Psychological Testing, Communication and Identity Formation in a Multinational Corporation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
‘Where Is Your “F”?’: Psychological Testing, Communication and Identity Formation in a Multinational Corporation Sigrid Damman ABSTRACT: The article is based on multi-sited fi eldwork in a multinational corporation, where psychological tests were used extensively to facilitate communication and human resource development. The analysis indicates that the test eff ects were more complex than intended. Their application may be considered as a form of audit that was both individualizing and totalizing. While socio-cultural negotiations reached a level with new common reference points, att ention was diverted away from important aspects of the socio-cultural context. Individuals were quick to struggle and assert themselves through the categories of the tests, but at the same time the room for diverse, indepen- dent articulations of identity at work seemed to be diminishing. In other words, the application of the tests may have opened some discursive fi elds, but narrowed others, thus contributing to a form of generifi cation (Errington and Gewertz 2001) and entifi ca- tion (Zubiri 1984) of work identities. These observations give reason to question and continue exploring the eff ects of psychological typologies in corporate sett ings. KEYWORDS: audit, communication, HRM and psychological testing, management, orga- nizational culture, work identity Introduction In this article, I will look into the use of psychological tests in one particular business Some form of personnel testing is almost uni- corporation and discuss some of its eff ects on versal in industry (cf. Iversen et al. 1999; AMA internal communication and identity construc- Survey 2001; Frieswick 2004). The internation- tion. Basically, I will approach the practice sur- alization of education and movement of larger rounding the testing as a form of audit, where numbers of international managers have also individuals are accounted for and made vis- led to an increase in cross-cultural assessments ible to each other in previously unprecedented (Sparrow 1999). According to their advocates ways. Refl ecting along this line, I see the use (cf. Ringstad and Ødegård 1999; Northouse of psychological tests as introducing a partic- 2004), the tests may facilitate a positive devel- ular set of ‘structures of common diff erence’ opment of work relationships, and identify (Wilk 1995). By conceptualizing fl uid social in- leadership and communication preferences in fl uences and reactions in terms of more stable a way that may enhance productivity. But how traits and distinctions, the use of the tests in- do the tests function in particular cases? What volved a process of entifi cation (Zubiri 1984) or do we actually know about the practices that ‘solidifi cation’ of identities that helped actors evolve around their use? structure their experiences in a certain way. Anthropology in Action, 19, 1 (2012): 47–59 © Berghahn Books and the Association for Anthropology in Action doi:10.3167/aia.2012.190106 AiA | Sigrid Damman However, the tests were also associated with or for obtaining quantitative (numeric) a form of social control, in that att ention was information from the behaviour sample. drawn away from complex socio-cultural ne- gotiations and onto individual therapies. In so Like audit, psychological testing may be seen doing, the practice surrounding the tests could as a form of monitoring or account giving. In also be seen as ‘dividing’ (Foucault 1991), in a both cases, information is extracted and sorted vein similar to that which others (Shore and in a rigorous way, and subsequently used to Wright 2000) have proposed for other forms of express an independent, seemingly neutral audit. Finally, the test machinery not only con- opinion on the study object. Although it is not strued diff erences in rather uniform ways, but spelled out, both techniques also have an eval- along ultimately numeric scales. This raises uative aspect, in so far as objects are presented certain questions regarding the conceptualiza- in terms of standardized concepts and scales tion and evaluation of individual and cultural that make them commensurable. uniqueness in contemporary work sett ings. To As forms of social action, psychological what extent is diversity highlighted and main- testing and audit have even more in common. tained through psychological testing? Are par- According to Flint (1988) audit is demanded ticular identities cherished and developed on when agents expose principals to ‘moral haz- their own terms, or do we see a gradual ards’ by potentially acting against their inter- ‘unitisation’ (Larsen 2005) of selves? ests, and to ‘information asymmetries’ because they know more than the principals. Thus, audit may be seen as a risk reduction practice, Psychological Testing as a Form of Audit which benefi ts the principal by inhibiting the value-reducing actions by agents (Power 1997: