“IF I CAN’T TRUST THE COMPANY, HOW CAN I TRUST MYSELF?

”: RELATING
TRUST AND INSECURITY DURING SHOP-FLOOR IDENTITY CHANGE.

ABSTRACT

This paper uses concepts from Social Identity Theory and Discourse Theory to understand the role
of trust and reflexivity in enabling identity change. Based upon a longitudinal, comparative, two-
year study of two British manufacturing companies implementing normative change programs, the
paper argues that a socially-embedded form of trust and a reflexive / cognitive form of trust help
workers assess identity threats, mediate identity change and avoid ontological insecurity. The paper
argues that identity change involves a ‘willingness to be vulnerable’ which is founded on trusting
relationships and without these, workers retreat into a defensive identity as a form of resistance.
These findings lead to three substantial contributions to the literature. First, the paper shows that
the power of discourse to form identity is constrained through the subject’s trust and reflexivity.
Second, the paper connects those writers that argue that identity is fragmented and insecure with
those that argue it is stable and coherent, suggesting instead that it is dependent upon context.
Finally, by developing a new model of identity change, the paper provide clarity to our
understanding of how frequently mentioned, but rarely connected, concepts such as self-identity,
social-identity, reflexivity and insecurity relate to each other.

INTRODUCTION

How do identities change? In recent years a wide variety of accounts of identity work have made
considerable progress in fleshing out the dynamics that underpin the experiences of employees in
shifting discursive, cultural or normative working environments (Svenningson and Alvesson 2003;
Pratt et al. 2006; Kreiner et al. 2006). Empirically, academics have examined the interaction of
organisational changes with extra-organizational factors such as age, nationality and ethnicity,
whilst exploring new fields of study such as the professions, the army and NGOs. Theoretically,
writers have developed our understanding of the relationship between personal and social identities
(Lutgen-Sandvik 2008), explored the dynamics of resistance to normative identity controls (Kostas
and Fleming 2009) and sought to locate ‘spaces of action’ in competing discourses (Thomas and
Davies 2005).

Yet, despite this progress, several issues exist in recent explanations of how identity change occurs
at work, two of which are highlighted here. First, a constant tension exists in many accounts
between the agency of the individual employee and the social context in which they are situated.
On the one hand, writers have emphasised the potential of discourses, structures, roles, teams,
architectures, networks, institutions, professions and management innovations in influencing the
subjectivities and identities of employees (Alvesson and Willmott 2003; Bergstrom 2006; ). On the
other, many accounts have shown how agency, resistance, action and practice are important in
understanding how employees both reproduce and change the environment in which they find
themselves (Thompson and Warhurst 2003; Ackroyd and Fleetwood 2004). The result according to
Thornborrow and Brown are accounts that are either “over-socialised….which treat identity as
determined by structure… or under-socialised…which attribute individuals with unfettered agency”
(2009: 356).

A second debate is evident between those who treat identities as multiple, fragmented and insecure
and those which treat it as stable and unified (Clarke et al. 2009; Ybema et al. 2009). In the
‘insecure’ camp, academics have highlighted the multiple and fluid nature of discourses that help

1
construct identities (Musson and Duberley 2007) and the insecurities inherent in the (post/hyper)
modern workplace: “it is the ambiguity and tensions that arise from this incoherence…that provide
both the stimulus and space for political contest over meanings and identities” (Thomas and Davies
2003: 690). In the ‘secure’ camp, two groups can be distinguished. First, early discursive analyses
outlined the colonising power of discourses in producing ‘disciplined selves’ under managerial
innovations such as TQM, HRM or BPR (Collinson 1992; Townley 1994). Second, the social
psychology literature frequently treats identity as enduring, stable and unified, and thus easily
correlated to outcomes such as performance (see, for example, Flynn 2005; Grote and Raeder
2009).

This paper argues that the concepts of trust, reflexivity and insecurity are essential in understanding
how identity change occurs, and constructs a conceptual model to describe how the elements
mediate, enable and constrain the relationship between the subject and discourse. In doing so, the
paper draws on a comparison of two ethnographic cases of organizational change undertaken over a
two year period. Similar in many ways, the two cases, both medium-sized manufacturing
companies in the UK, sought to implement similar ‘quality’ programs, deploying discourses of
‘empowerment’, ‘participation’ and ‘quality’ (c.f. Musson and Duberley 2007; Xu 2000) to change
the normative values and identities of shopfloor employees. Yet, despite their similarities, the two
cases had highly divergent outcomes in terms of identities which, this paper argues are, in part,
explained by the employees’ experiences of trust, reflexivity and anxiety.

In making this argument, the paper makes three key contributions to the literature. First it shows
how the individual’s experiences of trust, reflexivity and insecurity form a fundamental point of
mediation between discourses and subjects, which helps explain, and bring together, literatures that
depict subjects as either fragmented and insecure or unitary and stable. Second, it helps ameliorate
the common critique of identity change literature that it is either under- or over- socialised by
illustrating how trust and insecurity mediate and frame the engagement of subjects with the
discourses they experience. Finally, the paper helps provide greater clarity and evidence regarding
three concepts that are frequently mentioned in identity literature but rarely theorised together:
trust, reflexivity and insecurity. In doing so, the paper contributes to a growing body of literature
that seeks to move away from ‘strong’ constructivist accounts of identity change and emphasise the
limits and constraints to the workings of discourse in relation to the self (Marks and Thompson
2010; Watson 2008).

The paper first argues that there is a need to theorise in greater depth the ways in which individuals
engage with discourses and suggests that trust and insecurity may providing bridging concepts that
help understand the basis for such engagement. Second, the paper outlines the methodology and
introduces the two cases. Next, a comparative analysis of the cases is undertaken and the key
findings are described. Finally, the a theoretical explication of the findings is developed, the
consequences of which, for both the literature and future research are discussed.

