Temporal spans in talk: doing consistency to construct fair organization

Organization Studies, Nov-Dec, 2002 by Jeanie M. Forray, Jill Woodilla

Abstract

It is generally understood that time, among its other aspects, is a resource in organizational life. In this paper, we take an interpretive perspective to this notion by considering temporality as a verbal resource in the work of organizing. We introduce the concept of 'temporal span' and discuss the ways in which temporal spans in talk serve to establish consistency as an ongoing attribute of organizational reality. Empirical examples drawn from an ethnomethodological study of human resource managers demonstrate interactions during which these managers invoke temporal spans to construct 'fair organization'. We discuss the use of temporality as a verbal resource with respect to the interactional practices of human resource managers and the quality of consistency in organizational life.

Descriptors: organizational discourse, human resource management, organizational justice, ethnomethodology, temporal span, time

Introduction

Towards the end of the 1990s, the Clinton Administration in Washington declared that its policies and actions were creating a 'bridge to the twenty first century'. This talk of actions in the present that would pass over the temporal divide of Y2K and emerge as results at some future time and place invoked the metaphor of abridge. In this paper, we take a different approach to time and its bridging effects by focusing on the ways in which 'temporal spans' occur in everyday organizational talk. Such 'temporal span talk' involves ways of speaking that link images of the past or the future with the present for organizational purposes. Specifically, we consider the spanning of time between past and present, or future and present, such that organizational activity in the present maintains the quality of consistency or faimess. Through situated examples of organizational talk involving human resource managers, we demonstrate instances in which utterances concerning organizational actions in past or future time fram es are brought to bear on the topic of present action. Such verbal practices, we claim, are one way in which human resource managers enact 'fairness', a quality requisite to sustaining their institutional role.

The paper is organized in four sections. In the first section a conceptual framework is established for discussing the work of human resource managers and time as a verbal resource. The second section describes our research methodology. In the third section, empirical examples are presented and discussed. Finally, in the fourth section, the implications are discussed.

Conceptual Framework

Responsibilities of Human Resource Managers

Much of the literature on organizational justice assumes that managers are responsible for maintaining a fair workplace (see, e.g., Sheppard et al. 1992). Human resource managers, m particular, are charged with the responsibility for maintaining this quality in organizational life. This link between human resource management and issues of fairness or justice draws on an extensive body of theory and research (see Cropanzano and Randall 1993; Sheppard et al. 1992). Traditional organizational justice inquiry invokes a functionalist approach and generally concerns the perceptions of employees about the fairness of organizational policies and procedures. Such theory suggests that there are various components that contribute to an individual's sense of fairness (Adams 1963; Leventhal 1980). In particular, Leventhal (1980) notes, consistency is a principal constituent of perceptions of procedural justice. Indeed, human resource managers themselves express the importance of maintaining consistent standards and rules as a central aspect of their role (Forray 1998).

As the organizational point person for all manner of employer and employee-related problems, the everyday work of human resource managers means dealing with 'organizational trouble'. Such 'trouble', or 'social disruption' as discussed in the sociological literature, represents what the layperson might describe as 'a problem' (Mills 1957). While 'trouble' may be any situation with the potential for conflict or ill will, perceptions of unfairness or injustice are clearly one form of trouble. Yet, as organizational actors in formal positions of leadership, all managers have the authority to define and frame situations for others (Smircich and Morgan 1982). Human resource managers, as managers, frame situations for others to sustain the perception of fair organization.

Employers and employees alike expect the human resource manager to smooth or work out trouble, because trouble impedes the performance of individuals and the organization. An important part of the work of human resource managers can be viewed as an ongoing effort to anticipate and avoid trouble, both for themselves and for the organization. One way in which human resource managers avoid trouble is by not allowing perceptions of unfairness to occur. Thus, their ongoing orientation is to ensure that all actions are perceived as fair and consistent over time. The work of the human resource manager is to maintain the perception that organizational actors are continuously engaged in constructing a fair organization.