Post on 02-Feb-2016
UNIVERSITATEA BABEŞ-BOLYAI
FACULTATEA DE SOCIOLOGIE ŞI ASISTENŢĂ SOCIALĂ
SPECIALIZAREA SOCIOLOGIE
LUCRARE DE LICENŢĂ
MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES IN ROMANIA:
Towards the Making of a Post-Socialist Neoliberal Subject?
Advisors:
Conf. univ. dr. Rudolf Poledna,
Asis. univ. drd. Norbert Petrovici
drd. Simionca Anca
Candidate:
Irina Zincă
Cluj-Napoca
2009
2
Abstract
This thesis focuses on the experiences of the middle management employees
of multinational companies in the context of post-socialist Romania. It is based on a
qualitative research that provides empirical support of the way in which managers
become neoliberal subjects, taking into consideration local-dependent factors.
Considering the rapid transformations of a changing economy and society, the
analysis traces the manner in which the subjects relate to the requirements of the
market and to those of the companies they work for. The necessary adapting
mechanisms translate into values, conduct, discourse, and ways self-perception of the
new subject. This inquiry gives attention to the manifestations of these elements, and
integrates them in a comprehensive image of the post-socialist neoliberal subject. I
argue that there are different degrees of subjectification according to the type of
multinational company they work in, in terms of organizational culture. More
specifically, I argue that the local companies which now represent a part of larger
transnational corporations create a specific type of neoliberal subject, as opposed to
those which start a business from the very beginning. The study shows that this is
explainable due to the clash of organizational cultures which takes place when the
larger company tries to impose its vision on an already existing organizational culture.
The effects on the individual in terms of self-hood, values and discourse are
highlighted as representative transformations of the human being in an increasingly
neoliberal society.
3
Table of contents
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 4
1. GOVERNING THE NEOLIBERALISING SUBJECTS ..................................... 7
Neoliberalism and governmentality ........................................................................... 7
The discursive turn: a novel workplace rhetoric ........................................................ 9
A critique .................................................................................................................. 12
The question of selfhood .......................................................................................... 14
The subject of neoliberalism .................................................................................... 16
2. THE RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................. 19
3. NEOLIBERALISING SUBJECTS IN MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES IN ROMANIA ........................................... 21
Optimization: collective cooperation and individual improvement ......................... 21
Recruitment and reward: the “making of” the ideal employee ................................ 28
Personal experience: perceptions, values and plans ................................................. 33
CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................... 40
References ................................................................................................................... 42
4
INTRODUCTION
Frequently, national media reports describe the Romanian employee as the
most hard-working among his EU counterparts, even signaling alleged cases of death
due to overwork. In reality, such claims are easily refuted by hard data. Romania, at
41.0 hours, comes in consistently below the EU average of 41.8 hours worked per
week (Eurostat, 2007). Such contradictions abound when talking about the Romanian
labor market, as the country finds itself shedding the attributes of socialism while
trying to connect with the neoliberal logics of a globalizing economy. However, I
argue that such a universal market hides local specificities and differences. They
become salient if two major types of companies as compared: (1) those founded in
Romania but then became a part of foreign corporations, and (2) those founded in
other geographical areas which brought their subsidiaries in Romania. The first
category will be called “mixed” because of the double organizational culture – that of
the local company and that of the foreign one. The second type will is termed as
“external”, referring to corporations that start their business and develop their
organizational culture from the beginning. An increasing number of the latter type in
Romania during the last years sets the complex process and with numerous
implications termed as neoliberalization of society.
Neoliberalism creates a new type of social actor, a subject of its own –
rational, calculated, eager of constant personal improvement, an economical machine.
Nevertheless, the individual is subjected to various forces – economical, social, and
political – and his reaction to them can take multiple forms. At least a few questions
concerning the individual as a human being derive from such premises: how is the self
shaped according to this new order of things? What changes do axiological beliefs
undergo so that the individual adapts to an increasingly neoliberal society? How does
the individual react and relate to the new market demands?
To answer these questions, I propose an understanding of the foucauldian
theories regarding governmentality, biopolitics and technologies of the self, all
interpreted and discussed in the context of neoliberalism. I also use the findings of
some empirical research conducted in multinational companies which are based on
similar theoretical framework, in order to make possible a comparison of the results
and to point out the potential local characteristics. This thesis is based on a qualitative
5
research and it describes the organizational culture through the eyes of the middle
management employees. It brings together their descriptions of the personal and
professional experience of working in a multinational company which allows the
revealing of a managerial typology. The classification is based on the observed
patterns in “appropriation” of corporate values and perceived organizational culture.
The core concepts I am using are the neoliberal script and its correspondent on
the micro level – the neoliberal subject script. According to Aradhana Sharma, the
former means: “structural adjustment, fiscal discipline, empowerment, participation,
and decentralized governing” (Sharma, 2008). The latter is described in the literature
as a set of characteristics of the new type of individual - Homo Economicus: self-
regulating, an agent of the market, autonomous and self-interested. The process
through which the individual becomes a subject is analyzed by dividing it in multiple
instances – recruitment process, specialization techniques (trainings and workshops)
and rewarding systems.
The thesis is divided in two chapters. The first one reviews the relevant
literature and creates the conceptual framework. Section one refers to general
definitions of neoliberalism and governmentality, and then curtails their meaning for
an appropriate use in the given context of this research, and explains the connection
between them. Furthermore, it points out the most relevant elements of these
definitions and explains their utility. The following subchapter brings in discussion
the workplace rhetoric and it proves the importance of discourse in solving the
dualism agency-structure, especially in the discussion about power relations and
subjectification. The implications of the discourse include a new way of doing and
understanding of the individual, reconfiguring his universe while building it. In
subchapter three I counter argue a critique that was brought to the main theorists of
neoliberalism, reaffirming my theoretical standpoint. The question of selfhood is
discussed in the fourth section, mainly presenting two contrasting views on the
development of the self under the circumstances of a developing “new economy”. The
aim was to discover which of them finds more empirical evidence. The last
subchapter represents a discussion about the understanding of subjectivities which
results into a specific definition that I consider to be in question for this research.
The second chapter is dedicated to the discussion of the findings of the present
research. The first section presents what optimization means to neoliberalism and
6
argues that collective and interpersonal cooperation, as well as the demand for
continuous personal improvement represent two main components of the neoliberal
script. I also discuss its implications in terms of effects on the self. Other elements of
the script are revealed in the discussion about rewarding and recruitment of the
employees. I present a classification of the identified incentives and techniques of
employment, and disclose their role and efficiency in the organizational culture. The
last part of the discussions refers to an overall and more personal experience of the
interviewees in the companies – their future plans, perceptions and values. By
describing the ways in which the company promotes its vision and sets of values, as
well as the position the managers take towards these, this section enhances the
patterned internalization of the corporate values and facilitates a debate on the new
selfhood.
7
1. GOVERNING THE NEOLIBERALISING SUBJECTS
This thesis draws upon a series of theories based on Foucault’s writings
concerning governmentality, biopolitics and technologies of the self, all interpreted
and discussed in the context of neoliberalism. The research is focused on the
organizational level due to the centrality of the transnational companies in capitalist
countries; they are sites where neoliberal principles are easily identifiable on the
individual level and analyzable in terms of adopted values, conduct, and discourse.
It is necessary to present and explain the concepts I am using in order to create
the theoretical framework of this research, as well as those issues I am intending to
raise and clarify. By analyzing certain key aspects of the interviews, I will try to
depict the process of creation of a new self, coming to define the neoliberal
subjectivities. Those key aspects refer to an analysis of discourse (to establish the
degree of internalizing the organizational discourse and values), identifying neoliberal
ethics and principles, and marking the outlines of the neoliberal subject script.
Neoliberalism and governmentality
Defining neoliberalism is a question of study in itself. To simplify the terms of
this discussion, I will adopt Aihwa Ong’s perspective on the matter, which is the best
suited in the context of this paper. Generally speaking, the author states that
“neoliberalism is often discussed as an economic doctrine with a negative relation to
state power, a market ideology that seeks to limit the scope and activity of governing”
(Ong, 2006:3). More specifically, neoliberalism is understood in foucauldian terms,
being defined “as a technology of government is a profoundly active way of
rationalizing governing and self-governing in order to optimize” (Ong, 2006:3). Jason
Read makes an interesting remark about what neoliberalism is in terms of ideology:
“It is generally understood as not just a new ideology, but a transformation
of ideology in terms of its conditions and effects. In terms of its conditions, it
is an ideology that is generated not from the state, or from a dominant class,
but from the quotidian experience of buying and selling commodities from
the market, which is then extended across other social spaces, “the
8
marketplace of ideas,” to become an image of society. Secondly, it is an
ideology that refers not only to the political realm, to an ideal of the state,
but to the entirety of human existence. It claims to present not an ideal, but a
reality.” (Read, 2009: 2)
A better understanding of neoliberalism can be achieved if it is defined in
contrast with classical liberalism, focusing on the substantial differences. Jason Read
captures the essence in Foucault’s interpretation of these ideologies, underlining the
basic and most important differences. They have distinct ways in which they focus on
economic activity: while classical liberalism focuses on exchange, neoliberalism is
centered on competition. According to Read, the historical shift had profound effects
because competition needs constant intervention from the state, but not on the market,
but on the conditions of the market (Read, 2009: 4). Competitiveness forms a premise
for a series of subsequent market demands. One example is the need for optimization
which appears as an important element in Ong’s definition of neoliberalism.
