The organization and identity

If you worked for Apple would you be proud of it? If you worked for the prison service would you be less proud? To what extent do employees identify with the organization they work for? To what extent are organizations a source of identification, a shaper of self-identity and of collective identities? These are some of the questions I want to grapple with in this chapter. When we enter an organization as an employee we are usually recruited to a parti-

cular job, but we enter an organization which might be seen as involving a ‘patterning of relationships which is less taken-for-granted by the participants who seek to co-ordinate and control’ (Silverman 1970: 14). Silverman does not specify who might take the patterning for granted, but I imagine he might have in mind people like the new employee for whom the organization just ‘is’ – it has a structure and a solidity, while those who have to manage it may be more likely to see this as contingent and even problematic. This organization may be said to make certain demands on us as an organization,

even though we know ‘the organization’ cannot speak; instead it is usually managers or HR staff who speak for ‘it’ (see again, Silverman 1970: 9 on the ‘reification’ of the organization – that is with ‘the attribution of concrete reality, particularly the power of thought and action, to social constructs’). At the very least we have to interact with a number of others – others in job roles like our own or unlike our own. We are likely to have a boss and to be aware of a hierarchy, we encounter certain rules, certain ways of behaving. Organizations can be seen as needing to integrate the individual, by definition, since it is a set of relationships. If I look at this from the standpoint of the organization, and assume its reification,

the problem is one of ensuring that the individual does the job that is expected, conforms to organizational norms and works cooperatively with others in the organization. We can also look at this from the standpoint of the individual employee and consider the ways in which that individual comes to terms with the

organization. Schwartz (1987) suggests that organizations serve an ontological function for the individual – they can create a sense of being. They do this, he suggests, through presenting us with an organization ideal – a sense of the ‘good’ organizational member. This is not to maintain that everyone will live up to the ideal; indeed, we might prefer to see ourselves as individuals who are not entirely cut out of the cloth the organization provides. Even if we wear the uniform (a powerful sign of belonging and a means of identification as a member of the organization) we might wear colourful socks (if we can get away with it). Who wants to be, entirely, an organizational conformist? And yet to fail to conform and reject the organization ideal entirely is likely to be an uncomfortable stand and, indeed, might threaten one’s place in the organization. Schwartz suggests, from a psychoanalytic perspective, which is one that can present a richer perspective on the processes at work than any superficial instrumentalism, that working towards the organizational ideal and submitting to it might be a way of serving one’s own psychological needs. These needs might include deep-seated insecurities, even if we do not recognize them as such (see Schwartz 1987). Even if one rejects such a psychoanalytic approach, one can still argue that conformism makes sense from a purely instrumental viewpoint: one is likely to be rewarded for conformity to norms (perhaps financially, or in other ways), while infringements seen as damaging to organizational interests (or those taken to be damaging by those who are in a position to make such judgements) are likely to be punished in some way (ultimately by dismissal). Most of the time such processes seem benign. From the consumer’s or producer’s

perspective they can be a way of ensuring shelves of supermarkets are stacked with food, insurance claims are processed and diseases are treated. From the employee’s point of view, they may be a way of ensuring that the salary keeps getting paid and there is no criticism from the boss. However, the price of conformity to organizational norms might sometimes be high. There are examples of terrible things occurring: the processes by which organizations serve an ontological function can also, it would seem, make concentration camp guards participate in genocide or make nurses stand by while patients starve to death (as in the case of Mid-Staffordshire Hospital even in the 21st century – see Francis 2010). We might, of course, explain this with reference to the power of social conformity, but the pressure on us to conform can stem from deep-seated ontological insecurity and an unwillingness to take the risk of standing against the demands placed upon us by others representing the organization. Organizations can unleash the best and the worst in people, and everything in between: they can be a collective effort for good but there is always a risk that they convince us of the need to do harm or to let harm be done. Perhaps most often, however, they lead to a middle-of-the-road blandness, something that excites neither admiration nor contempt; and perhaps that is no bad thing.