Professional Documents
Culture Documents
http://hum.sagepub.com
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for Human Relations can be found at:
Subscriptions: http://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/59/3/351
351
subjectivity
Introduction
How do you ensure change without imposing it? You convince the indi-
vidual who is the object of change that they are choosing it. This is
what I mean by subjectification.
(Hollway, 1991: 95)
are hard to take into account. They therefore appear deterministic concern-
ing the capacity of recruitment practices and organizational discourses to
produce subjectivity.
However, the construction of subjectivity may also depend on the kind
of practices that are implemented. Indeed, most recruitment practices imply
processes of objectification and examination to evaluate whether candidates
should be offered a post or not. At the same time, as suggested by researchers
proposing a different approach to recruitment and selection (Wanous, 1991),
candidates are seeking to find a job that suits their personal needs and inter-
ests, assuming that recruitment is a mutual matching process between
organization and the individual recruit. Such practices, it has been argued,
would provide both the individual and the organization better opportunities
to find a match between individual values and the corporate culture, greater
productivity (Wanous, 1991) and also to allow for the integrity of the subject
by recognizing the importance of the other as an equivalent to the self in
terms of status and respect (Townley, 1994). This aspect of recruitment fits
well with the ambitions of the company that forms our case study, as the
recruitment manager expresses it:
Setting
At the time of the study Amcon was going through a period of substantial
expansion. It was also one of the most popular firms among Swedish under-
graduate students. Amcon is a career-oriented company with around 300
consultants, based on the notion of up-or-out, which means that initial
advancement is fast and dramatic for the individual. There are four basic
levels: assistant, senior, manager and partner. New entrants typically start as
assistants.
fewer regrets making a decision if they can anticipate its probable negative
consequences (Townley, 1994). Amcon representatives explicitly claim to do
this by establishing a friendly atmosphere and a mutual dialogue during the
recruitment interviews.
To establish a mutual dialogue in this chain of interviews, however, is
more complicated than might be expected. This ordinarily only occurs in
conversations between close friends. It presumes that both participants have
equal opportunity to influence the topic of speech and engage in what is
described as symmetrical and co-operative interaction where speakers both
respond to what their partners have just said and introduce something new
for them to respond to (Linell, 1990: 169). Mutual dialogues also presume
that there is no judgement or control of the utterances of the other (Linell,
1990). Most conversations held in institutional contexts diverge from this
ideal since they are most often task oriented, that is, they have more or less
predetermined objectives. In recruitment interviews, the recruiter controls the
interaction (Linell & Gustavsson, 1987) and, in so doing, clearly exercises
power. By analysing the interaction that takes place during recruitment inter-
views, our concern is to reveal how candidates are made into subjects of
organizational discourses, that is, how subjectification takes place in practice.
We are not suggesting that by being transformed into subjects, their agency
is denied them because much of our argument is concerned with how they
participate in the construction of their own subjectivity and sometimes this
involves refusing to be constituted in this way.
Method
Findings
Invitation to a dialogue
The way that recruitment interviews are initiated at Amcon follows a similar
pattern. The interviewer informs the candidate that this is an occasion for
an open and mutual dialogue, where the participating parties should get
to know each other. In particular they emphasize the importance of provid-
ing the candidate with: an honest and realistic image of the company,
personal information from people from all hierarchical levels, a possibility
to ask questions, to feel completely confident about what you buy yourself
into and a job that you really want. Thus, this setting of the agenda could
be seen as a distribution of communicative responsibility (Linell & Gustavs-
son, 1987: 27). When a participant takes the initiative to communicate, a
pattern of expectations, rights and obligations are generated. The initiation
of the interview includes the expression of a number of expectations (that
the candidates should actively engage in seeking information, to form an
opinion and an understanding of the job). Furthermore, it includes the
establishment of rights (to ask questions and to obtain all the necessary infor-
mation to make a decision) and obligations (that the interviewers should
contribute with all the required information and be honest). Thus, the distri-
bution of responsibility implies that the candidate is made responsible for
gathering information, evaluation and assessment and decision-making,
while the interviewers are expected to be passive transmitters of the infor-
mation required by the candidate to make his or her decision.
However, the distribution of responsibility between participants in the
conversation actually takes the form of, what Linell and Gustavsson (1987:
37) call, response control an expression of initiative that limits the freedom
of the respondent to vary his/her answer. At the outset, the interviewers
generally present their version of what the conversation is about, and thereby
set the agenda without explicitly requesting any response from the candidates.
Candidate: I have travelled quite a lot and Im very flexible in that way.
I have moved almost every sixth months, if you say so, but this here it
is no question about that, only to go to companies, but Im not afraid
of that.