The idea of optimization is essentially one of the neoliberal principles,
referring to efficiency, profitability, constant perfecting and competitiveness under the
conditions of a turbulent market. When talking about neoliberalism, optimization is a
recurrent issue with numerous implications as it is often stated as an imperative of
today’s economical logic, simultaneously implying the above stated requirements on
an individual level. According to Ong, “neoliberalism applies to two kinds of
optimizing technologies – technologies of subjectivity and technologies of subjection”
(Ong, 2006:6) According to the author, the former refer to methods of self-
improvement and self-care (spiritually, physically and socio-economically), while the
latter define the techniques of external control and selection mechanisms of
individuals in the search for economical thriving of a settlement. In other words,
technologies of subjectivity represent what Foucault defined as technologies of the
self.
His interest in the contemporary equivalents of the old practices of self-care
(religious, spiritual and personal improvement) focuses on the array of practices
encompassing guiding, counseling and education. According to Mark Tennant,
Foucault shows their role in the process of subjectification and the way in which
individuals resist or are subjected to power through the work upon self (Tennant,
1998). Studying these types of practices in the local subsidiaries of multinational
9
companies (specialization courses, trainings, workshops, teambuilding), will help me
describe the characteristic politics of the neoliberal management, its role in shaping a
certain type of subject and the way in which specific economical principles affect the
self.
I understand the neoliberal management (in the organizational space) as a
micro-representation of what the literature termed as the neoliberal governmentality.
The latter describes the way in which the individual strategies work to cope with and
manage the external demands and how the sources of these demands enforce them.
“Governmentality covers a range of practices that “constitute, define, organize and
instrumentalize the strategies that individuals in their freedom can use in dealing with
each other” (Ong, 2006: 4; Foucault). According to Foucault, the governing of a
population is made by the state institutions, “by discourses, norms and identities, by
self-regulating, techniques for the disciplining and the care for one self” (Ferguson &
Gupta, 2002: 114).
Trent Hamman, talking about the central aim of the neoliberal
governmentality, argues that this is represented by “the strategic creation of social
conditions that encourage and necessitate the production of Homo Economicus, a
historically specific form of subjectivity constituted as a free and autonomous “atom
of self-interest.” (Hamman, 2009: 1). Sam Binkley’s definition of the neoliberal
governmentality refers to a similar type of subjects: “they are governed as market
agents, encouraged to cultivate themselves as autonomous, self-interested individuals,
and to view their resources and aptitudes as human capital for investment and return”
(Binkley, 2009: 3)
The discursive turn: a novel workplace rhetoric
The postmodern perspective of self states that the subject and the social are not
given entities which come to interact but they are produced effects. Consequently, the
subject is no longer a unitary agent, coherent and rational, but a historical product –
seen as a discourse embedded in everyday practices (Tennant, 1998). The image of
the individual is replaced by that of a subject who occupies a position in a discourse;
given the multiplicity of one’s discourses, it is now clear why and how several and
maybe contradictory subjectivities are possible (Tennant, 1998). The paradigmatic
10
shift towards the analysis of discursive practices is essential in understanding the
process of subjectivity formation, reasserting the importance and role of the discourse.
In an organizational context, discourse appears as even more relevant in
subjectification processes, solving both theoretical and practical issues. It “provides
theorists with the opportunity to reformulate an old and perhaps worn-out debate
postulating a dualism between agency and structure or voluntaristic and deterministic
perspectives” (Bergstrom & Knights, 2006: 3). Moreover, there is the practical
solution that this notion offers, seeing subjectification as the result of the interaction
between human agency and organizational discourses. Subjectification is a process
during which “subjects often actively participate in the production of the self - same
subjectivity that constrains them” (Bergstrom & Knights, 2006: 3). Human agency
functions when it comes to accepting to undergo various stages of the subjectification
process, whether it is about organizational discourse or behaving according to the
company’s principles.
The same authors view the attempt to create a match between personal and
organizational values as one of the instances of subjectification (Bergstrom &
Knights, 2006). The results of this matching can consist of adopting a certain way of
talking about the company, the co-workers and the way things generally work, in the
way the respondent relates to his/her career in comparison with his/her personal life; it
can therefore be established the degree of implication and internalization of the
organizational values.
According to Fairclough, the analysis of the organizational discourse should
include the detailed analysis of both written and spoken text (Fairclough, 2005).
Bergstrom and Knights’s paper is based on an empirical study in which they study
how subjectification takes place in the interaction between the employer and the
potential employee during the interviews and the recruitment process. This way, it is
captured the beginning of the subjectification process and the interaction makes
visible the power relations and their results. But given the way I am conducting my
research (interviews with the employees), the discourse of the subjects will be
analyzed beyond these initial power relations, when the subjectification process will
have reached a relatively stable phase. In other words, the period spent in the
company until the time of the interviewing will facilitate the tracking down of those
characteristics which make an employee a neoliberal subject. In these conditions, the
11
reproduction of certain expressions and phrases are still visible, also having the
advantage of identifying the adopted values due to the period spent as an employee.
One of Bergstrom and Knights’ results state that subjectification is neither
determined by organizational discourse, nor by human agency. It is important to note
that this process represents a complex condition and a consequence of the intertwined
relations between both discourse and agency; individuals reproduce and adapt the
organizational discourse as a part of their own re-creation and understanding
(Bergstrom & Knights, 2006). In this context, “subjectivity is a complex outcome of
the co-related practices of self-managed agency and discourses of power/knowledge”.
(Bergstrom & Knights, 2006: 23)
In the contemporary workplaces there appears to be developing a set of new
demands which transforms the way the self is constantly modified and reevaluated.
These demands represent elements contained in today’s workplace rhetoric: flexible
learning, work-based learning, and intellectual capital. As Garrick and Usher observe,
these are not actually new requirements; what is novel about them is in fact the way
their importance is emphasized (Garrick & Usher, 2000). The flexibility of learning
sheds unexpected implications and meanings – the necessity of adaptability under the
circumstances of an instable market, a condition for the social and economic division
of work, and flexibility in educational systems in order to prepare individuals for the
conditions of the labor market. “Contemporary workplaces are […] also sites for
shaping the subjectivity of employees […] where learning involves the management
of ‘intellectual’ capital”. (Garrick & Usher, 2000: 3) This type of capital is defined as
“the creation and management of knowledge within the system, and its contribution to
knowledge outcomes.” (Marsick & Watkins 1999: 207)
Garrick and Usher assert that knowledge management and learning receive
new meanings, constantly closer to the organizational interests. While learning is a
component of the intellectual capital, management politics of today’s corporations
include capability as an essential request. This notion “focuses on the ways that
employees need to think and how they need to be in the world”. (Garrick & Usher,
2000:5) Therefore, capability means more than acknowledging tasks and
responsibilities; it involves a reconfiguration of the self in terms of identity and
subjectivity (Garrick & Usher, 2000). Garrick and Usher’s concept of work based
12
learning is essential in understanding the way contemporary workplaces affect the self
and the role of this type of rhetoric in the process:
One way in which to understand work based learning is as a technology
through which selves become enterprising, seeking betterment and fulfillment
in the work context in ways that can be both personally and organizationally
effective. Work-based learning therefore becomes an indicator both of
successful self-management and a culturally sanctioned way in which
employees in restructured workplaces can make a ‘project of themselves’
and at the same time add value to the organization. (John Garrick & Robin
Usher, 2000: 7)
Work based learning and life long learning can be read as technologies of the
self. The two notions represent the latest imperatives of both economic life as a
general principle, and a personal desideratum for individual improvement and
welfare. These types of learning represent the means of remaining competitive and
self-sustainable, for both the company and the individual. Learning represents a
technology of success and an extremely efficient way of empowerment and
regulation, especially in the conditions of a culture which opposes discipline through
coercion or force (Garrick & Usher, 2000).
Management of subjectivity is the main task for companies with actively
implicated employees whose personal and professional objectives correspond with
those of the company. This perspective imagines and creates the “good employee”:
active learner and self-regulating subject, constantly adapting to his own changing
needs (Garrick & Usher, 2000). Managing subjectivities is a useful concept as it
encompasses the techniques used, the task of administrating selves as well as the idea
of congruence between personal and professional objectives.
A critique
The two authors make an important remark referring to the work place
rhetoric: flexible learning, work-based learning, and intellectual capital are not actual
new requirements. This brings into discussion the relative novelty of some elements
that characterize neoliberalism. Andrew Kipnis developed a series of
counterarguments to Rose’s theory of “advanced liberalism”, based on his research on
13
performance audits in China. He states that what the anthropologists call neoliberal
governmentality, is actually understood by the Chinese workers as a socialist practice,
using this commonality to build his counterarguments.
