erickson, pierce 2005

7/25/2019 Erickson, Pierce 2005

1/32

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toEthnography.

http://www.jstor.org

Farewell to the organization man: The feminization of loyalty in high-end and low-end servicejobs

Author(s): Karla Erickson and Jennifer L. PierceSource: Ethnography, Vol. 6, No. 3, SPECIAL ISSUE: GEOGRAPHIES AT WORK (September 2005),pp. 283-313Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24047861Accessed: 13-11-2015 20:48 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 140.180.252.80 on Fri, 13 Nov 2015 20:48:47 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltdhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/24047861http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/24047861http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltdhttp://www.jstor.org/


2/32

Ethno

ARTICLE

graphy

Copyright

2005 SAGE Publications

(London,

Thousand

Oaks,

CA and New

Delhi)

www.sagepublications.com

Vol

6(3): 283-313[DOI: 10.1177/1466138105060759]

Farewell to the organization man

The feminization of

loyalty

in

high-end

and

low-end

service

jobs

Karla Erickson

Grinnell

College,

Iowa,

USA

Jennifer L. Pierce

University of Minnesota, USA

ABSTRACT

Utilizing

data from two

ethnographic

case

studies,

one

of

high-end

service workers

in

a

powerful corporate

law firm

(paralegals)

and another

of

low-end service workers in a

small

family-run

restaurant

(food

servers),

this article

presents

a

comparative

analysis

of

the

consequences

of the transformation

of

the US

economy

and

accompanying

changes

in

the

culture(s)

of work for

women and men and

specifically

of

the

meanings

of

loyalty

in our

contemporary

service

society. Drawing

from

the cultural

repertoires

available,

women

and

men

make

gendered

sense

of

loyalty.

Women,

the vast

majority

of workers in these

two

jobs,

tell

stories of investment in their

jobs

and

personal

loyalty

to their

co-workers,

customers,

and bosses. But men mobilize their

masculinity

to detach their

sense of self from

perceived

feminized

work,

seeing

themselves as

occupational

transients who are on their

way

to more

appropriate

careers

or,

in the case of

waiters,

rejecting

narratives of

professional masculinity

in

defiance

of the

unsatisfying occupational landscape

available to them

as

working-class

men.

KEY

WORDS service

work,

emotional

labor,

gender,

waitresses,

paralegals, loyalty

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/32

284

Ethnography

6(3)

My boss is such a good guy. It's the [law] firm that I could care less about.

They

get

my

time,

but

they

sure as

hell don't

get anything

else.

(Interview

with

Debbie,

a

paralegal)

What do I

like about

serving?

I like

interacting

with the

people.

I've known

so

many people

for so

long,

it's not

really

like

a

job.

I

call it

my

little social

life.

(Interview

with

Jessica,

a

waitress)

We are

currently experiencing nostalgia

for the

golden age

of

company

loyalty

... Is the death of the

company

man

something

that

should

be

lamented or celebrated?

(Adrian

Wooldridge,

New York Times

Magazine,

March

2000)

The notion

of

the

'organization

man' as

loyal

and conformist to

corporate

life was a dominant cultural motif in the

1950s

in the

United States

(Carroll

and

Noble,

1988;

Mills, 1951; Newman, 1998;

Whyte,

1957).

Contained

within

this narrative is an

implicit

social contract

between

workers and

corporations:

if

workers are

loyal

to the

company

and work

hard,

they

will

be rewarded in terms of

promotions,

raises,

and

job security by

the

employer.

The

meaning

of this

social contract is also structured

by gender.

In the immediate post Second World War era, the organization man was

not a

generic person,

but

specifically

a man who was

expected

to be the

mainstay

breadwinner

of

the heterosexual

family.

This

image,

in

turn,

was

buttressed

by

the

reemerging

cult of

domesticity

in

popular

culture

follow

ing

the

war

(Breines, 1992;

May,

1988;

Spiegel,

1992; Welter,

1966).

Thus,

in the

cultural

currency

of the

day,

company loyalty

was conflated

with

masculinity,

while

personal loyalty

to

husbands

and

family

was associated

with

femininity.1

Since the

1950s,

the American

economy

has

undergone

a dramatic shift

that has

challenged

the

possibilities

of this social contract and the

meaning

of loyalty at work. The decline of the industrial economy and the rise of

the

service

sector have

brought

about

changes

in

the labor force and the

labor

process,

in

possibilities

for workers'

long-term

financial

security,

and

in

culture(s)

of work

for

those

working

in service

jobs (Herschenberg

et

al.,

1998). First,

unlike

manufacturing

work,

service

work,

as we define

it,

involves face-to-face interactions with customers and often

requires

emotional labor

on the

part

of

the

workers

(Hochschild,

1983).

Conse

quently,

the

product

is

typically

the service interaction itself and the

formerly dyadic

model of

worker-management

relations

now

includes a

third element

-

the customer

(Leidner, 1993).

For service

workers,

this trian

gulation

of

power

raises the

question:

to whom is one

loyal?

Second,

women

have entered work

in

steadily increasing

numbers since the 1950s. From

1950 to

1998,

the

percentage

of women

in

the

paid

labor force increased

from 31

percent

to 60

percent

(Cleveland

et

al., 2000;

Reskin

and

Padavic,



4/32

Erickson

and Pierce

Farewell to the

organization

man 285

2002). Given this increase in numbers, how has this narrative changed?

Third,

unlike

manufacturing

jobs,

the

majority

of service

jobs

tend to be

either

temporary

or

part

time,

rarely

include

benefits,

are

highly

feminized,

and have been difficult sites for

attempts

at worker union

organization.

Compared

to both

manufacturing

and white-collar office

jobs,

the service

sector is

marked

by

a remarkable annual turnover

in

staff,

due

in

part

to

the

minimal rewards accrued

from

staying

at one

particular company

(MacDonald

and

Sirianni, 1996).

Recent studies of American

workplaces

as well as articles in the

popular press suggest

that

a new

culture of work

has

emerged emphasizing flexibility

over

predictable

career

paths

and

opportunity over job security (Bridges, 1994; Martin, 2000; Mnk, 2000;

Sennett, 1998;

Smith,

2001).

Whereas in the

age

of the

'organization

man',

loyalty

and hard work

supposedly paid

off

in

terms of

recognition,

promotion,

and financial

security, today's

ambitious worker is

encouraged

instead to

be

flexible, mobile,

and

self-directed.

In

jobs

where service workers are treated as

imminently replaceable,

where the

potential

for

exploitation originates

not

only

from

management,

but from

customers

as

well,

how

do women and men make

sense

of

company loyalty?

In

other

words,

how have

these

changes

transformed the

narrative of the

organization

man?

