Organizational behaviour as emotion
management
Willem Mastenbroek
Holland Consulting Group, Amsterdam
Department of Economics, Free University, Amsterdam
(Working paper, published in 2000)
The study of management and organization proves rathers susceptible to fads and fashions. This applies also to the topic of organizational behaviour. Theory and practice bring us many promising concepts and skills: Neurolinguistic programming, coaching, transactional analysis, intuitive management, one-minute management, meditation, the return of the authoritarian manager, self managing teams, authentic self presentation.
I will apply a long-term perspective in an effort to look through all these trends and promising ideas. Such a perspective helps clarify the most essential developments. As we will see, the handling of emotions is of critical importance. It is odd that in the literature on organizational behaviour emotions hardly play a role. Fineman (1996) observes that emotions and feelings have disappeared from the mainstream textbooks. He provides numerous reasons why more attention should be paid to emotions. He also presents an overview of possible approaches. The historical process approach is not mentioned.
This paper will apply this approach. In doing so I am building on the work of Norbert Elias. Elias demonstrates how manners develop in connection with social changes from the Middle Ages on. One characteristic of this development is the increasing control and curbing of emotions. Elias (1982) and especially Wouters (1990) also demand our attention for the more recent development of informalization: the so-called controlled decontrolling of emotions.
Organizational behaviour is not an explicit area of study for Elias and Wouters. This contribution focuses on the development of this behaviour. We will start with the behaviour in meetings of rulers and authorities in the Middle Ages. Subsequently we will address more specifically behaviour in modern organizations. We will see how control and discipline take shape. At the same time, but less conspicuous, the process of informalization also turns out to be present.
back to top
Historical perspective
Struggling with violence
The Dutch historian Huizinga (1924) writes about the more ferocious and rather unpredictable shifts of behaviour in the medieval Europe. There undoubtedly were norms and agreements to regulate mutual interaction, but "time after time the fierce roughness breaks through the embellished forms".
"At the coronation banquet of Charles VI, in 1380, the Duke of Burgundy seeks, by force, to take the place to which he is entitled, as doyen of the peers, between the king and the Duke of Anjou. Already the train of the Duke begins to thrust aside their opponents; threatening cries arise, a scuffle is breaking out when the king prevents it, by doing justice to the claims of the Duke of Burgundy" (Huizinga, 1924, p. 38, 39).
According to an observer at the peace conference at Atrecht in 1435, the participants "throw themselves on the ground, sobbing and groaning". The relatively refined life at the court is characterized as "continual noise and disorder, swearing and quarrels, jealousies and injuries, in short, the court is an abyss of sins, the gate of hell". A ferocious fight can erupt at any time over anything, whether it be a game of chess or a ceremonial funeral.
The 10th of September 1419, the crown prince of France - later king Charles VII - and John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, met on a bridge across the river Yonne, built specifically for this meeting. In the middle an iron fence with bars as thick as arms was built across the entire width of the bridge. The fence had a small gate that could be locked and opened from both sides, so that one could only pass through if both parties agreed. During the talks on the bridge, the Duke, either at the advice of the crown prince, or on his own initiative, opened the door of the gate. It was also opened at the other side. As soon as John and his three men came through the door, they were slain (Schneider, 1977, pp. 15-17).
Self-discipline and the curbing of emotions and drives were less constant and even in those days. Plans and promises were easily overruled by the emotions of the moment. There was no trust that the other side would have enough self-control, just as there was no trust that people would refrain from deception, assassination or ambush, in spite of all the pledges and precautions. This wild, uncontrolled behaviour is gradually tempered over the course of the following centuries. Two developments stand out.
- Increasing discipline: Stricter suppression of urges; increased pressure to take the other into account; more stringent behavioural codes in more and more areas.
- Informalization: Less rigid, more variety in conduct, more pleasing expression of communication, more relaxed and natural behaviour.
These developments are also accompanied by considerable differences in pace, often by counter-movements towards barbarism, and also with great local differences, but the overall trend is unmistakable.
We will briefly describe the rules of conduct as they developed in the centres of power and commerce. Subsequently we will see that these two developments are still current in modern organizations today.
The internalization of the iron fence
Increased mutual dependencies make it more advantageous to do business with each other without deceit or violence, and without complicated constructions such as special bridges and iron gates. Stable coalitions provide an advantage in mutual competition. It took rulers and administrators centuries to develop these abilities. Elias (1982) describes how the growing political and economic interdependencies in certain parts of Europe forced people into different types of behaviour. This was a laborious process because fiery emotions cut through everything. Rivalry between states and cities was intense. Administrators were entangled in the game of fast-changing coalitions and intrigue. This required specific behaviour and an emotional habitus know in those days as Virtù. In his standard text on the evolution of diplomacy Nicolson concisely characterizes this mentality:
"Knowing their existence to be precarious, these despots and oligarchs aimed at immediate results only; they had no idea at all of the value of long-term policies or of the gradual creation of confidence. To them the art of negotiation became a game of hazard for high immediate stakes; it was conducted in an atmosphere of excitement, and with that combination of cunning, recklessness and ruthlessness which they lauded as Virtù" (Nicolson, 1977, p. 31).