EXPLANATORY GAPS

Finding the Subject in Identity Work

Identity has, in recent years, become a major theme in organisation and management studies, and,
the ‘discursive perspective’ provides a dominant way of understanding the concept. A key word
search of ‘identit*’ or ‘subjectivit*’ in ABS ranked 4-star business, organization and management
journals since 2003 returns sixty-five articles concerned with employee identity. Thirty-two of
these, almost fifty per cent, can loosely be classified as ‘social constructivist’ or ‘discursive’, using

2
the work inspired by Foucault (and, to a lesser extent Derrida and Lacan) to illustrate how identities
are constructed through managerialist discourses such as participation (Musson and Duberley
2007), enterprise (Mangan 2009) and New Public Management (Thomas and Davies 2005).

Whilst this discursive approach has produced strong insights into issues such as control, power and
resistance, it has been plagued by the critique that the subject is often presented as over-determined
by the discourses that construct them, effectively removing the possibility of choice, agency and
resistance (Sayer 2000; Archer 2000; Ackroyd and Fleetwood 2004). In effect, this ‘portrays
individuals as passive recipients of the discourses of change, reacting to a given [discourse]
imposed upon them’ (Thomas and Davies 2005: 683). Whilst there have been several attempts to
advance understandings of how resistance and choice might occur within a discursive framework,
these have tended to focus on explanations that are located in discourses rather than subjects. For
example, Whittle (2005: 1302) shows how “discourses do not completely colonize processes of
meaning-making …the colonizing power of discourse is also rendered fragile as discourses meet
and mix with other discourses”. Taking a slightly different approach, Musson and Duberley (2007:
158) show how the conflict between discourses ”provides the space within which to construct the
ideal identity”, and describe how such space leaves an employee “suspended betwixt and between
these two subject positions (p. 160). The resulting ‘model’ of identity is one where resistance,
insecurity and reflexivity are subsumed within discourse (Figure 1).

Figure 1 A (Simplified) Model of a (Strong) Social Constructivist View of Identity

Discourses

Identity
Reflexivity
Insecurity
Trust

Whilst it is clear that conflicting discourses offer subjects possibilities for action and resistance, it is
clear that this can only be part of the story. If analysts are serious in seeking to avoid portraying
“individuals as passive recipients of the discourses of change” (Thomas and Davies 2005: 683) then
there must be about the subject that engages with these gaps (Marks and Thomas 2010). Such a
proposition is accepted de facto in many accounts of identity work, where phenomena that link the
self and its context, such as memory, ontological insecurity, distrust and trust, are frequently
implied but their relationship in relation to identity is left untheorised (O’Mahoney and Vincent
2010). An account of how subjects actively engage with discourses is important in both refuting the
charge that discourses are overdeterministic (Ackroyd and Fleetwood 2004) and showing that “that
discourses do not completely colonize processes of meaning-making, nor determine how they are
acted upon” (Whittle 2005: 1302).

This paper acknowledges recent arguments that illustrate the spaces opened up by competing
discourses (Thomas and Davies 2004) and the potential for subjects to use subversive discourses to

3
undermine and resist mainstream managerialist discourse (Clarke et al. 2009). Yet it also seeks to
better understand the processes by which the subject engages with these discourses, not simply as a
passive position held impotently between discourses but as an active and reflexive self that
experiences, resists and chooses. In doing so, the paper explores three phenomena that are
mentioned frequently in discursive accounts of identity work, but which are rarely theorised
explicitly: trust, reflexivity and anxiety.

Anxiety and Trust: Two Traditions in Identity Analysis

In the critical literature, anxiety and trust are commonly referred to as contributing to identity work,
but are rarely linked together or explicitly theorised. A prominent reason for this is that they tend to
be associated with different stories about identity, trust being associated with the development of
secure and stable identities and anxiety being at the heart of insecure and fragmented identities
(Table 1).

Trust is frequently depicted, especially in the social psychology and institutional literatures, as
crucial in the formation of coherent identities especially in generating identification with the teams
(Hinds and Mortensen 2005; Lennox Terrion and Ashforth 2002) or organisations (Kramer et al.
2001; Rousseau 1998; Nelson and Philips 2008) in which employees work. Here, trust plays a part
in enabling both the process, such as the psychological contract (Robinson and Morrison 1995), and
the outputs, such as Organizational Commitment Behavior (Dick 2006; Rousseau et al. 1998).
Within the ‘discursive perspective’ too, early analysts emphasised the secure identities that
dominant discourses can produce. Sewell and Wilkinson (1992), to take another example, show
how the surveillance practices and discourses associated with Total Quality Management, produce
self-disciplined subjectivities that provide the workers with secure selves. The role of trust here is
important in both the process of identity formation (trusting supervisors and the team) and the
outcome (trusting the identity that is produced). Conversely, many employees who distrust the
discourses of management, produce ‘dramaturgical identities’ used to distance themselves from
their activities (Collinson 2003; Patriotta and Spedale 2009).

It is important, for our purposes here to show that trust has (at least) two dimensions, a calculative,
reflexive consideration of the trustworthiness of another (e.g. the Prisoner’s Dilemma) and a more
taken-for granted trust that is based on historically-embedded experience (e.g. that planes will not
fall out of the sky). These two forms of trust are categorised under a number of different names
(Chua et al. 2008; Janowicz-Panjaitan and Noorderhaven 2009) but for our purposes here will
simply be known as ‘embedded trust’ and ‘reflexive trust’.

The second tradition concerns the fragmented and unstable nature of identity (xxx) which is
variously bought about by “the postmodern era [where] feelings of vulnerability and insecurity are
heightened, stimulating greater identity work” (Thomas and Davies, 2007: 687), the individual’s
awareness of their own mortality (Willmott 2000), or simply the flexibilities and insecurities
associated with work (Sennett 1998; Beck 2000). The end result is less an identity than multiple
identities which, often likened to mosaics or collages, are fragmented, conflicting and insecure: “we
have commended theory that understands the processes [of identity formation] to be fluid, unstable
and reflexive” (Alvesson and Willmott 2002: 626). Central to both the process and outcome of
this dynamic is the insecurity of the subject. This insecurity is presented as the reflexive realisation
of the instability of both the self and the world which that self inhabits (Willmott 1992) and is
linked to the employees’ constant, yet ultimately futile, attempts to confirm their inherently
unstable narrative identities (Down and Reveley 2009: 380).

