“

Com e, Join Our Fam ily

”

: Disciplin e an d

Integration in Corporate Organ ization al
Culture

Cath erin e Casey

1,2

This article critically examines primary proce sse s and effects of the so-called

“new organizational culture” that is organized on the principles and practices
of Total Quality Manageme nt (and its variations) and increasingly practice d in
corporate organizations in the 1990s. The paper specifically analyzes the e ffects
of the organizational cultural practices of

“family” and “team” on the employee

and discusses their role in corporate discipline, integration, and control. Data
are drawn from field research conducted in a large multinational corporation
and the analyses and interpretive propositions are informed by a critical social
psychoanalytic perspe ctive . The paper disputes the conve ntional view that the
practices of the

“new culture” and its purported reform of the hierarchical,

specialized, conflict-ridden workplace s of traditional industrial organizations

“empower” employees and provide “meaningful” relationships in the workplace.
It is argue d, on the contrary, that these new

“designer” cultural practices serve

as proce sse s of re gulation, discipline, and control of e mployee subject selves.

K EY WOR DS: organi zational cu lture ; social psychoa nalysis; co ntrol an d
compliance; organization; ideal; psychic strate gies.

INTRODUCTION

Since the 1980s, corporate organizations around the world have be en

adopting and installing programs of organizational restructuring and work-
place re-engine ering. Most of the programs are based on the principle s and
practice s of a widely popular manageme nt strategy ofte n calle d Total Quality
Manage ment, participative manage ment or

“the learning organization,” or

some other vernacular title for a program of organizational structural and

Hum an Relations, Vol. 52, No. 2, 1999

155

0018-7267/99/0200-0155 $16.00/1

Ó

1999 The Tavistock Institute

1

Department of Manageme nt and E mployment Re lations, School of Business and Economics,
Unive rsity of Auckland, Auckland, New Z ealand.

2

Re quests for reprints should be addresse d to Catherine Casey, De partme nt of Manage ment
and E mployment Re lations, School of Business and E conomics, University of Auckland, Pri-
vate Bag 92019, Auckland, New Ze aland. (e -mail: c.casey@ auckland.ac.nz)

cultural change . Notwithstanding nume rous variations in different corporate
organizational and national settings, most organizational change programs
share the common fundame ntal aims of the reorganization of the workplace
and the production of new sets of attitude s, be liefs, and behavior among cor-
porate employe es to enable incre ased productivity and profitability for the
organization. The research literature variously discussing matters of organ-
izational culture and organizational change is now extensive (e.g., Bate, 1994;
Deming, 1986; Drucke r, 1993; Frost, 1991; Garvin, 1988; Grave s, 1986;
Handy, 1985; Kanter, 1989, 1992; Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Kunda, 1992; Mar-
ceau, 1992; Martin, 1992; Schein, 1992; Se nge, 1990).

Pivotal among the ne w organizational cultural practice s and value s are

the metaphors of

“team” and “family.” Many companies, from manufac-

turing operations and supe rmarke t chains, to hospitals and airline compa-
nies, promote themselves in the marke tplace and to employe es as caring,
familial communitie s, inviting both e mploye es and customers to

“Come,

join our family

” through their involve ment with the company. At first

glance , such an invitation may seem a timely and welcome recognition of
relational and affective dime nsions of human life that

“ought” to be pro-

moted in workplace s historically ridde n with industrial conflicts and divi-
sions. Furthe rmore, team evoke s reference s to coope ration and sharing of
skill and labor toward the attainme nt of share d goals. B oth family and
team, are , in normative conditions, positive and ge ne rative social practice s.
Therefore, the ir delibe rate installation as part of the new organizational
culture fundame ntally assumes their reasonable inconte stability and unive r-
sal attractive ne ss. Howeve r, a deeper look at the new organizational cul-
tural practic e s of te am and fam ily re ve als com ple x discordan t and
uninte nded outcome s from the ir installation.

The extant literature on teams, work groups, and work re-organization

(e.g., Cole, 1989; Cutche r-Gurshe nfeld et al., 1994; Goodman, 1986; Hack-
man, 1990; Jenkins, 1994; Manz and Sims, 1987; Safizade h, 1991; Sandbe rg,
1995; Tjosvold, 1991, 1993) typically addre sses issues and proble ms in the ir
institution, manage ment, le adership, effective ne ss, job de sign, employe e
participation, and national variations. Most observers assume or indicate
the advantage s of the se ne w workplace practice s for the organization, and
its employe es, now operating unde r conditions of extraordinary technologi-
cal change and highly compe titive global marke ts. Many studie s assume
the commonly held and advocate d view that the installation of team and
family-style structures and processes reforms outdate d bure aucratic work-
place s, and uniformly increases employe e participation, commitment, mo-
tivation and empowe rment, and organizational productivity.

Othe r obse rve rs of various aspects of team work and organizational

reform in the past decade (Barker, 1993; Jermie r et al., 1994; Kunda, 1992;

156

Casey

Klein, 1989; Kochan, 1986; Parke r & Slaughte r, 1988; Sewell & Wilkinson,
1992; Sinclair, 1992) point to proble ms in the ope ration of team culture s
that challe nge the manage rialist assumption of unitarist corporate organ-
izational advantage and employe e empowe rment. The inte rplay of the
popular, positive assumptions about team and family and their ofte ntime s
disparate outcom es shape s the eve ryday organizational conte xt of the ir
practice and the expe rie nce of their effects. In recognition of this discursive
interplay, this pape r unde rtakes a critical analysis of a

“new” corporate

culture as constructe d in one exemplary multinational corporation. Spe cifi-
cally, the pape r describes, analyze s, and interprets the culture of team and
family-style work organization for the purpose of examining the less visible
psychic effects of the se practice s on employe es. A critical analysis and in-
terpre tation of these psychic effects is de velope d which in turn provide s a
basis for a furthe r interpretive discussion of the organizational practice s of
compliance and control. The particular contribution offered in this pape r
is a critical social-psychological analysis and interpretation of the psychic
effects of the ne w cultural practice s and their simultane ous constitution as
device s of control. Although I make no assertions from this case of a de-
finitive , ge ne ralizing trend, the pape r

’s interpretations and theoretical

propositions do invite reconside ration of de signe d organization cultural in-
terventions, and of the ideological conve ntions delimiting most organiza-
tional analysis.

PERSPECTIVE, DATA, METHOD

The research gaze and the interpre tive analysis draw explicitly from a

psychoanalytic theoretical perspective and, implicitly, from critical social
theory. While influe nced ne cessarily by both classical and contemporary
psychoanalytic traditions,

3

the pape r follows more spe cifically the work of

Fromm (1941, 1955, 1973), Jaque s (1951, 1976) , Maccoby (1976, 1988) , and
LaBie r (1986) whose psychoanalytic interest in organizations seeks unde r-
standing of the emotional effects of social institutions on individuals. Other
psychoanalytic approache s to organizationa l conte xts (e.g., Baum, 1987,

Corporate Organizat ion al Culture

157

3

Classical psychoanalysis associated with the work of Freud and his followers holds, in the
first instance, the postulation of the unconscious and the activity of unconscious proce sses
in human behavior. Numerous other postulations, theories, and interpretive schema are also
ce ntral to the theory: such as, for example, instincts, psychic e nergy, drive s, e go de fenses,
and fantasy. Contemporary psychoanalytic theories variously retain, reject, and adapt many
of the classical cate gories, and they draw from psychiatry, developme ntal psychology, and
other psychologies. In the discussion deve loped in this paper, theories of affective experience ,
of anxie ties and ne urose s, of intrapsychic conflict, and of se lf, attachment, and maturation
are drawn most from the more contemporary literature. As my interest in this paper is a
social-psychoanalytic interpretation my e ffort is to describe these categories only to the e xtent
that they optimally e xplicate the narrative and theoretical propositions deve loped here.

1990; Diamond, 1985, 1988; Hirschhorn, 1984, 1988; Schwartz, 1990) typi-
cally conside r applie d organizational proble ms such as leade rship, group
proce sses, decision-making, conflict and anxie ty manage ment, and organi-
zation deve lopme nt. My twofold task in this pape r is to describe and ana-
l yz e th e p syc h i c e ffe c ts o f d e l ibe ra te l y d e sig n e d a n d i n stitu te d
organizational culture , and to deve lop a critical social analysis and inter-
pretation of those effects, which require s that the theoretical orie ntation
of my research draw upon both psychoanalytic traditions and social theory.

