Individuals Identity at Work - Essay Example

Identity of an Individual at Work Introduction Control is assumed to be achieved through applying and designing appropriate structures, measures, procedures and targets. These systems may be resisted due to poor design or management (Alvesson and Willmott 2002). This can be rectified through restructuring, staff replacement or training. Organizational control is a significant outcome of identity work. Identity regulation is a pervasive intentional modality used for organizational control, which help to empty cynism, catalyze resistance or spark dissent (Ashlorth and Johnson 2001). If there is no counter discourses’ interpreting the regulation mechanism as intrusive, it is anticipated that there will be instrumental compliance, increased serial identification, coupled up with corporate values, which are conditional upon compatibility with other identity formation and identity affirmation sources (Gotsi et al 2010). Discourses pertaining to service management, quality management, innovation and knowledge work have in one way promoted a keen interest in soul, passion and charisma. These can be interpreted as expressions pointing to increased managerial interest in containing employees inside, that is, their feelings, self image and identifications (Ashforth, Kreiner, Clarke and Fugate 2007). The employee should be enjoined to include the discourses into self identity narratives. For instance, this may be achieved by constant employee invitations through process of training, induction and corporate education so as to be able to embrace the “we” notion in place of “the company,” “they” or “it.” The ferment in identity destabilization is viewed as something secure and given an increasing focus on the aspect of identity as a medium and target pertaining to managements’ efforts of regulation (Kenny, Whittle and Willmott 2011). With the introduction of cultural mechanism or refinement with an effort to sustain commitment of employee being involved and loyal in the wake of job security dwindling and employment durability, identity work management becomes vital to employment durability. Identity work management becomes vital to employment relationship. In the event of such organizational identification gets revealed to employee loyalty. There are struggles in the present day workplace surrounding quiet a number of identity issues, which encompasses, feminization of the managerial roles, meaning of professionalism shifting, and business activity being internationalized (Ashforth, Kreiner, Clarke and Fugate 2007). Increased occupation of managerial and professional positions by women, which were traditionally dominated by men, has ended up disrupting the earlier notion that identified managerial or management work with men and masculinity. Pressure is also there to make sense of the current relationship between managerial work and gender, which is aimed through de-masculination of management roles (Alvesson and Willmott 2002). Work that is knowledge intensive, more so, in professional service sector ends up spawning loyalties that are conflicting between organizational responsibility and professional affiliation that compounds, more or less, challenges in retaining means of control that are bureaucratic. International joint ventures and complex inter-organizational arrangements do make issues pertaining to social identity, which are closely associated with national, organizational and professional affiliations more challenging. In a more general approach, the complexities associated with modern organizations make the whole process of struggling to be able to secure a sense of self, a more problematic, and self-conscious activity (Gotsi et al 2010). Identity is more of a target and locus of organizational control, which is happening as the cultural and economic aspect of work, end up becoming differentiated. Encouragement is being given to employees to be more innovative and creative, and thus is invited to question the bureaucratic mechanism of control. Greater scope is given to employees to arrange their schedules and also working practices, with some parameter set. These changes will involve withdrawal of a number of oppressive restrictions even in the event they are followed by higher levels of stress and job insecurity (Ashforth, Kreiner, Clarke and Fugate 2007). Emancipatory practice revolving upon identity politics, that is team or work group membership, may be precarious resulting in substitutions of totalizing forms of control employing supervisory and bureaucratic methods of regulating jobs (Alvesson and Willmott 2002). Through research, it has been observed that, identity may be capable of service in suspect causes due to the fact that it is grounded in nothing other than legitimatizing of difference, opposed to institutional scripts giving legitimacy and meaning to some kinds of demeanors than others. In work organizations, self actualization and liberation may be put forward to engineer commitment and consistent to their corporate goals in a way that “feel good” participation effect and “empowerment” end up disguising their absence (Ashlorth