“The three foci that Rose and his anthropological interlocutors consider
central to the definition of neoliberalism—governing from a distance,
calculability, and the promotion of self-activating, disciplined, individuated
subjects—can be found in a variety of governing cultures that are
historically quite distant from anything associated with Western neoliberal
or even liberal governing philosophies” (Kipnis, 2008: 9)
Therefore, Kipnis argues that certain principles that are suppositionally the
creation of neoliberalism exist in fundamentally different socio-political contexts. For
example, he mentions self-reliance, discipline and self-cultivation being easily read
out of Confucius, Mao Zedong, and Mahatma Gandhi, as well as “neoliberal
thinkers”. (Kipnis, 2008) The Confucian values promoted by the communist regime in
China refer to cultivation of the individual which makes their families regulated and
consequently their states rightly governed and the empire tranquil and happy. This is
indeed a good example of common traits of two very different political ideologies
which seems to rightfully found Kipnis’s critique. But we should also have in mind
the more general goal and the techniques used to implement these principles. This
state of bliss promoted by Confucius though self-reliance and used by the communist
regime aims for attaining a general content of the population, avoiding the
responsibilization of the state, making the control of the people easy. This type of
control of the population is not applied as in foucauldian terms (governing from the
distance), but in the terms of manipulation, which draws significant distinctions
between the Chinese regime and what has been termed as neoliberalism. Another
problematic element of Kipnis’s interpretation of Rose’s theory regards the question
of calculability:
“this centrality correlates with industrialization, the increasing universality of
numeracy in addition to literacy, and the ongoing growth in the volume and
distance of trade and, thus, of the gulf between producers and end users. Any
form of large-scale society with a division of labor requires means of calculating
how the fruits of labor should be divided” (Kipnis, 2008: 9).
14
Even if Kipnis (2008) is right to point the similarities between Confucianism and
Neoliberalism, however he misses the central critical aspect brought forward by the
concept of neoliberalism. Namely, neoliberalism does not mean the simple
mathematic calculability, nor it is just about its centrality achieved over the past
century, it is about a way to think, a tendency and a necessity to make them
“calculable”, to make the individual time management an imperative for personal
success and economic thriving or to make market-like structures out of government
working places (Rose, 1999).
The question of selfhood
An analysis on selfhood under the circumstances of a developing “new
economy” is undertaken by Giddens and Sennett. Although contrasting, both
perspectives assign the causes to the organizational changes of the advanced capitalist
countries. Jannette Webb summarizes both theories in one of her articles, comparing
and contrasting them (Webb, 2004). Using Giddens and Sennett’s visions on self-
identity, I intend to explore the relation between selfhood and the neoliberal script,
concentrating on working conditions in multinational companies.
In his analysis of self-identity and modernity, Giddens “acknowledges the
threat of personal meaninglessness associated with rapidly changing consumer
capitalist societies, but suggests that organizations provide the resources which enable
people to manage better the existential dilemmas and uncertainties generated”
(Giddens in Webb, 2004: 2). The counterpart of this vision is associated by Webb
(2004) to Sennett’s (1998) concept of “corroded self” which suggests that “emerging
organization forms are instrumental in producing renewed private troubles, and the
further breakdown of a secure, or authentic, sense of self” (Webb, 2004: 2). Whether
it is a reflexive self or a corroded character, both authors start from the premise that
the source of change is the new organizational forms. Trying to correlate certain
dimensions of one’s self (like awareness, fear, strategies of solving problems, trust in
his own future, and so on) with the organization he works in, I intend to see if there is
indeed a connection between the two and which of the theories (Giddens’ or
Sennett’s) finds more empirical evidence.
15
In order to follow organizational changes, it is important to observe and
understand the logics behind these transformations. Webb (2004) mentions the
appearance of a new ideal-typical form of organization, where flexibility and
networks tend to become more and more important prescriptions. While flexibility
covers a wide range of dimensions – learning (Garrick & Usher, 2000), business
strategies, organization structures, management – networks are seen as a “means of
enhancing flexibility because they are seen as fluid, permeable, infinitely expandable
and dynamic” (Webb, 2004). Moreover, there is a tendency of delayer and simplifying
the chain of command, shifting from a “vertical division of labor to horizontal
coordination through continually changing project teams, and an emphasis on risk-
taking and problem-solving” (Du Gay, 1996; Sennett, 1998 in Webb, 2004).
Changes are made to optimize, flexibility is needed for adaptation, and
individuals become subjects in a complex interaction of factors. Neoliberalism and
market-driven changes in self-hood should be explored and understood as more than a
simple chain of events, where a causal determinist explanation of the process is not
possible. It is necessary to understand how and why the individual actively
participates to organizational change or resists it, to see how the logics of
neoliberalism create new demands for companies and then the companies to the
employees.
One of the major technologies of government was theorized by Foucault and
defined as biopolitics. It “refers to a series of regulatory controls exerted on
population and on individuals in order to harness and extract life forces” (Ong, 2006:
13). As Ong stated, neoliberalism is a technology of governing that can be traced to
the notion of biopolitics, seen as a “modern mode of governing that brought “life and
its mechanisms into the realm of explicit calculations and made knowledge/power an
agent of the transformation of human life”. The interpretations of the foucauldian
concepts in the context of neoliberalism are essential in understanding the economical
and social macro-structures and how their logics interconnect with the human being in
terms of selfhood, character and ethics.
16
The subject of neoliberalism
The area where these elements meet is subsumed under the notion of
subjectivity, as it is usually understood in somehow general terms. Defining
subjectivity is a question of study in itself, especially if we take into consideration the
multiple contexts and scientific domains in which it is used (psychology, sociology
and numerous enclosed fields). Moreover, subjectivity brings along a series of
discussions when it is understood in terms of opposition with identity. Therefore, for
further clarifications of the theoretical framework of this paper, the delineation of this
notion is necessary.
A relevant illustration of this debate around the identity/subjectivity issue is
Margaret Wetherell’s paper, “Subjectivity or Psycho-Discursive Practices?
Investigating Complex Intersectional Identities” (Wetherell, 2008). The author takes
up Couze Venn’s delineation of subjectivity who defines it as being opposed to
identity. According to Wetherell, the relatively novel character of the former produces
what the author calls the “dulling down” of the latter and the dichotomy proposed by
Venn is considered to take us back to some “intellectual worn out ways of working”.
To be more specific, he understands identity as referring to “the relational aspects that
qualify subjects in terms of categories such as race, gender, class, nation, sexuality,
work and occupation, and thus in terms of acknowledged social relations and
affiliations to groups – teachers, miners, parents, and so on” (Venn in Wetherell,
2008). On the other hand, subjectivity is “the product of an interiorization of attitudes,
values, expectations, memories, dispositions, instantiated in inter-subjective relations
and activities that, through historically specific self-reflective practices of recognition,
constitute a particular named person, a singularity” (Venn in Wetherell, 2008).
Needless to say, the disadvantages that come along with the use of such of a
dichotomy can indeed be counterproductive, but the definitions that Venn offers shed
a light upon at least a part of the issue. Wetherell is transferring this opposition in
further essentializing dichotomies, claiming that identity “becomes constructed as the
public face: about groups and the external. It is about social categories [...] and modes
of conduct derived from those social categories”, whereas “subjectivity or singular
character, sums up the actual complex person and lived life” (Wetherell, 2008).
Therefore, identity and subjectivity is finally understood in terms of external and
internal, of real and “ideology” (Wetherell, 2008). The delimitation made by Venn
17
between the two concepts is useful, but it would be more useful to understand them
not as opposed, but as being partially coterminous. While it is generally accepted that
belonging to a certain group (according to various criteria) offers the individual an
identity, the same belonging contributes to the process of subjectivity creation. These
are neither the same process, nor they are completely distinct; they intersect at the
point where identity becomes an important element in the creation of subjectivity, as a
source of experiences and new meanings for the individual. Therefore, subjectivity
represents only a partial outcome of lived and felt identity, having its sources to
events and phenomena unrelated to the individual’s identity.
Due to the variety and the intertwinement of the dimensions I am tracking, a
particular definition is in question. I understand subjectivity as an ongoing process
formed of internalized experiences which are translated into personal values and
aspirations, life views and a certain self-perception, subsequently externalized as
conduct and discourse. But what appears as a manifestation of a certain kind of
subjectivity can also represent at the same time a technology of subjection. For
example, when Bergstrom and Knights (2006) conclude that subjectification is the
result of the interaction between human agency and organizational discourses, it
means that the managerial subjectivity externalized as a certain type of discourse
contributes to (but does not determine) the creation of the employee’s own
subjectivity. Therefore, the expression of one’s subjectivity can represent a tool or
technology for influencing one’s subjectivity, without omitting, of course, the
individual’s intake in terms of human agency. In my understanding of the concept,
subjectivity can only take form in influential and constant context(s) of the
individual’s life, because its appearance depends on the amount of time and resources
invested while being in that context.
