Thompson Work Organisations A Critical Introduction (3rd ed)

312 • W O R K O R G A N I S AT I O N S

be seen to produce a welter of mediating variables. Thus, the main burden of such change in the end falls on people, as they are the factor over which management has the least reliable control.

Such structural and cultural pressures, ideologically legitimated by the ‘need’ to change tasks and technologies, coupled with the long-term failure to control intrinsic motivation, have produced the whole panoply of modern-day KITAs. Ranging from desperate attempts to reassert control over rewards in performance-related pay and share schemes, through group-based initiatives, to the bludgeon-like tools of restructuring and corporate culture, what success these initiatives have is not in producing general job and work motivation. It is merely the production of short-term movement towards increased effort on specific tasks. The only routes that appear to be left for increasing general motivation are in the control of meaning and of group-based socialisation into work roles (see Chapter 20) as the main psycho-social factors subject to external manipulation.

Internalisation of commitment

To achieve this form of change requires that practices that have evolved into scripted behaviours be ‘unfrozen’ in Lewin’s (1947) terms, so that re-socialisation can take place. As scripts are based on the kinds of flexible action patterns and sensorimotor learning discussed in Chapter 17, what would be sought here is the constant reengagement of the intellectual level of learning. Behaviour would not be directed by learned patterns of experience, desire or collective obligation, but by adaptive behaviour in response to constant uncertainty. This situation is reflected in Hopwood’s (1974, cited in Johnson and Gill, 1993: 34–5) model linking social and administrative controls. Social controls, such as group norms, aimed at regulating output, and administrative controls, such as reward systems, aimed at increasing productivity, require enactment through their internalisation as self-controls. Johnson and Gill (1993: 34–6) extend this by reference to Kelman’s (1961) work on conformity and Kanter’s (1968) comments on organisational identity. In Kelman’s eyes, internalisation is one form of conformity whereby the individual adopts the norms and value structures of ‘significant others’ in the development of their ‘internal moral imperatives’.

Compliance is conformity based on the motivation to gain rewards and avoid costs, which may be linked in organisational terms to Hopwood’s administrative controls. Identification also involves ‘significant others’, but is conformity to the social influence they exert on the basis of our becoming emotionally attached to them, wishing to be like them or perhaps to be identified as one of the group or cultural community to which they belong. The role of compliance and identification is finally linked to the idea of internalised self-controls through Kanter’s concepts of ‘mortification’ and ‘surrender’: the former involving the ‘exchanging of a private identity for one provided by the organisation’, and the latter the ‘attachment of one’s decisionmaking prerogative to a greater power’ (Kanter, 1968, cited in Johnson and Gill, 1993: 35–6). The importance of this for Johnson and Gill is that:

it draws our attention to the processes that can disengage the individual from prior social and ideological attachments by redirecting his or her beliefs and norms towards those that predominate in any organisational context – whatever those might be. (Johnson and Gill, 1993: 36)

M OT I VAT I O N : T H E D R I V E F O R S AT I S FA C T I O N • 3 1 3

This is linked to the development of organisational commitment through reference to Brown (1965) on the nature of conformity and moral development. Individuals are seen to initially obey external demands and sanctions and then to develop emotional attachments in ‘everyday social interactions’ that produce identification and eventual internalisation (1965: 36).

The dilemma here is that the context within which internalisation takes place is as important to the outcomes as the process itself. As Hosking and Morley (1991: 5) note, ‘people are both products of their contexts and participants in the creation of those contexts’. The relation between person and context is one of ‘assimilation’ by changing the context and ‘accommodation’ by changing oneself. Relationships of this kind would make attempts to promote the internalisation of controls appear to be a one-sided process. Accommodation and compliance would be the normative valuation for those instituting control systems, whereas assimilation and identification would be the desired outcomes for those subject to control. Since the opportunities for assimilation of context are limited for most employees, it is likely that any accommodation that takes place is rather a case of resigned acceptance more analogous to mortification than ‘empowerment’.

Institutional commitment?