To my knowledge, the earliest publication in Europe to propagate other rules of conduct among authorities is a treatise by Bernard du Rosier (1404-1475), also known in his days by the more commonly used Latin name Bernardus de Rosergio. At age eighteen Bernard du Rosier entered the monastery as a member of the Augustinian order. His treatise 'Ambaxiator Brevilogus' was written at the court of the King of Castile. Central to the text is 'equanimitas' - even-temperedness. What does it refer to? Well, as suggested in the term, it refers to keeping emotions under control continuously. Two examples:
"... although offended, surmount these injuries of the heart and rise up to the most exalted attitude ... suppress emotions and show oneself in command" (Rosier, chapter 15, p 15, 16).
"Let outrage yield to friendliness, impetuosity to wisdom, rigidity to adaptability and curtness to approachability. Remain distinguished and unmoved to those whose responses are less pleasant or negative, ........." (Rosier, chapter 20, p 20).
Rosier keeps on repeating the necessity to temper and keep control over all kinds of apparently normal and powerful affects. For example:
- being inflated with supercilious, conceited arrogance
- tyrannical behaviour, clinging to greed
- brazen and presumptuous forcing one's own way
- mocking religious matters
- committing foul acts, being choleric or malicious
- pursuing fame based on vanities. (Rosier, chapter 2, p. 5)
Recent advice for administrators and managers lacks such colourful references to untamed behaviour. In our days containment of these strivings is obviously more matter-of-course. Rosier's admonitions remind us to the apparently very different pattern of social interaction in medieval times.
"The people could see their fate and that of the world only as an endless succession of evils. Bad government, exactions, the cupidity and violence of the great, wars and brigandage, scarcity, misery and pestilence - to this is contemporary history nearly reduced in the eyes of the people. The feeling of general insecurity which was caused by the chronic form wars were apt to take, by the constant menace of the dangerous clashes, by the mistrust of justice, was further aggravated by the obsession with the coming end of the world, and by the fear of hell, of sorcerers and of devils. The background of all life in the world seems black. Everywhere the flames of hatred arise and injustice reigns. Satan covers a gloomy earth with his sombre wings." (Huizinga, 1924, p.21)
"From the thirteenth century onward inveterate party quarrels arise in nearly all countries: first in Italy, then in France, the Netherlands, Germany and England." "Racial pride, thirst for vengeance, fidelity, are their primary and direct motives." (Huizinga, 1924, p.13)
During meetings, things were confused and turbulent. There was no agenda, no procedures, both of which are now so natural.
"The assembly has only one voice, one collective voice. This does not openly express approval or condemnation; nor is it considered an indication of how the majority would vote in case of a poll; but it is the only, indivisible expression of will of the assembly. Sometimes it is preceded by discussions, disputes, or fights. The case may be that a small group of influential persons, or even one single man, has actually fixed the matter; but only through acclamation can the decision be realized, the choice executed. He who disagrees stays away, is silent or is shouted down and more than once it happens that the consonance, which rises up from the assembly, is formed by the loudest, not the majority of voices". (I.H. Gosses, 1946, p.36)
However, despite of periods of stagnation and barbarization, behaviour at the European courts gradually became more restrained and refined (Elias, 1969). Also, next to the the courtly military-aristocratic elites, merchant and artisan guilds emerged which tried to regulate the mutual interaction. In the guild regulations from the 15th and 16th centuries we find the precursors of our current meeting procedures. The bakers' apprentices guild's register of 1404 states: "Someone who uses violence, spills beer or utters offensive language, will be fined ...". (Van Vree, 1994, p.298).
These regulations describe in detail especially that which is not allowed: swearing, breaking glassware, delivering blows, getting smashed, attacking someone with knife drawn. Furthermore, one must be on time and wear decent clothing. The fines imposed to enforce this behaviour were considerable. In 1457 the guilds-dominated town council of Utrecht even issued a regulation that addressing other issues than those on the agenda during a meeting was punishable by death (Van Vree 1994, p.58).
It would take a long time before the ideal of Rosier's 'equanimitas' became generally accepted. Stagnation and movements towards barbarization turn out to be as normal as continued civilization. For five centuries an endless stream of regulations, decrees and orders were required to remember people to these basic behavioural rules. At the same time there are additional developments: (1) Tactical refinement. Graciàn (1674) is the outstanding author in addrressing this point. (2) Informal and natural behaviour. Castiglione (1528) advocates more relaxed and unaffected behaviour towards more flexible and pleasing conduct.
More subtlety
Gracián lived in 17th century Spain. In 1646 his 'Oráculo manual y arte de prudencia' was published. 'Prudencia' entails more than equanimitas. Something is added in terms of 'finesse'. Tactical refinement and cloaking issues in subtlety become important qualities. Graciàn was a priest, he moved in courtly circles and had easy access to the elites of his time. His advice not only recommends specific rules of conduct; it is aimed at developing a position of power:
- The best form of power is controlling your emotions, which frees us from base impulses
- Keep people unsure and in suspense. It is ungraceful and serves no purpose whatsoever to be completely open.
- It is of major importance to be considered amiable, never lose your temper, not show off.
- Offer - limited - help frequently.
- Do sympathetic things yourself, leave unpleasant things to others.
- The best strategy is to hide everything that is considered strategy.
Graciàn's advice proved very popular, a must for those who wanted to increase their chances of success. During the 17th and 18th centuries the book is reprinted twenty times in France alone. Schopenhauer translated it into German in 1862. He propagated the book as an absolute masterpiece.