To answer

these

questions,

we

draw

from two

ethnographic

case

studies,

one

of

high-end

service workers in a

powerful

corporate

law

firm

(paralegals)

and

another of low-end service

workers

in a small

family-run

restaurant

(food servers),

to consider the

consequences

that the transformation of

the US

economy

and

accompany

ing

changes

in

the

culture(s)

of work

has

had

for the

ways

women and

men understand the

meanings

of

loyalty

in our

contemporary

service

society. By

focusing

on

service

jobs

at each end of

the

spectrum,

our intent

is

to reveal the

range

of narratives service

workers draw

upon

to make

sense

of

changes

in

the culture of work in two

different service work

regimes.

As

feminist

scholars,

we also

pay

close

attention to the fact that

service

work is

highly

feminized.

In

the United

States,

the

predominance

of

women

in

particular jobs

and

occupations

is

associated with low

pay,

low

status,

and

no ladders for

mobility

both

historically

and

contemporarily

(Reskin

and

Padavic, 2002).

'Idioms

of

gender'

also

shape

the

meaning

of

occu

pations, rendering

women as

naturally

more

suitable for

particular jobs

in

varied social and

historical times and

places

(Acker, 1990;

Milkman, 1987).

So-called

women's

work

and men's work

can take on a

variety

of

meanings

-

for

instance,

in

one context women

are deemed most

suited to be clerical

workers,

while in

another,

men are

preferred

(Davies, 1982).

As Leslie

Salzinger argues,

'femininity

is a

trope

-

a

structure of

meaning through

which

workers,

potential

or

actual,

are

addressed,

understood,

and

around

which

production

itself is

designed'

(2003:

15).

Consequently,

we ask how



5/32

286

Ethnography

6(3)

gender structures these two service workplaces and the meanings through

which

paralegals

and

food servers make sense of

loyalty.

In this

article,

we

begin

by

rethinking

conventional

understandings

of

loyalty.

Because our

focus

is on

service

jobs,

we

maintain that

loyalty

can

take

many

forms

-

not

only

to an

organization,

but

to

customers,

managers,

co-workers,

or to the

practice

of work itself.

Further,

as our multi-sited

ethnography

demonstrates,

particular

work cultures contribute to distinc

tive

gendered meanings

and

practices

through

which

loyalty

is

understood.

The stories

paralegals

and food

servers

tell

about

loyalty

draw rhetorical

elements from informal values

and

practices

at work as well as

from

larger

discursive

fields of

femininity

and

masculinity

to

make

gendered

sense of

their

experiences.

As we

find,

loyalty

has not

entirely

disappeared

in these

jobs,

but

has taken on new forms.

Rethinking loyalty

and

gender

in service work

The theoretical

questions

we

pose

about

loyalty

and

gender

in the new

service

economy

draw from several

overlapping

areas

in

the broad

field

of

the sociology and the anthropology of work. Here, we begin by critically

assessing

some

of the

conceptual problems

in the literature on

loyalty

at

work. To

improve

upon

these

weaknesses,

we draw

from

Raymond

Williams to

conceptualize loyalty

as

a 'structure of

feeling'

(Williams,

1966:

64)

and further

complicate

this

understanding by locating loyalty

within the

triangulated

relations

of

power

between

managers,

customers,

and workers

which

characterize service

work.

Finally,

we turn to feminist

scholarship

to

emphasize

the

importance

of

gender

in

constructing meanings

about

loyalty

in

varied

workplace

cultures.

In

his influential

essay

on

bureaucracy,

Max Weber

(1944 [1922]),

distin

guished personal forms of loyalty from what he called modern or insti

tutional

loyalty.

In Weber's ideal

type

of the modern

bureaucracy,

entrance

into

a

particular position

or

office within an

organization

does not estab

lish a

personal relationship

to

employer,

but

rather

an

impersonal

one based

on

modern

loyalty.

With the rise of western

capitalism

in the late 19th

century

and the

increasing

rationalization of all forms of

life,

Weber saw

modern

loyalty

as a form of commitment

to an

organization

rather

than

to

an individual

person.

In the

scholarship

on American workers

in the

1950s,

loyalty

and

conformity

to

corporate

life was a

finding

in

many

studies of

middle-class,

white-collar men

(Hughes,

1951; Mills, 1951;

Whyte,

1957).

Since the

1950s,

other studies have shown

that

despite

Weber's notion

of modern

loyalty,

personal

loyalty

continues to function

alongside

institutional

loyalty

as

an

important

feature of

organizational

life

(Kanter,

1979;

Pringle,

1988).



6/32

Erickson and Pierce

Farewell to

the

organization

man 287

Most recently, popular critics have alternately lamented or celebrated the

death

of

company loyalty (Wooldridge,

2000),

while others

have

argued

that the model of the

loyal

worker is an outmoded one

in

the new

economy

where successful workers must be flexible

in

their

individual

quest

to

develop

new

skills,

moving

from

job

to

job

to find better

opportunities

(Mnk,

2000).

In

the midst of these more recent

debates,

scholars from business schools

maintain that

loyalty

is an

important

issue for

management, particularly

in

terms of the retention of their customers and investors

who

are

a

locus of

profit

for the firm. Workers also

play

a

part

in

this

equation;

for

in

their

view,

loyal

workers, in turn,

produce loyal

customers. In The

Loyalty

Effect,

for

example,

Frederick Reichheld defines

loyal

business as

'systems

that

incorporate

customers,

employees,

and investors

in a

single

constella

tion

of common interests and mutual benefits' and reminds

employers

that

loyal

workers save

companies money

(Reichheld

with

Teal,

1996:

26).

While these studies are useful

in

distinguishing

between

different

types

of

loyalty,

none

adequately conceptualize

the

term

loyalty

itself.2 For

instance,

when Weber writes about

loyalty,

he describes

an

overarching

contractual

relationship

between the

bureaucracy

and the

employee.

In this

contract,

workers

exchange

their commitment to the

organization

in

return

for a

secure

existence. But

just

what does commitment entail? For

Reichheld and others

writing

from the

managerial

perspective, loyalty

means

repeat

business

by

the

customer.

Loyal

customers and investors

keep

coming

back.

Although

he doesn't

discuss

the

workers'

point

of

view,

given

this

logic,

one would assume that

loyal

workers

just keep

coming

back to

work

everyday.

Hence,

loyalty

would be

equated

with

long-term

tenure.

The

problem

with

this

conceptualization,

however,

is

that workers

stay

in

jobs

for a

variety

of reasons that

may

have

nothing

to do with

feeling

loyal

-

they

lack better

job opportunities, they

need the

money,

or

they

are not

able to relocate.