4
Table 1 The Secure and Insecure Depictions of Identity

Secure Perspective Insecure Perspective

Originates Dominant discourses, Surveillance, Hyper-modernity, Awareness of mortality,
from… Self-discipline, Organisational Work conditions, Individualisation.
identification, High trust relationships.
Discourses Disciplining, Colonizing, Controlling; Destabilising, Contradictory, Antagonistic
as… Subjectivising
Identity Secure, coherent, stable. Multiple, fragmented, insecure, unstable,
as… de-centred
Subjective Trust and security Insecurity and reflexivity .
experience

It is only really when we turn to the work, and followers of, Anthony Giddens that trust, insecurity
and identity are pulled together into a coherent framework. Unlike many writers, Giddens
recognises the similarities between trust and distrust in relation to identity work, yet also
acknowledges their relationship to anxiety: ‘if basic trust is not developed….the outcome is
persistent existential anxiety….the antithesis of trust is thus a state of mind which could be best
summed up as existential angst’ (Giddens 1990:100). Whilst Giddens often prefers to use
‘ontological security’ (Giddens 1991: 100) to trust, it is clear that he sees the concept as central to
identity formation:

“trust in others is developed in conjunction with the formation of an inner

sense of trustworthiness, which provides the basis of a stable self-identity
subsequently” (1991: 94).

That trust and distrust are important in constructing secure identities, and that insecurity and
insecurity are a consequence (or antecedent) of unstable and fragmented identities is an important
step in overcoming their ‘either / or’ debates depicted by Clarke et al. (2009). By suggesting that
trust and insecurity are related to a subject’s experience of discourse, power and relationships,
Giddens helps open the possibility that both secure and insecure selves are possible within the
same subject in differing spatial and temporal contexts.

Writers that have followed this train of thought have avoided the depiction of individuals as
completely colonized by discursive forces and have highlighted the importance of context in
forming identities:

“there are some arguments against excessiveness in emphasizing ontological

insecurity, anxiety, fluidity and the shakiness of identity formation. The
significance and depth of contemporary organizational changes is a matter of
dispute…there are variations in terms of social (in)stability and the ‘ontological
security’ offered (Svenningson and Alvesson 2003: 1167)

Others have taken similar steps to stress the importance of context. Collinson (2003), for example,
shows how the subject’s retreat from insecurity can result in ‘dramaturgical’, ‘conformist’ or
‘resistant’ selves depending on the discourses, context and technologies that frame the subject.
Clarke et al. (2009) take a different approach by arguing that incoherent and antagonistic

5
discourses can be ‘incorporated into accounts of the self [making their] identities stable without
being coherent, and consist of core statements but not be unified’ (p. 341).

Despite this progress, research into the dynamics between stable and insecure identities is still in
its infancy. One limitation of the literature thus far is methodological. Although many studies have
recognised that identity work is contingent, both spatially and temporally, very few studies have
employed a comparative or a longitudinal methodology when studying identity work - many
preferring single cases, often studied as a snap-shot in time. By employing both a longitudinal and
a comparative methodology, this study seeks to understand the dynamics of identity work as they
change over time and context. As we will discover, this approach enables a view of identity work
that shows how contingent forms of identity can be on the individuals’ experiences of trust and
anxiety.

THE STUDY
Research Methods

The exploratory and inductive study was conducted over a two year period in two medium-sized
manufacturing companies in the Midlands region of the UK. In order to understand how differing
contexts might influence the dynamics of identity change a comparative methodology sought to
explore the processes in two very similar companies that were both seeking to implement similar
cultural and normative changes among their employees.

In order to identify similar companies, questionnaires were sent out to 213 medium-sized
manufacturing organisations in the Midlands region of the UK, asking for details of their change
programmes. Ninety responses were collected and from these, a group of eleven companies were
selected for further investigation. After initial interviews to ascertain the exact nature of the change
programmes and to distinguish those which were effecting change as more than simple rhetoric,
two cases were identified that were most similar: CarCo and TruckCo (Table 1.2).

Table 2 The Features of CarCo and TruckCo

CarCo TruckCo
Purpose To re-engineer car parts, especially To re-engineer trucks ready for
gear-boxes. industrial cleaning.
Ownership Privately owned by directors, some of whom were original founders.
Shopfloor
Primarily assembly line with skilled teams for specific jobs.
organisation
Employees 185 employees. 130 shopfloor. 165 employees. 119 shopfloor.
Founded 1970 1971
Change agent New Managing Director
Change Growing globalisation opened the market to competition. Local buyers increasing
context sourcing from abroad. A need to improve quality without increasing costs.
Change Name Quality Manufacturing System (QMS) Quality Improvement Program (QIP)
Related
Participation (Musson and Duberley 2007)
Change
Quality (Xu 2000; McCabe et al. 1998)
Discourses

6
Traditional Low trust, highly antagonistic divide High trust. Highly paternalistic based on
labour between shopfloor and management. respect for original MD and founder. No
relations Highly unionised. History of industrial trade union. Things always done the
action. ‘TruckCo Way’.
Site Old industrial site. Landscaped rural site with lake.
Old MD Martin Rob
New MD Pete Dave

The methodology used to study the companies sought to develop a rich, qualitative understanding
of the social processes in the workplace drawing on a tradition of ethnographic studies (Van
Maanen, 1988; Watson and Watson-Franke, 1985). The paper follows studies which have used a
mix of interviews, participant observation and document searches to highlight the often informal
and hard-to-measure aspects of workplace lives (Burawoy, 1979; Cavendish, 1982; Delbridge,
1998). The research agenda was not clearly defined from the beginning, but developed from a focus
on how and why employees responded the way they did to efforts to change them. As the research
developed, and the cases diverged in their outcomes, themes regarding identity, trust and insecurity
became clearer, and helped explain many of the differences that appeared to be occurring. These
were then developed with a parallel reading of the current literature on discourse, identity,
insecurity and trust.