In Hamman’s article on “Neoliberalism, Governmentality and Ethics”
(Hamman, 2009), when he states that the goal of the neoliberal governmentality is the
creation of the Homo Economicus, he also makes a succinct description of the
neoliberal subject: briefly, “he is morally responsible for navigating the social realm
using rational choice and cost-benefit calculations grounded on market-based
principles to the exclusion of all other ethical values and social interests” (Hamman,
2009: 1). According to Binkley, neoliberal governmentality encompasses the macro-
technologies by which states govern populations as well as the micro-technologies by
18
which individuals govern themselves, “allowing power to govern individuals “at a
distance,” as individuals translate and incorporate the rationalities of political rule into
their own methods for conducting themselves” (Binkley, 2009: 3).
Therefore, power does not simply produce neoliberal subjects, but what is
involved in this complex process “is the production of self-producing subjects—
subjects whose own self-production is prone to reversals and appropriations, to
“misproductions” through which the subject produces himself differently than is
intended by power itself” (Binkley, 2009: 4). Binkley understands the subjectification
as a process which leaves room for some human agency input, seeing an “implicit
indeterminacy within neoliberal governmentality between techniques of coercion and
the processes by which subjects construct themselves”, an indeterminacy which offers
the possibility to make things differently. The object of the change in the
subjectification process is the ethical substance (Foucault in Binkley, 2009).
The ethical substance, or the specific material upon which ethical
practices work—that part of the self that is made the object of the
transformative work of neoliberal governmentality. This substance is defined
by time and the changing practices of temporal calculation and practical
orientation by which everyday conduct is undertaken. (Binkley, 2009: 4).
19
2. THE RESEARCH DESIGN
Transnational Companies. The focus of this study has been the organizational
level and in particular, the organizational culture and its representations. The best
suited research site for an analysis of the neoliberal management and subjects is
represented by the local subsidiaries of transnational companies. Those involved in
this research varied in size cover different profiles, among which software,
outsourcing, production and distribution of dairy products, telecommunication
systems, printing equipment providers, banking and mobile phone services. The
complex managerial system and the specific logics of the multinational companies
offer rich and challenging issues for a study of the new economical demands and their
effects on the individual. The choice to deal mainly with this type of corporations also
justifies itself through the concentration of neoliberal principles, making their
identification on the individual’s level relatively easy. Therefore, this inquiry follows
an analysis of the corporate principles in terms of values, conducts, and discourse, as a
means to describe the possible effects they have on the self.
Middle Management. An exploratory endeavor as the present research finds an
appropriate approach in the qualitative methodology. The fieldwork consisted of semi
structured interviews with people working in middle or middle-top management
positions in transnational companies. These hierarchical positions have the advantages
to comprise complex responsibilities as they theoretically represent the connection
between top management and the worker; suppositionally, some of these
responsibilities are the transmission of the organizational values and principles and to
implement its politics.
Interviews. They were conducted with ten people working in positions of
middle management – six women and four men, aged between 22 and 33. They were
chosen along a main set of three variables which includes position, type of company
(both local-based and international and profile diversity), and type of department (as
varied as possible). Age was taken in consideration to include experienced managers
(to have an image about their professional evolution), as well as those less
experienced. The gender variable was taken into account in order to ensure a balanced
number of respondents.
20
What I followed during the interviews was to pinpoint the conceptual
dimensions, trying to accomplish two main goals: first, the identification of the
personal track/career and their personal experience and secondly, their description of
the organizational culture they work in. More specifically, the latter comprises
questions related to their departmental structure, the recruitment process,
specialization techniques (trainings, workshops), job description as well the more
informal expected responsibilities from them, as managers. The personal experience
was depicted following themes like relations with coworkers, advantages and
disadvantages of the job (what they find satisfying and unsatisfying), types of rewards
and their efficiency, perception of the company’s set of values, career versus personal
life, observed changes in their personal values or perceptions, durability versus
flexibility of jobs, personal motivations concerning their career. Those questions
related to the organizational culture were not meant to result into an objective
description, but to understand the way the individuals perceive, understand and relate
to it.
21
3. NEOLIBERALIZING SUBJECTS IN MULTINATIONAL
COMPANIES IN ROMANIA
Optimization: collective cooperation and individual improvement
This chapter brings together descriptions of the visions the managers have on
the working environment. Focusing on the relations at work and on the specialization
techniques applied in the multinational companies, this section plans to ascertain the
empirical components of the neoliberal subject script and its ethical effects. The
discussions on the relationships at work revolved around mainly the same
characteristics of the professional relations: collaboration and interconnection. It is
frequently mentioned that the interdependence between different departments and
positions makes collaboration an imperative, and that the promptness one depends on
is vital for making the resolving of tasks possible. Generally promoted by the
company’s politics, collaboration between coworkers is acknowledged as a necessary
condition for their own well being. Reciprocity, respect and professionalism are the
recurrent words to describe the relations at work. The differences that appeared were
based on the variant profiles of the companies and sometimes to their positions; those
working in technical oriented domains (engineering, for example) are generally a part
of a transnational department so that the direct contact with most of the subordinates
or the direct superior rarely take place.
I do not know how many people are in this department (we’re talking about a
world wide department) but there is a manager in China, subordinate to the
CEO, and two other managers in Europe (at the headquarters in Paris) to whom
I directly report. There’s another manager on the same hierarchical level.
(Customer Care Manager, 30, F, multinational)
In their cases, when they are responsible with managing a certain European
area, the interactions at work were described as typical and characteristic to the
nationality of the employee, creating new demands for the managerial position.
Everybody reacts according to the particularities of this office he works in. The
English are efficient and communicative. They make their ideas known and
they are transparent in their activity. Pretty open-minded and imaginative. The
Germans are dull and efficient. Uncommunicative unless it is absolutely
necessary, but kind. Stuck in the specificity of the German market, I wouldn’t
allow them to activate outside their borders. Not very imaginative. The French
are communicative, pretty unorganized but surprisingly efficient in their way of organizing. Fairly imaginative. The Hungarians are disciplined but
22
uncommunicative and totally lacking imagination and creativity. If you trace
clear limits, what is between them is nicely resolved. (Distributed Products
Manager, 36, M, printing equipments multinational)
It is interesting to observe how the particularities of the country of origin of
the coworkers create certain expectations and define the professional relationship. In
these cases, the capability to adapt to the variety of nationalities, as well as the
necessity to trust the distributors and other departments (even if they have never met
in person), are perceived as a part of the job description.
This situation comes in contrast with that of the managers working in more
“compact” companies. When managers and their subordinates work in the same place,
spending together an average of eight hours a day, the relationships start from other
premises. The company promotes a close intradepartmental collaboration, offering
occasions for teambuilding and improvement of teams’ efficiency. These types of
companies are rather oriented towards services and they generally have a better
defined focus on teamwork, they encourage a more personal knowing of the
coworker, and try to create the conditions for a satisfied employee.
I consider myself to be in a fortunate situation; I really have a really good
relationship with the team and with my colleagues. […] For me, the secret for a good communication with the team is to understand each of them, what they
want, how they are as individuals, how they interact in the team. […] What
matters in the end is what relationship you have with them, as well as the relationships they have with each other, so that conflicts can be avoided. (Team
Manager, financial department, 25, F, outsourcing multinational)
In this particular interview, the question of satisfaction appeared several times,
describing well-established mechanisms of maintaining and increasing it. The
monthly individual meetings of the manager with each member of her team are meant
to create a comfortable context for discussions. More specifically, her role is to solve
any personal or professional problems they had during that month, to explain why
certain decisions are taken, or to discuss the member’s career plans, “to offer them
another perspective”. Furthermore, each team member has a monthly meeting with the
team manager’s direct superior, in order to be able to discuss any problem they may
have with her or to raise possible problems that she could not solve. One more
meeting is set every semester with the Human Resources manager, again without their
team leader.
The purpose is to make them feel relaxed, to raise problems. For example, if I
yelled at them, they have the opportunity to say this without me being around. Practically, the idea is to offer them the necessary comfort for them not to hide
23
anything… because at some point this can work against them. We had
situations when…in the end, team problems were discovered through these
mechanisms. […] If there wasn’t for these meetings with the team manager and
with the HR department, they would feel lost and like they wouldn’t belong to
anybody. (Team Manager, financial department, 25, F, outsourcing multinational)
Satisfaction of the employees appears frequently in the manager’s discourse. It
is not only about professional satisfaction, but she mentions the personal one as an
important element as well. The company’s politics does not encourage over time and
neither does her, except for the extraordinary occasions when their tasks need to be
resolved sooner or their work accumulates. When that happens, the extra hours are
compensated afterwards with shorter work days. Moreover, their monthly meetings
involve discussions about their personal problems too in an attempt to build a closer
relationship, based on trust and confidence.
This idealistic perspective the manager has is extremely suggestive for her
general attitude towards work and career: the abundance of positive words that
describe the company, the listed advantages of the meetings they have, the type of the
relations that are encouraged and the politics regarding overtime are only a part of the
elements which depicted her overall image on the job. Similar views were met in
other managers’ interviews concerning related topics, suggesting the existence of a
category of their own which will be discussed in a following section. More
specifically, several communalities revealed a few patterns that resulted in a
classification of the types of managers.
