This paper has been published in Literacy and Numeracy Studies Volume 9 Number 1 1999 Introduction

The economic restructuring of industry in Australia and overseas and the creation of global markets and economies is the socio-political context of this paper. These new economic discourses inextricably link work with education and training (Field, 1990, OECD, 1991, Senge, 1992, Marginson, 1993, Gee et al, 1996). The paper is concerned with how workplace reforms and their associated training agendas and practices are engaged in producing the 'competent worker'. Moreover it suggests that these reforms are, therefore, also in the business of restructuring workers as well as work &emdash; a kind of 'human restructuring' (Deetz, 1994:24). A shift has been occurring from the production line to the meeting room as a contested site of (new) work and (new) learning where workers are struggling with (re)forming their identities. The complexities involved in the development of new subject positions, which are neither wholly passively compliant nor wholly actively resistant are described in this paper and are based on research conducted in one large restructuring workplace in Sydney, Australia. An argument is made here that the ambiguities created by subject positions that are simultaneously partially resistant and compliant opens a third space in which identities are discursively being constructed. Teams and training

Workplaces are organising themselves into teams and introducing team meetings across all levels of the enterprise as part of new consultative and participatory processes (Senge, 1992, du Gay, 1996). They are increasingly identifying and developing themselves as learning organisations where employees are expected to learn to be effective team members capable of successfully participating in a range of activities and interactions newly added to their job descriptions. Zuboff (1988) describes these capabilities as 'intellective'. The construction of the competent worker, therefore, includes knowledge, skills and attitudes that foreground social relations as much as the physical work of the production line. My research into one, large, manufacturing enterprise in Australia uses their development and implementation of participatory and consultative processes and practices within this organisation as a frame for investigating how the employees are struggling with new ways of 'being', including how the organisation expects them to 'be', at work.

My focus is on production-line employees and their immediate supervisors and my arguments are developed from postmodern ideas and research rather than tied to positivist frameworks. The latter, I would argue, most commonly underpin how workplace change processes are viewed and understood. The fields of human resource management and development are well aware that workplace reform is hard work and that there are complexities associated with any change process (Bolman and Deal, 1991). However, the dominant view of the processes involved seems to be that structured paths will inevitably lead to predetermined goals or 'truths' to do with both increased productivity and competitiveness, as well as the emergence of 'upskilled' workers. If there are conflicts or problems along the way, methods of addressing them, 'fixing' them up, will be found. Thus, for example, the training literature is filled with numbered and bullet-pointed procedures for creating/developing teams where the nature of successful teams is explored and then activities and strategies for producing successful teams are outlined. The outcomes are predetermined &emdash; you learn how to problem solve; be assertive; take minutes etc. The emphasis is on the processes, highlighted even further by the textual practices of numbering and/or bullet-pointing, and the processes are about organisational effectiveness into which the individual worker must fit neatly to become increasingly 'as one' with the organisation. There is rarely any space which could create a different focus for development &emdash; one where the struggles of the workers in these new contexts and new times is foregrounded, and where there may be less certainty about exactly what the outcomes could or should be. The discourses and, I would argue, practices of workplace reform most often represent the processes involved as sets of procedures to be followed where any notion of the subjectivities of the workers as central to these processes are ignored. For example, industry-based competency standards and the attendant competency-based education and training are constructed as sets of items and practices that can be broken down, listed and taught discretely and rationally. Once this is done, an appropriately competent worker will emerge. The major consideration is how to get from point A to point B (as quickly as possible).

Glynda Hull (1995), in her research investigating literacies in the workplace, argues against a discrete, linear process of developing a curriculum focusing on reading when she emphasises

... it's not sufficient ... to simply go into a workplace and collect the documents people are required to read and build a curriculum around those. One needs, rather, to take into account how work is organised and how that organisation affects who is required, allowed, expected to read and write and why. One needs to take into account as well how particular work tasks have evolved historically ... as well as the social and cultural influences on such change, and how all of this shapes literate practices. (7)

And I would add, how all of this works to constructs appropriately literate subjects.

