Search results

This chapter builds upon the analysis of the last chapter, as fans have to deal with the issues that arise from their team’s financial superiority. Here, we question what happens when that financial superiority is accompanied by significant moral and ethical issues. Recent involvement of state actors in the ownership of English football has been evidencable and occasionally appears clear. Various reflexes and cognitive distancing occur from fandoms when football club ownership engages in practices that, according to the normative models that fans ascribe to their clubs, are mutually exclusive with the values of the fanbase and the club’s history. A common form of fan reflex often takes the form of distancing the players on the pitch from the club’s institutional structures, effectively teasing out the matchday experience from the structures that benefit from the raw emotion it generates. Another reflex is questioning why the fan should surrender their club when a morally, ethically problematic ownership model has acquired it. Here we have perhaps the greatest challenge to the normative model and, rather than negotiating that tension, as often as not the response is to try and ignore it.

Artists operating under a studio model, such as Andy Warhol, have frequently been described as reducing their work to statements of authorship, indicated by the signature finally affixed to the work. By contrast, luxury goods manufacturers decry as inauthentic and counterfeit the handbags produced during off-shift hours using the same materials and craftsmanship as the authorized goods produced hours earlier. The distinction between authentic and inauthentic often turns on nothing more than a statement of authorship. Intellectual property law purports to value such statements of authenticity, but no statement has value unless it is accepted as valid by its audience, a determination that depends on shared notions of what authenticity means as well as a common understanding of what authenticity designates.

Erving Goffman has been variously interpreted as a symbolic interactionist, a structural functionalist, or an a-structural power-game theorist. However, when considering Goffman’s affiliation with the human ecology (HEC) of Robert Park and Everett Hughes, one is able to shed new light on Goffman’s relationship to the aforementioned sociological paradigms. This chapter will demonstrate that his Darwinist underpinnings and overall implicit evolutionary perspective allowed him to develop a dramaturgical theory that explicates how actors are able to understand, predict, anticipate, accommodate to, and influence others while pursuing one’s own or own group’s interests, through one or more of role “taking,” “playing,” and “making.” Furthermore, Goffman elaborates upon Park’s use of dramaturgy, following him in making more room for competition and inequalities in status and power, and offering new dimensions and categories for specifying when and why different adaptive strategies will be used, within different types and degrees of accommodation. Ecological dramaturgy is the term we give to these interdependent lines of social action within stratification contexts. Such structural concerns ultimately separate Goffman from the more subjective and less deductive elements of traditional symbolic interactionist thought. We argue that Goffman’s much neglected ecological and evolutionary-minded approach to role-taking and its inspired analysis of competitive interactive processes provide a missing link in better understanding his complicated intellectual heritage.

Purpose: This chapter considers talent management in ‘situ’, at a time of unprecedented disruption, and identifies implications for practice and study.

Methodology/approach: We compare normative advice from the talent management literature with publicly available accounts of talent management strategies employed during the Covid-19 pandemic. We also include perceptions of employees from publicly available reviews (Glassdoor, 2020a), and a brief personal account.

Findings: Hospitality and tourism organisations are encountering unprecedented pressures for change, primarily due to Covid-19 as well as the sustainability and social justice movements. We identify three organisational responses to the pandemic – closing/contracting operations, consolidating around areas of strength, and creatively pivoting in new directions. Innovations in talent management were found to vary accordingly, including: humane downsizing and pay cuts; training and development (for managers and front-line employees, including in emotional intelligence, resilience, and delivering service excellence online); new talent acquisition, through new programmes, structures, roles, and partnerships; an enhanced employee value proposition, including safe and fun work environments, as well as improved pay and benefits; commitments to social equity and sustainability; courageous, creative, and resilient leadership; and effective communication. Despite these innovations, employee reviews suggest that top performing organisations continue to fall short on work–life balance, un-social working hours, inadequate compensation, and poor-quality managers.

Practical implications: Ever increasing business complexity requires skilled senior managers in multiple domains, and empowered, decentralised unit-level managerial and owner competence (with skills in emotional intelligence, collaboration, and negotiation). Front-line employees, capable of delivering excellence in customer service (despite disrupted circumstances), are more essential than ever. Successful enterprises, both now and in the future, will undoubtedly be those that prioritise talent, throughout all levels of organisation.

Research limitations/implications: Future research should undertake a more comprehensive investigation of talent management strategies employed (including from small business owners), as well as employee perceptions of their effectiveness (considering socio-economic differences as well as gender and race). Research is also needed with respect to the perceived value of organisational commitments to sustainability and social justice initiatives.

Originality/value: This chapter uniquely considers talent management at a time of crisis. Methodologically, it uses publicly available data of employee perceptions of their employers.

This chapter offers a broad view of ways organizations create and sustain social class distinction in the workplace and how these outcomes bolster broader perspectives about socioeconomic status and social class. One’s social class generally refers to earnings, education, or occupational status. In more complex terms, power dynamics create a dichotomy between owners of production forces and workers they employ; a social class structure of haves versus have-nots which organizes human relations. Chapter 9 draws from multiple research traditions to examine the wage labor system, combined with trends, myths and fallacies about social class, social identity intersectionalities, and specifically how social class is performed in organizations.

No matter how much people and their societies prefer to think of themselves as unrestricted and egalitarian, it seems that social class – perhaps more rigidly than any other social identity dimension – offers a ready reminder that social spaces and experiences at work, home, and elsewhere are clearly marked by social class. Key concepts explored include classism, class-free society illusions, and blue- and other color collar metaphors which connote power and privilege. To interrogate social identity research on social class in organizations, explored are subthemes of: socioeconomic status (SES) and the wage labor system in organizations; trends, myths, and fallacies about social class in the United States; intersectionalities of social class identity with age, ethnicity, gender, and physical/psychological ability; and “doing social class” at work.