‘JUST BE YOURSELF!’ TOWARDS NEO-NORMATIVE CONTROL IN ORGANIZATIONS?

Peter Fleming and Andrew Sturdy

Forthcoming in Employee Relations, 2009, Vol 31, No 6.

ABSTRACT

Purpose

To explore the nature and employee experience of an emergent approach to managing

employees which emphasises ‘being yourself’ through the expression of fun, individuality

and difference.

Methodology

Interviews and observations in a US owned call centre in Australia.

Findings

The management approach outlined is located within the emergence of market rationalism

and associated claims of the limitations of normative control. With its emphasis on diversity

and identity derived from non-(paid) work contexts, it is presented as complementary to, but

distinct from the group conformity and organisational identity associated with conventional

culture and ‘fun’ management. The seemingly liberal regime is shown to be controlling in its

limited scope and by exposing more of the employees’ self to the corporation. This raises

questions about the nature of workplace control, resistance and the meaning of authenticity

at work.

Value

The research provides an insight into an approach to management which has been largely

neglected in research and proposes a modified concept of culture and ‘fun’ management –

neo-normative control. It also serves to challenge the liberal claims made by proponents of

the new approach and of ‘fun at work’ more generally, that it is liberating for employees, a

form of ‘existential empowerment’.

KEYWORDS - RESEARCH PAPER

Normative control; market rationality; resistance; fun; diversity; call centre.

1
INTRODUCTION

Individuality is not just tolerated …. but actively encouraged – particularly when it

comes to employees expressing the fun side of their personalities… All of this is based

on the belief that when people are happy and have the freedom to be themselves, they

are more productive and give more of themselves (Bains, 2007: 241).

The concept of normative control has a long conceptual lineage in organizational research

(e.g. Etzioni, 1964). It is seen to operate internally by moulding common attitudes, beliefs

and values among employees. However, numerous commentators have pointed to its

limitations, in terms of the rigidity of homogeneous cultures and the cynicism it provokes from

employees who distance their ‘authentic’ selves from the collective norm (Jermier et al., 1991;

Kunda, 1992). Indeed, some have noted a recent shift whereby normative alignment is

downplayed or even redundant in favour of ‘market rationality’ (Foster and Kaplan, 2001;

Adler, 2001). The new discipline, it is claimed, is that of the market in terms of employees’

personal marketability on the one hand and job insecurity on the other (Ross, 2004).

What does this mean for normative control? Some argue that it is in decline (Kunda and

Ailon-Souday, 2005). Others, especially among the ranks of management gurus, suggest

that its seeming opposite should be adopted (Sutton, 2001; Peters, 2003). Here, employees

should be ‘existentially empowered’ in that they should not be expected to share the

organization’s values, and should even oppose them. Moreover, they ought to express more

of their true selves by breaking the traditional work/non-work boundary, particularly by being

playful and having fun at work. Diversity and incongruence with (traditional/bureaucratic)

organizational norms are key (Florida, 2004). These exhortations are increasingly evident in

practice, in managerial regimes associated with emerging ‘best practice’ and ‘best places to

work’, such as the example cited above from Bains’ (2007) account of Southwest Airlines.

They resonate both with traditional human relations interventions concerning employees’

informal involvement in the organization and with contemporary political discourses of

2
liberalism and diversity (especially in relation to sexuality and lifestyle). In short, employees

are encouraged to be themselves rather than normatively conform to an externally

engineered, homogeneous and organizationally based identity. A key element of this

apparent new freedom is having fun at work. This reflects a development in the management

of fun from the emphasis on conformity and organisational loyalty associated with normative

control, towards one on diversity and instrumentality which seems more suited to relatively

routine and otherwise tightly controlled work.

The purpose of this article is to argue that recognition of the dysfunctions of collective

organizational identification combined with the emergence of market rationalism allows for a

corresponding form of identity management that is distinct from conventional normative

control. Drawing on a qualitative case study of a US-owned call centre in Australia, we suggest

that a somewhat paradoxical norm of difference, individualism and fun is sought by exposing

what was protected from the company under normative control through cynicism and

distancing. Given that this type of identity management emerges out of normative control, and

by no means supplants it nor other traditional forms of control, we use the term neo-normative

control to capture some of its distinct dimensions.

The article is organized as follows. Firstly, we briefly explore the literature on normative

control and its limitations. Secondly we argue that market rationalism resonates with

practitioner-orientated literature and organizational practice that encourages employees to

be themselves, to have fun. We then compare this with other control typologies before

focusing on its core dimensions. Thirdly we present a case study illustrating the application

of this management approach and conclude by raising some questions about how we

understand control and authenticity within such emerging organizational forms.

FROM NORMATIVE CONTROL TO MARKET RATIONALISM?