The data description presented so far regards a set of characteristics of the
neoliberal management that derived from the larger socio-political and economical
context. They contributed to the appearance of a new type of subject and shaped the
first characteristics of the neoliberal subject script: individual interdependence,
interpersonal collaboration, care for personal life, own comfort and satisfaction, as
well as confidence in working partners. All these represent a “package” of requests
and offers from the company to its employees. The way it is perceived and managed
varies from one type of manager to another: the more implicated ones see this script
as something common and unquestionable, the attitude of the reserved ones depends,
being more analytical of certain situations, and the more doubting managers
appreciate the benefits the most and seem tented not to avoid some of the problematic
tasks.
24
The most important dimension that can be discussed has to do with the
emotional or personal aspect that is reminded recurrently in the manager’s discourse.
The care of the company for the well-being of the employees can be understood in
Aihwa Ong’s (2006) terms – the technologies of subjection identified in this research
are suggested by expressions like: “to make them feel relaxed”, “the necessary
comfort for them not to hide anything”, “they would feel lost and like they wouldn’t
belong to anybody”, “to understand each of them, and how they are as individuals”.
In order for these technologies to become a part of the organization culture and to be
applied, there is a need for the middle management representatives to form the bridge
between top management (or those who elaborate the vision of a corporation) and
their own subordinates. Nevertheless, the process of transmission of the ideas and
ways of doing that is specific to a large company is a highly complex one and it is not
the subject of this paper. Still, a part of this process is captured in the middle
managers’ way of relating to the set of values of the company, adopts and internalizes
it, and then acts accordingly managing to transmit it to the others.
The micro level on which the neoliberal governmentality acts is dependent on
the mezzo level, or the organizational culture, which is defined by similar logics: the
necessity to cooperate as well as possible intra and inter departmental comes from the
need to improve and speed up the working process. Besides the call for interpersonal
cooperation and professionalism, further discussions around the relations at the
workplace mentioned the interdependence between departments and between
positions, no matter their hierarchical placement.
Fortunately, relations at work imply a very good collaboration in the Customer
Care department and with colleagues in the other departments. Actually, all
departments are strongly interconnected. If it wasn’t for the colleagues in
Research and Development, the colleagues in Sales wouldn’t have anything to
sale; if those working in Sales hadn’t sold, us working in Customer Care
wouldn’t have clients to take care of, and the colleagues in Financial wouldn’t have money to cash, and if it wasn’t for us, the quality of the products would
have been problematic, making from selling an impossible mission. I can not
say that there are friendships, but what I can say is that the relationships are based on respect and mutual help. (Customer Care Manager, 30, F,
telecommunication multinational)
The question of interdependence implies subsequent elements that describe a
certain way of working in large companies: complementarity, strict specialization of
the employee in a certain area and close collaboration. Their purpose is the
optimization of working process, fastening it, making it more efficient and therefore
25
profitable. The fact that these elements appeared in most of the discourses makes
them belong to the larger set of basic conditions for the existence of a multinational,
fitting into the neoliberal script. They are perceived as common sense imperatives for
the general well being which can be translated into an internalization of the neoliberal
principles. Close collaboration for the general well being inside the company is even
more highlighted in the context of a wild competitiveness of the market. In other
words, the internal well functioning becomes even more important in the competition
with companies with similar domains of activity.
Optimization of the production activities means specialization of the employees,
improvement of their knowledge and skills. The practice of training sessions and
workshops is widespread in the organizational culture, and they are understood by the
employees as unquestionable requirements of their jobs. The objectives of the
trainings vary according to the company’s profile, the hierarchical level, the
department, or the experience of the employee in that firm.
At the beginning, there are necessary the general trainings, those regarding soft
skills, and then there are necessary the core skills ones, or job-related. (Partner
Account Manager, Sales, 29, M, software multinational)
Some of the companies offer a large variety of courses, making some of them
compulsory and some facultative, displaying a significant amount of chances of
personal and professional improvement, as well as a certain freedom to take those
trainings that the employee finds appropriate. The workshops are generally perceived
as opportunities for which they are grateful as they see them as a win-win situation:
they enrich their knowledge and therefore their value on the market increases, and
they also help the company they work for to thrive. Moreover, one of the interviewees
described a complex system of training sessions which followed a set of criteria
according to which the specialization was made: depending on the time spent in the
company (beginner or more experienced) they have to attend certain trainings in a
given amount of time, gradually reaching a point where the freedom to chose is total.
Nevertheless, there is an unstated and general conception that the more workshops
you attend, the better they are as managers and employees. This way, most of them
tend to take as many classes as they can that regard their job.
There are some profile courses which are not mandatory, like communication
with clients; Excel is not mandatory for example but it is a recommended
course that you take because you know it helps a lot. For me, as a manager, some trainings regarding Human Resources, leadership and reporting are
26
mandatory because it is considered that I will increase my performance going
through these courses. Another example would be the foreign languages
classes that you can attend because you want to; or there are courses you attend
because your linguistic level is not good enough for the job you have. And then
it is necessary to improve as fast as possible because otherwise… we ruin our relationship with the clients. (Team Manager, financial department, 25, F,
outsourcing multinational)
As a commonality, all the interviewees described a more or less complex
system of specialization in their companies. The differences appeared in terms of
perceived importance and efficiency of this type of practices, and therefore in terms of
attitude regarding them. Overall, there are three types of employees that can be
pointed out using this attitudinal dimension: the enthusiasts, the pragmatists, and the
skeptics. The enthusiasts mention the win-win situation of training attendance; the
pragmatists admit the utility of workshops but mainly of those concerning technical
skills and only if there are respected certain conditions; and the skeptics doubt their
efficiency, considering them a waste of time and money. This classification
corresponds to the types previously termed as implicated, reserved and doubting
managerial attitudes. One of the pragmatist managers (or reserved) says how the
trainings should be done and in what situations they achieve their purpose:
They are efficient only if applied immediately after finishing the training, and if a follow-up is made to check the implementation of the learnt elements.
(Partner Account Manager, Sales, 29, M, software multinational)
The empirical data of this research shows that most of the interviewed managers
are enthusiasts but further research is necessary to tell whether it is the age, the profile
of the company, or other characteristics that contribute to this type of attitude. As an
observation, the non-enthusiasts are in their thirties and work in more technical
domains (software), as opposed to the enthusiasts, who are younger and generally
have more human-oriented jobs (team management, human resources). Nevertheless,
their discourses reveal the fact that their differentiated attitude may have to do with
variant degrees of internalization of the promoted values. A more in-depth discussion
will be taken up in the last subchapter of this section.
An analysis of the training practices that appeared repeatedly in the
respondents’ a discourse is in question is in order, as well as their implications on the
subject level. As an important component of the neoliberal script, the call for
specialization transcends its general character, becoming a need for oneself, for
27
personal improvement and development. The neoliberal governmentality finds its
empirical evidence as these respondents appear as “market agents, encouraged to
cultivate themselves as autonomous, self-interested individuals, and to view their
resources and aptitudes as human capital for investment and return” (Binkley, 2009:
3). This is almost explicit when the interviewees talk about their value on the labor
market, their value as individuals and employees. In this research, the mechanisms
through which the individuals get to perceive and speak about themselves as holders
of resources and intellectual capital can only be related to certain unstated and general
conceptions that concern the most important criteria of individual evaluation (e.g.: the
idea that the more workshops they attend, the better they are as managers and
employees).
However, this research, as an exploratory and ethnographical endeavor, has an
approach which allows the revealing of some explanations, trying to argue against
some of the critiques that are brought to the governmentality theories. The empirical
results show that a few refinements can be made regarding the efficiency of the
neoliberal script in terms of its internalization, contrasting with the impression of one
sidedness that the literature seems to leave (creating of a certain subject by subjection
to external forces). These refinements regard the variant ways in which the individuals
comply, resist or actively take part in the subjectification process, reacting differently
to the requirements of the organizations they work in, internalizing their principles or
only a part of them.
The discussions with the interviewees showed that this differentiated reaction
to the neoliberal subject script follows the attitudinal taxonomy previously described.
The enthusiasts adopt the values of the company and internalize them to the point
where they become active participants in the process of corporate ethics reproduction.
The pragmatists generally comply with the set of values but readapt them according to
their own values and apply them differentially. The skeptical managers tend to resist
to the attempts of value implementations, finding little congruence between their own
principles and the company’s way of working. Nevertheless, this does not mean that
they do not adapt to the formal rules or norms of the firm, but they question and
sometimes tend to evade a part of them.
The methods of specialization frequently brought up in the managers’
discourse can be interpreted as what Ong termed as technologies of subjectivity (Ong,
28
2006). Although understood in the literature as technologies of subjection, once they
are perceived by the individuals as highly beneficial for their own well-being, they
can gradually become technologies of subjectivity. In other words, what is meant to
create a match between organizational ethics and those of the individual through
learning is used by the employees as instruments of enriching their market value.
