.506). One of the major challenges that managers of today face is coping with the consequences of downsizing. Downsizing according to Sahdev (2004, p.165) refers to "reduction in size" with the aim to lower overheads and emphasise on core products or services such as the case of General Electric which has cut down thousands of jobs. The process involves analysing organisational competitiveness, technological integration and how the organisation is adaptive towards the new customer-driven market as in the case of Thomas Cook and Germany’s Volkswagen. Managerial Enactment When an organisation goes through downsizing, managers are faced with the challenges of not only organisational redesign but with how to allocate people resources. On the one hand they are responsible for the people made redundant due to job redesign and on the other those left behind to carry on the jobs of the "new" organisation. The challenge is to balance both at the organisational level as well as socialisation level. Critical at this stage is the managers perception of the whole process. This perception is known as managerial enactment. Karl Weich argues (in Huczynski and Buchanan, 2006, p.254) that managers do not react to their organisations environment but create it perceptually. Moreover they understand that organisation and environment are interlinked through problems whether entrepreneurial, engineering (operations) or administrative. Managers need to align to the environment by constantly resolving these problems. How an organisation and its people solve these problems depends on the approach they take. Organisational Design When faced with the challenge of resolving entrepreneurial, engineering or administrative problems, managers have the option to adopt the defenders, prospectors, analysers and reactors according to Miles and Snow (in Huczynski and Buchanan 2006, p.500). Among these the prospectors approach is normally adopted to find and exploit new opportunities. This involves "doing things right" by maintaining reputation for innovation, keeping up-to-date with current research and approaches for development, aligning to spurts of opportunities for growth and taking risks. Most multinationals and organisations which rely on change such as advertising organisations adopt prospectors approach to find business. In downsizing managers are tasked with realigning the purpose of their organisation by creating inter-organisational relationships and altering structures and hierarchies to suit overall organisational objectives. Changes of this nature often result in redundant human resources and accumulation of highly skilled labour, and jobs redesigned to suit the corporate strategy (Miles and Snow in Huczynski and Buchanan 2006, p.500). For example more and more organisations are adopting the horizontal matrix structures to maximize skilled resources. Organisational Fit According to Richard Whittington (in Huczynski and Buchanan 2006, p. 500) managers try to find the new organisational fit in order to evolve successfully. Organisational fit basically implies innovations adopted by the organisation in redesigning work structures, processes and people resources according to new systems. It is imperative that systems of work are established within organisational hierarchies in order to avoid random behaviours and irrational decisions (Huczynski and Buchanan 2006, 489). The Challenge of Downsizing for Managers Finally, when downsizing is made the organisation is ready for the resolution of problems of operations and administration. Contemporary organisations tend towards two main approaches to resolve the problem of resource reallocation - by engaging in outplacement support programs and becoming vigilant to the survivor syndrome. Outplacement support according to Westaby (2004, p.19) has its advantages and disadvantages depending on the level of support the organisation is willing to invest in its ex-employees. Outplacement firms provide displaced employees with job search, counselling, career assessments and networking lists and training for self-marketing. Outplacement is part of downsizing and redesigning of organisational structure in order to reduce resources, unemployment insurance costs and improving the companys standing within the environment in which it operates. It is also meant for boosting morale of employees who have been made redundant by improving reemployment opportunities, salaries and better job options. This is in large part a prospectors approach in resolving the problem of downsizing. The challenge of downsizing does not end there though. According to Sahdev (2004, p.166), managers forget that when downsizing happens, those who remain with organisations bear the brunt of the work burden; they require more efforts in support than those who have moved on. Sahdev terms their experience as the "survivor syndrome”. Survivor syndrome is characterised by low morale due to loss of co-workers, insecurity, overburdened with workloads, lack of attention and recognition from management, and individual perception of unfairness and inequality in the layoff process. What the management needs to do is adopt fair restructuring plans in which open communication and support to the layoff survivors are induced from beginning to end. It is also critical to note positive managerial enactment helps this transformation process perceived as constraints to solutions. Thus, efficacy of both the outplacement and survivor syndrome largely depend on the restructuring plans and how managers redefine workloads and streamline processes. References Huczynski and Buchanan (2006). Organizational Behaviour. Chapter 15 ‘Elements of Structure’ and chapter 16 ‘Early Organization Design’. Sahdev, K. (2004). Revisiting the survivor syndrome: the role of leadership in implementing downsizing. