Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
Purpose
employees which emphasises ‘being yourself’ through the expression of fun, individuality
and difference.
Methodology
Findings
The management approach outlined is located within the emergence of market rationalism
and associated claims of the limitations of normative control. With its emphasis on diversity
and identity derived from non-(paid) work contexts, it is presented as complementary to, but
distinct from the group conformity and organisational identity associated with conventional
culture and ‘fun’ management. The seemingly liberal regime is shown to be controlling in its
limited scope and by exposing more of the employees’ self to the corporation. This raises
questions about the nature of workplace control, resistance and the meaning of authenticity
at work.
Value
The research provides an insight into an approach to management which has been largely
neglected in research and proposes a modified concept of culture and ‘fun’ management –
neo-normative control. It also serves to challenge the liberal claims made by proponents of
the new approach and of ‘fun at work’ more generally, that it is liberating for employees, a
1
INTRODUCTION
comes to employees expressing the fun side of their personalities… All of this is based
on the belief that when people are happy and have the freedom to be themselves, they
are more productive and give more of themselves (Bains, 2007: 241).
The concept of normative control has a long conceptual lineage in organizational research
(e.g. Etzioni, 1964). It is seen to operate internally by moulding common attitudes, beliefs
and values among employees. However, numerous commentators have pointed to its
limitations, in terms of the rigidity of homogeneous cultures and the cynicism it provokes from
employees who distance their ‘authentic’ selves from the collective norm (Jermier et al., 1991;
Kunda, 1992). Indeed, some have noted a recent shift whereby normative alignment is
downplayed or even redundant in favour of ‘market rationality’ (Foster and Kaplan, 2001;
Adler, 2001). The new discipline, it is claimed, is that of the market in terms of employees’
personal marketability on the one hand and job insecurity on the other (Ross, 2004).
What does this mean for normative control? Some argue that it is in decline (Kunda and
Ailon-Souday, 2005). Others, especially among the ranks of management gurus, suggest
that its seeming opposite should be adopted (Sutton, 2001; Peters, 2003). Here, employees
should be ‘existentially empowered’ in that they should not be expected to share the
organization’s values, and should even oppose them. Moreover, they ought to express more
of their true selves by breaking the traditional work/non-work boundary, particularly by being
playful and having fun at work. Diversity and incongruence with (traditional/bureaucratic)
organizational norms are key (Florida, 2004). These exhortations are increasingly evident in
practice, in managerial regimes associated with emerging ‘best practice’ and ‘best places to
work’, such as the example cited above from Bains’ (2007) account of Southwest Airlines.
They resonate both with traditional human relations interventions concerning employees’
2
liberalism and diversity (especially in relation to sexuality and lifestyle). In short, employees
apparent new freedom is having fun at work. This reflects a development in the management
of fun from the emphasis on conformity and organisational loyalty associated with normative
control, towards one on diversity and instrumentality which seems more suited to relatively
The purpose of this article is to argue that recognition of the dysfunctions of collective
organizational identification combined with the emergence of market rationalism allows for a
control. Drawing on a qualitative case study of a US-owned call centre in Australia, we suggest
that a somewhat paradoxical norm of difference, individualism and fun is sought by exposing
what was protected from the company under normative control through cynicism and
distancing. Given that this type of identity management emerges out of normative control, and
by no means supplants it nor other traditional forms of control, we use the term neo-normative
The article is organized as follows. Firstly, we briefly explore the literature on normative
control and its limitations. Secondly we argue that market rationalism resonates with
be themselves, to have fun. We then compare this with other control typologies before
focusing on its core dimensions. Thirdly we present a case study illustrating the application
of this management approach and conclude by raising some questions about how we
3
In numerous studies of normative control, it is shown how employees across a range of levels
and sectors are exhorted to embrace a designed membership role as their own and become
a ‘company (wo) man’ (e.g. Ray, 1986; Willmott, 1993). But many wanted to maintain a
distance or private reserve that was truly theirs. As a result, ‘the emotions experienced as
part of the organizational self are presented as distinct from other aspects of emotional life
and at some remove from one's “authentic” sense of self’ (Kunda, 1992: 183; also
Hochschild, 1983). Indeed, it is unclear whether normative control was ever as successful as
once claimed by both its champions and some of its critics, especially, but not exclusively in
more routine and precarious forms of employment (cf Jermier et al., 1991; Ogbonna and
Wilkinson, 1990). Others have pointed to the counter-productive elements that value
conformity might have on innovation and initiative in rapidly changing markets (e.g. Kanter,
1989). Such limitations are also echoed in broader shifts in the employment relationship.