In both organisations, the research focused on a longitudinal, ethnographic and qualitative methods
of research. Initially, fifteen interviews were undertaken with a mix of grades and departments
across each company to get a rounded view of the history of the company, the changes that were
occurring and the relationships between different formal and informal groups. The first interviews
were conducted when the original MDs were in place but spanned the introduction of the changes
and the new MDs. As both change projects focused especially on the production departments, I
asked to be placed in a production team for a period of 14 days. In CarCo, I worked on the
production line in a low skilled job, essentially cleaning gearboxes but was also given experience in
the roles upstream and down stream from my work. In TruckCo, I was generally kept in the
paintshop, but was used as a ‘spare man’ to speed up low-skill jobs that were taking too long. In
both factories, I was given training in both the operational work and in the ‘quality’ programmes
that were bought in, meaning that I was expected to contribute to quality circle meetings,
suggestion schemes and group discussions. In both factories, despite short periods (e.g. half a day)
on some complex jobs I was generally kept to work that involved lifting or simple mechanical
work.

In both companies, I was introduced as a researcher, but was treated, for the most part, as a
‘normal’ employee. People either forgot, or chose to ignore the fact, that I was a researcher. The
integration with teams was helped by the funding I received which allowed me to stay local to the
factories which meant I could socialise with many of the workers watching football, going to the
pub and fishing. Due to the nature of the work, I got to know a handful of people very well, which
allowed me good insights into their feelings, attitudes and identities. At the end of this first period
of participant observation, I undertook semi-structured interviews with key people I had got to
know well in the participant observation and with several of the original people that I had initially
interviewed.

I revisited both factories 10 - 12 months later and undertook another period of participant
observation followed by interviews with the same participants as before. This allowed me to get a
longitudinal view of the changes that had occurred. In the interval between the first and second

7
periods of participant observation, I communicated frequently with the new and old MDs, a handful
of directors and a few of the people I had worked with on the shopfloor. I was also provided with
various documents and emails to analyse, such as meeting minutes, consultancy plans and attitude
surveys.

The transcribed interviews and ethnographic notes generated over 1100 sides of material which
were analysed iteratively against the themes that emerged from the authors’ reading in the subject
generating themes which were then retrospectively coded into the data. The themes of trust,
insecurity and distrust emerged as important in helping explain both the differentiated responses to
management attempts at normative control and enhancing existing explanations of how individuals
engage with discourses.

Introducing CarCo and GearCo

The two factories were selected due to their historical and structural similarities. Both started up in
a boom period for the automotive industry and had experienced significant growth off the back of
growing demand from customers until the mid-1980s. In part due to the highly interventionist style
of the founding MDs, but also due to the ‘production line’ style of working, both factories had
highly Taylorist shopfloors where workers did what they were instructed, or what tradition dictated,
even if there was a superior alterative. Even at the managerial grade, in both organisations, creative
thinking was very much discouraged in favour of obeying orders from the top.

In the 1980s, both companies found that, due to improvements in communication and regulatory
changes, their markets increasingly looked overseas when seeking suppliers and frequently found
German, Japanese and US products to be of a similar price but of higher quality. The initial MDs of
both companies had helped found and grow the companies but felt they did not have the expertise
to bring in new management techniques to improve quality and change the culture of the
companies. Thus, around the time the study began, both companies introduced new MDs to effect a
TQM style culture which focused on improving quality through encouraging participative practices,
team-working, quality circles, suggestion schemes and training. Both of the new MDs had
previously been directors of manufacturing at large companies that had successfully implemented
similar schemes.

The change programs at the two factories were very similar, although they were called different
things. Both were basically TQM-inspired culture change programs that focused on changing the
manufacturing shopfloor into a more proactive, participative and team based workforce. The
program at both factories included:

 Training: 2 - 5 days from an external consultancy in the principles and techniques of quality
management
 Quality circles: identifying, taking ownership of and implementing solutions to local
manufacturing workflow issues.
 Devolved decision-making: middle management controlling the decisions less and the
shopfloor taking more responsibility.
 Team-based working: breaking up the shopfloor into teams of 7 - 9 which met three times a
week to discuss improvements and provide feedback on current performance.
 Communication: more upwards communication, both through team meetings and through a
suggestion scheme which was implemented in both factories.

8
In both factories, these formal changes were accompanied by an attempt at culture change from the
top. In an effort to encourage people to be more participative, both new MDs attempted to set an
example to, and instruct, their managers in being less directive and more ‘coaching’ in their style of
management.

There were, of course, many differences between the two factories. However, the one which later
seemed most important in explaining the different outcomes at the two factories was the
relationships between the shopfloor and managers. In CarCo, the shopfloor had a very antagonistic
relationship with management and a highly Taylorist form of demarcation, symbolically and
organisationally between managers and the shopfloor. The shopfloor in CarCo were highly
unionised and viewed any form of change with suspicion. Managers in CarCo talked about the
shopfloor in very derogatory terms arguing that their ‘attitude’ stemmed from the fact that many of
them were ex-miners who were perceived as stubborn and recalcitrant by those higher up the
hierarchy. The result was a high level of distrust between the shopfloor (classed as shopfloor teams
and their team leaders) and their managers (anyone above team leader level). Whilst there were
some individual exceptions to this picture, they were few and far between.

In TruckCo, whilst employees were still treated like automatons, the relationship with managers
was more paternalistic. The original owner and MD, Rob, was a highly energetic, charismatic man
who, whilst described as “autocratic”, “table-bashing”, and “single-minded”, was also described
as “a star”, “a friendly dictator” and “like a dad” by the workforce. He was generous with the
workforce, spending money unpredictably and spontaneously and creating an atmosphere of trust,
as long as no-one contradicted him. To some extent, this put managers and workers in the same
boat, they were all emasculated and kept away from decision-making, yet treated well by Rob. This
generated high levels of trust in the factory, albeit on a very unequal footing.