and Johnson 2001). Human resource strategists are toying with the idea of flexible activation and de-activation of identity elements sets (Ashforth, Kreiner, Clarke and Fugate 2007). New controls forms may involve subjectivity process so as to constitute more adaptable employees and capable of maneuvering faster between activities within multi-functional and self managing work groups. Conversely, increased multi tasking and flexibility can be followed by practices and established hierarchies and can also create pressure and chance for removal of setbacks when it comes to initiative and responsibility exercise, such measurements may help to foster forms of micro-emancipation in principle, but in practice, fragmentation and fluidity of identity may end up making employees more vulnerable to the corporate identification appeal, and less motivated to participate in forms of resistance that are organized (Gotsi et al 2010). Analysis identity regulation Identity regulation encompasses intentional effects pertaining to social practices upon identity reconstruction and construction process. In addition, promotion procedures, induction and training are formulated in ways that end up shaping and directing identity (Kenny, Whittle and Willmott 2011). Analyses focusing directly on identity formation and regulation processes have been governed by central life interest, distinctiveness, coherence, self-awareness, positive value, and direction. Central life interest, points out to the questions regarding a person’s feelings and ideologies in relation to basic identity concerns and qualities. For example, questions touching on “what are we?” or “who am I” may require a response in form of some defining identity (Alvesson and Willmott 2002). In work organizations, the question may be answered in terms of occupational affiliation or professional affiliation or position in the organization. Sense of identity connects various encounters and lowers fragmentation in thinking and feeling. Distinctiveness refers to someone being viewed as different to another person. Direction describes what is desirable and of value for a given specific job. Identity Regulation as Organizational Control How discourses are used to control and regulate identity. Defining the person directly- explicit reference distinguishes a person from another (Goffman 1998). The characteristics suggest the people expectation, that is, those being defined by them. Defining a person through others- a person can be indirectly identified by referring to others characteristics. Providing specific vocabulary of motives- particular framework that is interpretive is promoted and commended by the management via which employees are encouraged to get the meaning of their work (Kenny, Whittle and Willmott 2011). Using specific vocabulary, including stories and archetypes, a reference point set regarding what is vital for one to do become established. Explicating values and morals- stories and values espoused with strong morality work to orient identity towards a given direction. This process encompasses ranking and sorting of other moralities and subsequently evaluating oneself accordingly, in a coherent way (Goffman 1998). Knowledge and skills- construction of skills and knowledge are the main sources for moderating identity as knowledge ends up defining the knower and frames, who one is. Professional affiliation and education are instrumental media of identity construction. Group affiliation and categorization- a powerful tool of moderating identity is through social categories developing which individuals are ascribed to. The social dividing into “us” and “them” ends up creating a social boundary and distinction (Gotsi et al 2010). Hierarchical location- in most business entities, social placement and the value of various groups is curved out and continually supported by repeated symbolism. Hierarchy in organizations is formally based, but the distinction in status between various communities can also be central for identities regulation. Clarifying and establishing a distinct set of rules for the game- established ideas on the ‘natural’ way of working things out in a particular context can end up having major consequences for identity construction (Goffman 1998). Defining the context- through the scene explicating and its preconditions for those acting in it, the identity of a particular actor is explicitly invoked (Sitkin et al 2010). “Dirty Work” Dirty work refers to tasks that are socially, physically or morally tainted. Society on most occasions equates cleanliness with goodness and conversely, dirtiness with badness, in that dirt has been stigmatized as dangerous. Individuals performing dirty work are seen as “dirty workers.” According to the public, they are what they do. Dirty work creates a dilemma for the people practicing it (Gotsi et al 2010). Research indicates that, the sense of one’s self is greatly dependent on one’s salient roles and the one working looks to others for appraisal of the sense of self and the inherent value. Given the dirty works taint, validation is in most cases withheld. Research proves that the dirty workers are