While culture management has certainly not lost its appeal in toto (Adler, 2001), Kunda and
Ailon-Souday (2005) argue that a new managerial paradigm – market rationality - associated
with downsizing, outsourcing and distributed work has emerged in US industry and
increasingly elsewhere, that undermines the normative control surge of the 1980s and
1990s. Of particular importance is the claim that ‘market rationalists seem to have little
patience for culture, no matter how strong’ (2005: 203). There is, of course, a normative
basis to market rationality. As opposed to the rhetoric of unitary values and extreme loyalty,
(Webb, 2004). As Kunda and Van Maanen (1999) put it, ‘the imagery of love and marriage
fades into obscurity, replaced by short-term affairs and one-night stands’ (1999: 73).
Such developments allow for a certain degree of freedom in relation to the expression of
optimistic commentators, workers are not only task empowered, but also ‘existentially
empowered’ to bring different identities and fun into the workplace (Pink, 2001; Peters, 2003;
4
laissez-faire, instrumental form (Kunda and Ailon-Souday, 2005). Employees are expected to
receive little from the organization other than remuneration and the opportunity to develop
their skills portfolios for subsequent use on competitive open and internal markets. Our
argument, however, is that the market rationalism described above does not only trade in
utilitarian contractual controls, but allows for a certain type of identity and fun management
Whereas normative controls were designed to instil a shared value orientation in the firm –
love of the organisation and/or the customer - neo-normative control entails an exhortation to
‘be yourself’. There is a growing wave of popular management rhetoric and associated
practices that encourage diversity, dissent, idiosyncrasy and the expression of ‘authentic’
feelings in the work environment, especially those once barred from the bureaucratic or
formal organisation, the expression of fun. Neo-normative control then, involves the selective
empowerment’. Following Mirvis (1994), it is the complete person that is increasingly desired
by the organization, with other extra-employment and ‘fun’ themes like sexuality,
consumption and leisure especially salient. Control is achieved when what was once
protected from the organization via cynicism and psychological distancing is appropriated as
How does neo-normative control compare with other modes of control? (see Table 1). Firstly,
it clearly contrasts with bureaucratic control (Edwards, 1979) in that fun, sexuality and
consumption are not formally barred. Secondly, the human relations movement, with its
actualization, does have some parallels with neo-normative control. But rather than seeking
to appropriate norms developed informally within work groups (Ray, 1986), the target of neo-
normative control are those associated with non-working life. With regard to neo-human
5
relations (Johnson and Gill, 1993), the similarities are perhaps even stronger. Here,
managers are also invited to enhance the expression of ‘authentic’ selves among
employees. The key difference however, is in the way neo-normative control is concerned
with social identities rather than the expression of creativity or ‘self-actualisation’ through
work tasks. In other words, for the most part, neo-normative control aims to enhance the
enjoyment of the job via the freedom of identity and emotional expression surrounding the
work performance rather than through it. Thirdly, neo-normative control is clearly linked to
normative control. But the normative base is that of difference - the ‘real lives’ of employees
are not externalized or engineered out in favour of a collective normative alignment (c.f.
Kunda, 1992). Finally, the control regime of market rationalism associated with short-term
contracts and portfolio careers is, as we have suggested, a major inspiration for neo-
normative control, but the latter is more explicitly concerned with identity and its
6
Table 1 – Neo-Normative Control Compared with Other Modes of Control
7
It is important to point out that we approach this as a new form of hybridity or combination of
2006). In particular, we are concerned with the controlling effects of management practices
‘unleash’ the diversity already there (Peters, 2003). Before outlining more specifically how
this can be considered a form of control, we now examine two key and interrelated elements
self.