In conclusion, the optimization technologies and the specialization methods
represent subjectification instances to which individuals relate and react according the
category they belong to. Further implications of similar instances will be discussed in
the next two subchapters.
Recruitment and reward: the “making of” the ideal employee
An image of the way the recruitment process works in multinational
companies is necessary to understand and discuss what the literature considers to be
one of the instances of subjectification. While some empirical studies observed that
the job interviewing is a subjectification instance in itself (see Bergstrom & Knights,
2006), this research focused on the larger process of recruitment for similar reasons.
The fact that the companies have well-established politics regarding the selection of
certain individuals means that the company has a predetermined image of its
employees.
This image does not include simply the professional or academic knowledge,
but a set of characteristics a lot more difficult to define. They refer to an implicit
congruence of the individual with the job and the company in terms of values and
principles. It is obviously difficult, if not impossible, to find from the beginning such
a matching, but preliminary tests and discussions with the candidate can tell to the
interviewer whether he/she will make a good employee. The discussion with the
managers who participated in this research did not reveal those characteristics,
because they are implicit, difficult to name or to point. Nevertheless, certain used
phrases in the managers’ discourse (e.g.: “correspondence between the candidate, the
job and the company”, “figure out whether the profile of that person fits with what
he/she would have to work”) reveal this search for congruence as a fact.
If somebody applied for a job in my team or in a team with similar activities, practically I would have an interview with him/she separated from
the one made by the HR department, and I would give my own feedback. In
29
this case, what I am looking for is to observe the human aspects, but also trying
to figure out whether the profile of that person fits with what he/she would
have to work. Because most of the time the HR department does not
understand all the implications of the job. (Team Manager, financial
department, 25, F, outsourcing multinational)
A search for a particular potential of the candidates forms the premises for an
ideal employee, making the recruitment process a relevant element to be taken in
consideration in this discussion about subjectification. The methods of choosing
future employees vary from company to company and they generally depend on the
position that needs to be filled. They also vary in terms of “channels” of recruitment
and in forms of testing the candidate. These channels refer to specialized firms in
Human Resources and Head Hunting, their own department of Human Resources,
announcements in local newspapers, recommendations of the already employed or
programs of internship. The forms of testing are also diversified, varying from solving
a given problematic situation, to verification of the technical knowledge.
The discussions with the interviewed managers showed that even though their
companies adopt at least two of the listed recruitment methods, they are perceived as
simple and straight-forward but nevertheless, efficient. One of the interviewed
managers said that the company she works for, the recruitment is made through head
hunting firms for middle and top management positions and through announcements
in local newspapers for lower hierarchical ones. The software company requires four
interviews and a test with if-clause questions (which assess the candidate’s capacity to
solve given problems). The manager working at the telecommunication company
described the process as following:
The recruitment is very simple. The candidate goes through the interview with
those from human resources to decide whether there is a general
correspondence between the candidate, the job and the company. Then there’s
the interview with the direct superior. (Customer Care Manager, 30, F,
telecommunication multinational)
The most complex recruitment appears to be in the case of the outsourcing
company, as they have three major ways of employing new personnel: through
recommendations from the already employed, through a company of human
resources, and through a program of internship. The HR firm has the responsibility to
find the proper candidates following the basic requirements of the job and then they
undergo further interviews with the outsourcing company. The internship is addressed
to college students who participate in this program for six weeks, attending trainings
30
and taking tests. According to their performance and the available positions, some of
them are hired. The interviewed manager considers that the most efficient recruitment
method is the one through recommendation:
If I am an employee of [name of the company] and I recommend someone…
First of all, I am rewarded because this is a smaller bonus than if we had to pay a profile firm to find people for us… therefore, from the point of view of the
company, this means a financial plus, but it is not just that. It is an economic
bonus for me but… the fact that I recommend someone, it means that I like being in the company; otherwise, I would not bring my friends to work here.
[…] Maybe an employee, who is content with his job, will give information
regarding the company in a different way than the manager will. If he is not
satisfied, he will not recommend the job, and if he is, he can give the candidate
all the information about what satisfies him, somehow promoting the company
at the same time. (Team Manager, financial department, 25, F, outsourcing multinational)
It is interesting to observe how this case reveals another context for an
enthusiast manager to perceive this type of recruitment as a win-win situation,
displaying the multiple advantages that this method has on both sides: financial (for
herself and the company), transparency of how things go in the company (“setting the
right expectations” increases the chances for a successful employment), advertisement
for the company (which means that the recommending employee is satisfied with
his/her job) and trust on both sides, the company’s and the employee’s (confidence to
bring friends at the same workplace and certainty for the company that the employee
is comfortable with his/her job).
The most relevant attribute of the recruitment process concerns the pre-
existence of an image of the ideal employee for each company, as well as a search for
three-leveled correspondence: the company, the employee and his job. The suggestive
expressions that appeared in the managers’ discourse ascertain this for a fact and
demonstrate why the recruitment is undoubtedly an instance of subjectification. Thus,
the process of becoming of subject begins before the actual employment starts. Once
hired, the company tries to create the best conditions for his emotional comfort and
professional satisfaction.
One of the methods used for ensuring the psychological comfort refers to trust.
This subject appears as another recurrent element in the managers’ discourse, whether
it is needed for an efficient collaboration, or for comfortable relationships at work.
Confidence seems to represent a requirement of the workplace, almost an imperative
that asks for different methods to ensure it (meetings with the superiors, transparency
31
of decisions, and so on), managing to keep the employee professionally satisfied,
efficient and loyal. Another method that is used to achieve the same purposes is the
system of rewards.
The interviews conducted during this research showed that a classification of
the types of rewards can be made, following two criteria: degree of formalism (formal
and informal) and type of incentive (symbolic and financial). Generally, they are
found in rather complex combinations, but a company usually focuses on one of them
more than the others. The financial rewards I am discussing exclude those related to
the sales jobs where most of the income is based on these bonuses which represent a
percent of sold merchandise or service. In this context, and according to the
interviews, the extra benefits that were mentioned are comprised in all the categories
of the classification: (1) Formal rewards: holiday bonuses (Christmas and Easter);
financial plus in case of family member decease, birth of a child, or marriage;
packages of products; (2) Informal: dinner at a restaurant or a movie night with the
coworkers, funds for teambuilding or workshops; (3) Financial: monetary bonus for
winning a contest, for special implication in a certain task, or take on; (4) Symbolic:
diploma for special performance in a context or in a given period of time offered in
the presence of all the employees
The formal rewards refer to both monetary and non-monetary bonuses and they
are classified by the criteria of formalism taking in consideration their regularity and
universality. All the employees benefit from these regardless of their professional
performance and they know when they will receive them. These types of rewards
were met in a “compact” company, whose interviewed manager appreciated the
formal benefits, but had a rather skeptical attitude towards the trainings and other
similar activities. The informal ones are non-monetary, they are meant to encourage
closer relationships and they usually involve combining the personal and the
professional life. The financial ones represent the individual monetary bonus which is
offered as a prize. The last two were found in companies with rather enthusiastic
managers.
The symbolic rewards contain an element of prestige and the general
recognition of the status and performance. I consider them to be efficient if the
awarded employee takes pride in his accomplishment and sees it as such, and if his
coworkers take him as a model. The symbolic rewards were congruent only with
32
enthusiastic managers. In this case, the company has an elaborated system of
requirements regarding contests: (1) Well-established ways of evaluating the
employees’ activity (clear, preset and transparent criteria of activity assessment); (2)
Multiple categories for one contest (e.g.: “the person with the most influential idea”,
“the team with the most ideas”); (3) Combined types of rewarding (there are always at
least two types of recompenses offered as reward); (4) Different ways of making
public the awarded teams or employee of the month
As the manager stated in the interview, it is essential to respect two main
conditions in order for these incentives to be maintained effective: (1) to make the
entire process transparent and (2) to organize the contests no more than once a
trimester. Otherwise, they will lose their purpose, becoming dull and unmotivating.
For example, this year we started a contest – team members have to come up
with ideas of different improvements, and this basically means that in most of
the cases they make their own lives easier. Whether it is a fastening of a
process, or a financial benefit for a client… for example, we cash in the money
for a bill faster than usual, or we make the calculations faster, using another
types of Excel that give us the information more correctly and faster than
before… So practically, any small idea for improvement is materialized in an
idea tracker and there are bonuses for that; prizes actually. (Team Manager
(financial department), 25, F, outsourcing multinational)
The importance of rewarding was mentioned in the interviews without
exception, even if the manager was satisfied with them or he considered them poor. In
the few cases where the extra benefits were considered unsatisfying, there seemed to
be other elements that kept the employee content:
The working environment, the management of the company, the flexibility of
working time, and the salary are some important factors that take part in the
stability of the employees on their jobs. (Customer Care Manager, 30, F,
telecommunication multinational)
When the system of rewards was a common practice, its transparency was
mentioned as an imperative but nevertheless, respected and appreciated by the
employees. Transparency has multiple advantages for the employer: (1) knowing
beforehand the payment is essential for its efficiency, motivating the employee, (2)
making public the criteria of activity evaluation increases the level of trust, (3)
presenting it to a candidate makes the job more appealing, and (4) offering it may tie
the employees to the company, possibly enhancing their loyalty.
