Organizational socialization as kin-work: A psychoanalytic model of settling into a new job

Abstract

Socialization, the transition from newcomer to embedded organizational citizen, is an inevitable feature of organizational life. It is often a painful and traumatic experience, but why this is so, and how its difficulties can be ameliorated, is not well understood. This article addresses this issue by developing a new person-centred model of socialization. We introduce the concept of kin-work, i.e. the replication of one’s first experiences of becoming part of a family, to explain how ‘successful’ socialization is achieved. Drawing on the methodology of memory work and psychoanalytical theories of object relations, we illustrate how entry into new jobs involves the unconscious re-enactment in adult life of the infant’s initiation into the family. On entry as a stranger to a new organization, one’s sense of self is fractured; processes of kin-work knit the pieces back together and one develops a sense of personhood and being at home. However, there is a sting in this tale: the homely contains its uncanny, unhomely opposite, so socialization is always ambivalent – one can never be at home in this place that feels like home.

Sustaining newcomers' career adaptability: The roles of socialization tactics, job embeddedness and career variety

“…First, career adaptability was lowered during organizational entry, which suggests that career adaptability is a malleable construct (Negru‐Subtirica et al, 2015; Ocampo et al, 2020) and that organizational entry is a demanding period (Ellis et al, 2015; Gilmore & Harding, 2022). This is consistent with other research findings and arguments in the literature.…”

“…Based on career construction theory (Savickas, 1997, 2005, 2013) and conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001), we seek to fill this gap. From a COR perspective (Halbesleben et al, 2014; Hobfoll, 2001), the high levels of unfamiliarity and uncertainty during organizational entry may drain newcomers' self‐regulation resources (Bauer et al, 2021; Ellis et al, 2015; Gilmore & Harding, 2022), and thereby have potentially negative impacts on newcomers' career adaptability. In such a demanding situation, organizational socialization tactics (i.e., training, future prospects and coworker support; Taormina, 1997) may serve as critical contextual factors that sustain newcomers' career adaptability (Halbesleben et al, 2014; Hobfoll, 2001).…”

On the (im)possibilities of being a good enough researcher at a neoliberal university

“…However, in Winnicottian terms, this healthy ego‐boundary between ‘self’ and ‘environment’ can disintegrate in adverse climates: for example, on entering a new job, moving to a new city or country, or being thrown into a highly competitive, neoliberal early career research environment (Gilmore & Harding, 2022). The anxiety and psycho‐social disintegration that could result may well pull us back to a primal, infantile state of dependency and deep vulnerability; a state that Winnicott (1964) would deem ‘unhealthy’, where an adult is incapacitated to move towards independence and instead regresses into states of helplessness.…”

“…This overall research climate ignores the immense emotional labour that is required of (especially early career) researchers, and specifically those interested in research that affects , such as health, austerity, and other social justice issues (Bondi, 2003; Lorne, 2021). In this vein, Todd (2021) observes the production of the ‘anxious researcher’ whose dispositions are shaped by the socio‐materiality of their (academic) holding environments (Berg, Huijbens, & Larsen, 2016) and a general lack of institutional ‘care’, ‘nurture’, or ‘protection’ provided by their employers – to employ a psychoanalytical Winnicottian vocabulary that influences our theoretical perspective here (Gilmore & Harding, 2022; Winnicott, 1965).…”

Editorial: Introducing the Special Issue to mark the 75th Anniversary of Human Relations

“…As Petriglieri and Petriglieri put it, the psychodynamic ‘approach [is] devoted to dismantling defenses, countering authoritarianism, and nurturing development and democracy’ (p. 1431); all characteristics, it seems to me, which might be good ways to encapsulate part of the basic purpose and mission of Human Relations . Furthermore, a significant proportion of today’s scholarship within the journal explicitly values and/or directly employs psychodynamics within their analyses (for some of the latest examples see Brown, 2021; Gilmore and Harding, 2022; or Nixon and Scullion, 2021). Psychodynamics is also, incidentally, if hardly coincidentally, one of the main approaches used by the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (the journal’s governing body) in their not-for-profit consultancy activities (Lawlor and Sher, 2022).…”