A growing body of guru and practitioner literature speaks of the dysfunctionality of the
corporate cultures of the 1980s and 1990s. Tom Peters (2003) is a particularly strong critic,
arguing that workers are naturally inclined to be innovative and exciting. But Peters is not
simply calling for renewed emphasis on self-actualization through job discretion, but for a
challenge to out-dated management ideologies that desire conformity, rationality and unitary
values. In direct contrast to his own earlier emphasis on culture management (Peters and
anarchy’ in which ‘zanies’ and mavericks are hired and celebrated. Because the market is
based upon differentiation and variation, organizations should follow suit: ‘pursue variation,
Underlying this ‘be yourself’ ideology is the notion that employees are free agents, no longer
objects of corporate control. In Semler’s Maverick! (1993), which describes his own firm’s
practices and has sold over one million copies, workers are told: ‘now control is passé and a
badge of incompetence. Now, you are free’ (1993: xiii). The freedom to be yourself extends
to expressing dissent toward management (Peters, 1992: 588; Sutton, 2001). All the tropes
of the free market are here and the conformity of previous cultural regimes is denigrated,
associated with communism and the stifling of individual idiosyncrasies. This is why the
8
ethos of the unruly youngster is often drawn upon - ‘go for youth’ (Peters, 1994: 204; see
also Semler, 1993). Although not our focus here, the celebration of diversity has also
absorbed liberalist motifs in relation to minority groups such as gays, ethnics and others
often disenfranchised in Western corporate settings (Florida, 2004; Janssens and Zanoni,
2005).
The other emerging way in which identity is managed is to accentuate the fun and playful
dynamics of work. This has long been one element of conventional culture management
regimes (Collinson, 2002), but has expanded as part of a reaction to the downsizing trend of
the early 1990s. Here, there is a shift in emphasis towards employees expressing their fun
and playful side, rather than suppressing it in the name of sober, bureaucratic
productiveness and a ‘bottom-line mentality’ (Deal and Key, 1998: 6). There is considerable
evidence that the management of fun and play has become quite widespread as Kane
(2004) indicates in relation to the rise of the corporate ‘play ethic’. Some surveyed ‘best
companies to work for’ such as Kwik Fit, a car servicing chain in the UK, even have a full
Part of this drive to make work playful can still be framed in terms of normative, rather than
neo-normative, regimes, in keeping with the view of controls as assuming multiple and
hybrid forms. For example, while Deal and Key (1998: 25) argue that celebrations at work
foster diversity and ‘provide social support for being yourself and believing that you matter’,
they also see them as generating a sense of belonging, shared camaraderie and loyalty
(also see Hemsath and Sivasubramania, 2001). Our focus is with the former whereby play
and fun are a licence to be oneself in a way that leads workers to love being in the company
rather than love the company itself. Indeed, such instrumentality is implied in managerial
efforts to become an ‘employer of choice’ or ‘best place to work’, especially when tasks are
predominantly routine and fun is primarily directed at compensating for limited job discretion
9
rather than fostering innovation, such as in call centres (Kinnie et al, 2000; Callaghan and
One method in which this neo-normative feature of fun and playfulness is developed is
through blurring the symbolic distinction that has traditionally separated home and the formal
organization. The idea that employees must adopt an organizational persona at work is
reversed - people can, and should, express their ‘authentic’ selves at work rather than
repress the intrinsic desire to be playful and curious (Peters, 2003). Likewise, Deal and Key
see a key barrier to organizational fun as the ‘tendency to partition life and work…only to
recover our humanity once we return home’ (1998: 16) while for Bains, the question is
‘whether employees are able to bring their full selves into work.’ (2007: 219; also Semler,
We have suggested that the market rationalist tendencies described by Kunda and Ailon-
Souday (2005) and others allow for a corresponding approach to identity management that
aims for existential exposure or ‘empowerment’ – ‘be yourself’ - rather than the reshaping of
selfhood into a uniform identity. This clearly has potential to be liberating, especially for those
whose identities have been hitherto silenced or stigmatized. However, we argue that it also
Firstly and more generally, it is important to emphasize that management control can be
seen to commence long before individuals enter the workplace in that our values and
lifestyles are schooled partly in accordance with the interests of employers from an early age
(Illich, 1970). Indeed, this is one of the bases of normative control as well, in terms of the
value filtering of selection processes. However, this is not our concern here except insofar as
noting that neo-normative control relies more directly on non-work identities being employer-
friendly. Rather, and secondly, we shall see how, there are clear limits to the breadth of
10
individuality that an organization might tolerate. This is perhaps unsurprising, since there are
few social domains where value freedom is unlimited. More significantly and thirdly, in
attempting to draw more of the person into the employment situation, such management
practices utilize it as a resource. Even the ‘inner preserve’ protected from normative control
regimes, through cynicism for example, can now be used in an effort to enhance productivity.
is failing, this is seen to be a problem with her own values, personality or identity more than
insufficient commitment to the corporate norm. Finally and as the following case study
suggests, ‘existential empowerment’ can be seen as a form of control through the resistance
it provokes, however bizarre the notion of resisting being yourself may initially seem.