Why is it that when a company wants people to direct their purchasing behaviour in a particular direction, they turn to advertising agencies for their expertise in persuasion, but when they want to direct their own employees’ behaviour in a particular direction they call it motivation? (Hershey, 1993: 10)

Hershey’s concern essentially devolves to an appeal for line managers and HRM practitioners to employ the techniques of persuasive communication used by advertisers to compensate for the lack of success of motivation theory, reflecting the focus within the Myers model above on the extent of managerial influence at the psycho-social level being limited to training and communication. Commitment, on the other hand, implies both a condition of personal commitment to courses of action or belief as aspired to in the mainstream literature, and one of ‘being committed’. This latter, in the sense of being locked into a system which is somehow beyond our control, is more representative of the critical literature on management. It presents organisations as institutions to which we are committed against our will and where persuasive therapeutic techniques are used on us in order to produce a good ‘organisation person’.

This view harks back to Goffman’s notion of a total institution in his 1961 book Asylums. Such institutions – exemplified by prisons, mental hospitals and so on – were seen to have extensive if not complete control over their inmates lives, backed by systems enforcing their formal rules. This does not imply that inmates are passive recipients of control; both Goffman and later Becker (1963) noted that these institutions also embody informal rule systems enacted by both inmates and staff, which can work against the formal rules but which are necessary to the continued performance of their respective roles. The picture here is of total compliance to control, but of resistance to, and lack of internalisation of, control systems – almost the opposite of Kanter’s notions of mortification and surrender as outlined above.

Kunda (1992) addresses the extent to which modern work organisations can be likened to total institutions in his case study of control and commitment in ‘Tech’, a

314 • W O R K O R G A N I S AT I O N S

hi-tech US engineering company. On the surface, the resemblance to a total institution is slight, employment at Tech being economically rewarding and desirable and members being continually involved in ‘reflective discourses’ that openly embody irony, cynicism and humour. But at the same time there is a pull towards an escalation of commitment to the corporation, towards corporate definitions of reality, and continual pressure on the boundaries of personal privacy. The outcome, according to Kunda, is that ‘people over time are submerged in a community of meaning that is to some extent monopolised by management: a total institution of sorts’ (1992: 224). The self is not surrendered or captured in Kanter’s terms, but the foundations on which the self is built are continually undermined as the authenticity of experience is continually appropriated by corporate ideology.

The effect of such an appropriation of meaning overlays rules of belief onto the systems of rules regulating behaviour, imperfect articulation between the two giving rise to manufactured uncertainty and insecurity. This insecurity is a classic precondition for the exercise of power through self-discipline as exemplified in Grey’s (1994) study of professional accountants. The uncertainty produced by exhortations on the superiority of accountants, coupled with a secretive employment and promotion policy, led to constant self-surveillance. This was characterised by a search for ‘signs of grace’ signalled by formal indications such as salary, job ratings and allocations and informal signs such as working and social relationships with superiors. Where ‘grace’ is found this reinforces the self-confidence of the individual and hopefully engenders a self-fulfilling prophecy of success. Thus to gain, in Whyte’s (1957: 404) terms, ‘the peace of mind offered by the organisation’ and to reduce levels of manufactured uncertainty does not require abject surrender to the formal restrictions or beliefs of the total institution. At the same time, though, it will require the same types of tacit collaboration and ‘tactful’ behaviour that Goffman saw as necessary to the continuation of organisational ‘performances’ and which we explore further in chapter 21.

Conclusion

Motivation is a chimera, a hybrid concept that owes more to science and organisational necessity than to nature, human or otherwise. It is often linked to that other organisational chimera, the so-called ‘psychological contract’ (see Guest’s 1998 review and critique), which some now associate with similarly suspect notions of ‘organisational citizenship’ (see Brotherton, 1999: 44). Like the psychological contract, motivation seems to be noted more in the breach than its observance, and managers often appear to be better at demotivating workers than at enthusing them with the spirit of the enterprise. From short-term productivity initiatives based mainly on social facilitation, influence or coercion, we now have a huge ramshackle edifice which constantly reshapes and renames itself to accommodate the changing contexts of work.

In consultancy and management development work we often hear managers complain that ‘my workers are not motivated’ and the stock response has become: ‘No, only dead people aren’t motivated, they’re just not motivated to do what you want them to’. To a great extent, in this era of short-term contracts and demands for continuous development, we are now expected to be responsible for our own motivation to work. Now that we cannot have a comfortable progression up a job ladder to mobilise our commitment, and the diminishing returns of reward and autonomy are recognised everywhere except in the case of CEOs, organisations are turning elsewhere for

M OT I VAT I O N : T H E D R I V E F O R S AT I S FA C T I O N • 3 1 5

inspiration. The area of psychological knowledge that is being mined most extensively for the raw materials of motivation is nowadays that which supplies most of our social facilitation in the first place: the group. In the next chapter we explore the regulation of organisational behaviour through the nature and dynamics of groups or, to be more in line with modern usage, through teamwork.

