Proyectos bancarios en México

(Symbolic Interactionism) ' ( ( " $

S O C I A L D O M A I N (Attention)

Access Information Emotional Support

E C O N O M I C D O M A I N (Assistance)

Intellectual Physical Material

' " " $

# #

& # ) * " # " # ) * " # "

+, $ Perceived level of _Dependency -# $

Perceived need for Intimacy

Situation _Threats? Opport

-unity? Accept? Negative Dissonance Evaluation Positive Dissonance Previous Experience (Transaction Analysis) Existing Values

(Schema Theory) _Calculative

Compliance Identification Internalisation Create New Option V a l u e C h a n g e Yes No No No V a l u e R i g i t y Yes Yes

&$ "

Authenticating the Theory with Comparison Data

These theoretical ideas were tested out by re-examining interviews with staff at

SoftContact (see Appendix C7). The level of interaction is extremely high, with people giving their opinion as they see fit, not because they are obligated to do so, but because they are enthused. The dynamism here is comparable to that at Custom Products, but the attitude over access to confidential data is completely different. Indeed, the very notion of “confidential data” is an anomaly at SoftContact, not withstanding the provisions of the Data Protection Act, because there is a legal commitment given to members through the constitution. At Custom Products, divulging “confidential” data earned Ben and Hayley a rebuke more than once, and access to payroll data was particularly sensitive. At SoftContact, keeping data confidential would be more likely to earn a rebuke and sensitivity was something developed through involvement in open discussions about pay, not something maintained through secrecy.

The framework, therefore, brings out the behaviours that are practiced in different cultural contexts. At Custom Products telling someone about pay information might lead to others barring them or withdrawing from them. At SoftContact barring someone from pay information may lead to withdrawing, while telling people might lead to appreciating someone more. The framework is still useful as a way of exposing the alternative behaviours (and values) that might be acceptable in the same situations. As a result, the theory remains useful in different cultural settings even if different results are obtained.

With regard to the shifting of affections between people, similar patterns hold. Simon

gives attention to Gayle, but she responds negatively (“puts him down”). He withdraws attention then increases his attention to someone outside work (“he met Rebecca”).

Andy speculates that this is the reason he withdrew from the workplace – with an implicit suggestion that once there were no females he could pursue he had an increased motive to leave. Gayle gives attention to a male friend outside work after she breaks up with her boyfriend. But she does not get the attention she wants. So, Andy gives her more attention inside work with impacts on Andy’s own marriage, particularly when his wife, Susan, reinterprets the relationship after the company stops trading.

&$ "

Discussion of Relationship Dynamics

81 behaviours have been grouped under six headings. Each of these behaviours – if reciprocated – acts as a single thread that joins two people in a relationship. Each thread describes a behaviour that potentially increases/decreases intimacy. Two parties giving and getting on all threads will be “in love” but this is rare. For most, workplace relationships develop slowly over time and are carefully constructed subsets of threads, formed or broken as a result of changing dependencies and restricted opportunities for intimacy.

Groups of threads (organised into top-level classifications) are “bonds” that keep parties in a relationship. Changing patterns of interaction and thread building/breaking account for changes in behaviour, personality, motivation and performance - a communitarian perspective that has explanatory value when considering how people’s behaviour changes over time. It is more dynamic than genetic or social inheritance explanations, and can account for rapid changes in disposition and behaviour that take place in a short space of time.

Behaviours that lead to intimacy may be adopted for their own sake, because of the intentional behaviour of one party to deepen their relationship with another.