Several recent studies

on

professional

women and work find that

corpor

ations and

law

firms evaluate commitment3

by looking

at the overtime

hours an

employee puts

in

each month

(Bailyn,

1993;

Epstein

et

al.,

1999;

Fried, 1998;

Hochschild,

1997; Pierce,

2002).

In

what

Mindy

Fried

(1998:

37)

describes

in her

study

of

a

large

Boston

corporation

as an 'overtime

work

culture',

women are seen as less committed than men

because

they

either work fewer hours or would like to work

part-time

in order

to better

balance

family

and career.

Here,

commitment is

equated

with

long

hours in

the office. As Fried and others

find,

women

in

these

corporations

see

long

hours as

unnecessary, recognizing

that the work can

get

done in less time.

Further,

they

see themselves as

highly

committed

professionals

and resent

the notion that

long

hours

-

as

opposed

to

the

quality

of one's work

-

signify

commitment.



7/32

288

Ethnography

6(3)

Rather than looking at hours worked or length of tenure within a firm,

we define

loyalty

as

a

'structure of

feeling'

produced

at

work. Like

Raymond

Williams

(1977)

who

uses this term

to describe how

specific

emotions are

constructed

in

particular

social and historical contexts

through

social

consciousness,

we

see

loyalty

as

produced through

collective

practices

and narratives on the

job.

This structure of

feeling

is

produced

when

workers

say they

feel a sense of investment and

ownership

in their

jobs

or take

pride

in

doing

their

jobs

well. In

describing

their work and

themselves as

significant, important,

or

special,

it bears some

similarity

to

craft

pride,

but

differs

in

that it also

expresses

a sense

of

obligation

to others

such as

customers, co-workers,

or bosses. For

example,

narratives about

loyalty may emphasize pride

about

doing good

work as well as their obli

gation

to

others

in

doing

it

well.

Consequently,

this sentiment

is not an indi

vidual

quality,

but rather is

collectively practiced

and

produced.

What is further distinctive

about our

understanding

of

loyalty

is that we

conceive of

it

within unstable relations of

power.

Like

Weber,

we

place

loyalty

within an

institutional context where

one

group

of workers has

more status and

power

than another.

However,

because we are

studying

service

work,

we see these structural

relationships

as less fixed

and

more

variable in the deployment of power than Weber's ideal type of the regi

mented hierarchical

bureaucracy.

The triad of

worker,

employer,

and

customer not

only

introduces a new element into

worker-management

models of

organizations,

but also

complicates

the

dynamics

of

power

(Fuller

and

Smith, 1996; Leidner,

1996).

Consequently,

we examine not

only

how

workers narrate institutional and

personal loyalty

in this new

economic,

organizational,

and cultural

context,

but how their

understandings

of

customer

(or client)

loyalty figure

into

working relationships.

Finally,

as

the

growing

literature on

gender,

work,

and

sociology

of

emotions

finds,

the

production

of

feelings

on

the

job,

or what Arlie

Hochschild (1983) terms emotional labor, is shaped by gender (Annals of

the American

Academy of

Political and Social

Sciences, 1999; Halle, 1990,

1993; Leidner, 1991;

Pierce, 1995).

While this literature considers the social

construction of

variety

of

emotions,

it does not examine

loyalty.4

Neverthe

less,

it

does

provide

two

important insights

that we draw

upon

and

extend

to further

complicate

our theoretical

understanding

of

loyalty

in

service

work.

First,

feminist scholars

argue

that

gender

shapes

the

meaning

of

occupations, rendering

women as

naturally

more suitable for

particular

jobs

in varied social and historical times and

places

(Acker, 1990; Milkman,

1987;

Reskin and

Padavic,

2002;

Salzinger,

2003).

For

example, during

the

Second World

War,

women's war work

in

factories

was defined as an exten

sion

of their

domesticity,

and

then,

after the

war,

reconstrued as men's work.

As Ruth Milkman

argues,

the war mobilization

demonstrates how 'how

idioms of sex

typing

can be

flexibly

applied

to whatever women and men



8/32

Erickson and Pierce

m

Farewell to the

organization

man 289

happen to be doing' (1987: 50). Further, workers themselves draw upon

these idioms to make sense of who

they

are and what

they

are

doing

at

work. This research

prompts

us to ask how

gender

structures service

work

places

and the

meanings through

which workers make sense of

loyalty.

Second,

we take

seriously

the

argument

from feminist

anthropologists

that

workplaces

are sites for the

reproduction

of culture. In her classic

book,

Counter

Cultures,

Susan Porter Benson was

among

the first to describe a

work culture as 'the

ideology

and

practice

with

which workers stake out a

relatively

autonomous

sphere

of action on the

job'

(1986:

228).

In

this

light,

work cultures can be understood as the

underlying

rules and

practices

estab

lished

by employees

to contain the

alienating potential

and

exploit

the

potential

for

recognition

and

pride

of their

jobs.

Studies of

work

cultures

bring

us to our third and final

insight

from this

literature: work cultures

vary

from site to site

(Lamphere

et

al., 1993).

Hence,

we take

seriously

insights

from feminist

geographers

who insist

upon

the

importance

and

specificity

of

place

in

understanding practices

and

meaning

(Rose, 1993).

For

example,

as

Salzinger

finds

in

her

comparative study

of four

maquiladora

factories on

the

Mexican

border,

despite

the

prevailing trope

of women as docile

labor,

each

workplace

had a different

gendered

regime.

As she writes:

gendered

subjectivity

intervenes at all levels of the

process,

from

managerial

decision

making

to worker consent and

resistance,

but it is never

fixed

Docile labor

cannot be

bought,

it is

produced,

or

not,

in the

meaningful

prac

tices and rhetorics of

shop-floor

life.

(2003: 15-16)

Building

on this

scholarship,

we

argue

that

loyalty

must be understood

as

a

structure

of

feeling

that

is

produced

at work. Because we are

studying

service

work,

we

contend

that

loyalty

can

take

many

forms

-

loyalty

to

customers,

managers,

co-workers,

or the

practice

of

work itself.

Finally,

we

argue that work cultures contribute to the gendered meanings and practices

through

which

loyalty

is

understood

by

workers,

and

further,

that

gendered

meanings

and

practices

are not

fixed,

but

vary

within and between different

workplaces.

The selection of cases and method

We address these central

questions through

a close examination of the

ways

service workers narrate the

meaning

of

loyalty

in two

different service sites.

In the first

site,

we consider the

experiences

of

paralegals

in a

large

corpor

ate

law

firm,

and in the

second,

we focus on the work of

food servers

in

a

family-style

restaurant.