In conclusion, the search for a specific type of employee, together with the
professional satisfaction achieved through the more or less complex systems of
33
rewards, set the premises for a successful subjectification. How exactly the
individuals perceive and relate to this process is discussed in the next section,
evaluating their experience in terms of values and life views.
Personal experience: perceptions, values and plans
The most important section of the interviews was the personal universe of the
individuals in an attempt to understand these specific subjectivities. Following three
dimensions, I intend to describe how the employees relate to different aspects of the
companies’ set of values, what they see as advantages and disadvantages at their job
and how all these contribute to their future plans. This subchapter brings together the
elements of the subjective component of the organizational culture, trying to observe
its effects on the individuals’ way of taking decisions, self-perceptions, ethics, and
importance of job and career in their personal lives.
The advantages listed by the interviewees represent essential reasons for
remaining in the company to accumulate experience, but only for so long as the
company continued to offer them new chances for challenge and personal
development. Many of the advantages that were mentioned had to do with acquiring
certain skills that can be used in order for them to be able to start their own business:
“it gives structure in your way of thinking”, “it teaches precision in business and how
to apply things discovered by others”. The few interviewees that had these kinds of
answers had plans which involved starting their own business because of one major
reason, succinctly presented by one of the respondents:
Having you own business brings along that satisfaction of personal
achievement, and an emotional implication, as well as the feeling of
independence. (Partner Account Manager, Sales, 29, M, software
multinational)
Those who did not have plans of becoming entrepreneurs themselves were
thinking about changing their job in a few years, or at least the department. Almost all
of them had a strong belief that staying in the same position or company and doing the
same things represent a major disadvantage and threat to their personal development.
I think that it is very important to change the company every 4, 5 years,
because otherwise you’ll get to this phase in which you have the impression
that you know everything and you stop learning anything else. […] I’m
34
thinking about leaving the company in case I will not diversify what I am doing
now. In case I move from one position to another, doing different things, my
interest could be kept here; because I don’t need to move to another company
to learn something new and to be appreciated. If in three years I’m still a team
leader, I’ll definitely think about leaving. (Team Manager, financial department, 25, F, outsourcing multinational)
Exception makes the skeptical managers, whose advantages of the job are
represented by benefits like the car and the telephone given to their use by the
company, the formal rewards, and the social status given by the fact they occupy
management position in renowned companies. In terms of plans, they do not imagine
themselves leaving the company as long as nothing goes wrong and the benefits
remain at least the same.
I don’t think I would leave, it’s ok here. Something really bad would have to
happen, something too serious for me to leave, to say: ok, that’s it, I’m leaving. (Area sales manager, 33, F, Production and distribution of dairy products multinational)
As an observed pattern, the pragmatic managers seem to aim for using their
experience in their own interest by starting a business, while the enthusiasts tend to
believe that changing the company or varying the activity and position is essential for
their development and success. The differences are also evident when it comes to
describing other advantages and disadvantages as well.
The pragmatists mention as benefits the following: the fact that human
relations are the most important factor in achieving the goals, a mistake is not
immediately visible so there is a possibility to experiment from time to time, they
learn how to think global and act local, and the fact that they represent a respected
brand opens many doors, sometimes facilitating their work. As disadvantages, they
mentioned the small impact of their activity in the company as a whole, the
inflexibility of the corporation which results in the waste of opportunities – which
they find frustrating, the difficulty to climb the hierarchical ladder, and the necessity
of “ultra justifying the changes” because of the bureaucracy.
When it comes to the enthusiasts, the pros have different characteristics – they
seem to contain a more emotional component and they generally refer to the micro
work environment: the support and encouragement of the colleagues and superiors,
the chance to meet and work with people of different nationalities, and the feeling of
almost unlimited career tracks they can follow.
35
You can continue with people management if that’s what you want and that’s
what suits you, you can become an expert in human resources, you can go with
trainings, quality evaluation… at some point you feel like the possibilities are
endless and it’s all up to you and what you want to do in life. No matter what
your decision is, you can find your place in such a large company. (Team Manager, financial department, 25, F, outsourcing multinational)
The disadvantages listed by the enthusiast managers referred to the loss of the
“individual identity” because of the dimensions of the company, the internal
communication is not very efficient due to the same reason, and the decision making
process can sometimes be heavy and slow. According to the interviews with these
managers, these unsatisfying characteristics of their jobs seem to come from a larger
perspective that these managers have on the ideal job. In other words, having the
reverse of the mentioned disadvantages would result into the perfect company/job:
faster decisions and therefore sooner visible results, improvement of informational
collaboration for taking the best informed decisions, and a better visibility of the
employees’ personality and contribution in order for them to feel important as
individuals as well.
Many of the pros and cons mentioned in the interviews have to do with a
certain set of values that the companies or the employees have. In this research,
asking for a description of the principles promoted by the corporation was meant to
observe how well the managers are aware of them, whether they are congruent with
their own values, and if the managers apply them in an attempt to hand them on to
their subordinates. Furthermore, the questions of the interviews related to this topic
were trying to reveal the degree of importance the company gives to this aspect, how
it tries to transmit them to the employees, and what their purpose should be. In order
to discuss them, a brief description of what the interviewees said is in order. Once
again, the attitudinal differences are salient according to the type of managers they
represent.
When asked about the set of values their company promotes, the skeptics
generally answered briefly mentioning a training that took place with this purpose – to
present the principles of the corporation to the employees. One manager’s answer is
relevant to this typology:
We even had a meeting on this. Take a look at this booklet so you find out.
You find all the answers here… vision, stuff… on the international level, set
of values. It was made by those in Holland, the corporation itself… it’s the
set of values on the international level. It was a training through which we all
36
slept because it was a holly day of Friday. But it was done… a nice training
with filmed images with how many people drink milk… Whatever, so… it
took about 5 hours. It was the middle management that attended it, and at
these trainings they are usually given all sorts of materials to pass the
information to the others; because the heads of departments have the obligation to inform the subordinates and the collaborators. (Area sales
manager, 33, F, Production and distribution of dairy products multinational)
The pragmatists simply listed what they seemed to appreciate more and what
was connected to their experience: morality as an essential attribute (“I was honestly
congratulated for not letting myself bribed even though important opportunities were lost”),
correctness, risk-taking and boldness in decisions, client-oriented business. The
enthusiast managers named different types of values as being encouraged, inclining
toward a rather individualistic approach: stability, determination and the capacity to
decide on your own, performance, leadership spirit, team work and collegiality.
The most important value is teamwork. The individual spark can only give
spark to the entire team and it’s only together that we can achieve higher and
higher levels. (Customer Care Manager, 30, F, telecommunication multinational)
Acknowledging that the enthusiast and the pragmatic managers have different
types of jobs and that their companies have distinct profiles (the former – engineering
specialties, the latter – customer care and human resources), it can be argued that this
typology is more likely to be based on these simple and common sense discrepancies.
Nonetheless, their answers were clearly differentiating the formally promoted values
and those they strongly believed in, sustaining my argument that this managerial
typology has more to do with the internalization of some values in a greater degree
than others. This explains why and how the categories represent an all-encompassing
general attitude of the managers towards the systems of rewards, corporate values,
and methods of specialization. The following excerpts reveal how the managers
distinguish the formal list from the values they respect and believe in.
I can give you a list of vales that we have, but these are the ones I consider
the most important: integrity, orientation towards the people, the special
relationship we develop with the clients – because otherwise, our life would be very difficult; and the fact that we always change, we’re dynamic. (Team
Manager, financial department, 25, F, outsourcing multinational). Regarding
this… I think it’s more important to talk about the values I feel that the
company I’m working for is transmitting. (Customer Care Manager, 30, F,
telecommunication multinational)
In order to further evaluate the effects of the corporate principles, it is
necessary to have a description of the way the company makes them known and tries
37
to implement them. One already given example was through trainings. Other
mentioned approaches are: displaying them as lists or graphics on the walls in the
offices, on the corridors and hallways, exposing them in PowerPoint presentations and
on formal papers, and mentioning them in official contexts. One manager described a
set that all the employees have formed of four small plastic cards: one with their
picture and an identification number (“agent code”), one with the list of values with
the graphic symbol next to each word, one containing an emergency plan and a list of
telephone numbers for such situations, and one card with their cornerstones
(“strengths that differentiate our company”).
This is the standard set for everybody: with the picture, the crisis plan – what
you should do and what you shouldn’t do in care of a fire, for example. […] These things are anyway all over the walls, you don’t even feel the need to
learn them by heart; but by doing everyday what you do… I can talk about
any of this values and what they mean. (Team Manager, financial department, 25, F, outsourcing multinational)
To sum up, it is useful to present the identified outlines following three
dimensions: perceived advantages and disadvantages, ethics (both in the company and
in the individuals), and imagining the future.