3
In numerous studies of normative control, it is shown how employees across a range of levels

and sectors are exhorted to embrace a designed membership role as their own and become

a ‘company (wo) man’ (e.g. Ray, 1986; Willmott, 1993). But many wanted to maintain a

distance or private reserve that was truly theirs. As a result, ‘the emotions experienced as

part of the organizational self are presented as distinct from other aspects of emotional life

and at some remove from one's “authentic” sense of self’ (Kunda, 1992: 183; also

Hochschild, 1983). Indeed, it is unclear whether normative control was ever as successful as

once claimed by both its champions and some of its critics, especially, but not exclusively in

more routine and precarious forms of employment (cf Jermier et al., 1991; Ogbonna and

Wilkinson, 1990). Others have pointed to the counter-productive elements that value

conformity might have on innovation and initiative in rapidly changing markets (e.g. Kanter,

1989). Such limitations are also echoed in broader shifts in the employment relationship.

While culture management has certainly not lost its appeal in toto (Adler, 2001), Kunda and

Ailon-Souday (2005) argue that a new managerial paradigm – market rationality - associated

with downsizing, outsourcing and distributed work has emerged in US industry and

increasingly elsewhere, that undermines the normative control surge of the 1980s and

1990s. Of particular importance is the claim that ‘market rationalists seem to have little

patience for culture, no matter how strong’ (2005: 203). There is, of course, a normative

basis to market rationality. As opposed to the rhetoric of unitary values and extreme loyalty,

we instead find individualism, entrepreneurial risk-taking and self-reliance as key themes

(Webb, 2004). As Kunda and Van Maanen (1999) put it, ‘the imagery of love and marriage

fades into obscurity, replaced by short-term affairs and one-night stands’ (1999: 73).

Such developments allow for a certain degree of freedom in relation to the expression of

‘non-organizational’, diverse identities and lifestyles in the workplace. Indeed, to more

optimistic commentators, workers are not only task empowered, but also ‘existentially

empowered’ to bring different identities and fun into the workplace (Pink, 2001; Peters, 2003;

Bains, 2007). To others, such developments reflect organizational control assuming a

4
laissez-faire, instrumental form (Kunda and Ailon-Souday, 2005). Employees are expected to

receive little from the organization other than remuneration and the opportunity to develop

their skills portfolios for subsequent use on competitive open and internal markets. Our

argument, however, is that the market rationalism described above does not only trade in

utilitarian contractual controls, but allows for a certain type of identity and fun management

which has emerged out of traditional normative control.

NEO-NORMATIVE CONTROL AND IDENTITY MANAGEMENT IN ORGANIZATIONS

Whereas normative controls were designed to instil a shared value orientation in the firm –

love of the organisation and/or the customer - neo-normative control entails an exhortation to

‘be yourself’. There is a growing wave of popular management rhetoric and associated

practices that encourage diversity, dissent, idiosyncrasy and the expression of ‘authentic’

feelings in the work environment, especially those once barred from the bureaucratic or

formal organisation, the expression of fun. Neo-normative control then, involves the selective

enlistment of the private dimensions of employee selves through a process of ‘existential

empowerment’. Following Mirvis (1994), it is the complete person that is increasingly desired

by the organization, with other extra-employment and ‘fun’ themes like sexuality,

consumption and leisure especially salient. Control is achieved when what was once

protected from the organization via cynicism and psychological distancing is appropriated as

a corporate resource to enhance output.

How does neo-normative control compare with other modes of control? (see Table 1). Firstly,

it clearly contrasts with bureaucratic control (Edwards, 1979) in that fun, sexuality and

consumption are not formally barred. Secondly, the human relations movement, with its

emphasis on the informal organization and then, as ‘neo-human relations’, on self-

actualization, does have some parallels with neo-normative control. But rather than seeking

to appropriate norms developed informally within work groups (Ray, 1986), the target of neo-

normative control are those associated with non-working life. With regard to neo-human

5
relations (Johnson and Gill, 1993), the similarities are perhaps even stronger. Here,

managers are also invited to enhance the expression of ‘authentic’ selves among

employees. The key difference however, is in the way neo-normative control is concerned

with social identities rather than the expression of creativity or ‘self-actualisation’ through

work tasks. In other words, for the most part, neo-normative control aims to enhance the

enjoyment of the job via the freedom of identity and emotional expression surrounding the

work performance rather than through it. Thirdly, neo-normative control is clearly linked to

normative control. But the normative base is that of difference - the ‘real lives’ of employees

are not externalized or engineered out in favour of a collective normative alignment (c.f.

Kunda, 1992). Finally, the control regime of market rationalism associated with short-term

contracts and portfolio careers is, as we have suggested, a major inspiration for neo-

normative control, but the latter is more explicitly concerned with identity and its

management (c.f. Kunda and Ailon-Souday, 2005).