20 From Groups to Teams

As we saw in Chapters 11 and 12, teams are at the forefront of contemporary work reform. Some of the management writers and organisational psychologists who once wrote about groups have now dusted down their material and applied it to teams. This chapter seeks to outline and evaluate that journey, considering the traditional behavioural literature on groups, before looking at the extent to which the equivalent writings on teamwork adds to, distracts from or distorts it.

The authority of the group

Groups are defined in terms that vary according to the aspects of the topic that are being studied. However, a composite definition could describe a group as ‘a collection or coalition of people who interact meaningfully in the pursuit of common goals or objectives and who have at least a tacit sense of agreed standards, values and common identity’ (based on Schein, 1965, and Drake and Smith, 1973). Groups are often referred to as the ‘building blocks’ of organisations and are studied in terms of the roles and associated norms generated within them, their role and communication structures, their interpersonal dynamics and their relations to other organisational coalitions and interest groups. Whether formally or informally constituted, cohesive or loosely associated, groups could be viewed in many situations as responses to pressures. We live out much of our existence in the contexts of varying coalitions to which we are attached for a purpose, whether this is by individual design, accident or external determination. Groups in this sense are social and interpersonal tools, or even possibly technologies of action through which we achieve ends that are beyond our perceptions of personal power. At the same time, our activities are circumscribed by, and directed towards, whatever goals or ends the group exists to serve.

In organisations, groups tend to be formed around the divisions and stratifications inherent in structural and or social processes. Thus they can arise around and within sectional, divisional and hierarchical boundaries, and also out of the interactions of groups of peers, workmates or social interests. Any individual is likely to have allegiance to any number of such groups at the same time, even though they might not actually consider themselves to be a member of any particular group. In the same way our allegiances may change and shift without this registering in a conscious fashion. Numerous typologies of groups are in use, which classify them, for example, as membership, affiliation or interest, formal or informal. More useful classifications for the study of groups in the workplace examine them on the basis of levels of skill and interaction, closeness/type of relationships, and the levels of control the group has over factors such as methods and pace of work, membership and adherence to norms. The various typologies of groups are often used very loosely in the organisational literature and even more so in the HRM literature, which often assumes global effects of group

F R O M G R O U P S TO T E A M S • 3 1 7

membership that are not always true of all types of group. For example, typologies which give groups as task (sometimes project), team and command (sometimes technological) can be interpreted as classifying groups according to the levels of control that the group itself has over the factors given above. Task groups would have high levels of control and latitude for decision-making, command groups little or none.

Though the distinction between formal and informal groups is well-rehearsed in the literature, it is false in the sense that even the most rigidly constituted formal groups still have informal processes surrounding the interactions of members both within and without the group. By the same token, even loose informal coalitions have their behaviour formally constrained to some extent by evaluative standards such as norms. In reality this distinction should be restricted to whether the group has been formally or informally constituted and to levels of control as above. Hollway (1991: 70–1), for example, notes that the focus on the informal group in Mayo’s Hawthorne studies did not lead to practices based on the informal interactions of friendship or social affiliation, but rather to the genesis of the training group, ‘temporarily constituted of strangers in isolation and permanently under the control of the trainer’ (1991: 71). Likewise, distinctions based on the closeness and type of relationships in the group, normally given as primary or secondary groups, are again misleading. The closer, mainly face-to-face interaction of primary groups such as families, teams or groups of colleagues working on a task is not of necessity any more influential than the more distant and impersonal secondary group such as a company, union, professional association or a public institution. There are certainly more opportunities for influence to be effective in the primary group, but secondary groups very often act as reference groups (see McKenna 1994: 314–16 for a discussion). These we use as a source of personal or group standards or as a basis for comparison; they can be significant in determining the social and organisational roles that we aspire to or are constrained by. As such, they may have greater effects on our individual norms or values than the groups to which we presently belong, and even be a source of conflict between our values and such groups.

Of particular importance within organisations are what Alderfer and Smith (1982) refer to as identity groups. These are a special case of interest groups that can cut across sectional and hierarchical divisions and generally originate outside of organisational boundaries. In fact they can often be organisations themselves, professional associations, pressure groups and most notably unions. When they form a significant source of norms and values they can exert considerable influence on workplace attitudes and behaviour, often in a fashion counter to organisational objectives. As such, it is possible to see much of the culture/HRM movements of recent years as an attempt to undermine the influence of external identity groups and to shift the focus of reference back towards the employing organisation.