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 13(2), 165-196. Westaby, J. (2004). The impact of outplacement programs on reemployment criteria: a longitudinal study of displaced managers and executives. Journal of Employment Counselling, 41, 19-28. Question 3 A recent newspaper columnist writing about organizational culture and high performing workplaces cited new empirical findings illustrating that: ‘[the one style that doesn’t work is the “control” culture’ (Gittins 2011, p. 17), suggesting that firms in this organizational “control” culture category need to change it in order to achieve higher levels of performance. Analyse this statement in view of what you know about organizational culture and organizational change, using theory and evidence. Organisational Structures and Cultures Organisations can be defined as entity, set of processes, structure of work designs, and as groups of people gathered together. These are governed by formalisation (and non-formal) of processes, grouping based on specialisation, functions and departments, and span of control. Previously, the majority of organisations are defined by line and staff management in which management is administered through specialised and supportive activities while the line command is clearly inherited by supervisors and channelled to the staffs. Efficiency of such organisations has been assumed by specialisation of staffs and the span of control established by the line authority to the staffs (Buchanan and Huczynski 2006). The culture of such organisations is distinguished by upper management who has pervasive control over the staffs and lower management. The echelons are considered to have the ultimate power over formalisation, processes, communication and even group dynamics and definition of corporate culture. For example the CIA and other government organisations whose corporate cultures are defined by internal structures and span of control. However, this form of organisations have slowly been faded and given way to more dynamic institutions which have hybrid type of structures and even more diverse type of work environment where authority is mix and culture even more variable. For example multinationals such as Hong Kong Shanghai Bank Corp which boasts of multicultural diversity within its structures. In this type of organisations it is difficult to see control as a formal policy or procedure implemented as in bureaucratic organisations. Groups and Group Dynamics To understand control culture one needs to understand how people behave in groups and in turn how they are controlled. According to Homans (in Buchanan and Huczynski 2006) organisations are social structures defined by individual behaviours, stimuli, rewards and punishments. Given these conditions, group are formed based on activity, interaction, sentiment, norms and feedback. Groups are also formed because members can fulfil their roles in the group in exchange for individual needs such as the desire to empathize with others, seek social approval, attractiveness of the group and the need to impress others through individual speciality. Individuals in organisations gather together with specific roles, work in designed structures and are distinguished by their corporate cultures. Thus, the BBC organisations can be distinguished by its British style conservative culture which is unique to its people. Power within groups exists and remains with the ones who assume leadership of the groups. Efficiency of a group depends on the type of leadership style adopted. Previously, it has been assumed that autocratic leadership is the best style but as the above statement indicates it is not the case. Take for instant the case of Enron (Sims and Brinkmann 2003, p. 243), an organisation which has attracted many people because of its ethical conduct and community support. Leaders at Enron have developed a control culture in order to push employees to achieve extraordinary performance including crossing the boundary lines of ethics. Through their behaviours Enron executives and leaders have pushed those working under them to breach the psychological contract by controlling them through autocratic leadership establishing formal acceptance of corrupt behaviours. But as soon as employees meet the criteria set by upper management, they are forced to meet new benchmarks and not rewarded for their performance. This breach of psychological contract demotivates employees and hinders them from working efficiently. Leadership and Organisational Culture Enron’s case could have been managed better through organisational culture and design. Organisational culture can be defined as the way the organisation does its work and manage its people. There are three levels of culture according to Schein (2006): - Artefacts of the organisation refer to the surface aspects which are hard to define and understand such as the dress code of the organisation; - Espoused values are the conscious values, goals and philosophies that are established by the organisation as acceptable such as organisational vision and mission; and - Basic Assumptions and Values are the core culture which is represented by the people at the conscious and unconscious level – for example culture of flexible work-life balance at Google. Depending on the group culture and the levels adopted in the organisation, leadership can influence their behaviour in part. Leaders are also able to influence individuals through shared beliefs, perceptions, thoughts and feelings through overt behaviours. Berston et al (2008) in their study indicates that CEO values and organisational characteristics greatly influence organisational members as these attract potential employees as well as partners, suppliers and competitors. Jack Welch of General Electric and on the other hand Martha Stewarts are two examples of contra leaders who have greatly influenced their organisations’ culture positive and negatively (respectively). There is an intrinsic link between leader and organisation characteristics which is why contemporary organisations emphasize on personal characteristics of leaders to harbour organisational culture and espouse values to influence individuals and their performance. A leader who possess ethics similar to those of employees will be able to communicate with them at their level and also be able to exert control when he/she knows it is feasible and on which type of personality. With organisational culture, managers can exert control without being autocratic about it. Control culture in organisations is thus no longer effective because todays employees require more enduring beliefs, need secure psychological contracts from employers and desire credible leadership before they are willing to commit and perform effectively and efficiently in their organisations. References Berson, Y. et al. (2008). CEO values, organizational culture and firm outcomes. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 29, 615-633. Huczynski and Buchanan (2006). Organizational Behaviour. Chapter 10 ‘Group Formation’, chapter 11 ‘Group Structure’ and chapter 12 ‘Individuals in Groups’. Sims, R. R. and J. Brinkmann (2003). Enron Ethics (Or: Culture Matters More than Codes). Journal of Business Ethics. 45(3): 243-256. Read More