Psychoanalytic the ory describes and inte rpre ts primary proce sses un-

derlying human activity. Its insights and inte rpre tations can offer important
contributions to our unde rstanding of organizational practice s and human
expe rie nces of organizational life . But psychoanalytic theory cannot be ir-
refutably transferred into social scie ntific research, nor its methods readily
applie d in an organizational research site . A psychoanalytic pe rspective can,
though, dire ct the gaze of the researche r and inform the analytical inter-
pre tations of conve ntionally gathe red empirical data. Accordingly, I ac-
knowle dge that the analyse s and interpre tations narrate d in this pape r can
only pe rsuasive ly claim, by the re asonable ne ss of their treatment of the
evide nce, their validity and usefulne ss in unde rstanding organizational en-
actme nts. The qualitative empirical study discusse d more fully be low is
grounde d in the establishe d conve ntions for the conduct of qualitative field
work, rigorous data colle ction through participant observation, in-de pth in-
terviews, and docume nt analysis, and it was, ne cessarily, se lf-consciously
informe d by the guiding theoretical pe rspective s.

My drawing from social the ory, apart from the classical heritage in

both Marx and Durkhe im evide nt in my critical social analysis of microso-
cial phenome na, generally invoke s the tradition of critical social the ory,

4

but refers particularly to my use (in subse quent sections) of the cate gory
of discipline in which Foucault

’s (1972, 1979, 1980) formulation is invoked.

For Foucault, the social institutional regulation of persons for institutional
ends is accomplishe d through a discursive disciplinary apparatus in which
people are formed, modifie d, delimite d, and controlle d. Discursive disci-
pline , as I use it he re following Foucault, refers to culturally communicate d
proce sses that affect the employe e which are not simply those rationally
determine d and formally enunciate d in ove rt, codifie d disciplinary practice s
typical of any purposive organization.

158

Casey

4

Critical social theory, associated with the Frankfurt School of social theorists including Hork-
heimer, Adorno, Fromm, Marcuse and more latterly Habe rmas, was constructed foremost
on the work of Hegel, Marx, Freud, and We ber. It se eks to de velop a critical social science
that integrate s an empirical-analytic and a he rme ne utic me thod and that, briefly stated, ad-
dresses the paradoxes of the societal rationalization that is characte ristic of modernity.

Discursive practice s consciously and unconsciously communicate d and

expe rie nced are formative of subje ctive being. An interrogation and expo-
sition of the mode s of corporate organizational discourse s, in particular
those of team and family-style culture s and the ir constitution of social in-
stitutional relationships, is the first task of this pape r. The second, and most
important, is an analysis and inte rpre tation of the effects of such discursive
practice s on subje ct selves at work. At that point the analysis again draws
on contemporary social theory, spe cifically Habe rmas (1984, 1987) ,

5

to so-

cially interpret the psychological effects de scribed here. From the evide nce
presente d be low, I argue that the discursive ly constructe d corporate family
that elicits and simulate s warm feelings of bonding and belonging simulta-
ne ously function s as a re gulatory and disciplina ry de vice

—a discursive

“colonization ” (Habermas, 1984) of the employee self. In such a coloniza-
tion, self-constitue nt processes of self-regulate d emotional expe rience and
expre ssion, and self-determine d judgme nt and effectivity, are altered and
usurpe d by the practice s of the de signe d corporate culture . Most impor-
tantly, the displace ment of ange r and dissension and the manage ment of
ambivale nce by the individual enable and enact corporate practice s of com-
pliance , ide ntification, and control. I elaborate below.

Field Stu dy

I unde rtook an extensive fie ld study of a large multinational corpora-

tion locate d in the northe astern United States. The company is involve d
in the de velopme nt and manufacture of advance d technological systems
and in corporate restructuring. The particular question addre ssed in this
pape r draws from that exte nsive data. Hephae stus Corporation (a pseudo-
nym) is a $20 billion ope ration trading in a global marke t for advance d
office technologie s and imaging products. The company ranks highly among
the Fortune 500 companie s for its deve lopme nt and pione ering of many
of the ne w forms of work organization, such as teamwork and Total Quality
Manage ment, and continuous

“organizational learning.” In the late 1970s

and 1980s, the company expe rie nce d a period of serious marke t loss against

Corporate Organizat ion al Culture

159

5

Habe rmas

’ notion of colonization of the life-world (1984) and Foucault’s notion of discursive

discipline are ne ither incomme nsurable nor ne cessarily premised on disparate notions of self,
or agency. Neither Habermas nor Foucault pre mised an ahistorical transce ndental subject in
the Kantian sense. Subject-selves are creations of constituent biological, social, and psychic
processes that e nable age ncy, inwardness, affectivity, and individuality. Others, including
Lasch, Kohut, and Goffman, variously share d such a formulation. Foucault, often re ad solely
in his voice of self-dissolution through power/knowledge schema in which subjects are sites
or networks of power, has not only been variously criticized for this totalizing discourse, but
held himself variations on this vie w. His rejection of a Kantian notion of se lf did not dissuade
him from arguing for a project of self-creation and age ncy in, most notably, Technologies of
the self (1988) . Further elaboration is outside the tasks of this paper.

Japane se compe titors. This expe rience prompte d Hephae stus Corporation
to institute in the 1980s a program of corporate cultural change and struc-
tural reorganization. The company has now regaine d its market position
and continue s in the 1990s to downsize and incre ase productivity.

The fie ld study include d daily participant obse rvation ove r the course

of an acade mic year of a large product de velopme nt division comprising
some 500 employe es. The product de ve lopme nt team (PDT) was divide d
into numerous subteams with a matrix structure. The majority of employe es
on the product team were pe rsons with various forme rly spe cialist back-
grounds in scie nce s, engine ering, technology, electronics and economics
performing jobs in design, computing systems, financial and technological
analysis, marke ting, product, and general manage ment, fie ld engine ering,
training, and so forth. Manufacturing worke rs also include d in the study
comprise d a minority of the broade r team

’s membership.

I conducte d in-de pth interviews of 60 employe es (and some spouse s)

chose n from among the large r team. The informants were selected to gain
a wide sample of rank, tenure, demographic features such as gender, race ,
ethnicity, and regional and occupational origin. Some were also chosen on
the basis of the ir strategic location in the Team or in the broade r division
of the company, i.e., vice pre side nt, returne d retiree, new entry employe e.
I atte nde d hundre ds of hours of meetings, training sessions, conferences,
and product launche s. I studie d company docume nts, manuals, and pro-
motional mate rial. My analysis and inte rpretations of the data from the
interviews, observations and docume ntation were shape d by the critical so-
cial-psychoanalytic pe rspe ctive that guide d the research questions and le ns
cast on the data.

THE

“NEW” CORPORATE CULTURE: TEAM AND FAMILY

Hephae stus Corporation designe d its

“new culture program” with the

principle obje ctive s to gain

“employee involve ment,” to “improve produc-

tivity and incre ase custome r satisfaction

” and to create “a culture of ex-

celle nce and achie ve ment

” in all aspects of Hephaestus production. To

achie ve this a

“new Hephaestus employee” was required, one who would

believe that his or her self-de ve lopme nt, source of self-fulfillme nt and ide n-
tity are to be found in working for He phae stus. Such employe es would
the n willingly and energe tically labor to incre ase productivity, customer sat-
isfaction, and company profitability. The strategies de signe d to imple ment
the goals were twofold. The first stratage m promote d a set of corporate
value s, be lie fs, attitude s, and be havior among employe es that would create
the preferred employe e characte r type . The second require d the introduc-
tion of ne w structural and cultural practice s that would flatte n hierarchie s,

160

Casey

encourage more participative de cision-making processes and strengthe n
employe es

’ sense of responsibility, feelings of identification and attachment,

and displays of compe tence .