The release of the tamed
In Graciàn's work we observe, in addition to discipline and control, attention for pleasant demeanour and courteous conduct. This behaviour is already described in a refined form in the Italian city-states in the early 16th century. Discipline and courtly manners are in high regard, but the true courtier behaves in an unaffected, flexible and natural manner. This ideal of free and easy conduct is described by Baldassar Castiglione and first published in 1528.
"I have found a general rule that applies more than any other to all that people do and say, namely that one should steer clear to the best of one's ability of one very steep and dangerous cliff, which is affectation, and display in everything a certain casualness." (Castiglione, 1991, p. 54)
Castiglione advocates a natural ease but the decontrolling of formality proves difficult. The balance between formality and informality requires a delicate touch.
"That is why I feel that casualness, which if taken too far, as when someone lets his cloak slip off, degenerates into artificial carelessness, is no lesser fault than dignity, also in itself praiseworthy, which goes so far that someone keeps his head motionless for fear of getting his hair tangled." (Castiglione, 1991, p. 55)
The book originated in a period of relative safety and growing interdependencies between the Italian city-states. When elimination struggles and increasing rivalries took over again the conduct described in the book, became more an ideal than reality. Self-insight, an understanding of the effects of one's behaviour and a more subtle approach of other people are emphasized in this book. It describes forms of refined behaviour that can be an inspiration even today: Types of humor, the role and use of irony, verbal dexterity. The spontaneous quick-wittedness required demands considerable emotional flexibility! This book proves to have enormous appeal. In Italy alone more than 40 reprints followed in the 16th century. In 1534 a Spanish translation appeared, in 1537 a French version. Later on the work reached its peak in terms of popularity in England, where it first appeared in 1561 and was reprinted into the 18th century more than 20 times. A Dutch translation was published in 1662.
Less confrontation and increasing discipline
Rosier, Gracián and Castiglione wrote for the elites of their day; knights and nobles who fought for status and prestige at the ruler's court. Their work was popular among ever increasing segments of the population. Its dissemination took centuries, gradually but stubbornly1). Elias writes:
"Forced to live together in a new way, people become more sensitive to what inspires others. Although not in leaps, the behavioural code gradually becomes more strict, the mutual urge of people to take each other into account grows. In comparison with the preceding stage a more differentiated sense of what one should do or avoid so as not to hurt or irritate others develops, and, linked with the new balance of power, the nature of the social commandment not to give offense becomes more stringent." (Elias, 1982, p. 114).
Our current meeting and negotiating behaviour receives a next important impetus from the emergence of parliamentarianism in the various European states. More specific rules of conduct developed which then spread across more and more groups and administrative bodies in society.
Control of aggressive impulses - at first the immediate physical attack, later on verbal violence - is always a main theme: "Combat the opponent's words, not the opponent personally. Do not accuse the antagonist of evil intentions, beware of emerging resentments and personal feelings of hate, avoid vehement terms, watch out for offensive language."
This determines the outline of contemporary behavioural norms. These are codes that are still very much valid. Starting from the intersections of politics, production and commerce, more and more people in our societies have adopted them.
Early capitalism and increasing discipline
In our first industrial organizations only the company-owners and their immediate environment had been part of the development described above. The workers had to be coerced to toe the line through rules that closely resemble those in the 15th century guild registers. In his description of the emergence of the factory regime in the 19th century, Van Iterson (1992, p.82) wrote:
"The problems for the manufacturers were first of all problems of discipline and coordination. Factory regimes are based on a tangled combination of i) coercion (from the side of the manufacturers) and ii) willingness or motivation (on the workers' part)."
The discipline which seems so natural to us now, was not in evidence then:
"Bringing together men, women and children in one space implied the danger that people would get in each other's way, that arguments could erupt, sexual relations engaged in, or that they would 'overindulge' in other activities which were considered debauched (drinking) or idle (games).
Labourers also had to learn to control their language: subversive and obscene utterances also posed a threat to orderly labour and they were fined heavily. The same dangers also existed outside the factory, especially in combination with alcohol consumption. So conformance with the industrial regime was indirectly threatened by `corruption of the morals' in their free time." (Van Iterson, 1992, p. 83-84)
This can be illustrated by the case of the earthenware industry of Josiah Wedgwood (1730-1790), a liberal reformer in public affairs and a patriarchical factory owner in eighteenth century England. During his lifetime he transformed a local pottery, with a dozen men at work, into an international firm .
When he started his own firm, called Etruria (Staffordshire), he recruited from his personal network of family and friends two partners with whom he formed a team in which the functions of technique and product innovation, marketing and management of two separate factories, one for useful ware and one for ornamental ware, were integrated. How did Wedgwood find a balance between discipline and motivation?
Wedgwood had two disciplinary adages: 'To make Artists ...(of)... mere Men' and second to 'make such machines of Men as cannot err'.
First he concentrated all workers in one general workplace and held to his original 'scheme of keeping each workshop separate'. They were not allowed to wander around as they were used to doing in the traditional workplaces. At the same time the work was original in such a way that there was a smooth progression from the ware being painted, to being entered into the books to being stored'. (McKendrick, 1961, p. 32) By doing so he heightened the interdependence of his workers and at the same time gave them some task autonomy in separate places.
But the traditional 'careless habits of the older generations' presented an ongoing problem in the development of high-quality production for the new markets. Wedgwood had to fight a long local tradition of 'customs in common', in particular the 'stoppages for Wakes', (a local annual feast lasting several days and nights which were spent eating and drinking intemperately and 'fornicating'), but he also had to combat 'waste', 'idleness', 'the bane of drinking', 'working by the rule of thumb', 'inefficiency', 'arbitrariness', 'irregularity', (McKendrick, 1961, p. 38).
