Question

Please answer this question in short essay form (2-4 paragraphs) Considering that cultures as complicated and socially constructed through the communicative interaction of organizational members. Briefly describe how the organizational concepts of complicated, emergent, unitary, and ambiguous apply to the sample auto-ethnography.

Sample Auto-ethnography: Required Reading

Auto-ethnography of College X
Joe Student
Organizational Culture and Diversity 223-58000

“The organization’s culture has both a direct and an indirect impact on the allocation of power among diverse groups. The values and ideologies inherent in the organization’s culture directly determine which behaviors and outcomes will be rewarded (96).”

This quote from Belle Rose Ragins (1995) paraphrasing Ferdman (1992) and Schein (1985) is the definition of the culture of College X. The educational, technological and economic opportunities available are relegated to various groups. The private educational institution in New York State is a homogeneous predominantly white institution struggling to strategically implement a multicultural environment. The trend to diversify the educational industry is in response to changing demographic populations in the United States (U.S Labor Statistics: 1999).

The purpose of this paper is to examine my experiences with the culture of College X from a critical perspective. My employment spanned from 1985 to 2000 in the custodial department in the College X Physical Plant. The focus of this auto-ethnography is on the challenges the Physical Plant faced in diversifying its workforce and adapting to a (limited) multicultural institutional environment. The hierarchical structure of the Physical Plant consists of: the Director, who is a white male; two Assistant Directors, one overseeing grounds and building maintenance, and one overseeing the movers (Auxiliary services) and the custodial division (both white males), the supervisors of Grounds, Building Maintenance and Auxiliary services, who are all white males, and the supervisors of the Custodial division, one white female, one white male and one black male. The distribution of minorities consists of one Asian male (highly specialized job) in the Physical Plant Administration and no other people of Asian descent the administrative level. The Grounds crew has one permanent white female and two white female student part-time workers. The Grounds division has one African American full-time employee (1999). The Building Maintenance division consists of all white males and one white female as of 1999 (approximately 21 employees). Auxiliary services had one white female and the remainder are white males (8 employees). The Custodial division has a ratio of 1 Hispanic, 9 African Americans and 42 females out of 83 employees (in 1999). Of the approximate 38 African American full-time college employees (1999), 11 are in the Physical Plant.

The lengthy description of the hierarchical structure of the Physical Plant can be transformed to the following structure:

Ruling Class:
Euro-centric white males or model minority
Gatekeepers: assimilation, conformity, and clearinghouse
Army of surplus labor: divided by class, race, gender

The "gatekeepers" here are middle management whose role is to support the "mission" of the institution, but more appropriately, the mission of management. The universalization of managerial interests (Alvesson & Deetz: 2000) is defined as the managerial group mentality that justifies “privileged decision making” and selective “research” for the superior positioning of their interests. At College X, this is used as a clearinghouse of non-conformists and to promote selected groups.

The armies of surplus workers have been forced together by economic disparity and are constantly reminded of the unemployed army of labor waiting for their job (Weber’s social closure). The custodial division is primarily the “army” and is used for mundane physical labor and as body count for downsizing. The ratio of minorities to whites in the structure of Physical Plant embodies Janzen’s (1997) Melting Pot Assimilation paradigm of ethnic relations. The second of Janzen’s five paradigms seeks to eventually make all cultures indiscernible from each other.

W. E. B. DuBois (1903), an assimilation theorist of race relations, in Charles Lemert’s (1993) Social Theory: The multicultural & classic readings describes the "twoness" of African Americans, one of being black and one of being an American (lemert: 1993). However, DuBois, like other assimilationists fail to consider another dimension in the milieu of self-awareness, that of class. At College X, one only has to look at the racial ratio to observe how it must feel for minority groups under a cultural microscope. The college has many functions and committees that try to "unify" the campus. This is viewed as an assimilation attempt and is somewhat productive, however, the events are usually low in numbers and form groups separated by cultural identity. In retrospect, social change mechanisms (although few) started forming during the downsizing phase at College X.