By focusing

on

service

jobs

at each end of the

spectrum,

our

intent is

to reveal the

range

of narratives

service workers



9/32

290

Ethnography

6(3)

draw upon to make sense of changes in the culture of work in two differ

ent service

regimes. Throughout,

we use the term narrative

purposefully

to

emphasize

the

socially

constructed nature of the material from our inter

views and fieldwork. As Susan

Chase

has

argued,

'narrative

[s]

share a

fundamental interest

in

making

sense of

experience,

in

constructing

and

communicating meaning'

(1995: 8).

Furthermore,

narratives are

always

constructed

in

particular

contexts,

most

immediately

within

the fieldwork

encounter,

but more

broadly

within

particular

social and historical times

and

places.

This is not to

say

that narratives do not contain individual

biographical

or

idiosyncratic

elements,

but

rather to underscore the

point

that

they always

draw

from

larger

cultural discourses

(Scott, 1991).

As we

will

demonstrate,

paralegals

and food servers tell at once

similar,

yet

distinc

tive stories about

loyalty,

stories that reflect not

only

their

different stand

points

and

personal biographies,

but also draw from

larger

cultural

narratives about

gender

and

the

changing meaning

of

work

in

the

new

economy.

Methodologically,

we

utilize

the extended case method in

comparing

these two service work

occupations

(Burawoy,

1991).

The extended case

method uses

participant

observation to reconstruct

existing theory, relying

upon intensive study of specific cases to draw out the links between micro

and macro levels

of

analysis. By comparing

these two

sites,

we uncover both

similarities and differences in the contradictions

and tensions that revolve

around

the

meanings

of

loyalty, particularly

as it is

expressed

in

one's

investment

in

the

work

itself

within the

larger landscape

of the new

economy.

Our intent is not to

generalize

about all service

workers,

but

rather to

critically

thematize and

problematize

the evidence relative to our

theoretical

questions

about how the new service

economy shapes

and

gives

meaning

to workers' investment

in

these

jobs

and to extend

and

reconstruct

existing theory

about how

gender

and

loyalty

operates

within

these triadic

working arrangements.

Paralegal

and food service

jobs

are both

highly

feminized service sector

occupations

that are characterized

by

triadic work relations

and

require

emotional labor.

Our first

site,

a

large corporate

law

firm

located

in

a

luxurious

high

rise

building

in the San Francisco

Bay

Area's financial

district,

is

highly

sex

segregated

with a

preponderance

of men

(88

percent)

who work as

attorneys,

while the

majority

of women work as

paralegals

(86

percent).

Pierce conducted fieldwork as

a

participant

observer there for

six

months in the

litigation department

between 1988

and 1989 and inter

viewed

legal

assistants as well as

lawyers

and secretaries.5 The second field

site

is a

family-oriented neighborhood

bar

and

grill

located

in

a suburban

strip

mall. From 1999 to

2001,

Erickson conducted

participant

observation

and 30 interviews at

her

primary

research

site,

a Tex-Mex

restaurant called

the

Hungry

Cowboy.6

At

any given

time,

the service staff

is

ordinarily

75



10/32

Erickson and Pierce

Farewell to the

organization

man 291

percent female, while most bartenders are male. All five of the male servers

interviewed worked

primarily

in

the

bar,

while 10

of

the women interviewed

worked

solely

in the restaurant.

In

addition to workers and

managers,

Erickson also interviewed and

surveyed

customers to include their voice

in

her

study

of the

triadic

power arrangements

which

take

place

within

inter

personal

service

exchanges.

Paralegals

and food servers are also both

situated

within

triangular

service relations.

Although paralegals

may

appear

to work for

lawyers,

their

work is

paid

for

by

clients

in

whose interests

they

labor.

In

this

particular

firm,

legal

assistants tend to have limited direct contact with

clients,

but as

our

examples

below illustrate, it is the client behind the scenes who unwit

tingly

orchestrates the flow of work

in

the office.

By

contrast,

in food

service,

the interaction of the three

parties

is

inextricably

linked. For

the

food

server,

both customers

and

managers

are

immediately present

and

contact is face-to-face.

In

addition,

each

job

requires

emotional labor.

And,

despite

the fact that 10

years

separate

these

studies,

both

workplaces

are

squarely

situated

within the

new

economy

of the last 30

years

and

changes

in

cultures of work.

By

contrast,

in

terms of

physical space, organizational

structure,

and

salaries

and

wages,

these

two

workplaces differ,highlighting

some of

the

key

differences between

high-end

and

low-end

service work

cultures.

Visually

and

spatially,

these sites look

quite

different. At

the law

firm,

an

oriental

rug

in the

rather

grand

entry

way

and an

antique

Chinese vase filled

with

fresh-cut birds of

paradise

on

the

receptionist's

desk marks the

space

as

corporate

and

professional.

The

distribution of

space

coincides with the

relative

prestige

of the

job.

While senior

partners

are located in

luxuriously

furnished,

large

corner offices with

unencumbered views of the San

Francisco

Bay,

paralegals

are housed

in

closet-sized

offices

on

the inside of

the

corridor without windows to the outside.

In contrast to this lush corporate setting, the Flungry Cowboy is decked

out

with

silverware,

ashtrays,

and stained

carpeting.

The restaurant

is

designed

for

the convenience and

enjoyment

of the

customers,

not the

employees

or

managers.

Servers have no

personal space

in

the

restaurant,

while

three to four

managers

share one

office located between the

food

preparation

area

and the cooler.

Managers

do have

access to a

phone,

a

desk,

and

a

computer,

while

hourly employees

store

their

personal

belong

ings

in their

car,

due to the lack of

any

employee-dedicated space.

In

contrast to the front

of

the

house,

meticulously

maintained

by

staff for the

customers,

the back of the

house,

the

only

place

workers

can

go

to

'get

away'

from

customers,

is often in

disrepair,

uncomfortably

hot,

and over

crowded with work

products.

The two

workplaces

also differ

structurally.

The

law firm

is a

pyramid

structure with a

professional

stratum

resting

on

top

of a

non-professional



11/32

292

Ethnography

6(3)

or support-staff tier. The top comprises lawyers - partners and associates -

most of whom

are male.

The

bottom tier contains librarians and their

assistants,

personnel employees,

paralegals,

secretaries,

receptionists,

case

clerks,

duplicating operators

-

most of whom are female. The law

firm,

then,

is stratified

by

occupational

status and

by

gender.

The

restaurant

is

cross-cut

by

the front-of-the-house/back-of-the-house

division. For

example,

while cooks are

just

as essential to the

delivery

of

food to the customers as food

servers,

their

invisibility

behind the scenes of

the restaurant

insulates

them from

the

brunt of the

service

interaction but

also

lowers

their

level of control

in

the restaurant.