6
Table 1 – Neo-Normative Control Compared with Other Modes of Control

Modes of Control Neo-Normative Control

Bureaucratic Control Does not bar the personal, emotional and
(e.g. Edwards, 1979) unpredictable features of employees, but
attempts to evoke and shape them as
strategic resources. Difference and
discretion rather than standardization of
selves.
Human Relations Also seeks to appropriate the informal
(e.g. Ray, 1986) and emotional and to render routine work
more palatable, but does not focus on
norms developed in work groups but
those prior to, and beyond, the
organizational domain.
Neo-Human Relations Similar in inviting the expression of
(e.g. Johnson and Gill, 1993) authentic selves, but focused on social
identities surrounding work more than
self-actualization achieved through task-
autonomy.
Normative Control Similar elements and methods, but aim is
(e.g. Kunda, 1992) normative diversity, not uniformity. Invites
and supports the outside of work self
(‘warts and all’) and not only the
preferred ‘front stage’ corporate (specific)
self.
Market Rationality Similar attention to the value of diversity
(e.g. Kunda and Ailon-Souday, 2005) and the constraints of homogeneity, but
focuses on identity and values rather
than market forces. Complements other
(often unacknowledged) normative
elements of market rationality (e.g.
entrepreneurialism)

7
It is important to point out that we approach this as a new form of hybridity or combination of

controls, rather than a replacement of normative, or other traditional, controls (Courpasson,

2006). In particular, we are concerned with the controlling effects of management practices

that do not endeavour to construct a homogenous organizational identity, but to ‘liberate’ or

‘unleash’ the diversity already there (Peters, 2003). Before outlining more specifically how

this can be considered a form of control, we now examine two key and interrelated elements

of neo-normative control – the celebration of difference and workplace fun as expressions of

self.

The Celebration of Difference

A growing body of guru and practitioner literature speaks of the dysfunctionality of the

corporate cultures of the 1980s and 1990s. Tom Peters (2003) is a particularly strong critic,

arguing that workers are naturally inclined to be innovative and exciting. But Peters is not

simply calling for renewed emphasis on self-actualization through job discretion, but for a

challenge to out-dated management ideologies that desire conformity, rationality and unitary

values. In direct contrast to his own earlier emphasis on culture management (Peters and

Waterman, 1982), a laissez-faire approach to norms is the new imperative - a ‘joyous

anarchy’ in which ‘zanies’ and mavericks are hired and celebrated. Because the market is

based upon differentiation and variation, organizations should follow suit: ‘pursue variation,

not to manage (stifle) it’ (1994: 51; also Fierman, 1995).

Underlying this ‘be yourself’ ideology is the notion that employees are free agents, no longer

objects of corporate control. In Semler’s Maverick! (1993), which describes his own firm’s

practices and has sold over one million copies, workers are told: ‘now control is passé and a

badge of incompetence. Now, you are free’ (1993: xiii). The freedom to be yourself extends

to expressing dissent toward management (Peters, 1992: 588; Sutton, 2001). All the tropes

of the free market are here and the conformity of previous cultural regimes is denigrated,

associated with communism and the stifling of individual idiosyncrasies. This is why the

8
ethos of the unruly youngster is often drawn upon - ‘go for youth’ (Peters, 1994: 204; see

also Semler, 1993). Although not our focus here, the celebration of diversity has also

absorbed liberalist motifs in relation to minority groups such as gays, ethnics and others

often disenfranchised in Western corporate settings (Florida, 2004; Janssens and Zanoni,

2005).

Fun as Expressions of Self

The other emerging way in which identity is managed is to accentuate the fun and playful

dynamics of work. This has long been one element of conventional culture management

regimes (Collinson, 2002), but has expanded as part of a reaction to the downsizing trend of

the early 1990s. Here, there is a shift in emphasis towards employees expressing their fun

and playful side, rather than suppressing it in the name of sober, bureaucratic

productiveness and a ‘bottom-line mentality’ (Deal and Key, 1998: 6). There is considerable

evidence that the management of fun and play has become quite widespread as Kane

(2004) indicates in relation to the rise of the corporate ‘play ethic’. Some surveyed ‘best

companies to work for’ such as Kwik Fit, a car servicing chain in the UK, even have a full

time ‘Minister of Fun’ managerial position (Sunday Times, 2005; 2006).

Part of this drive to make work playful can still be framed in terms of normative, rather than

neo-normative, regimes, in keeping with the view of controls as assuming multiple and

hybrid forms. For example, while Deal and Key (1998: 25) argue that celebrations at work

foster diversity and ‘provide social support for being yourself and believing that you matter’,

they also see them as generating a sense of belonging, shared camaraderie and loyalty

(also see Hemsath and Sivasubramania, 2001). Our focus is with the former whereby play

and fun are a licence to be oneself in a way that leads workers to love being in the company

rather than love the company itself. Indeed, such instrumentality is implied in managerial

efforts to become an ‘employer of choice’ or ‘best place to work’, especially when tasks are

predominantly routine and fun is primarily directed at compensating for limited job discretion

9
rather than fostering innovation, such as in call centres (Kinnie et al, 2000; Callaghan and

Thompson, 2001; Bain and Taylor, 2000; Frenkel et al., 1999).