Downsizing at College X (1994-1996)

Social change and resistance embody both fear and resentment. That is to say, the authors of both resistance and social change resent the actions or ideals of the other. Furthermore, Each camp fears failure through a loss of power , as well as a sealing in stone the policies or actions that were opposed. These opposable forces, which exist in most institutions (if not all), were fighting for the helm at College X. Somewhere between the administrative structure (deans, directors, etc.) and the laborer or common worker is the battlefield of change and resistance. This resistance can be described as an ideology surfacing from conflict challenging existing practices or contradiction (Deetz & Kersten: 1983). Contradiction, however, cannot promise change, but opens a door to possible change (Deetz & Kersten: 1983). The ploy by the Administration was to keep the various groups fighting in a divide-and-conquer principle of control.

In the fourteen years, I have been observing academia at College X, the labor and administrative populations have grown economically farther apart. The barrier between the two is a class status determination as well, that is to say, that economics is only one aspect of the separation. One of the most interesting observations I have made is "whom" (political orientation, occupation, department) gets excepted/assimilated (or forced) into the lower "laborer segment"; and those who resist it even though their limitations (social status) are obvious. The tactics that were used by both the administrative segment and the working-class staff during the downsizing process were in response to an individualist mentality prominent during the downsizing.

The downsizing process itself was not a social movement, but the fear and resistance of it were a catalyst for a social movement. The movement did not have a title, for titles were feared as a support of only one segment or political agenda of the college population. The movement, however, was rooted in the human rights issues of the powerless.

For the sake of clarity, I will discuss only aspects that I observed or faced as a custodian and the Staff Council Chair during the downsizing phase.

The fear of the Administration welding an uncaring ax came early for staff members when the first eighty positions slated for removal came. This was even before the downsizing was announced to the public, and took place one year after the extravagant “Celebration of the Century,” the 100th anniversary of the college.

Attrition was to be the great savior of the Administration. However, the reality was an increased scrutiny of the lowest pay grade, which coerced people into leaving their employment (which is ageism in practice). The actual movement for fair treatment of the "bottom line" segment of the college community was the result of three unplanned events. One was my election to the Staff Council (as a known radical), which systematically brought class and race (since the bottom line held most of the college’s staff minorities) issues to the forefront. Another event was that the fear generated by downsizing led people from different departments to look for blame in other areas. This alone opened many eyes to the oppressive treatment of the custodial staff. Finally, the search for a new president of the college coupled with the Middle states Accreditation put the political structure of policies and procedures in the line of fire.

When I became the Chairperson, it was a put-up-or-shut-up dare from people who needed a voice and had more to lose than I did as a single white young male. Being Chair set the stage for resistance against the Administration attacking custodians (because of the numbers/bottom line analysis), and also challenged the ideologies (stereotypes) about that segment of the college community.

In terms of social change, custodians had to be viewed as citizens of the community. Thus I began to attend the Faculty Council and Student Government meetings, telling them of staff members’ fears (an attempt at allegiances for emancipation). At College X, (and other institutions) an employee is their occupation and noncustodial employees took a second look at their prejudices. Thus the powerless custodians became part of the issues being expressed by factions of the college. This is when resentment from Managers and Administrators became strong and the class status separation of Staff reared its ugly head. One Vice President made the remark, when I was meeting him for an information session "Oh, here comes Norma Rea." this statement was minimal in comparison to the intimidation, threats and ripped open documents (all my mail went through the Physical Plant, there was no office for Staff Council) I received during and after my reign as Chair.

Being Chair of Staff Council saved my employment because the Administration knew that they could not fire the Chair of any recognized political organization on campus, and I used that to its full advantage.

It is difficult to tie everything that was happening together, but resistance took the following forms from Staff, Managers and the Administration.
Managers would ransack my mail, my custodial closet, do searches of my custodial cart for educational “contraband” and assign "shit details" in response to higher level pressures to shut me up.

The Administrations' greatest tactic was to use the policies and procedure manual of making recommendations to the President (through various committees) of problems that existed, and then stall. Doing nothing was the strongest resistance to change I saw during the downsizing. Staff members are, in fact, their own greatest enemies. The fear and resentment of downsizing and the uncaring Administration turned on the powerless custodians as organizational members started taking offense to them getting the attention.

The Staff Council organized a committee to investigate the harassment of custodians, and to find out why issues in that department had gone unresolved for years (I was not on that committee). The primary finding of the committee was that the procedure for custodians to make a grievance was flawed. The documented abuses would be sent to the three outlets available, the director of the Physical Plant, the director of the Personnel Department and to the Staff Council. The problem with this procedure is that all three of these outlets send their recommendations to one Vice President, (who came to College X with the President and Director of the Personnel Department after closing Newton College in Massachusetts). The issue, once directed toward the Administration, stalled and is to this date (2001) still the procedure.