Group formation and composition

In terms of the definition given above, a given collection of people is not immediately a group, and the process of group formation and maturation is seen as important in determining the eventual role relationships and the performance effectiveness of the group. The most often-cited model of group formation is Tuckman’s (1965), in which four stages of forming, storming, norming and performing lead to effective teamwork; a fifth stage, adjourning, was added to cover temporary groups and committees (1977).

F R O M G R O U P S TO T E A M S • 3 1 9

extended discussions.) Both of these have limited reliability and validity as tests, and the Belbin inventory in particular has attracted extensive criticism, not least because it is based ‘on data obtained from training courses run for senior management’ (Hosking and Morley, 1991: 197). According to Hosking and Morley (1991: 199) and Furnham (1997: 458), Belbin’s work does however establish the importance of the leadership role, creativity, support for group members and open communication in effective teams. Hosking and Morley further note that ‘Belbin’s theory is most useful when firms lack systematic working procedures and rely too heavily on informal methods of communication’ (1991: 199). At the same time, the contradictory nature of using inductively derived personality constructs to develop processes dependent on group interaction rather than individual characteristics (as noted above) is not acknowledged by users of the Belbin typology. This, along with difficulties in matching individuals to required roles (see McKenna, 2000: 345) is why this ‘wouldbe’ technology of regulation is difficult to use outside training sessions and is mainly useful as a heuristic device for scripting managerial behaviour (see section on ‘Roles’ in Chapter 17).

Group socialisation

Groups can also be highly effective mechanisms for making out, and directly instrumental for their member’s capacity to control the wage–effort bargain, as research such as Burawoy’s (1979) shows. On the other hand, however, groups also have formal, instrumental functions for organisations as a whole, and by implication for the dominant power groupings within them. In this sense they are the basis for the distribution of work, the units of monitoring, control and data collection and an integral part of many organisational decision-making processes (Schein, 1985: 149–50). Groups and looser coalitions are also the arenas within which individuals secure identities, and of management attempts to regulate them. As identity groups, such as trade unions, professional or employers’ associations, they set the contexts within which individuals and smaller groups compete for power over the structures and processes of organisations and for access to the material and psychic rewards they can supply.

In terms of making out, groups can also be viewed as sites of socialisation and as a major venue of attitudinal change, as indicated by Lewin’s (1956) experimental research showing the greater impetus to attitude change in group versus individual techniques. The identity constructs that are of great importance to individual meaning and social definition based on class, race, gender, or religion are communicated to us through the behaviours and beliefs we internalise (see Chapter 19) by participating in groups. The processes of socialisation through which the appropriate behaviours an organisation demands are developed are dependent on the operation of intra-group processes for their effectiveness. Thus individuals entering an organisation become attached, or are assigned, to particular groups, wherein they ‘learn the ropes’ of how to survive and what is expected of them. As direct influence and hierarchical control is a possible source of threat to identity, it is possible that such moulding into appropriate images could better be pursued through the influence of peers. This can be seen clearly from the examples of use of peer-group pressures as a form of social control in Japanese management techniques. Similarly, when using the ‘sitting with Nellie’ approach to job training, companies would be foolish not to

320 • W O R K O R G A N I S AT I O N S

ensure that ‘Nellie’ is someone whose own workplace identity is at least roughly compatible with managerial objectives.

Group cohesiveness and polarisation

The extent to which we are influenced or affected by the particular groups to which we belong is generally seen to be associated with the relative cohesiveness of different groups. Cohesiveness is both a function and consequence of the individual’s attraction to a group. The motivation to remain a member stems from the individual’s subjective expectations concerning the personal, social or material rewards to be gained. It is not necessary, however, that we rationally calculate differential attractiveness and available rewards. We might become members of various groups simply as a result of following appropriate scripts for making out in various social situations. Calculations of advantage and disadvantage may only actually apply when we become self-reflexive about our membership of a particular group. Most of the time we will probably construct our own identity in line with the identity of the group, on the basis that it is appropriate to the behaviours the group carries out. When a group becomes something to cope with, rather than something that helps us to cope, we may reflect on the possibilities we have of rejecting one group membership for another. Alternatively we may try to redefine our own position in the group and thus our own identity within it, or even attempt to redirect the group itself and thus reconstruct group identity in line with our own interests.