One method in which this neo-normative feature of fun and playfulness is developed is

through blurring the symbolic distinction that has traditionally separated home and the formal

organization. The idea that employees must adopt an organizational persona at work is

reversed - people can, and should, express their ‘authentic’ selves at work rather than

repress the intrinsic desire to be playful and curious (Peters, 2003). Likewise, Deal and Key

see a key barrier to organizational fun as the ‘tendency to partition life and work…only to

recover our humanity once we return home’ (1998: 16) while for Bains, the question is

‘whether employees are able to bring their full selves into work.’ (2007: 219; also Semler,

2004; Reeves, 2001).

EXISTENTIAL EMPOWERMENT AS CONTROL

We have suggested that the market rationalist tendencies described by Kunda and Ailon-

Souday (2005) and others allow for a corresponding approach to identity management that

aims for existential exposure or ‘empowerment’ – ‘be yourself’ - rather than the reshaping of

selfhood into a uniform identity. This clearly has potential to be liberating, especially for those

whose identities have been hitherto silenced or stigmatized. However, we argue that it also

represents a mode of control. Why is this?

Firstly and more generally, it is important to emphasize that management control can be

seen to commence long before individuals enter the workplace in that our values and

lifestyles are schooled partly in accordance with the interests of employers from an early age

(Illich, 1970). Indeed, this is one of the bases of normative control as well, in terms of the

value filtering of selection processes. However, this is not our concern here except insofar as

noting that neo-normative control relies more directly on non-work identities being employer-

friendly. Rather, and secondly, we shall see how, there are clear limits to the breadth of

10
individuality that an organization might tolerate. This is perhaps unsurprising, since there are

few social domains where value freedom is unlimited. More significantly and thirdly, in

attempting to draw more of the person into the employment situation, such management

practices utilize it as a resource. Even the ‘inner preserve’ protected from normative control

regimes, through cynicism for example, can now be used in an effort to enhance productivity.

Moreover and fourthly, it is a self-disciplinary form of control. If an employee’s performance

is failing, this is seen to be a problem with her own values, personality or identity more than

insufficient commitment to the corporate norm. Finally and as the following case study

suggests, ‘existential empowerment’ can be seen as a form of control through the resistance

it provokes, however bizarre the notion of resisting being yourself may initially seem.

THE CASE OF ‘SUNRAY CUSTOMER SERVICE’

We now present an illustrative case to demonstrate the potentially controlling effects of the

‘be yourself’ approach to identity management. A study was conducted over an 8-month

period at Sunray Customer Service (a pseudonym), an American owned call-centre with

around 1000 employees based in Australia, where similar trends towards market rationalism

as those already discussed are evident (Pusey, 2003). Sunray was founded by James Carr

(another pseudonym) in the early 1990s, who remains the CEO and cultural figurehead. It

deals with outsourced communication functions and thus, puts much emphasis on the

customer service skills of its agents. Their work is demanding, mostly dealing with calls in 8-

hour shifts, with only 60 minutes of breaks. It is also largely routine and, in many respects,

strictly controlled, through familiar call centre technology for example (e.g. Callaghan and

Thompson, 2001). However, we are concerned with the ‘fun’ side of, what Kinnie et al (2002)

describe from a similar context as a combination of, ‘fun and surveillance’.

Sunray was selected for research because of its broader reputation in the business

community as a high-commitment organization and ‘best place to work’ staffed by extremely

motivated employees in a relatively tight labour market. The initial research aim was to

11
understand experiences of normative control, but the data required an alternative conceptual

framework to explain the emphasis on authenticity, individual diversity and fun. In

accordance with other studies of this type (e.g. Casey, 1995), qualitative data collection

methods were deployed to gain an intensive situational understanding of everyday sense

making in the organization (Van Maanen, 1998). These included one-on-one interviews,

focus group interviews, observation and document analysis. A sample of three HR managers

and 30 employees (average age of 23; equal gender split) was randomly selected and

interviewed at various intervals over the eight months. Following Spradley (1979), the

interview schedule was derived from speculative assumptions regarding possible

interpretations of the culture and later modified to target concerns discussed in this article

although space restrictions mean that only a small proportion of illustrative data is drawn on.

MANAGING FUN AT SUNRAY

The firm initially seems a classic example of normative control given the key role attributed

to the founder and a culture programme entitled ‘the 3Fs: Fun, Focus, Fulfilment’. A team

development manager explains its rationale:

Without the culture the place would be drab, and in most workplaces people can’t wait

to leave. But at Sunray they love to work and really get into it. You know, just the other

day I heard someone say ‘I can’t believe they pay me to have fun!’ and that is exactly

what happens.