The more or less glamorous expectations that the candidate may have regard-
ing what travelling means are effectively discounted. Travelling to Skvde or
Vinslv (small towns in Sweden) are presented as a threat. The negative
aspects of travelling were described as something you should count on.
Above all it was emphasized how they were associated with the first period
of employment.
The interview situation provides the interviewers with a possibility to
make reference to their own experiences of working at Amcon. The candi-
dates are invited to ask questions to facilitate a better understanding of the
company. These interactions may be regarded as producing a particular
truth effect. It may appear that candidates have perfect opportunities to
secure a clear and realistic image of the company and its working conditions.
On the other hand, the way the working conditions are presented means that
the opposite might equally be the case.
First, the working conditions are described in terms of positively and
negatively loaded opposites: disadvantages (overtime, travelling, hierarchy,
programming, difficulties of combining work, children, family and leisure)
in contrast to advantages (a spirit of community, youth, training, personal
development, change and the opportunity to work in different companies
During the interviews there is also a kind of discursive move that Linell
and Gustavsson (1987: 72) would call third move remarks: a reply that
evaluates a response, given on the speakers own initiative, marks that the
response satisfies the initiative of the speaker and settles something import-
ant which has been brought up by the previous response. The third move
remark does not contribute anything new to the conversation. It rather
contributes by regulating the interaction.
The interviewers describe this as a way to fill all gaps. The inter-
viewers encourage the candidates to evaluate the information provided, as
for example in one interview between a partner and a candidate:
Candidate: Well, you could say that what you have put forward as
positive and negative sides . . . what you have put forward as positive,
all of you, it is this thing about a demanding, flexible job and that that
you have this possibility for development. This is a broad area, young
people, community, nice to work here. What is negative or what you
put forward as negative is working overtime and that you may have to
travel a lot. All of you have said exactly the same thing, so I have been
somewhat coloured by that. Many of those things you have put
forward as positive, I already had in the beginning. Thats why I
applied here. The negative things you of course . . . You have to weigh
advantages against disadvantages and then you simply will see what
has the heaviest weight. I still think that the advantages clearly carry
a greater weight. Im aware of that working as a consultant means to
accept that you sometimes have to work overtime and this thing about
travelling I dont think is . . . It doesnt have to be negative. Of course,
if it is too much then it might be hard, but yes . . .
Partner: Well I think . . . The reason why we put forward this thing
with overtime I really think it is important. It sometimes sounds as
if it is some kind of scaremongering or that we want to appear as if
we are working and working, but it is just because you at least should
have had the possibility to know this before.
[Interview 3:4]
Candidate: Eh, not really, I guess I had some doubts when I came here.
But I think that I have received many good answers. What I have tried
to figure out so far has been more about, if I now get the chance to
work with you, what kind of people I will meet and what kind of
people I will work together with? How large groups for example? How
does this . . . work? The organization is quite permeated by American
thinking and I have had several hierarchical pictures drawn for me,
huh, and then you would like to know how cooperation works in this
hierarchy. You may look at it and get scared to death and think this
is how it is going to be! Do you have to make an appointment to talk
to your closest boss? Are you sure about having another five, six, ten
other people as well? But now I have been told that it doesnt really
work like that, rather . . .
Partner: No, we often draw these hierarchies. But it doesnt really work
like that, so to say. It is rather so that it is a little messy and it might
as well be a way to get some structure in our existence. It is very mixed
really. It is important to look at how both formal and informal
communication channels work out here at the company. It is very cosy
to work here.
[Interview 3:4]
When the candidate asks questions about things that worry him or her,
the interviewer plays down or corrects the misunderstandings. What the
This article has sought to illustrate and explore some of the ways that subjec-
tivity is constructed in the context of a recruitment process where there was
an ambition to recruit candidates that match the culture of the firm. Drawing
upon recruitment interview data collected in a Swedish subsidiary of an
American consultancy firm, it challenges widespread assumptions about the
relationship between organizational discourse and subjectivity by revealing
some of the ways that individual subjectivity was constructed through social
interaction. The story of Amcon, we argue, suggests that the relationship
between organizational discourses and subjectivity cannot be captured
adequately either through determinist or voluntarist theoretical approaches.
In short, subjectivity is neither wholly determined by organizational
discourses nor simply a product of human agency. Rather, the research indi-
cates that subjectification is a complex condition and consequence of the
mutually interdependent relations of agency and discourse, not a determi-
nant of either.
More specifically, the analysis of data collected at Amcon provided three
examples of how human agency and organizational discourse interacted in
the construction of subjectivity in this specific context. First, subjectification
revealed itself through the process of candidates expressing their acceptance
Acknowledgements
Notes
1 We are aware that Foucault sought to avoid theorizing resistance on the basis that
he believed it only provided those at whom it was targeted with the information
that could be used to deflect or incorporate such resistance (Foucault, 1980, 1982).