We now present an illustrative case to demonstrate the potentially controlling effects of the
‘be yourself’ approach to identity management. A study was conducted over an 8-month
around 1000 employees based in Australia, where similar trends towards market rationalism
as those already discussed are evident (Pusey, 2003). Sunray was founded by James Carr
(another pseudonym) in the early 1990s, who remains the CEO and cultural figurehead. It
deals with outsourced communication functions and thus, puts much emphasis on the
customer service skills of its agents. Their work is demanding, mostly dealing with calls in 8-
hour shifts, with only 60 minutes of breaks. It is also largely routine and, in many respects,
strictly controlled, through familiar call centre technology for example (e.g. Callaghan and
Thompson, 2001). However, we are concerned with the ‘fun’ side of, what Kinnie et al (2002)
Sunray was selected for research because of its broader reputation in the business
motivated employees in a relatively tight labour market. The initial research aim was to
11
understand experiences of normative control, but the data required an alternative conceptual
accordance with other studies of this type (e.g. Casey, 1995), qualitative data collection
making in the organization (Van Maanen, 1998). These included one-on-one interviews,
focus group interviews, observation and document analysis. A sample of three HR managers
and 30 employees (average age of 23; equal gender split) was randomly selected and
interviewed at various intervals over the eight months. Following Spradley (1979), the
interpretations of the culture and later modified to target concerns discussed in this article
although space restrictions mean that only a small proportion of illustrative data is drawn on.
The firm initially seems a classic example of normative control given the key role attributed
to the founder and a culture programme entitled ‘the 3Fs: Fun, Focus, Fulfilment’. A team
Without the culture the place would be drab, and in most workplaces people can’t wait
to leave. But at Sunray they love to work and really get into it. You know, just the other
day I heard someone say ‘I can’t believe they pay me to have fun!’ and that is exactly
what happens.
The 3Fs policy appears quite successful insofar as Sunray enjoys a relatively low turnover
rate. Although this is partly due to slightly higher pay rates, high levels of job satisfaction and
productivity were also claimed in the context of the local call-centre industry. Just over half
motivated work environment. Directly referencing the 3Fs campaign, Rob enthused:
12
… it’s like this: When you leave work you don’t feel drained: ’Oh, I’ve just had another
day at work’ – the fun allows you to focus not only on your work but yourself as well –
and at the end of the day you come out feeling fantastic and you like coming to work
Despite the parallels with normative control regimes, prominent neo-normative control
tendencies are evident. Emphasizing freedoms around workplace norms, employees are
invited to celebrate and display a commitment to who they are (rather than to the company
itself). According to the CEO, Semler’s (1993) Maverick! inspired this management style: ‘the
3Fs philosophy delivers service excellence by simply allowing people to be themselves and
communicate their uniqueness – we like different people here from all walks of life’. The
Everyone is different and we make sure that people can express themselves and will
be accepted for who they are………. It all comes down to our environment – the
culture, the freedom to enjoy being themselves and to enjoy being at work.
The promotion of lifestyle, sexual and ethnic diversity is especially important. But the
At Sunray, the recruitment strategy uses friendship networks to employ overtly youthful
employees who have had little employment experience (also see Castilla, 2005). Aside from
cost considerations, the employment of young people is typically associated with the relative
13
ease with which an organizational culture can be inculcated. However, the rationale given
reversed this logic in that ‘young people find (the)… culture very, very attractive because
they can be themselves and know how to have fun’. In other words, young people were seen
as more likely to be expressive and playful, including with identities. For example, workers
were required to bring to work an item that ‘best explains who you are’ - one agent
Organised events included a range of activities that are sometimes very characteristic of the
schoolroom. For example, cartoon characters are used to decorate the workspace and
training and motivational games included mini-golf and quizzes. Similarly, annual Away Days
are seen as somewhere between a ‘kind of school musical’ and ‘a party’. While many of the
Working at Sunray is like working for ‘Playschool’. It’s so much like a kindergarten …
a plastic, fake kindergarten. The murals on the wall, the telling off if I’m late and the
patronising tone in which I’m spoken to all give it a very childish flavour.