The se strate gie s for organizational change are now widely practice d

in corporate organizations around the world. The practice s of team and
family and the autonomous regulation they encourage have be en exten-
sively discusse d in the lite rature (e.g., Barke r, 1993; Goodman, 1986; Ouchi,
1981; Peters & Waterman, 1984; Safizade h, 1991; Kunda, 1992; Tjosvold,
1991) . The aims of the official ne w organizatio nal culture promote an
arche typical ne w Hephae stus employe e who enthusiastically manife sts the
value s of dedication, loyalty, self-sacrifice , and passion for the product and
customer. These qualitie s are readily displaye d by the use of the correct
new language forms (that reflect teamwork, fle xibility, coope ration, and re-
garding

“customer requirements” and “company requirements” as para-

mount) . Appropriate inte rpe rsonal interactions base d on team and family
rhetoric, the willing service of long hours of work, and declarations of com-
mitment also display the correct attitude s of the

“new” Team Hephaestus

employe e. Previously competing alle giance s, such as professional and union
associations and occupational ide ntifications are ove rtly discourage d and
simultane ously displace d by the new cultural practice s. The se olde r, more
typically mode rn industrial ide ntifications and alle giance s were tole rate d
and more or le ss containe d in industrial organizations. The ir existe nce and
recognition none thele ss sustaine d sufficie nt emotional motivation for em-
ploye es to expe nd ene rgy in the production of goods and services ove r
which they had no ownership or control.

In traditional industrial organizations, employe es were expected only

to exe cute manage ment-designe d processes of production. In the ne w cul-
ture , employe e knowle dge, skills and experie ntial expe rtise

—from all skill

base s and spe cialist backgrounds

—are incorporate d into all aspects of the

productive enterprise. The rewards to the employe e for relinquishing old
work styles, attitude s, and attachme nts and for participating in pan-occu-
pational teams and formerly manage ment functions are, ostensibly, the feel-
ings of a greater sense of involve ment, commitment, and

“empowerment.”

They are offe red, purporte dly, a partne rship with a caring and committed
employe r, and a closeknit family of colle ague s who share a passion for ex-
celle nce and custome r satisfaction, and who repress familial conflicts and
dysfunctions.

I obse rved in the course of my year among them, and employe es re-

ported, that the new culture in practice for a decade or so had inde ed become
effective. Employe es appe ared to assume the habits and value s espouse d in
the new culture . Across the organization manufacturing workers, technolo-
gists, scientists, clerical worke rs, and manage rs manife sted in the ir language

Corporate Organizat ion al Culture

161

forms, in their interpersonal interactions and in the ir sentime nts toward the
company and its products the preferred cultural style of self-presentation as
conge nial, de dicate d, and identifie d employe es. For example , I commonly
heard vie ws about the company expressed by many, including senior and mid-
dle-ranking manage rs and technologists, and lower-ranking employe es such
as:

“When you think of what this company has done, and where it has come

from, it

’s just amazing. We’ve always been a great company, but now we’re

Team, we are really going someplace . . . .

” And anothe r: “Hephaestus has

this aura about it, like I can

’t really explain, but it’s there and I feel it. Every

time I go somewhere I notice if the y have Hephae stus machine s or not. Like,
I guess I

’m real proud to work for Hephaestus.”

Similarly, employe es invoke the ne w company slogans and proble m-

solving proce dures in meetings, in cubicle conve rsations, and in inte rviews.
The y fre ely we ar its slogan-be aring sweatshirt, base ball cap, and lape l
badge . Many reporte d that the team has

“really brought us together.” Hal,

a research technologist and manage r, capture s the sentiments of many:

“Be-

fore, it

’s like, you used to get the engine ers doing their thing and the mar-

keting people doing the ir thing, and maybe the compute r whizze s doing
the irs and hardly anybody knew what the others were doing . . . . Now
we

’re all in it together, and we go up or down together . . . . So it’s like,

we care about each other, . . . and . . . go the extra mile.

”

The concepts of team and family are typically use d inte rchange ably in

eve ryday practice . Their ambiguity is ne ve r clarifie d the reby enabling the
conve nient elicitation, and favoring, of the sentiments of one ove r the other
as re quire d . The m ainte nance of se le ctive inte rchange ability ( not
synonymity) retains a wider repository of emotions and rationale s that may
be elicite d at manage rial initiative for organization production ends. This
is now a primary task of manage ment. None theless, the team is more no-
ticeably promote d among the profe ssional and technological employe es to
evoke reference s to individual pe rformance s while sharing commitments to
group goals and style s of working. The family conce pt is more strongly pro-
moted among the manufacturing worke rs and other blue collar occupa-
tional groups within the greater PDT. The family metaphor active ly evoke s
pre -industrial romantic image s of kinship bonding and share d struggle s
against adve rsity. The family is also hierarchical, repre ssive , pate rnalistic,
and de ferential to highe r exte rnal authoritie s. Employe es commonly re-
ported vie ws such as this one from Si (18 ye ars service , working in systems
engine ering) :

“It’s like a family here. We all get on real well . . . and we’re

looke d afte r. Sure , we argue some times, if someone hasn

’t done their job

right, or something, but you never really get mad . . . . We

’re a family, you

know, . . . and we stick together.

” And, from a senior manage r, Drew (21

ye ars with the company), responsible for a training function,

“. . . they used

162

Casey

to encourage us as (senior) men to be like fathers to the younge r ones
coming on . . . and that

’s the way I am with some of my people.”

Employe es assume family-like roles with one anothe r and are manage d

by family rules and processes. This proce ss include s both the conscious in-
vocation of the internal dynamics of family relations such as Drew indicate s,
and the unconscious family syste ms and transference s

6

that occur in inter-

personal relations. Family-style power and authority relations are not new
in many organizations. In the United State s, they were expe rime nted with
in the early 1920s and again in the 1950s. Prior to the imple mentation of
the ne w culture program, Hephae stus Corporation had an informal dis-
course of pate rnalism and familial camarade rie. The new culture program
evoke s that olde r rhetoric while endeavoring to formally institute family-
style practice s for both cultural and structural organizational interests. The
normative control of the family simultane ously facilitate s, and compensates
for, the elimination or erosion of hierarchical supervision. At the same time ,
the capacitie s in advance d information and manufacturing technologie s en-
able an integration of forme rly separate functions and a de-differentiation
of skill base s and work role s. Automation of many of the functions and
tasks of manual workers has enable d the elimination of many categorie s
of work, especially those traditionally requiring close supervision (see, for
example , Block, 1990; Case y, 1995; Zuboff, 1988) . Many supervisory func-
tions are also incorporate d into the informate d technologie s that can

“ob-

serve

” and measure worker performances. The supervisory functions that

remain are now typically co-performed by familial team membe rs monitor-
ing and regulating each other (Barker, 1993; Kunda, 1992; Se well & Wilkin-
son, 1992) .

The official organizational vie w as de scribed above , that is, serendipi-

tously, appare ntly shared by most employe es across the company, regards
the principle s and practice s of the ne w organizational culture as welcome
reforms to the hierarchical, spe cialize d, tension-fille d workplace s of tradi-
tional industrial organizations. Howe ver, I show in the following discussion
that these practice s, notwithstanding the appare nt attractive ness of the new
inte grate d, caring team-family culture , effect disparat e psychic conse-
que nce s on employe es. The discussion be low first discusse s ge ne ral effects
of acculturation: psychic accommodatio n, anxie ty, and ambivale nce. Draw-
ing on this evide nce and its interpretive propositions, a discussion of dis-
ciplin e and inte gration follows and, finally, a critical explicatio n and
interpre tation of the se practice s is offered.

Corporate Organizat ion al Culture

163

6

Transfe rence, in psychoanalytic usage, refers here to e mployees unconsciously behaving to-
ward others as they may have done in actual earlier or contemporary family re lationships.
These behaviors may, or may not, be appropriate in deliberately designed family cultures ye t
such deliberate re plications of family systems inevitably ge nerate their manifestation.