TRANSFORMATION AND TRUCKCO AND CARCO

Before the Change: Trust, Distrust and Identity

The first round of data collection, when the original MDs were still in charge, revealed workers in
the two factories to have very strong, yet different, identities, despite their formal roles being very
similar. In CarCo, both social and self shopfloor identities were defined very clearly in opposition
to management. When asked about how they saw themselves and how they saw others, CarCo
employees appeared to have defined themselves through what Collinson (2000: 163) calls
‘resistance through distance’. Many workers offered a variant on one fitter’s statement that, ‘when I
come to work I leave that bit [of me] I care about at home, so when I’m here I’m more like a robot
than a person’. The reason cited for this type of role distancing (Kunda, 1992) was frequently
managerial abuse: ‘over the years you learn [management] can’t be trusted…that your ideas won’t
be listened to and that [management] get threatened if you’re too creative’. Mirroring this
‘restricted’ self identity, were the social identities ascribed to the workers from managers.
Managers frequently slighted the shopfloor role, making statements such as ‘a lot of these people
can hardly write….straight out of the mines…so you can’t give them much leeway in their jobs’, or,
‘all they’re interested in is money…it’s like monkeys and peanuts’.

In TankerCo, whilst the formal roles and work were very similar to CarCo, less ‘role distancing’
(Ashforth et al. 2007: 166) was in evidence. While workers still had very little discretion in their
formal roles but were treated with more respect by management and, as a result, displayed what
some might term organisational commitment behaviour: a loyalty and positive affection towards
both their organisation and the leader, Rob. In terms of their self identity, workers frequently

9
depicted themselves as ‘good workers’ that were part of a greater endeavour: ‘it’s like ants or bees
- you do what you do and are reliable and you make the whole thing work. Most of us will give
110% to the [TankerCo] because we trust Rob and what he’s doing’. In return, it was clear that
managers had more respect for the shopfloor than those in CarCo. The director of production said
‘we treat them well here, they’re paid above the going rate and we try not to make people
redundant…in return they work hard, are trustworthy and are loyal to Rob’.

Table 3 Identities and Roles in CarCo and TankerCo Before the Change

Self Identity (quotes Social Identity (quotes from Formal Roles (from
from the shopfloor) management) observation notes)
CarCo ‘I save my brains for ‘They have the CarCo ‘work is quite heavily
Shopfloor when I get home. They shuffle…They go through the controlled…especially
don’t want them here’. motions as slowly as possible’. on the line”

‘Another day, another ‘We employed anyone that
dollar - they buy my time could walk. Many of them
and I take their money’. couldn’t write”
‘It’s like being a robot ‘They need fairly tight control
working here. You’re all otherwise they’d just do
hands and no brain’. anything”.
TankerCo ‘We’re like wheels in a ‘There’s no reason to treat
Shopfloor much bigger machine… people like crap just because
they rely on us’ they’re at the bottom’
‘You know you’re valued ‘Even when we were losing
here…the factory, the money we refused to sack
lake, the way they treat anyone. They’re not just
you…that’s why we work workers to us’
hard’.
‘Without Martin [a blaster] this
place would fall apart’
“[the team] works in a
low-trust environment
where most work is
prescripted, even if it is
unnecessary to do so’.
‘The have the CarCo
way here, which means
that even if there is a
better way of doing
something, they still
have to do it the way
they’ve been told’
‘highly prescriptive
roles’.

Both distrust and trust provided relatively stable forms of knowledge on which workers could build
secure identities, even though the factories they worked in, and their formal roles, were quite
similar. In CarCo, the recalcitrant, withdrawn and instrumental identity that CarCo workers had
forged through their distrust of management provided them with a relatively secure identity which,
in the words of one team-member, ‘cannot be hurt’. In TankerCo, rather more positive identities,
based upon mutual respect with management and being valued in day-to-day interactions, could be
build relatively secure in the knowledge that they would not be abused. Whilst it might be true to
say, then, that before the change both factories reflected fairly Taylorist discourses in terms of
formal roles, job descriptions and work practices, these were translated through the shopfloors’
day-to-day experiences of trust. It should be noted here that when asked about trust and distrust
before the change, the responses workers gave were much more concerned with an
institutionalised, taken-for-granted and interpersonal form of (dis)trust rather than a conscious,
reflexive calculation.

10
Facing the Change: Reflexivity and the Leap of Faith

The period of change was, for both sets of shopfloor workers, highly unsettling. The fundamental
aim of both change programs was to change the workers at a fundamental level: not just making
them more proactive and better skilled, but changing the very way they thought about themselves
and their jobs. To quote both the new MDs “this is about making a new factory by making new
people” (Dave), “I want people to think, act and actually be different…they won’t recognise
themselves in a year or so” (Pete). To make things more difficult, this fundamental change was
also accompanied by formal changes: a new leader, new reporting systems, altered job descriptions
and appraisal categories (to emphasise participation and innovation), new daily routines (to
incorporate the quality circles) and stronger teams. As a result, both shopfloors faced periods of
insecurity, anxiety and instability both in terms of their formal knowledge of their jobs but also in
terms of their very selves.

Insecurity came in a number of forms for both sets of employees, and especially for the CarCo
workers who hadn’t been given the job guarantees of those at TankerCo. Yet, in conversations with
both sets of workers it was evident that the most challenging aspect of the change was at the level
of the self. In CarCo, workers stressed that they wouldn’t (or couldn’t) start caring about their jobs
because they didn’t trust managers to reciprocate:

“it’s all very well saying we’re empowered, but if you come up with ideas and
your boss ignores you, it’s an insult”

“I don’t think [the managers] will take any notice. They like telling us what to
do too much to listen to the suggestions”

“What they’re asking us to do is care about the work, but they forget there’s a
good reason why we don’t”.

In both CarCo and TruckCo, it is clear that the new partipative discourse also offered challenges at
the level of identity:

“[management] can’t expect you to be one type of person for years and then
just change overnight….it’s not possible and it’s not right”

“I’m not that type of person, I need someone to tell me what to do and then
I’ll do it. That’s what Rob wanted and that’s what we’re like”

Many found it equally confusing because the new participative discourse appeared to confuse their
identities and those of management:

“I don’t get it - if we’re now managing ourselves, finding out problems and
solving them…then what the hell are management doing?”.