The 3Fs policy appears quite successful insofar as Sunray enjoys a relatively low turnover

rate. Although this is partly due to slightly higher pay rates, high levels of job satisfaction and

productivity were also claimed in the context of the local call-centre industry. Just over half

the workers interviewed reinforced management’s description of Sunray as a highly

motivated work environment. Directly referencing the 3Fs campaign, Rob enthused:

12
 … it’s like this: When you leave work you don’t feel drained: ’Oh, I’ve just had another

day at work’ – the fun allows you to focus not only on your work but yourself as well –

and at the end of the day you come out feeling fantastic and you like coming to work

– you love coming here.

Despite the parallels with normative control regimes, prominent neo-normative control

tendencies are evident. Emphasizing freedoms around workplace norms, employees are

invited to celebrate and display a commitment to who they are (rather than to the company

itself). According to the CEO, Semler’s (1993) Maverick! inspired this management style: ‘the

3Fs philosophy delivers service excellence by simply allowing people to be themselves and

communicate their uniqueness – we like different people here from all walks of life’. The

discourse particularly trades on youthful anti-authoritarian chic, underground cool and

designer subversion (a number of employees wore T-shirts with anti-corporate slogans).

Janis, a team development manager, avers:

Everyone is different and we make sure that people can express themselves and will

be accepted for who they are………. It all comes down to our environment – the

culture, the freedom to enjoy being themselves and to enjoy being at work.

The promotion of lifestyle, sexual and ethnic diversity is especially important. But the

approach is not limited to ‘diversity management’ in the sense of encouraging/utilizing the

visibility of various socio-demographically marginalized groups. It is also concerned with

providing a space for authentic ‘self-expression’ which include prominent extra-employment

and ‘fun’ themes. A selection of these practices is summarized below.

The Expressive, Playful, Inner Child

At Sunray, the recruitment strategy uses friendship networks to employ overtly youthful

employees who have had little employment experience (also see Castilla, 2005). Aside from

cost considerations, the employment of young people is typically associated with the relative

13
ease with which an organizational culture can be inculcated. However, the rationale given

reversed this logic in that ‘young people find (the)… culture very, very attractive because

they can be themselves and know how to have fun’. In other words, young people were seen

as more likely to be expressive and playful, including with identities. For example, workers

were required to bring to work an item that ‘best explains who you are’ - one agent

responded by bringing a surfboard, and another a popular anti-capitalism book.

Organised events included a range of activities that are sometimes very characteristic of the

schoolroom. For example, cartoon characters are used to decorate the workspace and

training and motivational games included mini-golf and quizzes. Similarly, annual Away Days

are seen as somewhere between a ‘kind of school musical’ and ‘a party’. While many of the

interviewees found it fun, some were very cynical.

Working at Sunray is like working for ‘Playschool’. It’s so much like a kindergarten …

a plastic, fake kindergarten. The murals on the wall, the telling off if I’m late and the

patronising tone in which I’m spoken to all give it a very childish flavour.

Partying and Drinking

While such activities might be seen as infantilizing rather than empowering, practices also

incorporated the expression of explicitly adult identities under the theme of partying. In

particular, employees were openly encouraged to drink alcohol on Friday afternoons in the

workplace and perpetuate a party-like atmosphere in the organization. Job advertisements

were headed with the phrase ‘do you know how to party?’ and management often said that

Sunray life is similar to a ‘party’ because of the energy and ‘good times’. One training

session, held in a nearby park, was analogous to an actual party with beer drinking and the

open expression of sexuality and flirting. Most employees interviewed appeared to

experience such activities in a positive manner.

14
Sexuality

The expression of sexuality and flirting among employees was not confined to parties nor

simply a reflection of workplace life or, even, the demographics of the employees. Rather,

according to some informants and confirmed by observations, it was openly accepted at

Sunray. As already intimated and in keeping with the notion of ‘being yourself’, the sexual

dimension of the Sunray culture had a strong gay focus (see also Clair et al., 2005). For

example, Mary claimed that ‘they (gays) like it because they can be themselves’ and that

‘Sunray definitely promote it [open homosexuality] … well, not promote it but, say, you are

what you are and you are allowed to be that way’.

Dress Code as Identity

Part of the openly sexual culture at Sunray was its expression through clothing, encouraged

through what some might see as a liberal dress code. This practice cut across others such

as the organized parties and events (e.g. a ‘fashion day’, ‘dress-up days’ and ‘pyjama days’).

Once again, most employees seemed to enjoy these exercises by suggesting that it brought

more fun to the work - ‘treats me more as whole person…’. While these events were clearly

in a similar spirit to ‘dressing up’, another element was to express yourself through otherwise

private clothing - as consumers - being centred on the latest fashion labels and promoted

with the intention of creating a party-like atmosphere in the organization. Many of the

employees interviewed relished this part of the 3Fs philosophy because they felt ‘free to be

who we are’, as one agent put it, while others saw it as promoting a rather pretentious

attitude.