Psychic Accom mod ation

The first effect, and the first task of the employe e, is the acculturation

require ment of psychic accommodation

—the process of fitting the self into

the new normative conditions of the de signe d culture . The

“psychostruc-

ture

”

7

(Maccoby, 1976) of the organization selects and shape s in the em-

ploye e certain kinds of orientations that achie ve an appropriate fit be tween
the require ments of the organizational culture of work and the characte r of
those who work within it. A succe ssful employe e

’s values, attitudes, and gen-

eral orientation must correspond to those promote d by the organizational
culture . Consequently, specific traits and attitude s that are use ful to the work
and the team are stimulated and rewarde d and those that are unne cessary
or that impede the proce sses of the workplace culture , and the refore of pro-
duction, are thwarte d and suppre ssed. This is illustrate d by Opal, an e ngine er
responsible for managing a test function, refle cting that:

“I often think that

because I

’m a very outgoing, nurturing, supportive person it causes conflicts

. . . . I need to be more directive . . . . [It

’s] my way, if you need help, I’m

he re to he lp you. So I really have to watch it . . . . I

’m the kind of person

who wants to help and make sure things are going the way they should . . . .
And it

’s like, being a helpful person is good for the team, but it’s not good

for me . . . and I have to watch it.

” Opal’s familial, helpful interpersonal and

work style , that is officially value d in the caring team-family, was, at the same
time , practically de trimental to he r work pe rformance and advance ment
prospects. I obse rved and she reporte d that she was often give n additional
assignme nts or directed to help someone, and late r criticize d for slow delive ry
or ine fficie ncy in he r own primary work tasks.

Employe es must find psychic strate gie s to accommodate to the new

culture and its atte ndant ambiguitie s. Believing in the simulate d team-fam-
ily is the most common option. Most employe es, drawn from across the
subteams of the PDT, report that the y

“feel great about the team” and

that

“we’re a family here.” Bob’s comments typify the views expressed by

many employe es:

“Hephaestus has really looked after me . . . . I’ve grown

up he re. It

’s been like a family, sure, we’re a family here . . . like people

care , you know?

”

Even employe es, such as Paul a compute r scientist, who are critical of

the new culture simultane ously report: I don

’t think this new culture thing

is all it

’s cracked up to be . . . . You’re a tool for the corporation, that’s

all you are . . . . I like the idea of team, and I think it works to a great

164

Casey

7

Psychostructure , a term use d by Maccoby (1976) and LaBier (1988), refers to the organization
posse ssing a psychological structure e vide nt in its patterns of value s, norms, beliefs, and be-
havior. At the same time , the notion that organizations are themselve s psychic phe nomena
(Morgan, 1988) established by human thought and action is e voked. The psychostructure is
both produced by, and constituent of, the cultural domain.

exte nt. I feel part of it.

” Paul’s expression of mixed feelings, like Opal’s

expe rie nces of conflicting value discourse s, accords with the ambiguity re-
sulting from the interplay of the positive vie ws of team-family value s and
the ir ambiguous and contradictory outcome s. For others, the ambiguity is
resolve d or containe d by asse rting an idealize d view of the organization.

Assisting such idealization for some employe es is the occurrence of per-

sonally favorable experiences of the new team-family culture . The team can
provide a numbe r of psychic benefits to the employee that mitigate or challe nge
the awareness, as Paul expressed above , of the enduring economic realitie s of
a competitive busine ss enterprise and its rationally designe d emotionally grati-
fying new culture . Employees speak of personalized, oftentimes significant, ex-
periences of the corporation

’s contribution to their lives. Pat, a design engineer

and manage r, spoke of he r

“personal change s,” the “maturity” she believes evi-

dent from her years of working for Hephae stus:

“I’ve been here seven years

now . . . . I

’ve had to really get my shit together . . . . I used to be a very

distrusting person . . . . I

’ve learned to open up and to communicate and I

guess I trust the team. I be lie ve that we are all ve ry committe d to what we

’re

doing . . . . I

’m a different person now.” Another, Vinny, a member of the

uppe r manage ment group of the PDT, remarks:

“. . . We know how to deal

with proble ms and communicate now . . . . So you have to learn, and to
grow . . . . I have to say I

’ve learned and my attitudes have changed.”

Acquiring and abiding by the value s and practice s of the team-family

corporate culture can stimulate high technological performance and provide
more opportunitie s for experie nce s of compe tence and accomplishme nt. E m-
ploye es can perform to the ir be st in terms of rational knowle dge, technical
skills, productive capacities, and team-working and inte rpe rsonal skills.
Moreover, I neither obse rve d nor he ard about instance s of feuding, blacklist-
ing, or vindictive practical joking typical of industrial workplace s. Similarly,
overt racial discrimination is rare, and overt sexism less commonplace .

The se patte rns of expe rie nce are comple x. O n the one hand, many

expre ssions of a corporate -style maturity and admiration for the benefice nt
corporate organization can be interpreted as instance s of employe e ideali-
zation of the organization as

“organization ideal” (Schwartz, 1990) akin to

identification with an all-powe rful ego-ide al.

8

Identification with the great-

ness of Hephae stus Corporation, eve n when self-narrate d as

“maturity” dis-

plays a dependent, narcissistic, effect of corporate culture on employe es.
On the othe r hand, reinstate ment of corporate

“civilitie s” and “virtues”

Corporate Organizat ion al Culture

165

8

Freud use d superego and e go-ideal as interchange able terms (Lasch, 1984, p. 178) but, as
Lasch points out, many analysts argue that the e go-ideal has distinctive attributions. Unlike
the supe rego that consists of internalized forbidding aspects of pare ntal authority, the

“ego-

ideal holds up admired, idealize d images of pare nts and other authorities to which the ego
should aspire

” (Lasch, 1984, p. 178). The ego-ideal, in Freud’s formulation, is the “heir of

primary narcissism

” (ibid., p. 179).

such as interpersonal polite ness, inclusive positive language and participa-
tive meetings, restraint of ange r, and discourage ment of acting out (a popu-
lar response of less-repressed narcissists of the curre nt generation as Lasch,
1978, 1984 note d) are scarce ly unwelcome in the forme rly overtly conflic-
tual industrial organization. At the same time as the organization

’s designer

culture produce s narcissism and dependence through corporate ide alization
(always in the service of increasing productivity) the organization wishes
to contain and repress narcissism

’s undesirable manifestations, and deny

its effects. The tasks of managing the effects of contradictory benefits, am-
bivale nce , and corporate ly-ne cessary ambiguity are daily, unspoke n, privat-
ize d proble ms for e ach individual employe e. The anxie tie s ge ne rate d,
although again ofte n silence d, can be conside rable .

Psychic Discom fort an d Anxiety

9

Alongside the se be nefits and improve ments that are in many cases re-

ported and obse rvable , are less visible , conve rse effects. Many employe es
representing all rankings and subteams across the PDT reporte d feelings
of stress from the de mands of maste ring the skills and compe tencie s of
integrated, comple x, and responsible work. Donal, one of six senior PDT
manage rs and with comple x responsibilitie s for a marke ting and techno-
logical function, reported:

“This is a killer job, this is a total job, a 70¯80

hour a week job . . . . But the re

’s no other way to get this job done. You

have to be drive n, and just have to be like , obsessive.

” But employees and

the ir senior manage rs implicitly regarde d the psychic discomfort and anxi-
ety associate d with comple x and responsible work in normative ly controlle d
teams as transitional and as individual proble ms that will e ve ntually be
manage d by successful group processes and by individuals

“coming up to

spe ed.

” Sam, the Chief of the PDT put it simply: “ . . . If everyone was

doing what

’s best for Hephaestus these problems (of anxiety manifestation)

would go away.

”

Individualize d psychic discomfort is implicitly acce pte d as an inevitable

aspect of corporate acculturation of employe es into the ne w culture of qual-
ity, service, and global compe titive ne ss. Formerly, in more typical industrial

166

Casey

9

Anxiety is central to psychoanalytic theory as one of the most important unpleasant feelings
humans experience . Anxie ty is a re sponse to perceived dange r. When the source of anxie ty
is perceived to be an external, objective threat, humans attempt to rid themselve s of it by
avoidance, mastery, or accommodatio n. When the perception of danger originates
intrapsychically humans employ ego defense s to deal with this ne urotic anxiety. The primary
defenses against anxie ty include idealization, denial, and projection. Projection e ntails
attributing one

’s own feelings to another that results in some diminishment of anxiety, but

the anxiety source still remains in the psychic apparatus. In denial, the individual is unaware
of ce rtain visible aspects of external reality that would be painful to acknowle dge.

conditions, psychic discomfort could be recognize d as ange r and colle ctively
expre ssed in industrial disputation. Now psychic discomfort and anxie ty is
normalize d and legitimize d by the new culture as it is at once officially
denied. Individuals unable to successfully adapt to the new cultural condi-
tions that require such normalization and repression are told that they

“do

not fit with the culture

” (in the words of a manage r from corporate HRM)

and are encourage d to leave the company.