Next,

like

most

bar/restaurant

establishments,

working

on the 'bar side' versus the 'restau

rant

side'

of

the establishment is twice as lucrative

due

to the

higher

volume

and

the

higher

tips

associated with

bartending.

At the time of the

study,

50

percent

of the bartenders and

only

10

percent

of the food servers were male.

Finally,

within the front of

the

house

staff,

power

is also influenced

by

proximity

to

the

customer.

While

managers

have access to

the front

of

the

house and

the

back of

the

house,

their

contact

with

customers

is not

as

immediate,

limiting

their

power

and

increasing

servers'

power. Knowing

the

customers'

wants and needs lends

power

to the

servers,

in

contrast to the

paralegals

who are asked to react and

respond

to a

client who

is

primarily

invisible to them.

In

terms of

pay

and

status,

the

pyramid

structure

in

the law

firm

reflects

pay

differentials,

whereas in restaurant

work,

multiple pay

structures create

multiple

hierarchies within one

workplace.

Because

paralegals

do not

possess

law

degrees, they

are

invariably paid

less than

attorneys

with

comparable years

of

experience.

In

1989,

the

average

salary

for

beginning

paralegals

was

US$22,000

a

year

(San

Francisco Association

for

Legal

Assistants

Survey,

1989).

By

contrast,

the

average salary

for

first-year

associates

just

out of

law

school at this

firm was

US$58,500. Thus,

begin

ning lawyers at the private firmwere paid between two and three times as

much as the

beginning paralegal

in the same office. These

disparities

in

income widen as the two

groups

become

more

experienced. Paralegals

with

seven-plus years experience averaged

US$35,000

a

year,

while

partners

at

the same

firm could earn

up

to

US$250,000,

plus earnings

from

profit

sharing.

At the

Hungry Cowboy, managers

are

salaried,

and are often

scheduled

to work

up

to 60 hours

per

week.

While

tipped

incomes are diffi

cult to

track,

easy

to

spend,

and

impossible

to

rely

on

due to the seasonal

and even

weekly variability

of

tips

earned,

at the time of the

study

the

servers' total income

of minimum

wage

(US$5.15)

plus tips

ranged

between

US$20,000

and

US$50,000

for

servers,

while

managers

made between

US$35,000

and

US$80,000.

Tipped employees

often

averaged

more

per

hour than

managers.

Of all the

tipped employees,

bartenders

routinely

earned

up

to 50

percent

more than

servers

in the restaurant.

Subsequently,



12/32

Erickson and

Pierce

m

Farewell to

the

organization

man

293

power differentials between managers and workers were not always directly

correlated

to income. Unlike the clear distinction between

lawyers

and

para

legals,

servers,

and

specifically

bartenders,

are not

always

situated below

managers

on the

pay

scale.

Benefits such as healthcare and

paid

vacations also differ at each site. As

part

of a

professional

and

corporate

work

space, paralegals,

like the

lawyer

for whom

they

work,

receive healthcare and two weeks' vacation

with

increasing

vacation

days

over

years

of tenure at the firm. Food

servers,

on

the other

hand,

are not

eligible

for vacation or health insurance.

Managers

receive healthcare benefits and bonuses based on

profits

and labor

efficiency.

Unlike the law

firm,

the service workers in restaurants are offered no incen

tives for

longevity

of

employment

other than

improved

access to lucrative

shifts.

The differences

in

these two sites reflect the

range

of

jobs

in

the service

sector.

Many

jobs,

like food

serving,

have work

arrangements

with

irregular

hours,

low

pay

and no

benefits,

while those at the

higher

end

include

predictable

work

schedules,

better

pay,

and benefits

(Barker

and

Christiansen, 1998;

Herschenberg

et

al., 1998;

Rogers,

2000).

Gendered narratives of

loyalty

In

this

section,

we describe and

compare

service workers'

gendered

narra

tives about

loyalty

at each

workplace

while

attending

to the

triangulation

of

power

between

worker,

manager,

and

customer,

and the cultures of work

in

each site. As we

argue,

femininity

and

masculinity operate

as structures

of

meaning through

which workers make

gendered

sense of

loyalty

to

organizations, supervisors,

and

customers,

but also

serve as

ways

that

service workers themselves are addressed and understood.

We

identify

two

main narrative strategies for coping with the tensions and contradictions

that surround

loyalty

in the

workplace:

investment and detachment. Invest

ment,

as

a

narrative,

entails a sense of

ownership

in

the service

process,

positioning

the

paralegal

or server as an

authority

or bearer of

good

will

through

their labor in the service

encounter.

It

highlights

the

significance

of

how one does one's

job, overlooking

the relative

prestige

of

the

job,

defer

ring

to

employers

or customers and

insisting

that their work does

have

meaning. By

contrast,

narratives

of

detachment describe the

job

as

'just

a

job'

and

minimize

personal engagement

with other

co-workers,

employers,

or customers.

In

doing

so,

it

presumably protects

workers

by limiting

the

significance

of their work. As the narratives we

share below

demonstrate,

although

these narrative

strategies

emerge

at each service

workplace, they

take different

forms

in

each.



13/32

294

Ethnography

6(3)

Loyalty in a corporate law firm

At 5 o'clock

one winter

evening, John,

a

partner

at the law

firm,

told

Debbie,

a

paralegal,

to

do

an

urgent project

for him as he was

leaving

the

office. The client

had

called him

at the last minute with an

emergency

request.

Debbie didn't realize how

time-consuming

the

project

was until she

started

working

on

it

and ended

up staying

at the office all

night

to finish

it. The next

day,

she

bragged

to her

paralegal

and

secretary

friends that she

had

stayed up

all

night

to

complete

the

work,

sleeping

for

only

a

few

hours

on a couch

in

the

attorney's

office. Her continual

bragging

served to adver

tise the importance of her work to others in the office. It also hinted at the

closeness of her

relationship

with

John.

After

all,

she had

spent

the

night

on the couch in his

office.

The

significance

of this last detail

was

not lost on her

audience. Some

immediately

responded,

'You

slept

on his couch ' Debbie

invariably giggled

and

said,

'Yes,

yes,

I

slept

all

night

on

the couch.'

Despite

the

obvious sexual

overtones,

John

had not even

been

in his office that

night.

Nor did he and

Debbie

have

any

romantic involvement.

In

fact,

he and

Debbie didn't even

socialize

together.

Nevertheless,

Debbie

delighted

in

telling

and

retelling

the

story.