DISCUSSION: NEO-NORMATIVE CONTROL AT SUNRAY

In many respects, the approach to managing Sunray employees matches the prescriptions

of recent gurus of ‘fun’ and the publicized practices of ‘leading’ employers discussed earlier

(see also Courpasson, 2006). There is a strong emphasis on the expression – rather than

suppression or transformation - of what hitherto might have been seen as private, individual

15
and authentic identities, feelings and lifestyles and on the acceptance, and even celebration,

of differences. We proposed earlier however, that such an apparently liberal approach to

managing employee identities represents a form of control which is both distinct from and

linked to other control typologies. In particular, we suggested that there were five related

dimensions to neo-normative control, which we can also observe at Sunray.

Firstly, through both recruitment processes and the celebration of difference, Sunray

reinforces broader societal constructions of identity. Diversity is constructed as particular

variants of sexuality, consumerism and playfulness rather than say, occupational skills,

familial roles, politics and community (c.f. Anteby, 2008). Secondly and most transparently,

control is evident in the limits implicitly and explicitly imposed which contradict the rhetoric of

a laissez-faire approach to self-expression. One manager revealed this contradiction:

‘Every 3Fs activity we undertake is implemented in a controlled way and adherence

is mandatory – although individualism and creativity are encouraged… we have one

Sunray attitude, but people can still be themselves’.

There was no room for the non-fun, non-‘different’ person in the organized events. As one

agent recounted: ‘A woman in my team was told that she had to go to the Away Day but she

said she had family commitments, ’I’m a mother.’ But she was told ’no, we are all going’.

Likewise, in keeping with the policy of many other ‘progressive’ employers, there was

considered ‘no need’ for a trade union presence (e.g. Semler, 2004).

The third way in which the regime served as a control was in the appropriation (and

therefore, partial construction) of identities and other unrewarded characteristics for

productive ends (also Janssens and Zanoni, 2005). This is particularly evident in the

recruitment and production of youthfulness, sexuality and enthusiasm to facilitate, as well as

compensate for, customer service – ‘fun’ as part of the job (Sturdy et al, 2001). Also, up to a

16
point, employees were encouraged or ‘indulged’ to challenge the way the organization

operates, especially during new projects and away days (c.f. Gouldner, 1955). Furthermore,

dissent as a lifestyle signifier relating to the ‘slacker cool’ and anti-establishment ethos of

youth culture was a salient part of Sunray’s corporate identity (also see Boltanski and

Chiapello, 2005). There was however, no place for a ‘militant’ self, ‘fun as sabotage’ or, as

already noted, even a union identity. Furthermore, these indulgencies were both made

possible and effectively limited by other control mechanisms, notably the call centre

technology and disciplinary performance assessment.

Fourthly, the encouragement and colonization of identities and ‘real’ selves at Sunray served

as a form of self-disciplinary control in that once ‘private’ identities were made more visible

and accountable so that individual success and failure were attributed to the type of person

the employee was (Rose, 1989). This was seen in judgemental comments made about

fellow employees over the extent to which they embraced the 3Fs program as well as a

more hierarchical counselling dynamic where team members were policed on their own

personal mental state: ‘I will first recognize a difference in their attitude…and I will say ‘What

has happened? Is it the job or something at home? What can I do to help you with that?’.

Finally, the controlling elements of the ‘be yourself’ philosophy are evident in the resistance it

inspires. As noted earlier, normative control engendered its own brand of resistance as

employees hid their ‘real’ identities and feigned identification. Many commentators have

demonstrated how employees can adopt a cynical stance to protect their backstage (real)

selves from the corporation. But when the control function actually encourages workers’ to

express these real identities, what form, if any, does resistance take? How might one resist

being yourself? We note a two-step manoeuvre among those employees who attempted to

resist neo-normative control. First, some employees displayed a brand of cynicism, also

familiar under normative control regimes, which held the promise of achieving a different

sense of authenticity:

17
 ‘I am empowered only in their terms, not mine…. am I empowered to choose when

to have my lunch break? No. Am I empowered to talk and have fun with my friends?

[Impersonates an angry supervisor] ‘SSHHHH!’ - No’.

The second or alternative step is to undermine the sentiment of diverse and individual

authenticity by emphasizing solidarity, uniformity and collective subordination.

Well, to ‘succeed’ at Sunray you are basically gay, have to be really ‘alternative’ and

Sunray likes people who have different coloured hair and who are into [in a sarcastic

tone] ‘being themselves’. Now I’m not too sure which one we fit into, but basically we

are all plebs. Just plebs.

Aside from the obvious suggestion of an emergent class consciousness, such sentiments

can also be seen as a variant of the once derided ‘organizational man’ (sic) (Whyte, 1956) in

which the communal and non-descript rhythms of public organizational life govern his/her

identity at work while ‘real’ selves are downplayed - ‘If I’m here to work then that’s what I do

and the culture stuff, I don’t buy into [that]. It’s not me and has no relevance to me.’ Indeed,

following Hochschild (1997), employees may now use the relatively dull sphere of

organizational life to escape the complexities and uncertainties around their private

identities.

