The Profile of a Seasonal Worker, Part II: the Battle for Hierarchy
How should one define the "high position" that one holds, in life, in a job, in any sort of community? Is it the amount of money one earns, the amount of respect received from others, the amount of responsibility one takes on? The answer is an all-encompassing one that mingles all three, but yet is none of them, strictly speaking. To be precise, cash flow or that nice title on a business card, by itself, does not really mean much. Instead, "high position" is always a comparative term, one that draws comfort from comparison, a thought that "ahh, I am doing good because I am better than X and Y."
Social mobility, in essence, is an exercise in perpetual comparison, one that compels a person to constantly, persistently, and dynamically ranks him or herself with everyone s/he knows or cares about to get a good feel of where s/he is within a community of people working in coordination and competition. Being higher, if correctly judged to be so, means one can behave in a certain pompous way, and be exempt from menial tasks without professional or social backlash. It also means bragging rights, unforeseen privileges, and even chances of familial nepotism...
Of course, these judgments occur not from a complete blank state, but based on predetermined set of assumptions and knowledge. Titles make it clear who is higher up on seniority, and differing amounts of salaries and benefits further institutionalize those pecking orders. But not always are the hierarchies so clear-cut, creating ambiguous situations where sense of unfairness and power struggles come about. In the silent tussles of creating a nonexistent pecking order, people behave in certain ways to make themselves seem more prominent or higher up, eliciting resentment or acceptance.
The author has been fortunate to witness the silent battle in front of his eyes for the past week since a number of seasonal workers joined a much expanded labor force. As their time in the firm lengthens, these guys, originally with no clue on their tasks and responsibilities, began to acquire not just skills at their assigned tasks, but a more granular understanding of the corporate community that they are temporarily hired to help. Not surprisingly, some have become more skilled than others, and are taken notice by the regular employees working together with them.
Their differing progress, then, is coming to a direct conflict with the absolute equality that the firm still holds them with regard to title and salary - Obviously, two weeks of temp labor is not worthy of substantive judgment on who is good and who is not. Yet, ironically in a way, the temps are also paid the same amount of money as some of the regular contract employees who have been working with us for sometimes half a year and are by now deeply familiar with the work they do and the dynamics of their teams. Thus, the lack of formal hierarchy is causing an interesting back-and-fro among the staff.
The tussle is happening in the backdrop of two semi-formal initiatives: (1) a decision to potentially hire two temps into the regular contract workforce (no change in wage but more job security) and (2) regular contract employees are serving as rather unofficial team leads for the temps, as acknowledged by the management. So, there is incentive to perform well, and there is informal hierarchy, but everything in such non-institutionalized and flexible way that it deliberately allows some form of competition, among the temps and between temps and regulars.
The result of such silent competition is set by two trends: (1) the regulars are desperate to show their "veteran status" in the context of same tasks being given to them and the temps. They are eager to bash the temps for their lack of effort and thoroughness in completing the task. But at the same time, they do not wish for the temps to abandon their tasks and leave them with uncontrollable load. (2) the temps have hope and lack of hope simultaneously. Hope for becoming regular drive some to work hard, while lack of hope after seeing regulars work hard and being criticized leads to some giving up.
Social mobility, in an ambiguously defined way, becomes a double-edged sword. Those who believe they can overachieve becomes motivated by it, even without promises of more money or a nice title. Those who perceive themselves to be the downtrodden losers in the battle, however, accelerate their "bowing out" process, earning as much as they can while putting in the minimum required effort. But for those with optimism, the battle to prove themselves and retain their place in their new workplace will continue a long and tough one. Seeing how it unfolds will remain interesting.
Social mobility, in essence, is an exercise in perpetual comparison, one that compels a person to constantly, persistently, and dynamically ranks him or herself with everyone s/he knows or cares about to get a good feel of where s/he is within a community of people working in coordination and competition. Being higher, if correctly judged to be so, means one can behave in a certain pompous way, and be exempt from menial tasks without professional or social backlash. It also means bragging rights, unforeseen privileges, and even chances of familial nepotism...
Of course, these judgments occur not from a complete blank state, but based on predetermined set of assumptions and knowledge. Titles make it clear who is higher up on seniority, and differing amounts of salaries and benefits further institutionalize those pecking orders. But not always are the hierarchies so clear-cut, creating ambiguous situations where sense of unfairness and power struggles come about. In the silent tussles of creating a nonexistent pecking order, people behave in certain ways to make themselves seem more prominent or higher up, eliciting resentment or acceptance.
The author has been fortunate to witness the silent battle in front of his eyes for the past week since a number of seasonal workers joined a much expanded labor force. As their time in the firm lengthens, these guys, originally with no clue on their tasks and responsibilities, began to acquire not just skills at their assigned tasks, but a more granular understanding of the corporate community that they are temporarily hired to help. Not surprisingly, some have become more skilled than others, and are taken notice by the regular employees working together with them.
Their differing progress, then, is coming to a direct conflict with the absolute equality that the firm still holds them with regard to title and salary - Obviously, two weeks of temp labor is not worthy of substantive judgment on who is good and who is not. Yet, ironically in a way, the temps are also paid the same amount of money as some of the regular contract employees who have been working with us for sometimes half a year and are by now deeply familiar with the work they do and the dynamics of their teams. Thus, the lack of formal hierarchy is causing an interesting back-and-fro among the staff.
The tussle is happening in the backdrop of two semi-formal initiatives: (1) a decision to potentially hire two temps into the regular contract workforce (no change in wage but more job security) and (2) regular contract employees are serving as rather unofficial team leads for the temps, as acknowledged by the management. So, there is incentive to perform well, and there is informal hierarchy, but everything in such non-institutionalized and flexible way that it deliberately allows some form of competition, among the temps and between temps and regulars.
The result of such silent competition is set by two trends: (1) the regulars are desperate to show their "veteran status" in the context of same tasks being given to them and the temps. They are eager to bash the temps for their lack of effort and thoroughness in completing the task. But at the same time, they do not wish for the temps to abandon their tasks and leave them with uncontrollable load. (2) the temps have hope and lack of hope simultaneously. Hope for becoming regular drive some to work hard, while lack of hope after seeing regulars work hard and being criticized leads to some giving up.
Social mobility, in an ambiguously defined way, becomes a double-edged sword. Those who believe they can overachieve becomes motivated by it, even without promises of more money or a nice title. Those who perceive themselves to be the downtrodden losers in the battle, however, accelerate their "bowing out" process, earning as much as they can while putting in the minimum required effort. But for those with optimism, the battle to prove themselves and retain their place in their new workplace will continue a long and tough one. Seeing how it unfolds will remain interesting.
Comments
Post a Comment