His own personal control over his men was effective enough. But he was 'forced with increasing frequency to leave them 'without any head to look after them' (McKendrick, 1961, p. 39). There was no tradition of supervision in his factory in his absence. For instance when he put an older worker in charge, it turned out that this man lacked authority, due to his familiarity with colleagues. The resulting informality 'lapsed too easily to irregularity'. An example Wedgwood described to Bentley:
" Daniel does pretty well at work and I am here every day, but he often leaves the work and drinks two or three days together, and has no taste to direct at any time" (McKendrick, 1961, p. 39).
The problem was not only the absence of Wedgwood himself, it was also the growing complexity (more workers, more tasks, all kinds of interdependencies). Wedgwood wrote to Bentley comparing the small-scale pottery with his own firm:
"To keep 150 hands of various professions and more various tempers and dispositions, in tolerable order was a more difficult task " (McKendrick, 1961, p. 39).
Wedgwood solved his problem by introducing functions with responsibility to 'one steady man' for each process - the 'Clerk of the Manufactory', the 'Clerk of Weights and Measures', the 'Porter and General Inspectors' - to 'look after the men and wages'. For all task and supervising functions he formalized his disciplinary rules by writing them down in the Potters Instructions (1780) and in the 'Common Place Book'. Some examples of external rules and regulations and sanctions for enhancing and steering the regulation of self control:
"Any person seen throwing within the yard of this manufactory forfits 2s.6d,..", "any workman strikeing or otherwise abuseing an overlooker to lose his or there place..", any workman conveying Ale or Licquor into the manufactory in working hours forfits 2s...", "any person playing at fives against any of the walls where there are windows forfits 2s.." (McKendrick, 1961, p. 45).
McKendrick summarizes the 'instructions and regulations':
"They cover every aspect of factory discipline. Containing a remarkably detailed knowledge of every workshop and every process, the Instructions recognize all the minor techniques, the tricks and petty evasions of the idle workman". In this way Wedgwood armed his overseers with the experience, his knowledge of prevalent faults and his remedies. They also provided clear instructions on 'how to show marks of approbation' to the skilful and the punctual and how 'to reprimand those more slovenly and careless'. (McKendrick, 1961, p. 40).
Wedgwood lacked trained, specialized painters and modellers. So it was not easy 'to make Artists ...(of)...mere men', just as it was not possible 'to make such machines of Men as cannot err'. He contracted well-known artists from 'outside'. But these artists disappointed him. They had a disrupting influence on factory discipline: they proved too lofty for the factory system or were selling industrial secrets or worked not hard enough and were idle (McKendrick, 1961, p. 36). Wedgwood separated their activities from the rest of the factory labourers and contracted them for buying and/or commissioning their designs by piece. In that way the artists, in fact, 'submitted to a discipline hardly less stringent than the common workmen'. (McKendrick, 1961, p. 37).
The other side of this sometimes harsh regime was that Wedgwood offered his workers housing and care for the sick. That was not only out of economical reckoning. He felt a moral obligation. He wanted to improve his workmen's lot. He was concerned with civilizing their behaviour and educating them to discipline and self-respect. 'Liberal but unsophisticated in his ideals, he felt that his workmen should be disciplined for their own good and offered security in return for obedience' (McKendrick, 1961, p. 50).
The remarks of Van Iterson (1992, p. 82) that early factory regimes are based on a tangled combination of coercion (from the side of the entrepreneur) and willingness (on the workers part) are illustrated by these examples.
Taylor, the founder of scientific organizational design (1856-1915), made a contribution to organizational science that fits well into this perspective His methods were largely intended to impose discipline on the activities of subordinates, something which was sorely needed as far as Taylor was concerned. He gave many descriptions of how employees managed to restrict production by 'soldiering or loafing'. (Taylor, 1947, pp. 19-24).
He repeatedly stated that his 'scientific method', using individual training, separation, special reward systems and other measures, could gradually overcome these tendencies (Taylor, 1947, pp. 32, 34, 69, 72-74). Taylor vividly described his experiences as a foreman in a steelworks:
"No one who has not had this experience can have an idea of the bitterness which is gradually developed in such a struggle .... And there are few foremen indeed who were able to stand up against the combined pressure of all the men in the shop .... If the writer had been one of the workmen, and had lived where they lived, they would have brought such social pressure to bear upon him that it would have been impossible to have stood out against them." (Taylor, 1947, pp. 50-51).
From these tumultuous experiences Taylor distilled his, as he called it, 'scientific management' (Taylor, 1947, pp. 52-53). His experiences provide a good impression of how personal power can be replaced by more 'neutral' mechanisms. Despite the strong resistance Taylor encountered, his methods were introduced on a large scale. This was possible because of the much greater power of management. At the same time management was forced to exploit this power surplus due to the fierce competition with other companies. Taylor's own intentions were entirely different. He believed that the interests of employers and workers were essentially the same. 'The great mental revolution which occurs under scientific management' would do away with contention and antagonism and replace them with 'friendly co-operation and mutual helpfulness'. Maybe we can see this idealistic dream as a precursor of the more recent images of the learning organization, empowerment and shared values.