Individuals who posse ss more of the organization

’s latently undesired

characte r features such as nurturance , patie nce, and coope rative ness, tend
to expe rie nce incre ase d intrapsychic conflict and alie nation in the work-
place than those more dispose d to a congrue nt fit with the corporation

’s

ambiguously de fined, yet officially desire d, characte r type. Angie , with 16
ye ars service in Hephae stus and part of team working on educational and
promotional materials, reports:

“I have the golden handcuff sensation, that

I

’d like to leave but the security and benefits are such that I’m not sure I

could adjust my life style. But I

’m continually re-evaluating my position with

Hephae stus . . . . I use d to be more like the typic al He phae stus pe rson
. . . task-orie nte d, judgm e ntal, aggr essive . . . but now I

’m not like

that . . . . I don

’t want to be too negative . But it’s hard for me . . . . I get

headache s, like , from this place . Sometimes I think this place is trying to
kill me.

” Angie’s manager reported that Angie, as a highly capable and

creative employe e, should go far in the company but doubte d that she
would:

“Those kinds of people don’t really do well here . . . . That’s how

I used to be, but I

’ve become instrumental and aggressive now.”

The unre lenting exagge ration of

“appropriate ” characteristics at the

expe nse of unne cessary characte ristics fue ls intrapsychic conflicts that may
manife st with varying de grees of severity among employe es through the
ego defenses notably regre ssion, repression, and obse ssional ne uroses.

10

In

particular, obse ssive compulsions are conside red to be commonplace ,

“nor-

mal

” neurotic behaviors that are freely facilitate d, and expected, in the or-

gan ization al cultu re . Som e e mploye e s acknowle dge d the ir obse ssive
compulsive ne ss be lie ving the phe nome na to be individual

“personality

traits,

” rather than culturally produce d defenses within the workplace .

These be haviors typically pre sente d in minor forms such as pacing, shaking,
ince ssant finge r tapping, handwringing, and blurting out in me etings, to
more disabling compulsive routinize d alignme nt of pe ns, pape rs, and de sk
ite ms in ordered patte rns, or othe r personal ritualize d move ments per-
formed to diminish anxie ty. Some employe es reported or intimate d in in-

Corporate Organizat ion al Culture

167

10

Neuroses are psychological conflicts originating in the person

’s unconscious. They are com-

promise s be twee n a wish and a defense against it. Obsessional and compulsive symptoms
attempt to defend against chronic ambivalence . Re gression re fers here to the returning to
be havior typical of an e arlie r stage of deve lopment that e licits greater pare ntal response.

terviews obse ssional thought patte rns or private compulsive rituals, and ex-
cessive alcohol consumption (but not to a clinically dysfunctional exte nt),
that I did not obse rve . For othe rs, an effort to displace neurotic anxie ty
manife sted in compulsive hype ractivity that may or may not produce valu-
able results for the team or for the mselve s. Typically accompanying such
hype ractivity was evide nce of chronic inde cisive ne ss and confusion mani-
festing in numerous incomple te proje cts, missed deadline s, presentation of
multiple unprioritize d action plans, and exagge rated enthusiasm and opti-
mism. Such individuals would typically volunte er at team meetings to take
on additional tasks, to travel, or deal with particularly difficult custome rs
in an effort to master or displace their anxie ties and win team approval.
They made the ir long hours and forfe ite d weeke nds wide ly known among
the ir teammates.

Discharge of psychic conflicts is also enable d in the team-family cul-

ture . Employe es working in close, familial-style teams may proje ct their
anxie ties and injurie s onto the group and gain, through the displace ment,
some anxie ty relie f as a result. Belonging to the team, or at least displaying
belonging be havior and sentiment, accrues the effect of greater harmoni-
zation, and thereby some psychic bene fit from compliance with the organ-
izational psychostructure than doe s resistance or disdain for it. Employe es
the reby recognize , not ne cessarily consciously, that it is in their psychic in-
terests

—of harmonization and reduced anxiety—to belong to the team. In

so doing, they enable the succe ss of the team-family system. However, while
employe es are encourage d, and wish, to believe in the team, and while it
doe s serve much of the time the latent function of a device for colle ctive
anxie ty containme nt, the team doe s not necessarily she lter and protect. The
team can also attack its membe rs who fail to de live r. This is most appare nt
during team meetings. The following incide nt that occurred at a Sunrise
Team Meeting (a daily early morning event focusing on practical proble ms
of the PDT) illustrate s this process.

The usual discussion of reports, proble ms, and action items had not

reached the de sired outcome of an action plan and people taking up the
tasks. The team leade r (a deputy to the PDT chie f) arrive d late and took
charge of the proceedings. He admonishe d the team for their mistake s:

“Come on guys, solve the goddamn problems,” he urged them. His angry
spe ech was followe d by loud, disorde rly discussion. Sudde nly, one employe e
(among the 30 or so present) blame d anothe r for a spe cific major proble m.
The team le ader concurre d and imme diate ly criticize d and reprimande d
the alle ge d offe nde r. He conclude d with a further admonishme nt of them
all and warned them that

“there’ll be trouble .” The alleged offender then

admitte d some responsibility for the proble m but explaine d that there were
many othe rs responsible for the job and the proble m. But his teammates

168

Casey

argue d back escalating the chorus of criticism against him. The othe rs
wishe d to de fle ct the ir manage r

’s anger at the team onto one of their

numbe r.

The alle ge d offe nder responde d in an attempt to defend himself. Lack-

ing support from his teammate s, he resorted to blaming the company pro-
cedures (part of the ne w culture program) for the de lay. The de fensive
exchange s continue d for some time until stoppe d by manage rial orde r. At
the end of the meeting, the alle ged offe nde r trie d to continue the discussion
among his colle ague s and to criticize the new procedures. But his team-
mates withhe ld unde rstanding and team forgive ness and he did not gain
the anxie ty relief he sought. His teammate s, howe ver, had displace d the ir
own anxie ty at the reprimand and tensions, and experienced some relie f
in that the ir scapegoat had shoulde red the wrath of the ir leade r and the
burde n of punishme nt.

The scapegoate d team-membe r could have use d this expe rie nce as an

opportunity to resist the organization

’s culture in some, even private, way.

Howe ver, seve ral days afte r this particular event (I obse rve d many similar
occasions with different playe rs in the role of scape goat) I spoke with him.
In contrast to his angry protest and defense at the time, Joe appe are d to
take on the criticisms of his teammate s. He still believe d the re had be en
a syste m failure but he felt

“uncomfortable ” with their disapproval and was

working harde r at resolving the technical proble m. I inte rpre ted his chas-
tened manne r, guilt, and anxie ty as having ove rridde n any desire to dissent
or resist.

Events such as this one illustrate the eve ryday psychic effects of the

team culture . Both the manage ment of production proble ms and of anxi-
etie s occur simultane ously as employe es are shape d and traine d by the
group processes. The adaptation to the organizational culture that require s
not only advance d competencies in production and a preferred characte r
type but ide ntification and scape goating, too, exacerbate s confusion and
anxie ty.