The list of personal experiences is extensive over fourteen years of employment at College X, so I will briefly describe some of the reification/normalizing systems at work.
Searches by safety: twice in eight months I was searched by Safety and Security, for undisclosed reasons during my Chair position, and I perceived these as strong-arm tactics. The intent was in the criminalization of the powerless and intimidation of open communication about class/race issues at Staff Council.

The maintaining of class separation was evident in campus events as well. At the educational technology day, the technocrats refused to talk to groups of custodians about communication systems as “we” were trying to set up a network of support. Technology and its control are often hidden within stereotypes of groups (illiteracy, criminalization) and thus support the sanction of groups (Alvesson & Deetz: 2000).

Labels and stereotypes are placed on individuals, such as you’re a “lightning rod” or “trouble maker” in an attempt to neutralize and normalize nonconformist. The control of technology and the invasion of Custodial space are in line with Dennis Mumby (1988) as the serving of the dominant ideology and the invisibility of certain powerless groups within the organization. Heat and noise of equipment are placed in custodial areas to remove inconvenient items from the “public” and the owners/operators of that technology.

The power over custodians was used after the downsizing in the form of consultants, psychologists and task-related documents aimed at the manipulation and control of that population. In the Postmodernism camp, this would relate to the knowledge/power connection where structures and arrangements manipulate groups into subordinate roles (Alvesson and Deetz: 2000).

In the matrix of domination over custodians and thus the largest single minority based department, each encounter is relative to the demeanor of the other person; you have not the power to act above them.

Each building on campus is separate this also separated custodial employee, so the availability to group together in defense against unfair treatment was thwarted. This separation or divide and conquer is also apparent in the Administration using secretaries against custodians. In that, when complaints about conditions were raised the response would be “the secretaries say the custodians get special treatment.”

Three on one intimidation is a tactic that managers used knowing that you would tell the workers about the interrogation and, to a point, this is all right because it re-enforces intimidation. Managers know that the hands of Personnel Services (now named Human Resources) are tied to the Administrative “bandwagon” and are in line with Richard Marsden’s (1997) Class Discipline: IR/HR and the normalizing of the workforce. Marsden suggests that the industrial relations and human resources trends are just another method of controlling lower-class workers.

Conclusion

The College attempts to maintain an altruistic façade in the publications and documents distributed to workers that claim that the intentions (of the college and managers) are for the betterment of all involved. However, the deep structure or material condition (Deetz & Kersten: 1983) reveals a history of control and manipulation. College X’s Physical Plant is still in the dark ages in terms of adaptation to multiculturalism. However, there is some hope as the new female President (as of 3*28*98) of the college has started to invest in the workforce to increase the availability of resources and accountability of managers.

Mrs. White, the current President of College X, recently implemented the College X Institutional Plan (Spring 2001), although this document has been distributed by past presidents Mrs. White’s research, foresight and sense of community have not been shared by previous leadership. The document consists of categories such as key performance indicators, implementation strategies and a wide range of institutional support people. One document, of course, will not change the culture or even increase diversity; however, acknowledgment of the realities of the subcultures within the college will strengthen commitment and bring a sense of ownership to all employees. The goals and mission included in the document are in line with Martin Chemers and Susan Murphy’s (1995) Leadership and Diversity in Groups and Organizations in M. Chemers, S. Oskamp, and M. Costanzo’s Diversity in Organizations: New perspectives for a changing workplace that determine that the organizational leader as a woman (and other minorities) bring with them qualities nonexistent to most homogeneous institutions.

Answer 1

In the above instance, there is a clear indication that one's organizational culture leads to the building of constructs, which are then followed by the company employees and are used as viable social constructs and superimposed in a general format on the rest of the population.

The hierarchical model that is broken down and the representatives of each level, display an implicit barriers to ethnicity and hence seniority and supremacy.

This leads to what one can call covert racism. Sometimes this forms of discrimination is done unknowingly but then us converted into constructs of actual social importance within a given society.

For instance, having most of the superior positions given to white males and females and the lower positions to African Americans gives a lure of showing that there is more importance for the former than the latter.