back to top
Recent developments
Psychological survival
The historical perspective demonstrates that open communication and good cooperation are actually deceptively simple catchphrases. Easy to preach! Who could possibly in all conscience oppose them? Nobody of course, but people usually have other things on their minds. In earlier times this was even more clearly the case. The obviously rough forms of treating one's fellow man on the workfloor and in society produced many tensions and problems. Back then the emphasis was more on physical survival. Now the problems are more of a social and psychological nature. Changes in contacts and work relations are accepted with difficulty and prove controversial every time. But change does take place. From our historical distance we recognize a clear development of the codes of conducts. The essence of the development described earlier consists of two types of changes: Increasing discipline and informalization. So far the focus was mainly on discipline. Rare references to pleasant conduct and especially Castiglione's argument in favour of unaffected, relaxed behaviour show something of the second trend. This second movement has been gaining momentum in more recent times. It briefly seemed as if this was accompanied by a certain lapse in discipline. This proves not to be the case. The codes regarding manners, correct dress, etc. are still in full development.
Different dependencies, different behaviour
The image of the command and control pyramid no longer suits modern organization design. Organizations are turning more and more into networks of units. These units have their own relative autonomy, while at the same time remaining linked to each other. Horizontal exchange and coordination in particular demand that each unit is or becomes an active network-player. Within units we see a repetition of this theme: teams can only be effective when they are also responsible for the organizational unit. Individuals can only be prominent when they feel responsible for the team they are part of.
These changes require specific social skills from the participants: The combination of private initiative, wanting to score, show results, as well as activating smooth horizontal relations in which integrative potential is developed and new combinations can be entered into. Constructive and creative negotiating and being able to function well in a team then become indispensable personal skills. In short, people are increasingly expected to have the ability to cooperate smoothly ànd show results. This not only characterizes relationships between individuals. Relations between teams, between departments and company units are also characterized by these abilities. More and more we function in these types of networks. More and more managers and workers have to adjust their behaviour to these requirements. Across the hierarchy behaviour having to do with superiority is accepted less. There is an increased sensitivity to dominant attitude, behaviour and aura. All kinds of privileges and hierarchical symbols are becoming controversial, for example: separate canteens, separate bathrooms, separate parking spaces. In addition, a different personal demeanor is necessary. The fact that expressions of power differences are becoming less ostentatious does not imply that the hierarchy has lost all importance. On the contrary, the exercise of authority and influence changes in nature but is certainly not diminishing. There is, however, a development that demands more horizontal and open communication. This development is not limited to the bosses. It is not just the display of superiority that evokes resistance. Behaviour related to subordination is also valued differently. Subservient, docile behaviour is valued less positively. We want energetic workers, personalities, people with ideas and initiative.
Interaction is more horizontal. The rigid and continuous expression of superiority and obedience, as was common in the hierarchy of earlier times, is less and less acceptable. There is a trend towards more informal and relaxed behaviour. Standards of conduct leave more room for assertiveness and spontaneous affects. Note, however, that this is a trend. Considerable differences between the countries in the West remain.2) But the long-term development is similar in all countries.
Controlled decontrolling
The changes discussed above are part of a much broader development. This more comprehensive development shows a curious combination of both increased control ànd increased ease in conduct. The former virtues of 'respectable', 'proper', 'polite' and 'modest' behaviour are changing. They are seen more and more as dull, rigid and awkward.
Rosier and the first guild regulations show the struggle we have gone through to discipline our more spontaneous impulses and to restrain "the fierce roughness breaking through its embellished forms". At present a different struggle is going on. Demonstrating robust confidence, remaining calm, tactically steering others in a quiet tone is no longer the challenge. Any dimwit can do those things, so to speak. Furthermore this behaviour will cause more and more problems given today's power and dependency relations. Expressing control and trying to cultivate dominance in a clever way are becoming primitive behaviour in modern organizations. That is not where the challenge lies. Just as there is no longer anything special about using knife and fork.
Forms of communication between people are related to changing relations of power and dependency. The interdependency networks existing today force us to decrease patterned behaviour and increase more informal manners. One might speak of being forced into the informal. Paradoxically this more informal behaviour makes higher demands on our control than the more standardized and patterned behaviours which were once linked with the hierarchy. It presupposes such a degree of smooth and natural self-control, that more spontaneous and direct behaviour becomes possible without the risk of losing all restraints or clamming up.
This applies to many areas of serial interaction. Elias describes the very conventional ritual which regulated relationships between men and women in the early twentieth century. This ceremonial has lost its function of guidance and external constraint. Men and women now are freed from this rituals.
"At first glance it may perhaps appear to be paradoxical that this informalization process, this emancipation from the external constraint of a preordained social ritual, makes higher demands on the self-constraint apparatus of each individual participant. It requires the partners to test themselves and each other in their dealings with each other, and in so doing they can rely on nothing and nobody except themselves, their own judgement and their own feelings." (Elias, 1996, p. 37)
So, no fixed ritual to provide security; the burden of shaping life together lies on the shoulders of the individuals concerned. This demands a more complicated management of affect and behaviour. Elias quotes Time Magazine when describing the resulting insecurity.
"A man seated on the downtown bus might endure agonies of self-examination before offering his seat to a woman. The male has to learn to size up the female by age, education and possibly ferocity of feminism before opening a door for her: would the courtesy offend her? It makes for ambiguity: if a man studiously refuses to open a door for a women, is he sexually liberated? Or just an ill-bred slob?" (Elias, 1996, p. 37)
This informalization brings with it stronger demands on one's own judgement and responsibility; not a clinging to existing norms but the ability to do what makes the situation more comfortable for those involved becomes more and more the critical competence.