Hosking and Morley (1991: 106–7) cite Janis (1972) on interpersonal versus taskbased cohesiveness, which can respectively produce an ‘illusion of unanimity’ among group members and feelings of commitment to task-based norms. High interpersonal cohesiveness may lead to people suppressing personal doubts and bowing to group consensus through self-censorship, high task-based cohesiveness to selective perception, and convergent thinking, especially in conditions where openness of expression is not encouraged. These are the kind of conditions under which Janis’ (1972) notion of Groupthink occurs, where moral judgement and ‘reality testing’ are suspended, particularly in the face of high-risk decisions in high-status groups. A good example of this was the decision of the Thatcher government to prosecute in the ‘Spycatcher’ affair, where concerns for secrecy and solidarity outweighed the opinion of the rest of the world that it could not win the case. Groupthink is said to be a special case of Moscovici and Zavalloni’s (1969) notion of group polarisation, where social comparison processes and persuasive arguments can lead to groups shifting towards higher risk or more caution in decision-making discussions. Haslam (2000: 149–55) provides an excellent overview of research in this area which queries the extent to which polarisation effects are universal and rooted in individuals rather than being the social products of particular groups. Further, an analysis from the social identity approach leads Haslam to agree with Fuller and Aldag (1998) that ‘groupthink’ as a concept has led to serious limitations in research on group-decision making. Coined by Janis to utilise the Orwellian metaphor of ‘doublethink’, groupthink applies a negative spin to psychological processes within groups, which can, according to Haslam (2000: 177):

•be psychologically efficient and creative

•be grounded in group members’ social reality

•have the potential to be socially enriching.

F R O M G R O U P S TO T E A M S • 3 2 1

Hosking and Morley (1991: 100–12) provide further insights into the relation between individual and group coping and group context, learning and cohesion. In a discussion of Janis and Mann’s (1977) conflict, commitment and choice model in decision-making processes, they too conclude that psychological processes are not necessarily negative in their effects:

Fortunately the process is not inevitable. . . . If a cohesive group has norms and working procedures which require a ‘primary commitment to open-minded scrutiny of new evidence and a willingness to admit errors’ the tendency to cling to unsuccessful policies may be replaced by ‘a careful reappraisal of the wisdom of past judgements’. (Hosking and Morley, 1991: 111, citing Janis and Mann, 1977: 18)

Much as stereotypes have a negative image but a vital psychological function, polarisation effects may have a vital part to play in all group-decision processes and may not be universally negative for group members or the wider organisation. Regardless of this, the perceived dangers posed by such effects to the efficacy of group decisionmaking have prompted a great deal of research on methods to avoid them and to make decision processes more effective. The techniques evolved include classics such as brainstorming, the ‘Delphi’ technique, the use of ‘devil’s advocates’ and even ‘dialectical inquiry’ (Sweiger et al., 1986). Whether such techniques produce more creative or effective decisions is a moot point; their effect however is less ambiguous. What they are aimed at, along with the teamworking initiatives discussed below, is the translation of interpersonal into task-based cohesiveness, much as motivational techniques attempt to translate extrinsic into intrinsic factors (as discussed in Chapter 19). It would appear that from the point of view of organisational effectiveness, the interpersonal and political processes taking place in groups can become too powerful. The decision-making capacities they are often employed for must be restrained lest they lose sight of the ‘common good’ of the enterprise.

It seems possible, then, that it is the efforts we make to adapt to the groups to which we belong that, in the end, make organisation and organisations possible. Further, the strength of group effects themselves has a role in the construction of the organisational ‘need’ for regulation and discipline.

Group responses to pressures on identity

The consequences for the individual of not adapting to the authority of the group can lie in physical or social sanctions from the group itself and/or in increased feelings of stress and anxiety. At the same time, just as group polarisation might produce positive effects, individuals can use groups actively to transform their personal and social identities. For example the reflexiveness involved in raising consciousness of disadvantage in social groups can be the spur for responses to pressures that direct the use of groups as technologies of action. Thus interest groups can actively promote not only the material interests of members, but also their development of positive identities as mechanisms for making out. The patriarchal nature of power relations in organisations were contested throughout industry, commerce and the professions in the 1980s by women’s groups that relied on their own systems of networking to counter the male cliques who controlled their destinies.