About (my) organizational ethnography

Ethnography is a methodology for sociological research derived from the sister discipline (“twin sister” using the expression of Alfred Kroeber) of anthropology. Following the Greek etymology, it consists basically in the description of the culture of a population or a human group (ethnos) through a written text (graphè).

At the end of 19^th and beginning of 20^th century this method was used by anthropologists to give a portrait of populations living in remote parts of the globe. This purpose was achieved through a deep immersion in the culture by the researcher, who lived with the population and shared their everyday activities for a long period of time. It was the Chicago School of Sociology who first applied it in the urban contexts of western societies, giving raise to the tradition of the ethnographic method in sociology. The outcome of this research process is commonly a thick description: a textual representation of the researcher’s observations about the language, meanings, practices, tools, rules and habits of a particular social group.

When ethnography is transposed to settings such as a company, a plant, an office, a construction site, a shop, an hospital and so on, and the focus of observation is on organizational and work dynamics, we speak about organizational ethnography. There are many examples of organizational ethnography, being Kunda’s Engineering culture: control and commitment in a high tech corporation, and Van Maanen’s The smile factory: work at Disneyland probably the best known.

Apart from the scientific aim of knowledge production, the objective of organizational ethnography, is to create new understanding and reflection about work matters for all those involved in the study, and possibly lead to ameliorative change and interventions in the organizational setting.

What I am currently trying to do is to develop an ethnographic research project about employment relations in the mass retailing industry. The focus of analysis are human resource management policies and practices of an organization, devoting a particular attention to the relation between the various levels of management, employees and their representatives.

The choice to undertake an ethnographic study might appear controversial since ethnography is not a very common methodology in managerial and business research. Nevertheless, there are several advantages in undertaking an ethnographic study of organizations and their management: it is possible to detect symbolic and representational aspects of the company, to reconstruct the relations among the different actors helping to reconcile antagonisms and frictions, and to collect all the different voices from the field. Ethnography also helps to deconstruct the taken for granted reality of everyday work, encouraging people’s self reflection and change. Finally, it is also possible to monitor ongoing change processes in order to help to implement desired interventions.

At the moment, I am negotiating the realization of this project with HR managers and director of some organizations and, as applicants, we all know how difficult it is to attract the attention and interest of this actors inside organizations! I hope I can give further news on this project soon.

What is Corporate Social Responsibility for?

In recent years, the corporate world has given increasing attention to the topic of Corporate Social Responsibility (abbreviated in CSR, Responsabilità Sociale d’Impresa in Italian) although there is not much consensus about what it is and when business can be considered ‘responsible’. Indeed, many different conceptions of what CSR is and what it is for exist.

In Europe it seems it is more spread the CSR label, although in the US terms like ‘Corporate Citizenship’ and ‘Corporate Sustainability’ are quite common; other common expressions are ‘Community Management’ or ‘Stakeholder Engagement’. As noted by many scholars, also in the academic literature parallel and sometimes confusing universe exist. For the sake of simplicity, I adopt here CSR as the umbrella term to describe corporate attempts to institutionalize ethics. More in general, CSR refer to all the corporate actions that are not directly linked to profit-making, but directed to enhance the social and environmental performance of the firm (the concept of the triple bottom line, social and environmental along with economic, is here recalled).

Beyond definitional issues, this richness of meanings reveals the persistence of different perspectives around CSR. That is why critical authors have contested it as a ‘fuzzy concept’, as to say it is just a rhetorical move to mask all the companies’ wrongdoings or, in the best case, to sell better their products. In the words of Boltanski and Chiapello, CSR is a clear example of the capacity of the new spirit of capitalism to absorb critics and reformulate them in a profitable way.

No doubt the ambiguity that surrounds the term casts serious shadows on the real intentions and effects of this new form of corporate initiative. And no doubt many companies are ready to exploit the beneficial potential of CSR advert campaigns to greenwash their public image and products. However, this clear-cutting critical vision leaves little space for doubt and human initiative.

In addition to a new form of corporate discourse and marketing tool, CSR also represents a new area of managerial intervention. In organizations there is currently a growth of department and managerial roles dedicated to CSR and, increasingly, business students all around the world chose to specialize in this emergent area. During my research activity, I had several times the occasion to interview the ‘professionals of CSR’ and what I derived is a sense of people truly committed to their work, that really believe in the good intentions and tools of CSR. What I then wonder is: is it right to disregard all this good will and changing potential as ‘corporate bullshitting’? Or would be better to leverage on it and try to build different organizations and work environments?

CSR represents nowadays what semiologists would call a ‘floating signifier’, an expression that everyone recall without knowing its precise meaning. There is still too much ambiguity around it and multiplicity of perspectives, but this ambiguity leaves some room for manoeuvre.

What CSR is and what it is for, is still a work in progress. In the years coming many different actors, organizations and institutions will concur to the construction and definition of this area. It is the responsibility of all those involved, academicians drawing from various traditions, practitioners, business persons, management educators and of course policy makers, to make CSR effective and relevant to transform business organizations, and not just the last managerial fad.

Some Sources:

-about the story of CSR, see Carroll (2008). "A History of Corporate Social Responsibility: Concepts and Practices." In The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, Oxford University Press,19-46.

-about the definition, see Dalsrud (2008). "How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: an Analysis of 37 Definitions. In Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 1-13.

-a recent literature review is Aguinis and Glavas (2012). “What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda”. In Journal of Management, 38 (4), 932-968.

-many critical contributions are included in the special issue on CSR by Organization. The interdisciplinary journal of organization, theory and society (2013, number 20, issue 3).