18
 Table 2 – Neo-Normative Control at Sunray

Dimensions of Neo-Normative Control Expression at Sunray

Reinforces broader (e.g. late modern) Celebration of difference/variety with
societal constructions of identity. reference to youth, lifestyle, sexuality,
consumption tastes and being yourself.
Limits to the expression of difference. Fun activities were highly prescribed;
intolerance of some expressions of
difference (e.g. incident of conflict with
family identity); anti-union policy.
Selective enlistment of private Evocation of traditionally non-work motifs
dimensions of self as a corporate associated with fun, partying and sex in
resource. team exercises, social events etc.
Discretion and authenticity in customer
service function.
Individual responsibility and self- Peer surveillance of attitudes in relation
discipline. to 3Fs program and the counselling
dynamic of the employment relationship.
Exhortation to ‘be yourself’ inspires Recognition that be yourself ethos is
resistance. contradictory. Challenging individualism
through sentiments of solidarity and
uniformity (e.g. ‘we’re all just plebs’).

CONCLUSION

This article has outlined the key dimensions of an emergent form of identity management we

have called neo-normative control – the celebration of difference and fun as expressions of

self. This regime selectively enlists nominally private and authentic aspects of employee

selves and is distinct from conventional culture and fun management programmes. The

notion of neo-normative control eschews the claim that any decline of traditional normative

control in the face of market rationalism and the ‘be yourself’ ethic indicates a freer work

environment. Rather, the Sunray case demonstrates the paradoxically controlling elements

of ‘being yourself’ or ‘fun, focus and fulfilment’, especially when circumscribed by the

productive demands of the organization and related task-based constraints and control

systems familiar in call centres.

19
The managerial discourse and practice of neo-normative control does not simply mark an

important empirical development in regimes or hybrids of control whereby emphasis has

shifted towards a norm of difference and ‘extra-employment’ themes, including through the

expression of fun. It also raises important questions about authenticity and freedom in

organizations. This is by no means a new concern, as we saw in our comparison of neo-

normative control with human relations and its concerns with work group solidarity and/or

self-actualisation (also Bendix, 1956). Authenticity in the rhetoric and practice of neo-

normative control, however, looks quite different, reflecting as it does the axioms of market

rationalism and the expression of wider societal (rather than organisational) forms of

individual identity and difference (Bains, 2007). While we have only been able to scratch the

surface in gaining an understanding of the varied employee responses to such a regime in

this short article, we have observed how some of the resistance noted at Sunray subverted

both difference and prescribed fun through sentiments of solidarity or sameness based on

the standardized nature of the work task itself. Similarly, perhaps the new ‘freedoms’ of the

emergent workplace are swinging back to, or at least coinciding with, a concern with

solidarity and collective responsibility. The focus on identity appears to be impoverished if it

does not also correspond with task, job and role autonomy/creativity. Indeed, we may expect

different employee responses in different contexts. As Adler (2001) suggests, if both task

and identity empowerment is achieved in a collective fashion, then a very different kind of

workplace may appear.

REFERENCES

Adler, P. 2001. ‘Market, Hierarchy, and Trust: The Knowledge Economy and the Future of

Capitalism.’ Organization Science, 2 (12): 215-234.

Anteby, M. 2008. ‘Identity Incentives as an Engaging Form of Control: Revisiting Leniencies

in an Aeronautic Plant’, Organization Science , 19, 2,202-222.

20
Bain, P. and Taylor, P. 2000. ‘Entrapped by the ‘Electronic Panopticon’? Worker resistance at

a call centre’, New Technology, Work and Employment. 15, 2-18.

Bains, G. 2007. Meaning Inc: The Blue Print for Business Success in the 21st Century.

London: Profile Books.

Bendix, R. 1956. Work and authority in industry. New York: Harper and Row.

Boltanski, L. and Chiapello, E. 2005. The New Spirit of Capitalism. London: Verso.

Casey, C. 1995. Work, Self and Society: After Industrialism. London: Sage.

Callaghan, G and Thompson, P (2001) ‘Edwards re-visited: Technical control and call

centres’, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 22, 13, 13-36.

Castilla, E. J. 2005. ‘Social Networks and Employee Performance in a Call Center.’

American Journal of Sociology 110: 1243-1283.

Collinson, D. 2002. ‘Managing Humour.’ Journal of Management Studies, 39 (3): 269-288.

Courpasson, D. 2006. Soft Constraint: Liberal Organizations and Domination (Copenhagen

Business School Press/Liber, 2006),

Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. E. and MacLean, T. 2005. ‘Out of Sight But Not Out of Mind: Managing

Invisible Social Identities in the Workplace’. Academy of Management Review, 30, 1, 78-95.

Deal, T. and Key, M. 1998. Celebration at Work: Play, Purpose and Profit at Work. New York:

Berrett-Koehler.

Edwards, R. 1979. Contested terrain – the transformation of the workplace in the twentieth

century. Ney York: Basic Books.