What was interesting in both organisations was the extent to which the changes forced employees
to move from a relatively instinctual, institutionalised and habitual form of trust to a conscious,
cognitive, reflection on what to do. Many of them commented on commented on the taken-for
granted assumptions they had made previously that they were now being forced to reflect upon:

11
 “You get used to who you are and how you relate to others and it’s hard when
someone calls you out on that - makes you think”

“Before it was like you just did stuff without thinking but now you need to ask
‘do I want to be a part of this?’”

A big part of this reflection was weighing up whether the trustworthiness of management was
worth taking a risk for - the unknown aspects of which caused considerable anxiety. The fact that
the new MDs had ‘no history’ made the process a highly uncertain one. The differences between
the companies became evident during this period of reflexivity:

TankerCo Employee 1:“I think they’re right in what they say [in the training].
But its difficult to know what will happen….I guess you’ve just got to take a
leap of faith and hope for the best”.

TankerCo Employee 2: “they’re asking you to put yourself on the line and I
think they mean well. It’s hard because some people don’t know how to work
that was…we’ve got to trust they know what they’re talking about and hope it
will be okay”.

CarCo Employee 1:“I don’t see why I should do anything but what I’m paid
for. All they’ll do is take and take and kick you in the teeth when they feel like
it.”

CarCo Employee 2:“This is simply a con. It is making you work harder for no
more money. [Pete] must be laughing up there [points to the offices]”.

It is important to note the element of prediction that is being undertaken by the workers, trying to
work out what might happen in the future based on past experiences. The fear is similar to what
Williams wrote of when considering ‘demeaning interactions that damage the identities of project
members’ (2007: 597) especially in relation to employees being proactive, for example by
providing ideas or providing help (Edmondson 1999).

Making the Leap: Anxiety and the Search for Security

Making the formal changes to teams, communication procedures and working practices was only
part of the change. Both Pete and Dave sought to encourage workers into a more participative,
‘empowered’ and proactive style of working. In both factories this was attempted through the stick
and carrot approach. Those that championed the changes were rewarded, with some being
promoted, and those that resisted were first isolated, being characterised as ‘slow’, ‘old fashioned’
(by Pete) or ‘trouble-makers’ (by Dave), and later had their bonuses cut, were put on disciplinary
measures and demoted. These were supported by increasing efforts by managers in delegating
responsibility to their reports. In many ways, this created a ‘burning platform’ for the workers
where the old ‘Taylorist’ identities were rendered difficult to maintain. Despite this, however,
those in TankerCo were more likely to take a leap into the unknown than those in CarCo. For
many of them, this resulted in a deep-seated insecurity:

“you feel a bit like you’re heads cut off - you’re not sure what you’re doing….
They said it would be difficult but I wasn’t expecting to feel, erm, just odd”

12
 “this is hard you know, there’s nothing that you know or trust so you’re a bit
blind really, feeling your way. Not knowing if some bugger’s dug a hole in
front of you [laughing]”

Yet the responses of the employees in the two factories were remarkably different. In TankerCo, a
handful of individuals on the shopfloor (around seven) were convinced at the outset by the need
for change. Most of these were new to the company and perhaps had less chance to become
socialised into existing ways of doing things. Almost immediately, these workers took on the
mantle of ‘change champions’ and not only co-operated with the changes but spoke positively
about the need for change to others in their teams. This was important to the others because they
trusted the individuals involved as used them as a test-case to gauge the response of management:

“When you see people like Mike involved so much you think there must be
something in it…..”

Equally important in TankerCo was the gradual development of trust in Dave which accompanied
a shift of workers attitudes, behaviours and language. Crucially, Dave had the blessing of Rob,
who was well trusted and respected in the company, yet, beyond this interpersonal trust, there was
a reflexive assessment of the logic of his case:

“It is true, as [Dave] says, that the other companies have caught up with us
and even over-taken us. You can see there isn’t as much money as there used
to be”

“[Dave] thinks there’s a lot of untapped potential here, as he says…it makes

sense that the people doing the work should know how to improve it better
than managers”

In CarCo the situation was very different. Workers responded in two ways. Many, despite the
potential threats and rewards made by management, developed a ‘siege mentality’ to the changes
and refused to shift from their Taylorist selves:

“It’s not for me. No way. I’ve been doing this job this way for fifteen years.
Why should I change? Do I get more money? No. Do I get treated better? No.
It’s still the same. ”

However, some workers were not in a position the resist: they were either in a precarious team-
leader position and required be less critical, or they were worried about losing their jobs. Either
way, some attempted to internalise the new discourse, but found that Pete, the new MD, was not
ready to support them:

“He says you’ve got to have these meetings but doesn’t account for the drop
in production…. Also that you’ve got to delegate, but bollocks you when they
do something wrong”

Those who had attempted to buy into the changes felt an insecurity and an instability associated
with both the precariousness of their position and the lack of certainty about the new roles they
were being asked to act out. The interviews I conducted with those in this position, usually team
leaders, were frequently emotional as the individuals felt both trapped yet unable to cope. People
responded in different ways, some simply going silent, others crying and some getting angry.

13
During this period twelve people on the shopfloor went off with stress and two people resigned to
work elsewhere. One of those that resigned phoned me a few months later and part of their
conversation is worth quoting at length:

“I couldn’t take it any more. I’ve always been the type of person that wanted
to do a good job and did what I was told…. So you try to talk in that
ridiculous way about QIP, ‘improvement notices’ or ‘quality reports’ which
doesn’t feel right and you know that above you there’s a load of people who
don’t care and below you a load of people who don’t trust you anymore, and
you’re stuck in the middle, acting out this stupid persona just because you’ve
been asked to.

The lack of support and the constant undermining from Pete….. means you
can’t be…what he wants, not for a long period anyway. It wears you out”.

The lack of trust of Pete, in his association with the old MD, was exacerbated by his own actions
which many felt attacked their identities. One team leader was on the receiving end of a very
public ‘bollocking by Pete’ for missing his daily production target when the previous day Pete had
told him to spend “more time doing improvement notices” which were part of the new system.
This was seized on by many workers as evidence that the whole program was a sham.

