Working at a Cynical Distance: Implications for Power, Subjectivity and Resistance

Abstract

Subjectivity and power are important concepts for understanding corporate culture engineering in critical organization studies. Although recent research indicates that many workers do identify with the organization as a result of these management strategies, they have also shown that some workers resist through dis-identification, in particular cynicism. Managerialist literature views cynicism as a psychological defect that needs to be `corrected', while a radical humanist approach constructs cynicism as a defence mechanism, a way of blocking the colonization of a pre-given self. We highlight a third and increasingly dominant perspective that suggests cynicism is a process through which employees dis-identify with cultural prescriptions, yet often still perform them. Cynical employees have the impression that they are autonomous, but they still practice the corporate rituals nonetheless. We label this the `ideology' interpretation because in dis-identifying with power, it is inadvertently reproduced at the same time. We argue that this approach to cynicism raises significant implications for key concepts in organization studies: those of power, subjectivity and resistance. The implications we pursue are that cultural power may work through dis-identification (rather than just identification), subjectivity may be radically `external' (rather than something `within') and thus what counts as disruptive resistance must be re-evaluated.

Authenticity, employee silence, prohibitive voice, and the moderating effect of organizational identification

“…However, previous research using ethnographic methods (Fleming & Spicer, 2003) suggests that there is logic to our reasoning and it merits further exploration.…”

From identification to dis-identification: case studies of job loss in professional football

“…Although the idea of cynicism as a form of resistance has been discussed sociologically for some time -Simmel suggested that it is a 'psychic response' to modernity (Shilling, 2002) -more recent studies offer three interpretations of employee cynicism that are linked to, and arise from, the political economy of late capitalism (Fleming and Spicer, 2003). First, managerialist interpretations have much in common with applied sport psychological research, which views athlete reactions to coach and managerial power at an individual level -in other words, cynicism is interpreted as a psychological defect that needs to be 'corrected' via intervention (Fleming and Spicer, 2003).…”

“…With few exceptions (Robidoux, 2001), there has been an absence of studies of resistance in the context of employment practices in professional sport. The concept of dis-identification however, as a mode of contemporary workplace experience, has been underscored in several recent studies of organisational cultural management (Costas and Fleming, 2009;Elsbach and Bhattacharya, 2001;Fleming and Spicer, 2003). While there are important reasons why sporting workplaces are different in kind to those featured in these specific organisational studies (Parker, 2001), particularly with respect to the orientations and expectations employees bring to -as opposed to acquiring in -their jobs (Roderick, 2006), the relevance of dis-identification as a more prosaic form of resistance is best explained by an explicit recognition that managerial domination in the workplace appears to colonise employee selves as a strategic enterprise (Fleming and Sewell, 2002) i .…”

The Handbook of Narrative Analysis

“…In a curious way, most of the actual stories discussed in organizational literature tend to be managerial, ultimately serving the interests of managerial control; or pluralist, coexisting often uneasily as different parties seek to legitimate their actions and interests (e.g., Brown 2002). Stories by oppressed or exploited employees are often couched in terms of cynical distancing (e.g., Fleming and Spicer 2003;O'Leary 2003). Possibly less common are stories displaying a rebellious or defiant attitude, challenging managerial prerogatives or ridiculing bureaucratic irrationality and waste.…”