And,

when

anyone

commented that it was a lot

to

expect

on such

short

notice,

she

proudly

exclaimed: 'But I did it

[staying

up

all

nightj

because I

really

like

John.'

No

one

made her do

it;

she did it because she

chose to do

something

nice

for

John

whom she liked.

Thus,

she character

ized her fondness for her work in terms of an

interpersonal relationship

with

her boss.

Like

Debbie,

over

half

of the women

paralegals

Pierce interviewed told

narratives

about work

and

working relationships

that revealed

a

strong

sense of investment in the

job,

insisting

that their

work had

meaning

and

that

they

took

pleasure

in

doing

it well. These

women

also

expressed

a sense

of

loyalty

to their

bosses,

and sometimes to the firm and its clients. These

investment narrative

strategies

took two forms.

The first narrative

person

alized work

relationships.

Here,

we are

referring

to the

tendency

for

para

legals

to redefine their

working

relationships

with

attorneys

as

personal

friendships.

In formal and informal

interviews,

these women often said

they

'liked' the

attorneys

for whom

they

worked.

Although they recognized

that

many attorneys

were difficult to

work

with,

they

often

regarded

their bosses

as 'different'.

In

recasting

their

working

relations

as

personal

ones,

these

women

sought

to make themselves feel

'indispensable',

'important'

or

'special'.

This strategy seemed to work when attorneys also participated in this

process.

It made

paralegals

feel

important

and

special.

However,

attorneys

often had different interests

in

pursuing

this

strategy

than

paralegals

did. In

his

interview,

John

explicitly

stated

that he

'put up

with it' to

get

work done.



14/32

Erickson

and Pierce

m

Farewell

to the

organization

man 295

And another lawyer described encouraging such relationships as a means

to 'lubricate the

squeak

in

the wheel'. As other scholars

have

observed,

personalizing relationships

between

employer

and

employee

can be

a subtle

form

of

psychological exploitation

(Rollins, 1985).

Treating

workers 'as

if'

they

are friends when in fact

they

are

not,

obscures the

asymmetrical

nature

of the

relationship.

Further,

it becomes

difficult for the

paralegal

to

complain

about mistreatment

when the

attorney encourages

a

personal

relationship.

These women

expressed

a

strong

sense of

personal loyalty

to the

lawyers

for

whom

they

worked.

Expressions

of

loyalty

to the firm and its

clients,

however,

were not as common. Women who

personalized relationships

were,

on the one

hand,

loyal

to their

bosses, and,

on the

other,

openly

critical of the firm and its clients.

Debbie,

for

instance,

though

uncritical

of

her boss' last minute

request,

had this to

say

about the client:

He

[the

client]

always

does that. He

always

waits

until

things get really

bad

before he calls

John. John

has to

explain

to him over and over that he

shouldn't do that

-

but, [name

of

client]

is so

bullheaded. I can't stand

him.

In her

interview,

Debbie had more

to

say

about

problems

with the

firm

itself.

John

always gives

me the

highest rating

for

my performance

evaluation,

but

that doesn't mean I

get

a

good

raise. The firm

doesn't deliver raises like that

to

paralegals.

John's

gone

to bat for me with the

managing partner,

but

they

wouldn't do

it,

because

they

think I

get paid

too much

already anyway.7

Like other

women who

adopted

this narrative

strategy,

she

expressed

a

strong

sense of

personal loyalty

to her

boss,

while

denying

client and insti

tutional

loyalty.

The second narrative

strategy adopted by

women was

simply 'being

nice'. This is similar to

personalizing

work

relationships

in

that it involves

creating personal relationships;

however,

it

operates

on a more

general

level.

These women were not

simply

interested in

creating

exclusive

friendships

with their

bosses,

but in

creating

a

pleasant

and

humane

working

environ

ment.

By taking

an active role in

making

the

office a nice

place

these women

were

organizing

the

workplace

in

ways

that felt comfortable to them.

These women

attempted

to

please attorneys

and other office workers

by

doing

'nice'

things

such as

remembering birthdays

with cards or

flowers,

throwing anniversary

luncheons for various

employees

and

having baby

showers. Others attempted to please attorneys by doing excessive amounts

of overtime and

running

personal

errands for them. For

example, during

the

holiday

season,

Anna did enormous amounts of

overtime

work,

spent

her lunch hours

helping

an

associate

with his

Christmas

shopping,

and



15/32

296

Ethnography

6(3)

baked cookies for everyone in her team [five attorneys, three secretaries and

two

paralegals].

These

women workers

seemed to

think

that

if

they

were

'nice',

the

attorneys

would

eventually

be nice back.

Women

paralegals

who

employed

this

strategy

also

expressed

a

strong

sense of

loyalty

to their

bosses and

sometimes to

the firm

as well.

Cindi,

for

example, repeated

several times in

her interview how fortunate

she was

to

be

working

for such a

prestigious

firm,

enumerating

the

many

benefits it

provided

such as health

insurance,

a Christmas

bonus,

and a

two-week

paid

vacation. She

was also

impressed by

the

national and international

stature

of

some

of

the banks

and

corporations

the firm

represented.

Others were

more ambivalent.

Marsha,

for

instance,

described

many

of the same

benefits,

but

later when her

daughter

became

seriously

ill,

requiring

a

long

hospital stay

and a

longer period

of

recuperation

at

home,

the firm

refused

to

grant

her an

unpaid

three-month leave of

absence.8

I couldn't believe it

when

they

told me that

they

couldn't

promise

that

my

job

would

be here when

I

got

back. I

kept saying,

but I

have worked so hard

for

you

people,

I've

stayed

late,

I've worked

weekends. Doesn't that count

for

anything?

In light of larger shifts in the economy, particularly the downsizing of large

corporations,

Marsha's

question

about whether her

commitment 'counts'

expresses

a more

generalized anxiety

about the

obligations

(or

lack

thereof)

of

the

firm

to its

employees,

one

voiced

by

many

of the

legal

assistants

inter

viewed.

It

would

appear

that

the contract

implied

in

Weber's notion of

modern

loyalty,

in

other

words,

the

'acceptance

of a

specific obligation'

in

exchange

for

a

'secure

existence',

has been

broken. Given this understand

ing,

it is not

surprising

that the

majority

of

paralegals

neither

expressed

loyalty

to

the

firm nor

to its clientele. What

is

striking,

however,

is how

many

women continued to feel a sense of

personal loyalty

to

their bosses

and to invest in their jobs.

In

contrast to narratives of

investment,

other

paralegals

told stories

about work that

emphasized

their

detachment from and sometimes disdain

for

lawyers

and the

job

itself. Detachment

strategies

for

negotiating loyalty

and

commitment

to the

job

manifested themselves

in

several

ways.