The final straw for many of the workers came when Pete, out of the blue, announced 14
redundancies. This led to a walk-out of the entire shopfloor and a stand off that lasted three days.
After this, whilst many of the formal processes stayed in place, Pete shifted his attention away
from getting people to act and think differently. Speaking to him a few months after the wildcat
strike, he said: “I had wanted people to actually be different. The positive, proactive type of
worker we had in [his previous employer] but I think they were just too dim to get it here. We’re
working with different raw material”.

After the Leap: Trust, Distrust and Identities

On returning to the factories after almost a year, the differing trajectories that the companies
appeared to be heading in were confirmed. TankerCo employees has made a ‘successful’ transition
to more proactive, empowered and partipative identities and the level of attitudes and behaviours.
There were one or two workers I spoke to that “missed the old ways” but most had overcome the
period of anxiety and doubt and many were even retrospectively re-inventing their stories about
their enthusiasm for the changes: “I always knew this was the way to go”. That the changes had
started to make an positive economic difference in terms of sales and revenue seemed to validate
their identities further.

In CarCo, it was a very different story. Most of the processual changes, such as quality circles and
the suggestion scheme, had been discarded and there was no talk of delegation, empowerment or
participation. The shopfloor had an air of triumphant fatalism in their retelling of what had
happened and the reversion to a the recalcitrant, Taylorist identities seemed complete. The only
person that seemed anxious or unstable was Pete who, himself, appeared to have lost face in the
dispute and was considering the future of both himself and the factory. A sad epilogue to the story
was the eventual closure of the plant two years later after a series of redundancies and
retrenchment had failed to improve the cashflow. The table below summarises the coherence that
the self and social identities now had, in both companies, with the formal roles that were being
used.

14
Table 3 Identities and Roles in CarCo and TankerCo After the Change

Self Identity (quotes from Social Identity (quotes from Formal Roles (from
the shopfloor) management)
CarCo “at least I know where I
Shopfloor stand again now…back to
how it was really”
“in some ways it’s made us
more solid… they know
what we are capable of if
they mess with us”
“I just want to do my job
and go home”
TankerCo “I think about myself
Shopfloor differently now….I get to
use my brain and that gives
you self-respect”
“we’re a lot sharper…
more modern… and, I
suppose, more valuable,
now”
observation notes)
“they’re completely
instrumental….short-sighted
fools”
“only interested in getting
paid for turning up…. Not in
the long term future of the
factory”
“it’s 1970s British Leyland
down there”
“the workers are more
proactive and take on more
of what [management] used
to do”
“it’s like having a different
set of employees… more
motivated and engaged”
“the old suggestion
box is sat there upside
down - a testament to
the failure of the
scheme”
“the formal roles are
pretty much the same
as they were. No more
quality meetings or
improvement notices”
“the management now
delegate much of the
work to the team
leader and the team….
They in turn take more
responsibility to come
up with ideas and
implement them”

CONCLUSIONS

There are many points that could be taken from the case, but I want to focus especially on four key
areas with regard to identity, trust and anxiety. First, is the compatibility of the insecure and the
secure approaches to identity. In both factories we witnessed the disrupting effect of a highly
personal and normative form of discursive change. In both factories it was unsettling and
disruptive at a fundamental level. That lack of knowing and trust during periods of identity change
appears to cause what Giddens terms angst and ontological insecurity. This caused employees,
especially in CarCo to suffer from stress, go off sick and leave the company. A methodology that
took a snapshot view of each company could have concluded that identities were either secure or
insecure. A coherent analysis must therefore take account, not only of context, but also of time.

Second, is the role of both reflexive and institutionalised trust in mediating the role of discursive
change. Whilst several recent analyses have made claims that discourses are not colonising or
totalising, few have theorised what prevents this occurring. Here we found that historically
embedded forms of trust and a reflexive calculation of ‘what might happen’ enabled individuals to
take steps to protect their identities, where necessary, through resistance. Trust and reflexivity,
then, provide a point of connection between the self and discourse, neither processes are
essentialised, the property of individuals, nor are they constructed entirely through discourse.

15
Relating to the first and second points is a third. The cases show that there is significant difference
between self identity, what employees perceive themselves to be, and social identity which is based
upon the perceptions of other groups. Such a statement is not new (Watson 2008; Ashforth and
Mael 1989), but in combination with the insights on trust and reflexivity it enables a better
understanding of how discourse and identity are related (Figure 2).

Figure 2 An Amended Model of Identity, Trust and Reflexivity

SELF SOCIETY

Reflexivity

A
C
Ontological Self T Social Discourses
Insecurity Identity I Identity Roles
O
N
Trust

In the diagram we note several differences to the ‘strong’ constructivist depiction of identity
subsumed within discourse. First, the self is, in part, non-discursive with self-identity more
influenced by the self than by discourse. As we saw in the cases, when discourses changed,
changes to the workers perceptions of themselves did not automatically follow but were mediated
by trust and reflexivity. Second then, trust and reflexivity mediate the influence of discourse on
self identity. Third, social identity is more in the realm of discourse than the self: the roles, rules
and systems that reproduced the discourses of empowerment, quality and participation were
primarily social rather than agential. Fourth, in both cases, insecurity seemed to arise when self-
identities and social identities were inconsistent: when roles, systems and managerial discourse
required one form of identity but workers felt they were something else entirely. Congruence
between self- and social-identity only seemed to occur when workers trusted those in power and
had reflexively considered and accepted their message. Finally, the arrows indicated that the
process is dynamic and continuous. The actions that occur in day to day activity, such as the
‘bollocking’ that Pete gave, are continuously reflected upon and build a embedded form of trust
that workers draw upon engaging in identity work.

The model is not meant to depict ‘identity’ in totality, simply those features that seemed important
in these cases and thus requires further research to understand its applicability in other settings.
Yet, it helps explain resistance to managerial discourses and helps explain why a ‘willingness to be
vulnerable’ is necessary to achieve identity change in organisations. In doing so, the paper draws
on aspects from social identity theory and discourse theory to help understand how identities can
be either fragmented or unified depending on the social context.