Alternatively, they may be adopted for instrumental reasons or because one party is obliged to assist to meet contractual obligations. Behaviours that are adopted through obligation may become voluntary as intimacy increases. Also, the receiving party cannot always tell whether the behaviour has been adopted for its own sake (purely social), or instrumental (oriented towards a goal) leading to considerable ambiguity. I define behaviour that is oriented towards the building (or breaking) of a relationship as

social rationality. A person may undertake a task (or adopt behaviours) not because it

is economically rational to do so, but because it is socially rational to effect changes. The relationship may be an end in itself (social), or a means to an end (economic). The “presentation evening” organised by Custom Products can be viewed in this light. While there is a long-term economic rational for organising it, the direct purpose of the evening is to create shared experiences. It is an attempt to create an environment in which thread and bond building takes place between company members (although they may be broken as well). It provides opportunities for a multitude of interactions,

&$ "

behaviours and “talk” that create opportunities for identification (Kelman, 1961), transmission of cultural values (Kotter and Heskett, 1992) and seduction of other organisation members (Willmott, 1993).

Behaviour oriented towards the fulfilment (or avoidance) of a task is something I define as economic rationality. Here, the prioritising of economic goals may impact

positively, negatively or not at all, on the social threads/bonds between actors. Clearly, if decisions are taken that are perceived by actors as both economically and socially rational, then it is reasonable to expect increases in commitment and productivity. But if economically rational decisions are perceived as socially irrational then conflict can occur with unpredictable impacts.

Comments on the Gender Literature

Feminism has changed both the understanding of sexuality and the importance given to sexuality in many ways: the making of women’s experiences visible, the realisation of both women’s and men’s power, the theorising of (the control of) sexuality as the central dynamic of patriarchy (Mackinnon, 1982).

I partly agree with this. Feminism has made women’s experiences more visible. However, by failing to make visible and explicit the impacts of women’s behaviour on men, there is a lack of balance. The data presented in this chapter illustrates the way that men’s experiences are not straightforward, and that they are as subject to pressures from women’s agendas as women are from men’s. Farrell’s contention that holistic ideals of masculinity and femininity are socially constructed through the desires of men and women for each other (as complete ideal persons) appears to have some merit. The assertion that courtship rituals are as prevalent in the workplace as anywhere elsewhere also appears to have merit.

It is, therefore, worth summarising Farrell’s view of how gender is constructed through workplace identities (diagram 4.3). His argument runs roughly as follows:

1) The selection of life-partners (and close friends) reveals our deepest values

2) Most partner selection takes place in a workplace setting (if not our own, then someone else’s) 3) Our public behaviours create the identities by which others evaluate us.

&$ "

4) The informal, and theoretically desexualised, workplace allows intimacy to develop between work colleagues without drawing too much attention (making it a good “hunting ground”) 5) Identities that lead to (or support institutions that help) men and women having children are most

likely to endure. Identities and behaviours that do not attract a mate will be marginalized.

To illustrate his argument, he tells the story of Karla and Chuck (sociologists) who fall in love and want to get married. Karla becomes pregnant but worries that Chuck will not develop his career fast enough, or earn enough to support her child. As a

consequence she has an abortion and the relationship breaks up. A year later Karla marries an attorney, has a child, but within 5 years they divorce. Karla raises her son on her own. Chuck, after years of heartache, eventually marries and has children.

These choices had concrete socialisation impacts stemming from decisions related to the workplace. Karla’s son – for the first 4 years of his life – had an attorney as his male role model rather than a sociologist. After the divorce, he relates to his father as a “wallet” not a human being, with long-term impacts on his values regarding work (will he too become a wallet?). Karla, concerned about discrimination against women – and therefore looking for a husband with earning potential – forsakes her own career and reinforces the appearance of discrimination for another generation.

Can we observe gendered behaviour affecting the development of hierarchies? At this stage, the data is unclear. At Custom Products, there is a striking difference between the gender split at board level and at management level. The company was formed by a group of men who gradually recruited women who dominate middle management positions. This certainly does not suggest that a simple patriarchy is developing because many men are subordinate to women middle managers. The deferential behaviour of Brenda towards Harry indicates he is acknowledged as leader (see Appendix C2), but the suggestion of patriarchy is undermined by the clear positive discrimination for women both at management level and amongst the workforce generally. In neither case could it be confidently said that men were deliberately operating a “glass ceiling”.