The first

detachment

strategy

entailed

defining

oneself as an

occupational

transient.

'I'm

planning

to

go

to law school

[or

business

school or

graduate

school]

after

working

as a

legal

assistant

for a few

years.

This

is a

good way

to

get

experience.'

For men

-

and most of

the

legal

assistants who

adopted

this

strategy

were men

-

being

a

paralegal

was

a

means

to

an end

-

money,

experience

and a letter of

recommendation

to

graduate

or

professional

school.

They

were

willing

to tolerate the

job

because

it was

temporary.

Although

almost half of the men interviewed said

they planned

to

go

to

professional

school,

only

two

actually

went,

suggesting

that even if

they



16/32

Erickson

and Pierce

Farewell to the

organization

man 297

didn't actually go to law school, it was important to define themselves in

this

way.

Some

of the

men, however,

had no

interest

in

going

to

professional

school. For

them,

rather than

defining

themselves

as

an

occupational

transients,

they

described

themselves

in terms of their 'real'

interests

and

accomplishments.

Over half told me

(Pierce)

that

they

were

artists, writers,

actors or

photographers

-

the

job

was

'just

for

money'.

In

fact,

during

the

course of

my

interviews,

several men insisted

upon showing

me their artistic

work which

was

prominently

displayed

on the walls of their offices or

apart

ments. For these

men,

being

a

paralegal

was not

part

of their

occupational

identity: they

were

artists

-

not

paralegals.

As a

consequence, they

did not

take the

job very seriously. Jonathan,

a

25-year-old paralegal

said: 'I don't

let all the firm

politics get

to me

-

I don't

care about those

people

[the

attorneys].

It's not

my

life ' Like Goffman's

strategic

actors

in The

Presen

tation

of Self

in

Everyday Life

(1959),

these workers viewed social inter

action

with

attorneys

as a

carefully stage-managed

affair. The

performance

was

conveyed

through

the

proper

dramatic

props:

a

Brooks Brother look

alike suit

purchased

at a thrift

shop,

the

proper

demeanor and the

proper

tone of

voice. Such

an

instrumental,

pragmatic approach

made

life at the

law firm bearable - 'I'm just waiting 'till 5 o'clock so that I can go home

and do

my

"real"

work'

-

and

their real interests and

accomplishments

which

lay

outside the office made them feel

important.

For men who

adopted

these

detachment

strategies,

neither

personal

loyalty

nor institutional

loyalty

was

exchanged

within

the context of

their

working relationships. They

distanced themselves from

lawyers,

from co-workers

(particularly

from

women),

and from the law firm

as

an

organization.

None

expressed loyalty

to the

firm

or its clients. For

example,

when the firm

was

sponsoring

a blood drive

to create a

private

blood bank for its

attorneys,

one

paralegal

retorted: 'Give

my

blood to

the firm Ha

They already get my

sweat.

They're

not

gonna

get

my

blood too.'9

In the

third detachment

strategy,

employed primarily by

women,

workers

did not

deny

their

occupational

identities as

legal

assistants,

but instead

distanced themselves from their

bosses

through

an

attitude

of

disdain or

irreverence. This social

psychological strategy

became

evident when

I

sat

in

on

'gripe'

sessions that

paralegals

held

when

lawyers

weren't

around.

In

these

sessions,

attorneys

were

frequently

denigrated

as

egotistical jerks,

petty tyrants,

'drones', 'dweebs',

or

workaholics with no

social skills. But

what came up with equal frequency was the tendency to describe an

attorney

as a

'baby'

or a child

and to describe one's

job

as a

paralegal

as

'babysitting'.

One

woman

paralegal

was

even referred to as

Michael's

[an

attorney]

'security

blanket'. Michael's

secretary

said

about Debbie and

Michael's

working

relationship:

'Michael is

like Linus. He needs

her to

go



17/32

298

Ethnography

6(3)

everywhere [court, settlement conferences, depositions, etc.] with him - it

makes him

feel more secure.'

By

reversing

the

asymmetrical relationship

between

attorney

and

para

legal,

this

strategy

serves an

interesting psychological

sleight

of hand. The

powerful attorney

becomes the

powerless, helpless,

ineffectual,

demanding

baby,

whereas the

paralegal

becomes the

all-powerful,

all-knowing, compet

ent mother.

In

the short

run,

such a characterization made

legal

assistants

feel better about themselves and

the work

they

did for

attorneys. By making

fun of their

bosses,

they

could feel

superior, knowledgeable

and

competent

-

feelings

their work

rarely gave

them. It also served as an ironic twist on

the

attorneys' implicit assumption

about

'mothering'.

Rather

than

refusing

to take care of

them

altogether,

Marilyn,

a

34-year-old paralegal

said,

'So

they

want me to be their mother?

Fine Then I'll

treat

them

just

like

they

are

little

kids.'

These moves involved

a careful

balancing

act on the

part

of

paralegals.

As

long

as the

attorneys thought

their comments

or

actions

humorous or

even

useful,

they

were successful.

Paralegals

continued to

feel

superior

and

contemptuous

and

attorneys

received

the

assistance

and

support they

needed.

However,

paralegals

could

not

push

the

strategy

too far. Those who

did were quickly reminded of their appropriate place in the law-firm hier

archy.

One

attorney

yelled

at a

legal

assistant

who had

previously

worked

as a

first-grade

teacher:

'Stop talking

to me like

I'm a five

year

old.' She

immediately

backed

down,

'Sorry,

I

used to

be

a school

teacher. It's hard to

lose that tone of voice.'

Nevertheless,

she

managed

to retain her sense of

dignity.

As she related

in

a later

conversation,

'What he doesn't know is that

I didn't even talk to

my

first

graders

that

way.'

Like the men who

employed

detachment

strategies,

these women

expressed

neither

personal

nor institutional

loyalty

on the

job.

And,

though

they

were often

friendly

with

co-workers,

they

distanced themselves

from

lawyers, clients, and from the firm itself. Many depicted the firm and its

clients

in

negative

terms,

telling

stories about clients'

various misdeeds. In

describing

a controversial

employment

case,

one

paralegal

said, '[Name

of

lawyer] actually

had to

explain

to the client

[a

foreign

national]

that

in

this

country,

sex

discrimination is

illegal.

Can

you

believe it? What idiots '

Overall,

more

women

paralegals

told stories of

investment in their

work,

while more men constructed

tales of detachment. These

findings suggest

that

women were more

likely

to understand

work

through personal

connec

tions and

relationships,

to

express personal

loyalty

to their

bosses,

although

not to

the firm or the client.

By contrast,

men's attachments to work and

their

loyalty appeared

to be more

fleeting

and

strategic.