Etzioni, A. 1964. Modern organizations. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Fierman, J. 1995. ‘Winning Ideas From Maverick Managers’. Fortune, Feb.6: 40-46.

Florida, R. 2004. The Rise of the Creative Class. North Melbourne: Pluto Press.

Foster, R. and Kaplan, S. 2001. Creative Destruction: Why Companies That Are Built to Last

Underperform the Market--And How to Successfully Transform Them. New York: Currency.

Frenkel, S, Korczynski, M, Shire, K and Tam, M. 1999. On the front Line. New York: Cornell

University Press.

Gouldner, A.1955. Wildcat Strike. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

21
Hemsath, D. and Sivasubramania, J. 2001. 301 More Ways to Have Fun at Work. San

Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Hochschild, A. R. 1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. London:

University of California Press.

Hochschild, A. 1997. The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes

Work. New York: Metropolitan Books

Illich, I. 1970. De-Schooling Society, Harmondsworth: Penguin

Janssens, M and Zanoni, P. 2005. ‘Many Diversities for Many Services: Theorizing Diversity

(management) in Service Companies’, Human Relations, 58, 3, 311-340.

Jermier, J. M., Slocum, J. W., Fry, L. W., Gaines, J. 1991. ‘Organizational Subcultures in a

Soft Bureaucracy: Resistance behind the Myth and Facade of an Official Culture’,

Organization Science, 2, 2, 170-194.

Johnson, P and Gill, J. 1993. Management Control and Organizational Behaviour, London:

Paul Chapman.

Kane, P. 2004. The Play Ethic: A Manifesto for a Different Way of Living. London: Macmillan.

Kanter, R. 1989. When Giants Learn to Dance. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S and Purcell, J. 2000. ‘Fun and surveillance: the paradox of high

commitment management in call centres’, International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 11, 5, 967-985.

Kunda, G. 1992. Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Kunda, G and Ailon-Souday, G. 2005. ‘Managers, Markets and Ideologies – Design and

Devotion Revisited’, in Ackroyd, S et al. (Eds) Oxford Handbook of Work and Organization,

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kunda, G and Van Maanen, J. 1999. ‘Changing Scripts at Work: Managers and

Professionals’. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 561: 64-80.

22
Mirvis, P. H. 1994. ‘Human Development or Depersonalization? The Company as Total

Community.’ In F.W. Heuberger & L.L. Nash (Eds.), A Fatal Embrace? Assessing Holistic

Trends in Human Resources Programs. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Ogbonna, E and Wilkinson, B. 1990. `Corporate Strategy and Corporate Culture: The View

from the Checkout', Personnel Review, 19, 4, 9-15.

Peters, T. and Waterman, R. H. 1982. In Search of Excellence. New York: Harper and Row.

Peters, T. 1992. Liberation Management: Necessary Disorganization for the Nanosecond

Nineties. London: Pan.

Peters, T. 1994. The Tom Peters Seminar: Crazy Times Call for Crazy Organizations.

London: Macmillan.

Peters, T. 2003. Re-Imagine! Business Excellence in a Disruptive Age. Dorling Kindersley:

London.

Pink, D. 2001. Free Agent Nation: How America's New Independent Workers Are

Transforming the Way We Live, New York: Warner Business Books.

Pusey, M. 2003. The experience of Middle Australia: The Dark Side of Economic Reform.

Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Ray, C. A. 1986. ‘Corporate Culture: The Last Frontier of Control?’ Journal of Management

Studies, 23, 3: 287-97.

Reeves, R. 2001. Happy Mondays: Putting Pleasure Back into Work. London: Pearson

Education.

Rose, N. (1989). Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. London: Routledge.

Ross, A. 2004. No-Collar: The Humane Workplace and its Hidden Costs. Philadelphia:

Temple University Press.

Semler, R. 1993. Maverick! The Success Behind the World’s Most Unusual Workplace,

London: Arrow.

Semler, R. 2004. The Seven-Day Weekend. New York: Penguin.

23
Spradley, J. 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Rinehart and Winston.

Sturdy, A. J., Grugulis, I. and Willmott, H. 2001. Customer Service – Empowerment and

Entrapment. Basingstoke: Palgrave/ Macmillan.

Sunday Times (2005; 2006) 100 Best Companies to Work For, London: Sunday Times

Sutton, R. 2001. Weird Ideas that Work: 11 1/2 ways to Promote, Manage and Sustain

Innovation. New York: Penguin.

Van Maanen, J. 1998. (ed.). Qualitative Studies of Organization. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Webb, J. 2004. ‘Organizations, Self-Identities and the New Economy.’ Sociology, 38, 4, 719-

738.

Whyte, W. H. 1956. The Organizational Man. New York: Doubleday.

Willmott, H (1993) ‘Strength is ignorance; slavery is freedom: managing culture in modern

organisations’, Journal of Management Studies, 30, 4, 515-552.

24