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