Ambivalen ce

The most pervasive and manife st effect of the expe rie nce of working

in the new culture , as the evide nce above sugge sts, is a condition of am-
bivale nce . Ambivale nce, in my inte rpretation of this case , is a manife station
of an incomple te internalization, or incomple te reje ction, of the ne w cul-
tural value s and be haviors. Other analysts obse rve this phe nomenon ex-
pressed in the

“unmanage d organization” (Gabriel, 1995) and in domains

of unconscious subje ctivity resistant to the pedagogical effects of the new
culture . At work, employe es displaye d and reported their wish to coope rate

Corporate Organizat ion al Culture

169

with the practice s of the new culture and they espe cially want to ge t along
with and enjoy the company of the ir teammates. They want to be long to
the

“winning team Hephaestus” and to share vicariously in its high public

esteem. For many, the new culture

’s agenda to encourage narcissistic iden-

tification with the e go-ide al (for Fre ud) and the organi zation ide al
(Schwartz, 1990) in which one internalize s admirable ide alize d image s of
all-powe rful authoritie s is at le ast partially effective . Conseque ntly, the re
were no appare nt efforts to organically create counte rculture s of any effect.
Joke s, sarcasm, and humorous de precation we re certainly appare nt, but
serve d only, ironically, as pre cursors to re sumed adhe rence to cultural
norms and productivity.

Many employe es, as the example s in pre ceding sections illustrate ,

spoke warmly of the company and the ir teammate s as a family. Most wish
to be lie ve the metaphor

’s actualization. Yet, at the same time, employees

unconsciously both collude with and resist the simulate d sociality of the
team-family. Most suspe ct that the workplace is not a family, but are con-
fuse d and frustrated by the rhe toric that claims it to be so, and the ir wish,
and stated claim, to be lie ve it. Among the most common displays of am-
bivale nce was the expression of the wish to find sociality e ve n intimacy
with the pe ople one works alongside for 10¯12 hours a day, and the desire

to escape the m after hours. Two middle -ranking technologists from diffe r-
ent subteams de scribe this confusion: Bob:

“We’re here with each other all

day, long days . . . . And I like these guys . . . . But . . . I just want to
escape the place too . . . it gets to be too much.

” Colin: “This place is too

close. We

’re here too much, and basically, even Tom, and he’s like a friend,

not a friend exactly, . . . we get on well, but I don

’t want to see his face

when I

’m gone from here.” Commonly reported, even by manufacturing

workers, was the vie w that many employe es

“never socialize with people

from work.

”

The confusion that results from the contradic tions of the familial

rhetoric and ide alization, and of individual experie nces (that include the

“letting go” of “family” members in periodic layoffs) and the inability to
addre ss them, as their incom mensurability with the official discourse of
team-family renders their silence, is transpose d into further anxie ty. Nar-
cissistically ide ntifie d employe es endeavor to de fend against the awareness
of a harsh, punishing,

“uncaring” corporate authority and the “killing off”

of some family membe rs. Contradictory expe rience s to the discourse s of
caring team-family generate s conside rable dissonance and anxie ty that em-
ploye es must either de fend against, or admit to consciousne ss. Both psychic
strate gie s bear conse quence s. Forme r (but not retire d) employe es expressed
gre ate r awareness of unacce ptable psychic costs in endeavoring to manage
organizationally generate d dissonance .

170

Casey

Many long-te rm employees wearily express the wish to retreat to dome s-

tic life usually marriage and family and to find a less commercial sociality.
Most expre ss ambivale nce in the same bre ath as the y express de votion and
commitment, for instance Donal again:

“ . . . I would like to get the hell out

of here, I would like to leave Hephae stus . . . be cause I would like to go into
anothe r mode, to enjoy life . But I have a commitment too, you know, he re.
It

’s real strong . . . . And I like it here, it’s great. I don’t know what else life

would be like . . . . I think a lot about leaving . . . .

”

Ambivale nce exacerbates confusion and frustration, and whe n acute ,

ge ne rates de bilitating anxie ty that manife sts in various obse ssive compul-
sions. Psychic energy otherwise dire cted toward creativity and productivity
become s cathected to, and absorbe d by, the experie nce of anxie ty. To main-
tain stability and cohe rence, and to diminish anxie ty, the psyche must con-
tain ambivale nce to a tole rable le ve l through the activation of ego defenses,
or it must discharge it in eithe r acce ptance of, or disse nsion from, the ob-
je ct, in this case the designe d corporate culture .

Ambivale nce can, though, ge ne rate a maturational de velopme nt in the

self in which the individual may, inste ad of defending against its atte ndant
anxie ty, endeavor to consciously examine its cause s and conse quence s and
take a more self-aware course of action. Or ambivale nce and ne urotic anxi-
ety can distort de velopme nt through the de fenses of ide alization and re-
pre ssion in the form of compulsive com plianc e , passive aggre ssion ,
hype ractivity, and exce ssive devotion to the company. Some employe es,
howe ve r, seeking a more de velopme ntal proje ct of self-creation (cf. Lasch,
1984) against narcissistic infantilization struggle against absorption and dis-
solution in the ne w culture

’s preferred character type and productivity-

drive n value base . But this effort was not only not colle ctivize d, it was
struggle d for alone through the paradoxical course of the expre ssion of
loyalty and de dication at work and the effort to escape and find detachme nt
outside of work. For others, the self-strate gy of compliant, or willing, ac-
ceptance enable d reduced anxie ty and incre ased harmonization be tween
work and nonwork expe rie nce s and narrative s of self.

For the organization the preferred strate gy against ambivale nce and

anxie ty is an inte nsification of the proce ss of ide ntification with the corpo-
ration, its familial culture , and productivity goals. Ide ntification thus either
displace s or represses ambivale nce into guilt or acce ptance , thereby ena-
bling greate r psychic ene rgy to be directed toward organizational produc-
tivity. The se psychic proc e sse s of disp lace me nt, guilt, de nial, and
idealization are at once effects of and processes of enforce d anxie ty man-
agement. They are achie ved by, and constitutive of, the discursive discipli-
nary apparatus of the team-family organization culture .

Corporate Organizat ion al Culture

171

DISCIPLINE AND INTEGRATION

Discipline and integration are the corporate practice s inte nded to pro-

cure the succe ssful diffusion of ambivale nce into corporate ide ntification
and increased productivity. Like most organizations, Hephae stus Corpora-
tion has a syste m of formal disciplinary rules and procedure s for employe es
who do not perform as require d or who breach some other institutional
code of behavior. In addition to those formal and visible disciplinary prac-
tices, the Hephae stus team-family culture contains informal, or hidde n, dis-
ciplin ary practice s that form part of the e ve ryday ne twork of powe r
relations and syste ms of control. These practice s can manife st in une x-
pected ways.

In the first instance , the flatte r organizational structure typical of team-

family style s of work organization results in fewer opportunitie s for upward
mobility. Although subteams can provide satisfying experiences in self-man-
agement and work de sign, they inhibit individual recognition and advance -
ment. Compe tition for recognition and reward, the refore , is now more
comple x and at the same time regre ssive . Favoritism and political maneu-
vering were pre sent in the olde r style bureaucracie s, but the more formal-
ize d structure in which one expected to progre ss encourage d impersonality
and some protection from advance ment by nepotist practice s. But now, the
flatte r, closer team-family structure covertly revive s inte rpe rsonal suspicion,
sibling-like rivalry and nepotism at the same time as it ove rtly, officially,
promote s egalitarian teammate coope ration, familial warmth, and ove rrid-
ing commitme nt to the product. Team-family membe rs must compete with
each othe r for the attention and favor of the team

’s manager-father. For

instance , Vinny reporte d (as I had obse rve d) that he always arrive d early
at team meetings so that he could sit ne xt to the vacant chair of the PDT
Chie f who typically arrive d much late r into proceedings. Vinny reported
that he listene d for whispe red comments, joke s, and ge sture s from the
Chie f that indicate d his approval or disapproval of various action plans,
proble m solutions, and employe es. Vinny use d such information to achie ve
strate gic advantage ove r other team members in the conte st for recognition
and reward. The Chie f, like wise, used the se familial group dynamics to pa-
tronize favore d

“sons,” to disperse factional contestations, and to informally

regulate and control team membe rs and actions. Team meetings reinforce
and reproduce the ambiguity of the cultural discourse s the reby forcing
members to adopt psychic strate gie s to contain ambivale nce by discipline d
atte ntion to the practical proble ms of production.