conscious of the taint associated with their work. They are in most cases likely to be frustrated if they look for affirmation elsewhere and if they do not look for affirmation; their sense of self may always remain down (Kenny, Whittle and Willmott 2011). If the job related stigma is not dealt with, it may result in lower job output and commitment and subsequently higher turnover. The ability of an individual to successfully negotiate the taint is essential to improving individual and organizational outputs. Normalization Normalization helps in understanding how managers of dirty workers negotiate occupational taint. It can be said to be the process by which the extraordinary is perceived as ordinary. Dirty work can be classified into morally tainting occupations, that is, exotic dancers and psychic (Sitkin et al 2010). Those employing deceptive methods like bouncers and collection agents and those perceived to be multi-dimensionally tainted like prostitutes and pawnbrokers. Dirty work managers usually face challenges from two sources. Those that are typically associated the manager’s role, that is, training, performance, and evaluation and those associated with the stigmatized profession. The dirty work taint, combined with traditional management demands adds complexity to the work. In addition to regular duties, individuals have to handle arising issues from the taint (Kenny, Whittle and Willmott 2011). Additional skills are often required to surpass the interpersonal obstacles. The managers are in most occasions expected to psych themselves up then psych the workers up each and every time. Several managers also attest that, one of the key challenges of the job has to do with handling the stake holders each of the groups having different perceptions towards their occupation, for example, from clients, activists and regulators. Managers do have status shield of being the heads and may sometimes be psychologically and physically withdrawn from the work itself (Sitkin et al 2010). Managers rarely distance themselves from their subordinates or worse still blame them for the taint. Managers do not use stigma to shield themselves from their jobs because they are responsible for them. Additionally, they do not use stigma because they remain publicly identified in relation to their occupation and their subordinates. Managerial Tactics for Normalizing Dirty Work Occupational ideologies – strong occupational stigma does encourage members to cultivate ideologies conferring salutary meaning on their job in either of the ways; recalibrating, reframing and refocusing. Social buffering – research on workplace identity may indicate that, via social interaction and internalization of the collective standards and values, individuals are able to view themselves at least better off through the eyes of their valued colleagues (Sitkin et al 2010). Confronting clients and the public – managers do sometime take a proactive stance, in the attempt to change the perception of others towards their work. Defensive tactics – confronting the public and clients may represent a proactive approach. There are a variety of reactive defensive tactics in which emphasis is minute on changing the status quo. Avoiding – avoiding is a behavioral change or tactic enabling dirt worker not to confront either others’ assertion of dirt or elements of the dirty job. Gallows humor – dirty workers may try to use humor to confront the stereotypes held by the public in a nonthreatening way. Accepting – accepting is resigning to the fact that some things cannot be changed. Social comparison – some individuals may end up responding to threats on identity by doing a comparison between themselves and other individuals perceived to be worse off in certain areas. Condemning condemners – conceptualization of the social weight may include condemning condemners. This is criticizing those who try to criticize so that their views may be dismissed off (Sitkin et al 2010). Conclusion Although society does unfairly brand certain occupations to be physically, socially or morally tainted, such occupations managers do articulate impressive array techniques used for normalizing the taint. Bibliography: Alvesson, M and Willmott, H., 2002. Identity regulation as organizational control: producing the appropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 619-644. Ashforth, B., Kreiner, G., Clarke, M and Fugate, M., 2007. Normalizing dirty work: managerial tactics for countering occupational taint. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 149-174. Ashlorth, B. E. and Johnson, S. A. 2001. Which Hat to Wear? The Relative Salience of Multiple Identities in Organisational Context. Philadelphia: Psychology press. Gotsi et al., 2010. Creative workers: managing tensions of multiple identities. Human Relations, 63, 781-805. Goffman, E. 1998. The Presentation of Self in Every Day Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Kenny, K., Whittle, A and Willmott, H., 2011. Understanding identity and organizations. London: Sage Publications. Sitkin, S., et al., 2010. Organizational control. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Read More