The enthusiasts feel comfortable in their working environment and talk about
positive and efficient relations. Their discourses contain a considerably low number of
mentioned disadvantages. They work in companies with abundant techniques of
specialization, various types of rewards, several ways of ensuring trust and comfort,
and multiple channels of transmitting the set of values. These managers internalize a
great deal of the corporate logics, becoming active participants at the organizational
culture. The “endless possibilities” they see in this environment makes them want and
plan to remain in the corporate world, constantly reaching for accomplishments and
improvement. The way they take decision is based on careful comparison between the
pros and cons of another possible job, analyzing and seeking continuous “upgrading”.
A similar care in planning the future is met in the pragmatist managers. They
take advantage of the benefits of a corporate job and use them to exit its system.
Planning to start their own business, they look for more visible impact of their
contribution and less standardized work. Moreover, they internalize less of the
company’s values because they filter those which are compatible with their own,
readapting it.
38
The skeptical managers rarely agree with the way the company is working,
seeing techniques of specialization, for example as a failed attempt of the company to
take a foreign model and implement it in their firm. The mentioned advantages
include material perks and the social status given by a management position, which
seem to satisfy them enough not to look for better jobs or personal development. In
addition, they look for ways to resist the firm’s efforts to implement different
optimizing technologies.
The personal experience of the respondents in a transnational working
environment can also be described by trying to delineate between the personal and
professional life. The most interesting discussions with the interviewees suggested a
juxtaposition of personal and professional satisfaction, to the point where the two
become interdependent. Managers, asked about the personal changes they underwent
during their experience as employees of multinational companies, explained how the
professional success determines the personal satisfaction and how the emotional
equilibrium given by the private life is needed to be efficient at work. In their opinion,
a successful career and a rich professional experience contributes to their self-esteem
and to the ability to evaluate themselves more objectively.
Indeed, I can say that this job contributed to my personal development.
First, you can say that you’ve grown professionally speaking… this
thing is visible in the personal development in terms of self-confidence,
in how you’re able to evaluate yourself and to point out your strong
points and your weaknesses… I think this is the most useful part. It
depends though… it depends on how well your job is going at a certain
point… I was myself in a situation when my job was taking all my time
and I felt like the personal life was completely ignored. But once you
reach a balance, you can see how much you’ve grown; and not simply
for what is written in the resume or other things that help you sell
yourself better, but from the point of view of how much you feel you
worth. (Team Manager financial department, 25, F, outsourcing
multinational)
Generally, this part of the discussions revealed that for the great majority of
the respondents the career represents a priority. Many of them agree on the necessity
of having either the professional life or the personal one on the first place, which
means that they have to make long term plans regarding when and how the switch will
be done. This necessity to calculate, prioritize and plan their lives is another effect
that neoliberal governmentality has on the individual in terms of regulation and
control.
39
All in all, the employees’ personal experience offers an insight into the
problematic opposition between Giddens and Sennett’s perspectives on selfhood.
Although they both agree on the development of a different self and assign this
process to the organizational changes, the effects they see are different. In short,
Giddens argues that the rapid changes of the consumer capitalist countries bring about
threats of personal meaninglessness, but he also states that the organizations offer
multiple resources to cope with the new dilemmas. The counterpart of Giddens’s
concept of “reflexive self” is Sennett’s “corroded self” which refers to the breakdown
of a secure, or authentic, sense of self as a result of the renewed private troubles
instrumentalized by the new organization forms.
It is difficult to reveal the empirical prove that would favor one of these two
perspectives without a focus on such a research question. Nonetheless, the collected
data can be explained in these terms if we take in consideration the respondents’ life
view, level of satisfaction, and the degree of trust in their future. As I have presented
so far, the great majority of the answers contained a positive perspective, they have a
well established way of taking decisions regarding their future and they trust their
own capacities and resources. The fact that the companies offer ways of increasing
their values and the fact that they perceive it as such can be understood as a set of
mechanisms through which the organizations facilitate the individuals’ need to cope
with the societal changes. Therefore, I argue that Giddens’s perspective on the
“reflexive self” is more appropriated to the observations made during this research.
Nevertheless, the social adjustment of the individual to a new order of things
depends on many other factors that he can not control – social status, amount of
resources and different types of capital that do not depend entirely on his will, nor on
the regulations of the organizations he works in. Therefore, further research is
necessary to be able to draw more reliable conclusions on this matter.
40
CONCLUSIONS
Although this research started from the premise that Romanians make a
specific type of neoliberal subject due to the socio-economical context of a post-
socialist period, the analysis showed that the difference is actually created on other
criteria. To a certain extent, the intensity of subjectification depends on the type of
multinational company. This intensity refers to the managerial attitude classification,
ordering them from the highest to the lowest: the enthusiasts, the pragmatists, and the
skeptics.
Therefore, I understand the different degrees of subjectification as
corresponding to variant degrees of internalization of the corporate values. The
empirical data shows that this does not have to do with the period spent as an
employee (the longer it is, the more successful the subjectification becomes), but with
two other factors: (1) importance given by the company to appropriate techniques and
(2) a sort of predisposition of the individual to adopt neoliberal way of doing things.
Whether this predisposition comes from education, age, gender, or other possible
factors, can not be determined at this point.
The interviewees have generally described two types of organizational culture
of the multinational companies they work in. The main differences were connected
with the area of origin of the multinational company. More specifically, the managers
working in a Romanian or “mixed” multinational company have a distinct view and
perception on the organizational culture of his/her workplace in contrast with those
working in local subsidiaries of foreign transnational corporations (“external”). The
differences concern the transparency of decision-making process, the specialization of
the employees and overtime, with different implications related to the subjectification
process. The empirical data ascertain that the people working in a “mixed” company
belong to the category of the skeptic type and partially to the pragmatist type.
Considering the above presented assertions, I argue that Romanian companies
that form a part of a larger transnational corporation focus less on the subjectification
technologies, being perceived by the employees as somewhat “fake”, contravening
with the image the Romanians have on the logic of a company. In these conditions,
one may argue that the subjectification process can be considered to have failed.
41
However, the skeptics remain neoliberal subjects as they partially comply with the
neoliberal script, even if only formally, maintaining this way a part of the
characteristics.
The analysis of the findings did not follow the distinction between these two
types of corporations, but the salient elements which appear as divergent were
highlighted. The purpose for this is to demonstrate the possibility of further research
in a more local-dependent creation of neoliberal subjects, and adopting a more
anthropological approach. The critiques brought to the studies of governmentality
include the lack of a more empirical research which makes such an inquiry even more
called for.
42
REFERENCES
Bergstrom, Ola; Knights, David. (2006). “Organizational Discourse And Subjectivity:
Subjectification During Processes of Recruitment”, Human Relations, Vol. 59,
No. 3, pp. 351-377
Binkley, Sam. (2009). “The work of Neoliberal Governmentality. Temporality and
Ethical Substance in the Tale of Two Dads”, in Foucault Studies, 6: 60-78
Ferguson, James; Gupta, Akhil. (2002). Spatializing States: Towards an Ethnography
of Neoliberal Governmentality in Inda, Jonathan Xavier. (2005).
Anthropologies of Modernity. Foucault, Governmentality, and Life Politics,
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Garrick, John; Usher, Robert. (2000). “Flexible Learning, Contemporary Work And
Enterprising Selves”, in Electronic Journal of Sociology, Vol. 5 No.1
Hamann, Trent H. (2009). “Neoliberalism, Governmentality, and Ethics”, in Foucault
Studies, 6: 37-59.
Hatcher, Caroline. (2003). “Refashioning the Passionate Manager: Gender at Work”,
in Gender, Work and Organizations, 10(4): 391-412
Kipnis, Andrew. (2008). “Audit Cultures: Neoliberal Governmentality, Socialist
Legacy, or Technologies of Governing?”, in American Ethnologist, 35(2):.
275-289
Ong, Aihwa. (2006). Neoliberalism as Exception. Mutations in Citizenship and
Sovereignty, U.S.A., Duke University Press.
Read, Jason. (2009). “A Genealogy of Homo-Economicus: Neoliberalism and the
Production of Subjectivity”, in Foucault Studies, 6: 25-36.
Rose, Nikolas. (1996). “Governing Advanced Liberal Democracies” in Sharma, A;
Gupta, A. (2006). The Anthropology of the State: A Reader, Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Sharma, Aradhana. (2008). “Logics of Empowerment: Development, Gender, and
Governance in Neoliberal India”, U of Minnesota Press
Tennant, Mark. (1998). “Adult Education as a Technology of the Self”, International
Journal of Lifelong Education, 17(6): 364-376
Webb, Janette. (2004). “Organizations, Self-identities and the New Economy”, in
SAGE publications – BSA Publications, 38(4): 719-738
Wetherell, Margaret. (2008). “Subjectivity or Psycho-Discursive Practices?
Investigating Complex Intersectional Identities”, in Subjectivity, 22: 73-81.
Yurchak, Alexei. (2000). “The Russian Neoliberal: The Entrepreneurial Ethic and the
Spirit of True Careerism”, in The Russian Review, Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 72-90