This shift is pointed out in columns in management journals. Let me give some examples from Dutch management journals (Intermagazine, May 1991) about the business lunch. Dyed-in-the-wool businessmen give the following advice about the best ways to behave:
- an easy attitude
- do not study the wine list; the 'wine act' is passé
- no complicated performance with credit cards
- neutral behaviour is a beginner's posture
- more personality equals a stronger position of power.
The last point refers to more open and direct behaviour: Dare to be yourself, show natural and unaffected conduct. All kinds of formal rules are becoming controversial, because: "it is better to overstep a minor rule than to be unnatural and uncomfortable. For only if you are comfortable, you will be able to put other persons at ease, and in the end, that's what it is all about".
So, are we going to have an undisciplined mess? Not at all, for the development towards stronger discipline and stricter standards also continues. This development may be less visible perhaps. But beware:
- Never, ever come into a place panting. Better to walk in cool and collected and be ten minutes late, than being on time and out of breath. Panting indicates: this man does not have his affairs under control.
- Whatever you do, don't take too many notes. Writing a lot indicates: this man is afraid he'll forget things. Or: this man has no authority, he has to report back in detail.
- Watch for the man whose eyes wander to an attractive secretary during important meetings, he's vulnerable".
This is according to a column on the dos and don'ts of organizational behaviour (Intermagazine, November 1988). Detailed, and actually quite sharp rules of conduct and at the same time relaxed and informal behaviour, is that combination possible? Apparently it is! We see here a being forced into the informal, including (albeit in a different way than in the past) various 'small' showdowns between people to demonstrate that they understand, that they belong.
What does this mean for organizational behaviour? It means that we will learn to handle more and more smoothly apparently conflicting elements in our relationships: flexible ànd tenacious, informal relationships ànd fighting spirit, room for emotions ànd discipline, holding on to personal interests ànd the willingness to work it out together.
This type of behaviour is in line with relational patterns of strong mutual dependency. It is linked with dense networks in which new combinations and ready agreements, based on trust, provide advantages. Being able to create trust and test reliablity quickly is important. Continuity in the relationship, the importance of a solid reputation and credibility force one in the direction of trustworthy behaviour. The final acid test then becomes: how comfortable is the other person, is he playing tricks, is there a hidden agenda, does he play games, am I at ease. Informal, direct and easy behaviour will answer these questions more quickly. Formal, controlled, correct, distant, dominant or merely nice behaviour becomes more of a handicap. At least it provides food for thought, not to say clues for suspicion.
These changes develop in front of our eyes and involve everybody. On a conceptual level it concerns a process towards a more flexible regulation of emotions and more behavioural variation between giving in and dominating. People learn to cultivate their mutual interdependency while articulating their opinions and interests. The tension balance between personal preferences and interdependency becomes stronger. Increasing discipline and informalization are the mechanisms which make this possible in human interaction. Direct and open behaviour is appreciated, not dominant or rough, but tactful. Not so tactful, however, that it comes across as cautious or even shy. Other expressions of the same tension balance are:
- assertive ànd friendly
- tenacious ànd flexible
- self-assured ànd empathic
Gradually we have reached the stage where we can let go, both in theory and in practice, of the awkward and rigid solutions for one of these poles. The ability to negotiate exemplifies this. Tenacity with regard to personal interests is combined with flexibly searching for solutions, fighting spirit with a relationship built on trust. In other words, we are apparently able to develop behaviour in which we deal with more variety and agility with this tension balance. Slowly, and with clear differences among countries, we are beginning to see the same trend. We value personalities who are not afraid to be open about their own identity. Direct and spontaneous, but not rude, for we also want teamplayers with an eye for the signals emitted by others. Formal and strict behaviour is more and more perceived as stiff or even boring. "Neutral behaviour is for beginners". So a strict control of emotions is no longer sufficient. A smoother management of emotions takes its place. There is a cautious emancipation of emotions. Channeled and balanced, but unmistakable!
Emancipation of emotions
The curbing and control of emotions solved many problems with regard to interaction. Certainly, but these problems have been replaced by new problems. I will let J. Heller (1975) speak about life in a modern company in his famous novel 'Something happened', the chapter entitled: 'The office in which I work'.
"People in the company, for example, do their best to minimize friction (we are encouraged to revolve around each other eight hours a day like self-lubricating ball bearings, careful not to jar or scrape) and to avoid quarreling with each other openly. It is considered a much better form to wage our battles sneakily behind each other's back than to confront each other directly with any semblance of complaint. (The secret attack can be denied, lied about, or reduced in significance, but the open dispute is witnessed and has to be dealt with by somebody who finds the whole situation deplorable.) We are all on a congenial, firstname basis, especially with people we loathe (the more we loathe them, the more congenial we try to be), and our wives and children are always inquired about familiarly by their first names, even by people who have never met them or met them only once" (Heller, 1975, p. 47).
"Andy Kagle, as head of our Sales Department, has a very powerful position with the company and is now afraid of losing it. He may be right. His name is all wrong. (Half wrong. Andrew is right, but Kagle?) So are his clothes. He shows poor judgment in colors and styles, as well as in fabrics, and his suits and coats and shirts do not fit him well enough.....
Kagle has ability and experience, but they don't count anymore. What does count is that he has no tone. His manners are no good.....