While such activities might be seen as infantilizing rather than empowering, practices also
incorporated the expression of explicitly adult identities under the theme of partying. In
particular, employees were openly encouraged to drink alcohol on Friday afternoons in the
were headed with the phrase ‘do you know how to party?’ and management often said that
Sunray life is similar to a ‘party’ because of the energy and ‘good times’. One training
session, held in a nearby park, was analogous to an actual party with beer drinking and the
14
Sexuality
The expression of sexuality and flirting among employees was not confined to parties nor
simply a reflection of workplace life or, even, the demographics of the employees. Rather,
Sunray. As already intimated and in keeping with the notion of ‘being yourself’, the sexual
dimension of the Sunray culture had a strong gay focus (see also Clair et al., 2005). For
example, Mary claimed that ‘they (gays) like it because they can be themselves’ and that
‘Sunray definitely promote it [open homosexuality] … well, not promote it but, say, you are
Part of the openly sexual culture at Sunray was its expression through clothing, encouraged
through what some might see as a liberal dress code. This practice cut across others such
as the organized parties and events (e.g. a ‘fashion day’, ‘dress-up days’ and ‘pyjama days’).
Once again, most employees seemed to enjoy these exercises by suggesting that it brought
more fun to the work - ‘treats me more as whole person…’. While these events were clearly
in a similar spirit to ‘dressing up’, another element was to express yourself through otherwise
private clothing - as consumers - being centred on the latest fashion labels and promoted
with the intention of creating a party-like atmosphere in the organization. Many of the
employees interviewed relished this part of the 3Fs philosophy because they felt ‘free to be
who we are’, as one agent put it, while others saw it as promoting a rather pretentious
attitude.
In many respects, the approach to managing Sunray employees matches the prescriptions
of recent gurus of ‘fun’ and the publicized practices of ‘leading’ employers discussed earlier
(see also Courpasson, 2006). There is a strong emphasis on the expression – rather than
suppression or transformation - of what hitherto might have been seen as private, individual
15
and authentic identities, feelings and lifestyles and on the acceptance, and even celebration,
managing employee identities represents a form of control which is both distinct from and
linked to other control typologies. In particular, we suggested that there were five related
Firstly, through both recruitment processes and the celebration of difference, Sunray
variants of sexuality, consumerism and playfulness rather than say, occupational skills,
familial roles, politics and community (c.f. Anteby, 2008). Secondly and most transparently,
control is evident in the limits implicitly and explicitly imposed which contradict the rhetoric of
There was no room for the non-fun, non-‘different’ person in the organized events. As one
agent recounted: ‘A woman in my team was told that she had to go to the Away Day but she
said she had family commitments, ’I’m a mother.’ But she was told ’no, we are all going’.
Likewise, in keeping with the policy of many other ‘progressive’ employers, there was
considered ‘no need’ for a trade union presence (e.g. Semler, 2004).
The third way in which the regime served as a control was in the appropriation (and
productive ends (also Janssens and Zanoni, 2005). This is particularly evident in the
compensate for, customer service – ‘fun’ as part of the job (Sturdy et al, 2001). Also, up to a
16
point, employees were encouraged or ‘indulged’ to challenge the way the organization
operates, especially during new projects and away days (c.f. Gouldner, 1955). Furthermore,
dissent as a lifestyle signifier relating to the ‘slacker cool’ and anti-establishment ethos of
youth culture was a salient part of Sunray’s corporate identity (also see Boltanski and
Chiapello, 2005). There was however, no place for a ‘militant’ self, ‘fun as sabotage’ or, as
already noted, even a union identity. Furthermore, these indulgencies were both made
possible and effectively limited by other control mechanisms, notably the call centre
Fourthly, the encouragement and colonization of identities and ‘real’ selves at Sunray served
as a form of self-disciplinary control in that once ‘private’ identities were made more visible
and accountable so that individual success and failure were attributed to the type of person
the employee was (Rose, 1989). This was seen in judgemental comments made about
fellow employees over the extent to which they embraced the 3Fs program as well as a
more hierarchical counselling dynamic where team members were policed on their own
personal mental state: ‘I will first recognize a difference in their attitude…and I will say ‘What
has happened? Is it the job or something at home? What can I do to help you with that?’.