2 As one of the reviewers pointed out to us, since writing our first draft of this article,
Fairclough (2005) has declared himself a critical realist. We resist following his
critical realist ontology and his support for Reeds claim that critics of critical realism
collapse ontology into epistemology. Unless we have God-like metaphysical powers,
how else would we know anything about ontology except through our epistemo-
logical reasoning or sensemaking? In our article we are trying to avoid the meta-
physics of ontological debate since this would be difficult to resolve even in an article
that was entirely theoretical. While aware of the tensions between Foucault and
critical realism, we avoid following the extreme position of some constructivists (e.g.
Grint & Woolgar, 1992) or that of critical realists (e.g. Reed, 2000b). We therefore
stay with epistemology what it is possible to know even though such knowing is
invariably transient, transitory and precarious.
3 When gays or lesbians demand the same kinship rights as heterosexuals through
marriage, for example, they reproduce social norms through which they have
traditionally been oppressed (see Butler, 2004).
References
Knights, D. Organization theory in the age of deconstruction: Dualism, gender and post-
modernism revisited. Organization Studies, 1997, 18(1), 119.
Knights, D. & Collinson, D. Disciplining the shopfloor: A comparison of the disciplinary
effects of managerial psychology and financial accounting. Accounting, Organisations
and Society, 1987, 12(5), 45777.
Knights, D. & Morgan, G. Corporate strategy, subjectivity and organisations. Organiz-
ation Studies, 1991, 12(2), 25173.
Knights, D. & Willmott, H. Power and subjectivity at work: From degradation to subju-
gation in social relations. Sociology, 1989, 23(4), 53558.
Knights, D. & Willmott, H.C. Virtue or vice? Reflecting on competing discourses of
autonomy. In M. Parker (Ed.), Utopia and organization. London: Sage, 2002, pp. 5981.
Linell, P. The power of dialogue dynamics. In I. Markova & K. Foppa (Eds), Dynamics of
dialogue. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1990.
Linell, P. & Gustavsson, L. Initiativ och respons, om dialogens dynamik, dominans och
koherens (Initiative and response, about the dynamics of dialogue, dominance and
coherence). Linkping: Universitetet i Linkping, 1987.
McKinlay, A. & Starkey, K. Foucault, management and organization theory. London: Sage,
1998.
McNay, L. Foucault and feminism. Oxford: Polity Press, 1992.
Miller, P. & Rose, N. The Tavistock programme: The government of subjectivity and social
life. Sociology, 1988, 22(2), 17192.
Newton, T.J. Discourse and agency: The example of personnel psychology and assessment
centres. Organization Studies, 1994, 15(6), 879902.
Newton, T.J. Theorizing subjectivity in organizations: The failure of Foucauldian studies.
Organization Studies, 1998, 19, 41547.
Oswick, C., Keenoy, W.T. & Grant, D. Discourse, organizations and organizing: Concepts,
objects and subjects. Human Relations, 2000, 53(9), 111523.
Peltonen, T. Finnish engineers becoming expatriates: Biographical narratives and subjec-
tivity, studies in cultures. Organizations and Society, 1999, 5, 26595.
Phillips, N. & Hardy, C. Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction.
Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2002.
Potter, J. Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage,
1996.
Reed, M. The limits of discourse analysis in organizational analysis. Organization, 2000a,
7(3), 52430.
Reed, M. In praise of duality and dualism: Rethinking agency and structure in organiz-
ational analysis. In S. Ackroyd & S. Fleetwood (Eds), Realist perspectives on manage-
ment and organizations. London: Routledge, 2000b, pp. 4565.
Rose, N. Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self. London: Routledge, 1989.
Sewell, G. & Wilkinson, B. Someone to watch over me: Surveillance, discipline and the JIT
Labour Process. Sociology, 1992, 26(2), 27189.
Sosteric, M. Subjectivity and the labour process: A case study in the restaurant industry.
Work, Employment and Society, 1996, 10(2), 297318.
Sveningsson, S. & Alvesson, M. Managing managerial identities: Organizational fragmen-
tation, discourse and identity struggle. Human Relations, 2003, 56(10), 116393.
Ten Bos, R. & Rhodes, C. The game of exemplarity: Subjectivity, work and the impossible
politics of purity. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 2003, 19, 40323.
Thompson, P. & Ackroyd, S. All quiet on the workplace front? A critique of recent trends
in British Industrial Sociology. Sociology, 1995, 29(4), 61533.
Townley, B. Foucault, power/knowledge, and its relevance for human resource manage-
ment. Academy of Management Review, 1993, 18(3), 51845.
Townley, B. Reframing human resource management. Power ethics and the subject at work.
London: Sage, 1994.