The self-initiate d confe ssion further illustrate s the manne r is which

team meetings function for the organization as regulatory and disciplinary
practice s. Confession commonly occurred at team meetings, particularly at
the disclosive , bonding sunrise meetings. During such an event employe es

172

Casey

would report to their assembled colle ague s, with expressions of culpability
and remorse , failure s, de lays, mistake s, and doubts in the ir work pe rform-
ance . On one occasion, Andrew, a senior marketing manage r with 25 years
in the company, solemnly de live red a careful speech to a team meeting (of
about 30 pe ople ). Asking for quie t, he declared:

“I want to talk about last

week

’s deal with Centacorp . . . . I got pretty beaten up at this meeting

last week . . . and I went away feeling kinda beat . . . . But I want to say
that I realize d I was wrong . . . and be cause of what was said he re, I took
action . . . . So I want to say,

‘thanks, Team.’”

The se public admissions of fault, displays of remorse, and promise s to

do be tter next time oste nsibly serve to alle viate guilt and failing, and to
build group harmony and solidarity. Reconciliation strengthe ns team bonds
and identification. The individual

’s confession of failure to the team pro-

vide s some immediate anxie ty relie f and psychic comfort, circumve nts
scapegoating against oneself, and gains the approval of peers and seniors.
But the burde n of guilt is not displace d. Rather, it is returned by the col-
le ctive recognition of the offender

’s fault and confession reflected back to

the offender and the offender

’s anxiety relief is thus only temporary. Re-

cycle d guilt in turn encourage s furthe r reparative e fforts toward the or-
ganization as ego-ide al. I obse rve d, for instance , that, away from team
meetings and the dire ct gaze of manage r-fathe r, employe es voluntarily
worked late r, on weekends, or on extra proje cts to

“make up for” their

pe rceive d organizational failure s. Confe ssion, although visibly voluntary,
manife sts an effective , internalize d disciplinary apparatus of the familial
culture and encourage s further narcissistic ide ntification with the organi-
zation-ide al.

The discursive disciplinary practice s that accompany the formal struc-

ture of disciplinary proce dure s ope rate on an everyday, ever-pre sent leve l,
and the rule s and expe ctations appe ar to be more commonly unde rstood
than those of the formal structures. Employe es reporte d that they fear hav-
ing the ir failings displaye d in front of the ir pe ers and team leade rs during
meetings, and the repe rcussions of criticism or attack, more than they fear
punishme nt for breaching some formal company regulations, which the y
can defy to some extent. Again, this is an effect of normative , familial,
control in which membe rs are monitore d and regulate d by inte rnalize d
rules of authority and group behavior

—rules originally laid down in child-

hood socialization, and to which family-style culture s encourage regression.

The decentralization of discipline enables deeper levels of identification

with the company as employees assume, and honor, the authority and identity
of the disciplining executive-fathe r as representative of the organization-ideal.
The repeated admonishme nt to be a good, familial, team-playe r, the immedi-
acy of the fear of team and family discipline , and the selective retention of

Corporate Organizat ion al Culture

173

traditional industrial disciplinary methods, allow few avenues of disse nt and
few place s of retreat at work from work. The new culture

’s disciplinary appa-

ratus effective ly delive rs the ne w designe r employe e.

The disciplinary apparatus that achie ve s appropriate acculturation for

the organization imme rses employe es in a constant, eve ryday process of
discursive

“colonization ” (cf. Habermas, 1984). The action of “coloniza-

tion

” of the employee self completes the process of acculturation into the

new Hephae stus Corporation. Colonization de scribes the proce ss in which
dominant organizational value s and be haviors displace or transpose forme r
practice s, including affe ctive experie nces such as ange r, cynicism, or resis-
tance that were tolerated in traditional industrial workplace s, while simul-
tane ously e stablis hin g a de pe nde ncy re lation with the organ ization .
Effective colonization of employe e selves diffuse s acute ambivale nce into
identification and renewed productivity. Many employe es proudly reported
that they have

“never gotten angry at work.” Instead criticism and disagre e-

ment are channe le d into the production process through team processes
of spe aking up, brainstorm ing, proble m-solving, and

“critical thinking.”

O the rs, also proudly, re porte d the ir be lie f in the ir self-improve me nt
achie ved by successful acculturation into the preferred characte r type of
employe e.

Colonization is the preeminent accomplishm ent of the disciplinary ap-

paratus of the new culture which obstructs and de limits psychic deve lop-
me nt and maturation , and ne utralize s aware ne ss of the disciplinar y
ope ration. Conse quently, resistance , while always possible , is truncate d and
circumscribe d by private survival. My findings and inte rpretations sugge st,
unlike Kunda

’s (1992), that cynicism, irony, and resistance among employ-

ees are uncommon and seldom tole rated by one

’s teammates. These feel-

ings, when recognize d, are overridde n by ambivale nce. Anger is sublime ly
transpose d into guilt.

CONCLUSIONS

The ne w organizational culture discourse s mask, and large ly mitigate ,

the continuity of the corporate organization

’s requirement for controlled,

com pliant, and productive employe es. The wide spre ad organiz ational
change s occurring since the 1980s

—including advanced technological de-

ployme nts, exte nsive compe tition from now globalize d marke t place s and
new impe rative s in manage ment systems

—have precipitated new organiza-

tional require ments and ne w burde ns of incre ased work anxie ty for em-
ploye e s. Inte grate d, intricate work, that crosse s the old boundarie s of
occupation and professional solidarity, dissolve s forme r stabilizing and dif-

174

Casey

ferentiating practice s (recall Durkhe im, 1933; Parsons, 1964) that some what
protected employe es from totalizing organizational integration and control.

While these patte rns of postindustrial change appe ar to be gene ralize d,

the particular expe rie nce s of Hephae stus Corporation in managing the
comple x proble ms generate d by the se eve nts is not necessarily ge ne ralizable
or pre dictive . In the case of Hephae stus Corporation, the new culture

’s

efforts to establish team bonds and emotional commitme nts among team
members as described above is incre asingly, but not conclusive ly, effective .
In relinquishing old industrial habits of work and manife st, colle ctivize d
conflict, the employe e is rewarded in the team-family culture with psychi-
cally harmonizing be ne fits in the affect of be longing, of be ing value d, and
being productive . Ambivale nce and conflict are inte rnalize d and privatize d.
Their psychic effects are traded off against the bene fits of relatedness and
identification with corporate greatness.

Succe ssful adaptation to the new corporate culture achie ve s for the

organization manage ment of the proble ms of compliance , integration, and
control

—enduring problems in organization theory and practice. Yet, for

employe e selves, the ne w corporatization of the employe e is more than a
proce ss of assault, discipline , and de feat (identifie d by earlie r critics, e.g.,
Fromm, 1941, 1973) that employe es can defend the mselves against, or se-
le ctive ly adapt to (as Whyte , 1956, sugge sted). It is a proce ss of colonization
in which, in its comple tion, assau lt and defeat are no longer recogn ized. Ove rt
displays of employe e resistance and opposition are virtually eliminate d. Fa-
milial teammate s acce pt the burde n of greater work anxie ty and a reacti-
vate d guilt (as the corporatio n e xtols contin uous im prove me nt and
eve r-rene wed commitment to production) and assume compe nsatory ide n-
tification with the company.

Howeve r, the contradictions inhe rent in the team-family culture , in the

imitation of the (

“good”) family, that are located in a structural condition

in which egalitarian team-family rhetoric cannot displace the structural in-
equalitie s of employe e¯corporation relations, continuously excite acute am-

bivale nce and anxie ty that cannot reach resolution in either the catharsis
of dissent, or of acce ptance . Corporate -style civilization, the refore, is not
quite

“good enough” as a facilitating environment (cf. Winnicott, 1965) for

empowerment and maturation. As such, it carries the ge ne sis of its own
de struction. Although the pote ntial for ambivale nce to generate mature
self-de ve lopme nt is grave ly hinde red by the infantilizing corporate -style
maturation offe red by the de signe d culture it is not extinguishe d. The per-
siste nce of ambivale nce manife sts the incomple tion of the corporate colo-
nization of employe e selve s. Ambivale nce may be mobilize d to serve a
creative working through of corporate generate d neurosis to new awareness
and psychic de velopme nt that may foster ne w forms of organizational life.