16
REFERENCES
Ackroyd, S. and Fleetwood, S. (2004) Critical realist applications in Organisation and
Management. London: Routledge.
Alvesson, Matts, and Hugh Willmott (2003) Studying Management Critically. Sage.
Alvesson, Matts, and Hugh Willmott (2002) ‘Identity regulation as organizational control –
producing the appropriate individual’, Journal of Management Studies 39/5: 619 – 644.
Archer, M. (2000) Being human: the problem of agency, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Ashforth, B. and Mael, F. (1989) Social Identity Theory and the Organization The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 20-39.
Bergstrom, A and Knights, D. (2006). Organizational discourse and subjectivity: Subjectification
during processes of recruitment. HUMAN RELATIONS, 59(3), 351-377.
Burawoy, Michael (1979) Manufacturing consent: changes in the labor process under monopoly
capitalism. Chicago: Chicago Press.
Cavendish, R. (1982) Women On the Line. London: Routledge Kegan & Paul
Chua, R., Ingram, P. and Morris, M. (2008) From the Head and the Heart: Locating Cognition- and
Affect-Based Trust in Managers’ Professional Networks, Academy of Management Journal, 51 (3):
436-452.
Collinson, David (1992) Managing the shopfloor: subjectivity, masculinity and workplace culture,
Berlin: De Gruyter.
Collinson, David (2003) ‘Identities and insecurities: selves at work’, Organization 10/3: 527-547.
Delbridge Rick (1998) Life on the line in contemporary manufacturing. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Down, S. and Reveley, J. (2009) 'Between narration and interaction: Situating first-line supervisor
identity work'. Human Relations, 62(3)
Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44: 350–383.
Flynn, & FJ. (2005). Identity orientations and forms of social exchange in organizations. Academy
of Management Review, 30(4), 737-750.
Garrahan and Stewart (1993) The Nissan enigma: flexibility at work in a local economy. London:
Mansell.
Grote, G;, R., & S. (2009). Careers and identity in flexible working: Do flexible identities fare
better? Human Relations, 62(2), 219-244.
Gergen, Kenneth J. (199) The saturated self: dilemmas of identity in contemporary life . New York:
Basic Books.
Giddens, Anthony (1990) The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, Anthony (1991) Modernity and self-identity. Cambridge: Polity Press

17
Holmer-Nadesan, M. (1996) ‘Organizational identity and space of action’ Organization Studies,
17/1: 49-81.
Hope, Chris and Hendry, John (1995) ‘Change and culture in organisations’, Human Resource
Management Journal, 5/4: 61-73.
Jackson, S. E., & Dutton, J. E. 1988. Discerning threat and opportunities. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 33: 370–387.
Janowicz-Panjaitan, M., and N.G. Noorderhaven, (2009) Trust, calculation and interorganizational
learning of tacit knowledge: An organizational roles perspective. Organization Studies 30, 1021-
1044.
Knights, David (1997) 'Organisation theory in the age of deconstruction'. Organization Studies
18/1: 1-19.
Lennox Terrion, J., Ashforth, B.E. (2002), "From ‘I’ to ‘we’: the role of putdown humor and
identity in the development of a temporary group", Human Relations, Vol. 55 No.1, pp.55.

Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2008) Intensive Remedial Identity Work: Responses to Workplace Bullying

Trauma and Stigmatization, Organization 2008; 15; 97.
Maguire, S. & Phillips, N., 2008, “‘Citibankers’ at Citigroup: A Study of the Loss of Institutional
Trust after a Merger”, Journal of Management Studies, 45(2): 372-401.
McCabe, D., Knights, D., Kerfoot, D., Morgan, G. and Willmott, H. (1998) Making Sense of
“Quality?” — Toward a Review and Critique of Quality Initiatives in Financial Services, Human
Relations, 51(3).
Musson, G and Dubberly, J. (2007). Change, change or be exchanged: The discourse of
participation and the manufacture of identity. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 143-164.
O’Mahoney, J. and Vincent, S. (2010) Obfusticating Ontology: an immanent critique of post-
structuralist accounts of identity in organisation studies. Paper presented at ESRC Seminar Series,
‘Realising the Self’, Cardiff Business School, 25th March.
Organ, Dennis (1988) Organizational Citizenship Behavior: the good soldier syndrome. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Sennett, Richard (1998) The Corrosion of Character: The Transformation of Work in Modern
Capitalism, London: Norton.
Sewell, G. and Barry W. (1992) ‘Someone to watch over me’: surveillance, discipline and the just-
in-time labour process’, Sociology 26/2: 271-289.
Thomas, R. and Davies, A. (2005). Theorizing the micro-politics of resistance: New public
management and managerial identities in the UK public services. Organization Studies, 26(5), 683-
706.
Thompson, Paul. and McHugh, M. (1995) Work Organisations. London: MacMillan.
Thompson, P. and Warhurst C. (1998) Workplaces of the Future. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Townley, B. (1994) Reframing Human Resource Management: Power, ethics and the subject at
work. London: Sage.
Van Maanen, J. (1988) Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. University of Chicago Press:
Chicago.

18
Watson, T. (2008) Managing Identity: Identity Work, Personal Predicaments and Structural
Circumstances, Organization 2008; 15; 121.

Watson, Lawrence and Watson-Franke, M-B. (1985) Interpreting Life Histories. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University Press.

White, J. B., Tynan, R., Galinsky, A. D., & Thompson, L. 2004. Face-threat sensitivity in
negotiation: Roadblock to agreement and joint gain. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 94: 102–124
Willmott H (2000) Death. So what? Sociology, sequestration and emancipation. The Sociological
Review 48(4): 649-665.
Xu, Q. (2000) On the Way to Knowledge: Making a Discourse at Quality, Organization, Vol. 7,
No. 3, 427-453
Ybema, S. Keenoy, T. Oswick, C. Beverungen, A. Ellis, N. and Sabelis, I. (2009) ‘Articulating
identities’, Human Relations 62(3) 299-322.

19