Finally, the controlling elements of the ‘be yourself’ philosophy are evident in the resistance it
inspires. As noted earlier, normative control engendered its own brand of resistance as
employees hid their ‘real’ identities and feigned identification. Many commentators have
demonstrated how employees can adopt a cynical stance to protect their backstage (real)
selves from the corporation. But when the control function actually encourages workers’ to
express these real identities, what form, if any, does resistance take? How might one resist
being yourself? We note a two-step manoeuvre among those employees who attempted to
resist neo-normative control. First, some employees displayed a brand of cynicism, also
familiar under normative control regimes, which held the promise of achieving a different
sense of authenticity:
17
‘I am empowered only in their terms, not mine…. am I empowered to choose when
to have my lunch break? No. Am I empowered to talk and have fun with my friends?
The second or alternative step is to undermine the sentiment of diverse and individual
Well, to ‘succeed’ at Sunray you are basically gay, have to be really ‘alternative’ and
Sunray likes people who have different coloured hair and who are into [in a sarcastic
tone] ‘being themselves’. Now I’m not too sure which one we fit into, but basically we
Aside from the obvious suggestion of an emergent class consciousness, such sentiments
can also be seen as a variant of the once derided ‘organizational man’ (sic) (Whyte, 1956) in
which the communal and non-descript rhythms of public organizational life govern his/her
identity at work while ‘real’ selves are downplayed - ‘If I’m here to work then that’s what I do
and the culture stuff, I don’t buy into [that]. It’s not me and has no relevance to me.’ Indeed,
following Hochschild (1997), employees may now use the relatively dull sphere of
organizational life to escape the complexities and uncertainties around their private
identities.
18
Table 2 – Neo-Normative Control at Sunray
CONCLUSION
This article has outlined the key dimensions of an emergent form of identity management we
have called neo-normative control – the celebration of difference and fun as expressions of
self. This regime selectively enlists nominally private and authentic aspects of employee
selves and is distinct from conventional culture and fun management programmes. The
notion of neo-normative control eschews the claim that any decline of traditional normative
control in the face of market rationalism and the ‘be yourself’ ethic indicates a freer work
environment. Rather, the Sunray case demonstrates the paradoxically controlling elements
of ‘being yourself’ or ‘fun, focus and fulfilment’, especially when circumscribed by the
productive demands of the organization and related task-based constraints and control
19
The managerial discourse and practice of neo-normative control does not simply mark an
shifted towards a norm of difference and ‘extra-employment’ themes, including through the
expression of fun. It also raises important questions about authenticity and freedom in
normative control with human relations and its concerns with work group solidarity and/or
self-actualisation (also Bendix, 1956). Authenticity in the rhetoric and practice of neo-
normative control, however, looks quite different, reflecting as it does the axioms of market
rationalism and the expression of wider societal (rather than organisational) forms of
individual identity and difference (Bains, 2007). While we have only been able to scratch the
this short article, we have observed how some of the resistance noted at Sunray subverted
both difference and prescribed fun through sentiments of solidarity or sameness based on
the standardized nature of the work task itself. Similarly, perhaps the new ‘freedoms’ of the
emergent workplace are swinging back to, or at least coinciding with, a concern with
does not also correspond with task, job and role autonomy/creativity. Indeed, we may expect
different employee responses in different contexts. As Adler (2001) suggests, if both task
and identity empowerment is achieved in a collective fashion, then a very different kind of
REFERENCES
Adler, P. 2001. ‘Market, Hierarchy, and Trust: The Knowledge Economy and the Future of
20
Bain, P. and Taylor, P. 2000. ‘Entrapped by the ‘Electronic Panopticon’? Worker resistance at
Bains, G. 2007. Meaning Inc: The Blue Print for Business Success in the 21st Century.
