Indeed, the Sunray organization was certainly an organization that attempted unique methods to motivate their employees. As stated by the author, members of leadership strongly believed that the the activities which they planned for their workers was a good attempt to create a “fun” work environment. However, once the research was conducted, the true mindset of some of the employees being subjected this organizational culture was revealed. It is my intent to utilize the concepts of boundaries and authority from the BART model to describe how management made a mistake by taking the idea of “fun” too far.
Boundaries Observable boundaries are defined by Alderfer as the physical, spatial, and temporal divisions that differentiate a group from other groups (McCollom, 1995). The following quote illustrates an observable boundary: “For example, teams have dress-up days where employees must come dressed as a superhero or in pajamas” (Fleming, 2005). Based on this quote, it is clear that from the word “must” that employees are expected to uphold this observable boundary by coming to work dressed in costumes.
The concept of the overbounded group can also be applied here. An overbounded group is a group which has a low permeability, which makes the the group less attuned to their environment, and unable to accept and incorporate information from other groups (McCollom, 1995). The fact that management insists that all employees internalize the message of the 3Fs without apparently asking the employees if they are interested in learning about the 3Fs, illustrates apathy towards seeking information from others (outgroup members).
Also, as the interviews are taking place, it makes it clear that management is not attuned to the fact that there are outgroup members who are apathetic towards “fun” organizational activities. In fact, Janis, the team development manager, generalized that all employees “love work and really get into it. ” (Fleming, 2005). Subjective boundaries are boundaries that are psychological in nature, they provide an understanding of who belongs in a group and who does not (McCollom, 1995).
A subjective, psychological boundary is illustrated by the fact that many employees often did not feel as though they were ingroup members. There are many examples of this. For instance, many employees who are most likely seen as outgroup members found the school concept to be patronizing to them. This illustrates the fact that although observable boundaries such as job titles were taken away, they were replaced by subjective boundaries.
Another example of a subjective boundary is the fact that younger employees know that they are not a part of the management group due to the preferred age bracket (35 and over). This sort of boundary can make the younger, lower level, employees feel that there is no room for management or growth for them until they reach the target age bracket for management. This fact may also cause of unintentional discrimination of younger employees for management positions because they may not be seen as a fit for the management positions.
This would qualify as illegal in Australia according to the Australian Human Rights Commission. By being in the age bracket that management desires for them to be in, they would be able to portray the mother/father images that they would want for the family portion of Sunray’s attempt to blur boundaries. The subjective boundaries of the organization are overall do not seem very permeable. One reason is because management continually pushes this “fun” culture and employees are seen as outsiders if they do not “fit in”.
Authority Authority means that someone or a group of people has the right to make a concluding decision (Obholzer, 1994). In an organization, it is regarding having the right to make decisions which would affect others (Obholzer, 1994). Attachment theory (a concept of authority) focuses on how infant’s’ early attachment to primary caregivers determine enduring ways in which they continue to attach themselves to significant others (Kahn and Kram, 1994).
In reference to the attachment concept, this might be one reason that some employees are drawn to this sort of work culture. The dependent model of authority describes when a person has a dependency on rules or roles of a formal hierarchy (Kahn and Kram, 1994). Some employees may have a dependent internal model towards authority because of the family concept that the leaders of the organization create. Thus, as the author mentions, some employees enjoyed the work culture created by Sunray (Fleming, 2005).
For example, the employee James stated “The fun part of the culture shows they [the company] do care about us and are looking out for us. That’s different to other places. ” (Fleming, 2005). This is most likely because some employees depend on this workplace being family and school oriented. For instance, the fact that managers are seen as parents and employees as children is one reason possible reason why. Also, the school concept may remind some employees of the childhood period of their lives in which they felt a strong need for authority.
Within the counterdependent model of authority, employees would resist the rules and roles of formal authority (Kahn and Kram, 1994). This is exemplified since the author that employees were cutting work (Fleming, 2005). It is also exemplified when employees such as Mark and Kim employees who sarcastically mock the concept of the 3Fs during the interviews (Fleming, 2005). These expressions manifest that these employees are resistant to feeling joyful in their organization roles. Recommendations
Management would benefit from getting rid of the the school, partying, and family traditions all together and focus on using the traditional work culture model with traditional titles that they desired to avoid. This would help replace the inappropriate subject and objective boundaries mentioned earlier with more appropriate boundaries (such as appropriate job titles). Also, the interdependent model of authority states that employees would be both dependent on authority without feeling suppressed because there is also a feeling of independence (Kahn and Kram, 1994).
Making the changes above could potentially help employees to feel interdependent because they depend on the hierarchy but they would no longer have to perceive it as too much of a necessity (by liking the fact that managers are seen as parents and school teachers) or be resistant to the suppression (by not showing up to work). Typically fun activities such as going out to dinner, happy hours, can still occur on a rare basis (such as only on holidays and should be family friendly for the most part).
However, there should be a new understanding in management that inappropriate activities that have the potential for sexual harassment should not be tolerated and sexual intentions should be highly discouraged. These outings should be occurring in places such as family oriented restaurants. Instituting a new sexual harassment policy would be appropriate (if one does not already exist). This would help the organization avoid sexual harassment lawsuits and discrimination lawsuits. Also, positive activities such as bingo can be utilized such as spiffs for performance can possibly contribute to a fun and appropriate work setting.
I do believe that keeping a masseuse available to employees would be beneficial. By taking steps to put such ideas in action, management could mend the damage exemplified from interview data and employees skipping work. It would be beneficial for management to replace inappropriate boundaries with proper boundaries. Striving to support the trend of employees having an interdependent model of authority could be beneficial. Overall, Sunray should use the research results to create a better work culture.