Closer examination

reveals,

however,

not

only

a difference

in who tells what kind of

story,

but

in the structures of

meaning

contained

in

the stories

themselves. Investment

narratives

emphasize

elements such as

personal

concern,

caretaking,

and



18/32

Erickson and

Pierce

Farewell to

the

organization

man 299

'being nice'. This rhetoric operates on a still larger field of practices and

images

of

femininity

-

a

field which clusters around women's

traditional

position

as

primary

caretaker

in the

family (Hays,

1996;

Salzinger,

2003).

The

logic

of

this structure

is also heteronormative: as

in

the

family,

at work

it was women

(and

not

male)

paralegals

who were

expected

to

care for men

attorneys

(Butler,

1990).

At the same

time,

male

lawyers

also

participated

in

this discursive

field,

for

instance,

explaining

in

their interviews that

they

preferred

to have women

working

for

them,

particularly

women who were

attentive to

their

needs.

Thus,

gender

structured

the

meanings through

which women

legal

assistants

were

understood

and addressed and the

ways

they,

in

turn,

talked about this

workplace

and

about

personal loyalty.

A

gendered

structure

of

meaning

also

underlies

the

logic

of

narratives of

detachment.

While

investment narratives draw from discourses of

traditional

femininity,

detachment narratives

respond

to a

larger

field

of

practices

and

images

about

masculinity. Hegemonic understandings

of

masculinity

underscore success and the achievement of

identity through

work,

the breadwinner

role,

rationality

and

neutrality

(Connell, 1995).

Given these discursive

elements

and

the fact that the male

paralegals

worked

in a female-dominated

occupation,

the

logic

of their detachment narratives

entailed locating the sources of their identity and self-esteem somewhere

outside

the

workplace.

Their

stories

highlighted preparation

for

a

career,

the

job

as

only temporary.

Others

said

they

kept

the

job

to make

money

to

enable them

to

pursue

other more

appropriate

male

occupational

identities,

for

example,

as the virtuous artist. In

defining

themselves

as

occupationally

transient

in

a female-dominated

occupation,

by

emphasizing

other more

appropriate

male

occupational

identities,

or

downplaying

their

loyalty

to

the

firm,

male

paralegals

at

once defended

against

their

gender

transgression

and mobilized their

masculinity (Yancey

Martin, 2003).

At

the same

time,

the rhetoric of

preparing

for

the

future,

assuming

this

work as a temporary step to another job, and developing other skills and

expertise

-

also draws

from

newer

managerial

discourses of the flexible

worker who is

encouraged

to invest

in

themselves rather than

in

organiz

ations,

and

in

potential

opportunities

rather than

predictable

career

paths.

Attorneys,

as

professionals

who were once in

training,

also

participated

in

constructing

these narratives.

They

encouraged

male

paralegals

to

go

to

professional

school,

wrote

them

letters

of

recommendation,

and

recognized

their other identities and achievements as

appropriately

masculine.

As a

consequence,

male

paralegals

were not

treated

in

the same

way

that female

paralegals

were.

They

were addressed as

'professionals

in

training',

while

women were addressed

as

caretakers and mothers.

Not all women told stories of investment and

personal

loyalty

in

the

workplace

-

think,

for

instance,

of the women who

adopted

the

'babysitting

strategy'. Significantly,

these women distanced

themselves from the

job



19/32

300

Ethnography

6(3)

through humor or irreverence, but they also drew upon the field of prac

tices and

images

associated with

traditional

femininity

to

exaggerate

and

parody

the role of

mother. While

the

tone of their

story may

be

contemp

tuous

or

disdainful,

the rhetorical elements

they

utilized are

gendered

as

traditionally

feminine.

Interestingly,

when women tried to draw

from

elements

of masculine narratives such as the

occupational

transient,

they

were

not

taken

seriously.

For

example,

when Pierce

was

doing

her field

work,

many

of

the

lawyers

knew she was

in

graduate

school,

but

they

could

never remember what

field

she was in

-

'Social

work,

isn't it?' Nor could

they

seem to recall that she was

pursuing

a

PhD

-

'What are

you getting

your

masters in

again?'

What her

transgression suggests

is the

power

of

narrative

strategies

in

making gendered

sense of workers.

Women

para

legals

who went to

professional

school and

pursued higher degrees

were

unintelligible

within this context.

Loyalty

in a

family

restaurant

Jessica

is a

34-year-old

single

mother of two children

who works two

jobs.

She is hard

working,

but more than

anything,

she is

friendly

and a

good

conversationalist. For her, serving work has always been a form of support

-

from the customers that she has known

for

years

who ask about her life

and

progress,

who ask

to

see

pictures

of her children

-

and also as

a

way

of

hearing

about other

people's

lives,

subsequently fulfilling

her natural

curiosity

about other

people.

For

her,

work

time

is

'social

time'.

On

any given night,

a dozen

customers

request

Jessica's

section. When

she is on vacation

or

sick,

customers ask

where she is and

express

concern

that

they

didn't

get

to see her.

In

surveys,

when customers

were asked what

they

liked best about

eating

at the

Hungry

Cowboy,

over

a third named

Jessica

as

part

of what makes the restaurant a

special

favorite

of their

families. Obviously her approach appeals to many customers, and encour

ages

them to also view the

exchange

of cash

for food as an

opportunity

to

exchange pleasantries

and

perhaps

even form

relationships.

Like

Jessica,

Beth

likes to

come

into work to 'see who's there'. When

describing

their

jobs,

the labor of

serving disappears:

they say they

come

in

to work to

hang

out and drink

coffee,

even

though

they spend

much of their

time

lifting trays,

filling

orders,

clearing

dishes,

and

rushing

to

gather

supplies. They say they

'really

care' about

what

they

do.

Because

both Beth and

Jessica

have

worked

at

the

Hungry Cowboy

for

a

decade,

their

approach

to the work has a

profound

influence

on the work

culture

as a whole. As an investment

narrative,

'really caring'

was the most

common

strategy,

12 of 20 servers used

it. As

servers

who train

in

many

new

employees,

Beth and

Jessica

have a lot of clout

with both

regular

customers

and

managers,

and derive

power

from

their

knowledge

of the



20/32

Erickson and Pierce

m

Farewell to the

organization

man

301

work process and the shared history of the work site, these waitresses in

particular

influence what Susan

Porter Benson calls the 'realm of

informal,

customary

values and rules'

which are 'created as workers confront

the

limitations and

exploit

the

possibilities

of their

jobs'

(Benson,

1986:

228).

Performing

a form of work that

is often

viewed

as

demeaning

and

belittling,

these

waitresses

say they

erickson, pierce 2005

Documents