Corporate Organizat ion al Culture

175

In the meantime , the ne w corporate culture provide s unde r the sem-

blance of a caring team-family an effective disciplinary and control appa-
ratus that require s employe es to sufficie ntly contain the disinte gration, or
mobilization, of ambivale nce by its displace ment into an obse ssive compul-
sion to work and to belong. Production is the reby still, ye t precariously,
achie ved unde r the new conditions of global compe titive ne ss and the de-
cline of mode rnity

’s systems of societal integration and cohesion.

REFERENCES

BARKER, J. R. Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Adm in-

istrative Science Quarterly 1993, 38, 408-437.

BATE, P. Strategies for cultural change. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1994.
BAUM, H. S. The invisible bureaucracy. New York: Oxford Unive rsity Pre ss, 1987.
B AUM, H. S. Organ izational m em bership: Person al develo pm en t in the workplace. Albany:

SUNY Pre ss, 1990.

BLO CK, F. Postindustrial possibilities: A critique of econom ic discourse. Berke ley: Unive rsity

of California Press, 1990.

CASEY, C. Work, self and society: After industrialism . New York and London: Routledge , 1995.
COLE, R. E. Strategies for learning: Sm all grou p activities in American, Japanese, and Swedish

industry. Los Ange les: Unive rsity of California Pre ss, 1989.

CUTCHER-GE RSHENFELD, J., NITTA, M., BARNETT, B., & BELLHE DI, N. Japanese

team-based work systems in North Ame rica: Explaining the diversity. California Manage-
ment Review, 1994, 37(1), 42-64.

DEMING, W. E. Out of crisis. MIT Institute for Advanced E ngine ering Study, 1986.
DIAMO ND, M. The social characte r of bureaucracy: Anxiety and ritualistic defe nse. Political

Psychology, 1985, 6, 663-679.

DIAMO ND, M. Organizational identity: A psychoanalytic exploration of organizational mean-

ing. Administration and Society, 1988, 20, 166-190.

DRUCKE R, P. Post-capitalist society. New York: Harper, 1993.
DURKHEIM, E. The division of labor in society (translated by W. D. Halls). Ne w York: Free

Press, 1993/1984.

FO UCAULT, M. The archeology of knowledge. New York: Tavistock Publications, 1972.
FO UCAULT, M. Discipline and punish: Birth of the prison. New York: Vintage, 1979.
FO UCAULT, M. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings,

1972¯1977. New York: Pantheon Books, 1980.

FO UCAULT, M. In L. Martin, H. Gutman, and P. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the self.

Amhe rst, MA: University of Massachuse tts, 1988.

FRO MM, E . Escape from freedom . Ne w York: Farrar and Re inhart, 1941.
FRO MM, E . The san e society. New York: Re inhart and Company, 1955.
FRO MM, E. The anatom y of hum an destructiveness. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston,

1973.

FRO ST, P. (Ed.). Refram ing organizational culture. Ne wbury Park CA: Sage, 1991.
GABRIEL, Y. The unmanage d organization: Stories, fantasies and subjectivity. Organization

Studies, 1995, 16(3) , 477-501.

GARVIN, D. Managing quality. Ne w York: The Free Press, 1988.
GO ODMAN, P. S Design ing effective work groups. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1986.
GRAV ES, D. Corporate culture: Diagnosis and change. London: Pinter, 1986.
HABERMAS , J. The theory of com municative action , Vol. 1: Reason and the ration alization of

society (translated by Thomas McCarthy). Boston: Be acon, 1984.

HABERMAS , J. The philosophica l discourses of modernity. Massachuse tts: MIT Press, 1987.
HACKMAN, J. R. (Ed.). G roups that work. San Francisco: Josse y Bass, 1990.
HANDY, C. G ods of managem ent: The changing work of organizations. London: Pan, 1985.

176

Casey

HIRSCHHO RN, L. Beyond m echanization: Work and techn ology in a postindustrial age. Cam-

bridge , MA: MIT press.

HIRSCHHO RN, L. The workplace within: Psychodynam ics of organizational life. Massachusetts:

MIT Press, 1988.

HO WARD, R. Brave new workplace. NY: Viking, 1984.
JAQ UES, E. The changing cu lture of a factory. London: Tavistock, 1951.
JAQ UES, E. A general theory of bureau cracy. London: Heinemann, 1976.
JENKINS, A. Teams: From ideology to analysis. Organization Studies, 15(6), 849-860.
JERMIER, J., KNIGHTS, D., & NO RD, W. (Eds.). Resistance and power in organizations.

London: Routledge , 1994.

KANTER, R. When giants learn to dance. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989.
KANTER, R. The challenge of organizational change. New York: Fre e Press, 1992.
KLEIN, J. The human cost of manufacturing reform. Harvard Business Review, March-April,

1989, 62-66.

KOCHAN, T., KATZ , H. C., & McKERSIE, R. B. The transform ation of American industrial

relations. Ithaca NY: ILR Press, 1986.

KOTTER, J. P., & HE SKETT, J. L. Corporate culture and perform an ce. New York: Maxwell

Macmillan Int., 1992.

KUNDA, G. Engineering culture: Control and com mitment in a high-tech corporation . Phila-

delphia: Temple Unive rsity Pre ss, 1992.

LABIE R, D. Modern madness: The hidden link between work and em otional life. New York:

Simon and Schuster, 1986.

LASCH, C. The culture of n arcissism . New York: W. W. Norton, 1978.
LASCH, C. The m inim al self: Psychic survival in troubled times. New York: W. W. Norton,

1984.

MACCOBY, M. The gam esman . New York: Simon & Schuster, 1976.
MACCOBY, M. Why work: Leading the new generation . Ne w York: Simon and Schuster, 1988.
MANZ, C., & SIMS, H. Leading workers to lead themselves: The e xternal leadership of se lf-

managing work teams. Adm inistrative Science Quarterly, 1987, 32, 106-128.

MARCEAU, J. (Ed.) Reworking the world: Organizations, technologies, cultures in com parative

perspective . Berlin: De Gruyter, 1992.

MARTIN, J. Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. Ne w York: Oxford, 1992.
MO RGAN, G. Im ages of organization . Ne wbury Park, CA: Sage , 1986.
OUCHI, W. Theory Z. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1981.
PARKER, M., & SLAUGHTER, J. Choosing sides: Unions and the team concept. Boston:

South E nd Press, 1988.

PARSO NS, T. Essays in sociological theory, Chicago: Free Press, 1964.
PETERS, T., & WATE RMAN, R. In search of excellence. New York: Warner Books, 1984.
SAFIZADE H, M. H. The case of workgroups in manufacturing operations. California Man-

agem ent Review, 1994, 3(4), 61-82.

SANDBERG, A. (Ed.). Enriching production: Perspectives on Volvo

’s Uddevalla plant as an

alternative to lean production . Aldershot, UK: Ave sbury, 1995.

SCHWARTZ, H. S. Narcissistic processes and corporate decay. Ne w York: NYU Press, 1990.
SENGE, P. M. The Fifth piscipline: The art and practice of the learning organization . New York:

Double day/Currency, 1990.

SEWELL, G., & WILKINSO N, B. Someone to watch ove r me : Surve illance, discipline and

the just-in-time labour process. Sociology, 1992, 26(2), 271-298.

SCHEIN, E . Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Josse y-Bass, 1992.
SINCLAIR, A. The tyranny of a team ideology. Organization Studies, 1992, 13(4), 611-626.
TJO SVOLD, D. Team organ ization. Chichester: Wiley, 1991.
TJO SVOLD, D. The em erging leader. New York: Le xington, 1993.
WHYTE , W. The organization man. Ne w York: Simon and Schuster, 1956.
WINNICO TT, D. W. The matu rational process and the facilitating environm ent. London: The

Hogarth Press, 1965.

Z UBO FF, S. In the age of the smart m achine: The future of work and power. Ne w York: Basic

Books, 1988.

Corporate Organizat ion al Culture

177

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

CATHE RINE CASEY is Senior Lecture r in the School of Busine ss and Economics at the
University of Auckland, New Z ealand. She received per PhD from the University of Rochester,
New York. Her re search interests are in social and cultural theory, critical social psychology,
and particularly the social analysis of work, organizations, and se lf. Her published work in-
cludes Work, self and society: After industrialism (Routledge: London and Ne w York, 1995) .

178

Casey