Bendix, R. 1956. Work and authority in industry. New York: Harper and Row.
Boltanski, L. and Chiapello, E. 2005. The New Spirit of Capitalism. London: Verso.
Casey, C. 1995. Work, Self and Society: After Industrialism. London: Sage.
Callaghan, G and Thompson, P (2001) ‘Edwards re-visited: Technical control and call
Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. E. and MacLean, T. 2005. ‘Out of Sight But Not Out of Mind: Managing
Invisible Social Identities in the Workplace’. Academy of Management Review, 30, 1, 78-95.
Deal, T. and Key, M. 1998. Celebration at Work: Play, Purpose and Profit at Work. New York:
Berrett-Koehler.
Edwards, R. 1979. Contested terrain – the transformation of the workplace in the twentieth
Fierman, J. 1995. ‘Winning Ideas From Maverick Managers’. Fortune, Feb.6: 40-46.
Florida, R. 2004. The Rise of the Creative Class. North Melbourne: Pluto Press.
Foster, R. and Kaplan, S. 2001. Creative Destruction: Why Companies That Are Built to Last
Underperform the Market--And How to Successfully Transform Them. New York: Currency.
Frenkel, S, Korczynski, M, Shire, K and Tam, M. 1999. On the front Line. New York: Cornell
University Press.
21
Hemsath, D. and Sivasubramania, J. 2001. 301 More Ways to Have Fun at Work. San
Hochschild, A. 1997. The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes
Janssens, M and Zanoni, P. 2005. ‘Many Diversities for Many Services: Theorizing Diversity
Jermier, J. M., Slocum, J. W., Fry, L. W., Gaines, J. 1991. ‘Organizational Subcultures in a
Soft Bureaucracy: Resistance behind the Myth and Facade of an Official Culture’,
Johnson, P and Gill, J. 1993. Management Control and Organizational Behaviour, London:
Paul Chapman.
Kane, P. 2004. The Play Ethic: A Manifesto for a Different Way of Living. London: Macmillan.
Kanter, R. 1989. When Giants Learn to Dance. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S and Purcell, J. 2000. ‘Fun and surveillance: the paradox of high
Kunda, G and Ailon-Souday, G. 2005. ‘Managers, Markets and Ideologies – Design and
Devotion Revisited’, in Ackroyd, S et al. (Eds) Oxford Handbook of Work and Organization,
Kunda, G and Van Maanen, J. 1999. ‘Changing Scripts at Work: Managers and
Professionals’. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 561: 64-80.
22
Mirvis, P. H. 1994. ‘Human Development or Depersonalization? The Company as Total
Community.’ In F.W. Heuberger & L.L. Nash (Eds.), A Fatal Embrace? Assessing Holistic
Ogbonna, E and Wilkinson, B. 1990. `Corporate Strategy and Corporate Culture: The View
Peters, T. and Waterman, R. H. 1982. In Search of Excellence. New York: Harper and Row.
Peters, T. 1994. The Tom Peters Seminar: Crazy Times Call for Crazy Organizations.
London: Macmillan.
London.
Pink, D. 2001. Free Agent Nation: How America's New Independent Workers Are
Pusey, M. 2003. The experience of Middle Australia: The Dark Side of Economic Reform.
Ray, C. A. 1986. ‘Corporate Culture: The Last Frontier of Control?’ Journal of Management
Reeves, R. 2001. Happy Mondays: Putting Pleasure Back into Work. London: Pearson
Education.
Rose, N. (1989). Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. London: Routledge.
Ross, A. 2004. No-Collar: The Humane Workplace and its Hidden Costs. Philadelphia:
Semler, R. 1993. Maverick! The Success Behind the World’s Most Unusual Workplace,
London: Arrow.
23
Spradley, J. 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Rinehart and Winston.
Sturdy, A. J., Grugulis, I. and Willmott, H. 2001. Customer Service – Empowerment and
Sunday Times (2005; 2006) 100 Best Companies to Work For, London: Sunday Times
Sutton, R. 2001. Weird Ideas that Work: 11 1/2 ways to Promote, Manage and Sustain
Van Maanen, J. 1998. (ed.). Qualitative Studies of Organization. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Webb, J. 2004. ‘Organizations, Self-Identities and the New Economy.’ Sociology, 38, 4, 719-
738.
24