Basically, audit can be defi ned as an indepen- 5). This might also be said about the use of dent examination of, and expression of opin- psychological tests, whose aim is to predict be- ion on, the fi nancial statements of an economic haviour and, within a corporate sett ing, to en- body (Power 1997). Since the 1980s, however, sure that human resources are managed in a the word ‘audit’ has been used in a great vari- way that optimises the interests of the fi rm. ety of contexts. According to Shore and Wright Ultimately, it has been claimed, audit can (2000), the essence of its many usages today is be understood as a political technology: a sup- a public inspection of some kind. Power (1997: posed ‘self-empowerment’ is resting on the 5) fi nds that the most general conceptual in- simultaneous imposition of external control gredients of audit are: independence from the and internalization of new norms (Shore and matt er being audited; technical work in the Wright 2000). As we shall see below, this again form of evidence gathering and examination of is a perspective that might be fruitful when it documentation; the expression of a view based comes to corporate use of psychological tests. on this evidence; and a clearly defi ned object It is important, though, to distinguish between of the audit process. A psychological test, on the normative and operational elements of both the other hand, is commonly defi ned as a mea- practices. As Power (1997) notes, any practice surement instrument with three key character- may be characterized as having both program- istics (Murphy and Davidshofer 1991): matic and technological elements. The former refers to the level of ideas and concepts that 1. It makes a sample of behaviour. shape its mission. The technological elements, 2. The sample is obtained under standard- on the other hand, are the operational bedrock ized conditions. of tasks, routines and methods whereby the 3. There are established rules for scoring practice is materialized. 48 | Psychological Testing, Communication and Identity Formation in a Multinational Corporation | AiA For Power, this distinction mainly serves to establish a shared corporate culture that they explain the pervasiveness of audit as an idea, wanted to see incorporated by all Auto man- but I am concerned with it for another reason: agers and employees. A ‘rational-analytic’ ap- as technology, the psychological testing in the proach to management, discipline and respect studied corporation had a social impact that were key elements in the value base the man- in some respects was diff erent from or went agement had defi ned. However, there had also beyond its mission. It seemed to function, in been recent eff orts to develop a ‘soft er’ side, Latour’s (1991) sense, as an ‘actant’ of its own. where interpersonal care and tolerance was Considering this background, I wonder if Shore emphasized. and Wright’s perspective on audit as an instru- I followed Auto Ltd mainly over fi ve years, ment of government is a litt le too narrow. As from 2001 to 2005. My engagement with the we shall see below, its technology, including corporation was part of a multidisciplinary language and concepts, may constitute reality research project, based on participant observa- in a more active sense than the word ‘instru- tion and 180 qualitative interviews with em- ment’ implies. ployees and managers at production sites in six diff erent countries. One thing about Auto Ltd that struck me from an early stage was the The Corporation in Question great emphasis placed on psychological tests. In particular, the management expressed a The corporation whose practice I will discuss strong belief in one personality test – the Myers- is a medium-sized supplier to the car industry. Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). The test itself Auto Ltd, as I shall call it here, is a Norwegian- was widely applied, and the terms and lett ers owned multinational with production in 12 dif- representing key dimensions in the Myers- ferent countries. The organization has expanded Briggs inventory were frequently used, both rapidly in recent years, and has seen a shift by managers and employees. Sometimes they from a fairly stable and culturally homogenous seemed to be taken for granted. At other times, stock of workers to a more fl uctuating and het- they formed part of joking remarks, such as erogeneous staff . Much of the production at ‘why don’t you get a bit more introvert?’ if Auto Ltd consists of minute assembly work, somebody was dominating, or – as in the title where the speed and competence of individual of this article – ‘where is your “F” (for feeling) workers is a critical production factor. As more …?’, when someone was not very empathetic. generally in the automotive business, the just- I wondered what this did to processes of in-time principle and international dispersion communication and identity construction in of production chains means that coordination Auto Ltd, or what it might say about the prac- is of paramount importance.