He knows he is awkward. He is not a hearty extrovert; he is a nervous extrovert, the worst kind (especially to other nervous extroverts), and so he may be doomed" (Ibid., p. 52).
Why do we need literature to draw our attention to the non-rational side of organizations? Jealousy, even hatred, disappointment, triumph, anger, dejection, gossip and power games constantly occupy people in organizations 3). Then why must we make do with bloodless constructions like the informal organization, the unwritten rules of the game, dissatisfiers, role-conflict and cultural analysis? What kind of covering up is this? Our first industrialists such as Wedgwood (McKendrick, 1961) and Regout (Van Iterson, 1992) still testify through the spoken and the written word to the need to control violence, festive drinking sprees, verbal abuse, raving, obscene language and sexual intercourse in their factories. Have our offices and factories now become graveyards of emotional tranquility and neutrality? The explanation for this ignoring lies perhaps in the risk we feel when we let go even a little. It has taken us centuries to reach the current level of trust in ourselves and others. The rationalization of interaction in our modern organizations makes us handle emotions irrationally. They are gone, disappeared into the periphery of eccentrics, the helpless, cultural minorities and the maladjusted. Whom we sometimes treat heartlessly because they express what we are trying to keep down in ourselves.
This aspect of organizations requires much more attention. Otherwise important issues remain unaddressed. For the disorientation about what effective organizational behaviour is remains considerable. The historical perspective shows what the learning processes in these areas actually look like. We can then address the question how to deal with these processes more effectively.
Changing patterns of emotion management
It has taken centuries before the vast majority of adults was able to maintain an even control of emotional drives in our mutual relations. Simultaneously a growing variation and differentiation of emotions and behaviour developed. Behaving in this controlled way made people feel more secure and relaxed in their contacts. This personal control and this stability and safety in relating to others were positive and civilized experiences. Especially in a society were the moulding of drives and the tighter control of affects were not yet general practice. People felt better, more civilized than others less skilled in these respects. So these behaviours were also a means to distinguish oneself from other groups. This was another impetus to a more even curbing and control, another incentive towards more differentiation and variation in manners expressing control and distinction. This process also worked the other way around: More mutually expected self-control contributed to more stable networks. These networks often proved more cohesive and also politically and economically stronger.4) Increasing trust gradually enabled a balanced expression of emotions. Strict control and suppression are no longer absolutely necesary. This means the emancipation of urges which seemed to have disappeared under the surface of good manners and formal behaviour. Directness, openness, about both positive and negative experiences, spontaneity and informal behaviour are given more opportunity and are valued positively. This openness is, however, embedded in a well-developed sense of self-control. This makes it possible for us to develop ways of also expressing negative emotions such as disappointment, anger and jealousy in an acceptable manner. People learn to become more outspoken and direct about their own interests and their feelings in a controlled way. Wegdwood wrote "the resulting informality lapsed too easily into irregularity". That is something we don't have to be so anxious about anymore. It became a kind of second nature to draw boundaries. The risk of 'losing all restraints' is less. Firmness is combined with friendliness. Assertiveness with flexibility. We develop skills that enable us to tolerate a higher tension between autonomy and interdependence, between more private concerns and common interests. Our ability to simultaneously express the facts and feelings of autonomy ánd interdependency grows. We learn to be more direct and outspoken ánd more respectful and flexible. So far this development has reached only relatively small groups in our organizations with great differences among organizations and states. The pace at which this development will spread is unsure. The incapacity to deal with negative emotions often builds up high levels of tension. More destructive ways to deal with these tensions, like gossip, innuendo, cynicism, paranoia and vicious frictions can bring organizations to a state of disruption. The pressure of increasing interdependencies is so large and the abilities to deal with it are so precarious that a dynamic of increasing frictions still has much opportunity. Elias was right: "We are still living in the late Middle-Ages." (Elias, 1984)
back to top
Notes
- Nearly three centuries after Rosier, Callières writes "show no contempt", "do not utter threats immediately", "control your temper", "It is better not to appoint gamblers and drunkards to high positions". Félice writes towards the end of the 18th century: "Men are moved by feelings alone. Master your emotions or you will be off on false adventures". (Mastenbroek, 1992 , pp 173-196). It seems as if the development was frozen for all those centuries. But despite all kinds of stagnation and counter-movements the development towards different patterns of emotion management is unmistakable. At first in small groups on the intersections of commerce and politics. Groups whose continuity sometimes lasted only a few generations before they perished in battle and confusion. Only a long-term perspective reveals how gradually more and more segments of the population acquired this different habitus.
- In this respect Elias provides us with a nice example of cultural differences in the balance between discipline and informality. "The extend of this informalization of dress is not, however, the same in all countries. In Germany, more value is still placed, for example, on smart men's clothing, on formal, well-cut, fitted suits; and even now, people are less ready to take off their jackets and to go about in shirt-sleeves in Germany than, for instance, in America. A remnant of the rule that a man should look spruce has survived in Germany. It is part of that country's somewhat assertive social forms. In comparison, in the British code of dress, unobtrusive hallmarks rank especially high, such as the quality of the material or a discreetly good cut. That a Cambridge don gave a pair of new trousers to one of his students to wear first so that they would look worn is probably only a myth, but a myth not quite without significance." ( Elias, 1996, p. 87)
- In these two quotations we see how much discipline and informalization play a role in the mutual power game, as demonstrated in references like "we are all on a congenial firstname basis", "wrong judgment in colors en styles", "his manners are no good", "he is a nervous extrovert, so he may be doomed". (This latter point is especially interesting because it refers directly to 'wrong' emotion management.) Discipline and informalization are power resources. Heller is as clear about this as Graciàn. If you can't manage the right manners and right tone, you are 'doomed'. This also applies to the most recent developments. The more open, flexible and direct style with less characteristics of a power-orientation and dominance, provides substantial advantages over earlier more formal ways of dealing with each other. So it may become an instrument in gaining the upper hand. Isn't this a strange paradox?
- I feel we should see Fukuyama's (1995) proposition that trust is the distinctive criterion for competitive advantage and increased prosperity in this light. At the same time his position is too one-sided: In processes of civilization we see both increasing interdependence ànd increasing autonomy of subgroups and individuals. The ability to handle this balance without lapsing into coerced solidarity or egocentrical aggression then becomes the key competence. Fukuyama's examples of non-Western high-trust countries appear to support Krugman's (1996) proposition that the competitive power of these countries is based on a temporary mobilization of solidarity. In the long run this leads to stagnation. The low efficiency, the limited creativity, the bureaucracy and loyalty to the larger whole suffocate the also necessary private initiative.
back to top
Literature
Castiglione, B (1991) Het boek van de Hoveling. Amsterdam: Contact. Translated from the Italian: Il libro del cortegiano".
Elias, N. (1939) Über den Prozess der Zivilisation. Soziogenetische und psychogenetische Untersuchungen. Haus zum Falken, Basel. Translated into English as The Civilizing Process. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994.
Elias, N. (1969) Die höfische Gesellschaft. Berlijn: Luchterhand.
Elias, N. (1971) Wat is sociologie? Utrecht: Het Spectrum. In English (1978): What is sociology? London: Hutchinson.
Elias, N. (1984) Interview by Aafke Steenhuis. In: De Groene Amsterdammer, 16.5.1984, pp 10-11. Translated by Robert van Krieken 'We have not learnt to control nature and ourselves enough': an interview with Norbert Elias. Availabe on internet: URL: http://www.usyd.edu.au/~robertvk/elias/intervi.html
Elias, N. (1994). The Civilizing Process. Oxford: Blackwell. Dutch language edition: Elias, N. (1982) Het Civilisatieproces. Utrecht: Het Spectrum.
Félice, F.B. de. (1778) Des Négotiations, ou de l'Art de Négocier In: Dictionnaire de justice naturelle et civile: code de l'Humanité, ou la Législation universelle, naturelle, civile et politique comprise par une société de gens de lettres et mise en ordre alphabétique par Félice. (Yverdun). Universities of Naples and of Berne. Translated as 'Negotiations, or the art of Negotiating' in: Zartman, W. (ed.) (1976). The 50% solution. New York: Anchor Press.
Fineman, S. (1996) Emotion and Organizing. In: Clegg S.R. et al (eds) Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage.
Fukuyama F. (1995) Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.
Gracián, B. (1647) Oráculo manual y arte de prudencia. Translated in Dutch: T. Kars (1991) Handorakel en kunst van de voorzichtigheid. Polak & Van Gennep, Amsterdam.
Heller, J. (1975) Something Happened. Corgi edition, London: Transworld Publishers Ltd.
Huizinga, J. (1924) The waning of the middle ages. London: Edward Arnold & Co.
Iterson, A. van (1992) Vader, raadgever en beschermer: Petrus Regout en zijn arbeiders 1834-1870. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers.
Krugman, P.R. (1996) Pop Internationalism. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Mastenbroek, W.F.G. (1992) Die historische Entwicklung der Kunst des Verhandeln (pp 173-196) In: Verhandeln. Frankfurt: Frankfurter Allgemeine/Gabler Verlag.
McKendrick, N. (1961) Josiah Wedgwood and Factory Discipline.The Historical Journal, 4, 1, p. 30-55.
Nicolson, H. (1977) The evolution of diplomatic method, being the Chichele lectures delivered at the University of Oxford in November 1953. Westport: Greenwood Press. (Reprint of the 1954 ed. published by Constable, London)
Rosergio, B de. (1905) 'Ambaxiator Brevilogus', in: Vladimir E. Hrabar, De Legatis et Legationibus Tractatus Varii: Bernardi de Rosergio Ambaxiatorum brevilogus, Hermolai Barbari De officio Legati, Martini Garrati Laudensis De Legatix maxime principum, Ex aliis excerpta qui eadem de re usque ad annum MDCXXV scripserunt, pp. 1-28. Juriev University Library Dorpati Livinorum.
Taylor F.W. (1947) Scientific Management. New York: Harper & Row (eerste uitgave 1911).
Vree, W.B.A.M. van. (1994) Nederland als vergaderland. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Wouters, C. (1990) Social stratification and informalization in global perspective. Theory, Culture & Society. 7, 69-90.
back to top
About the author
Willem Mastenbroek, Ph.D., is professor of Organizational Culture and Communication at the Department of Economics of the Free University of Amsterdam. He has authored numerous articles and books, including Conflict Management and Organization Development (Wiley, 1993) and Managing for Quality in the Service Sector (Blackwell, 1991).
Mastenbroek is partner of Holland Consulting Group in Amsterdam. He is engaged in improvement of results (quality, profitability, client orientation, innovative capacity) often in relation with structural and cultural changes.