The interrogation and deconstruction of a rational and linear view of workplace restructuring's training and practices may help to open up an engagement with the inherent complexities rather than seeing only a binary of either being seduced into complying with or resisting the belief that there is a new set of 'truths' to be learned &emdash; the search for a third space.

As working in teams is one of the cornerstones of restructuring workplaces and theories around teamwork; team meetings; working in teams; teambuilding, and so on proliferate, workplaces continue to develop and implement training in, with and for effective teams. However, a recognition that 'few groups are blessed with flawless members' (Bolman and Deal 1991:116) is often followed by ideas such as 'many groups will find that it is much easier and more profitable to restructure the group than to reconstruct each other's personalities' (Bolman and Deal, 1991:116). This kind of analysis demonstrates some understanding that there may be a question of the restructuring of the workers' identities involved &emdash; how they should be, or are expected to 'be,' at work. However, the 'problem' is neatly avoided by positioning it as an issue concerning group dynamics only, with a 'solution' presented: change the composition/nature of the group. A restructuring workplace

It is at this point that I want to take you to a particular workplace &emdash; a site where new discourses; new work practices and new identities are as much a part of the everyday as the material production processes. The commentary and analysis which follow engage with notions of identity and the possibilities for working within a third space &emdash; that is, a space which is neither absolutely resistant to, nor totally accepting of the changes which are occurring in the restructuring process. My ongoing research in this workplace over the past twelve months has given me the opportunity to interview, shadow, record, read documents and generally 'be' in the environment of the factory floor as employees struggle with ongoing change.

The workplace is in Sydney &emdash; a site of 800 or so employees in the manufacturing sector; a site where up to 70% of the production line employees are from language backgrounds other than English and where about 30% of the workforce is casualised. This is a site that is non-unionised and where people are rung or called in unexpectedly to be offered different positions &emdash; sometimes promotions, sometimes a move to a different section, or perhaps redundancy.

This is a company which brought in a new management team five years ago to restructure the previously family-run organisation with a view to both becoming, in the government's terms, 'more globally competitive' and 'more efficiently productive'. Management followed a now accepted pathway of developing a mission statement and a set of core values, ie the establishment of a new culture; a way of thinking whereby particular social identities of workers are constructed, and related social practices which they were expected to learn, demonstrate and value, are outlined (Gee, Hull and Lankshear, 1996). The mission statement and core values began a process of textualisation of the workplace where the mission and values were reproduced on factory walls; in training manuals as well as in company annual reports and the like. The workplace and the workers were being defined in particular ways. The mission or goals of the workplace could only be attained if work practices, constituted here as core values, were integrated as part of the identity of each of the workers. The values of the workplace become the values, and thus part of the 'being', of each worker. (See Swales' analysis of mission statements (1995), and Iedema's analysis of bureaucratic-administrative job descriptions and competency statements (1998)).

A major change was the creation of a new section or department comprising a manager and five facilitators whose function is to set up, organise and develop workplace teams. The manager was selected by someone higher up the lines of authority. He was rung at home on a Friday night and offered the job with the suggestion that it would be good for his career. He isn't sure why he was selected, certainly no-one has ever told him why. He thinks it was probably because he was doing a good job as a supervisor and because he was studying a management course at university. The five facilitators had been leading hands under the old system and they went through a similar selection procedure. One of the facilitators described the process in the following terms: ... She was told:

K: 'I've got a good job for you, you're going to do a new job in plant 1'.

C: 'But I don't know anything about it ...'

K: 'You'll be good ... You'll be good.'

The perceived relationships between this unit and the rest of the organisation are both interesting and significant. The changing subjectivities of these key people as they assume very new work roles is foregrounded as they still are struggling to reconstruct themselves. It is a struggle where they are positioned by management and by co-workers as well as consciously repositioning themselves. Within the unit the discursive construction of selves is a central activity and emphasises du Gay's claim that 'it is the power relations rather than facts about reality which make things true' (1996:45).

Initially, my research was to centre on the operator level worker, that is, the team member, problem solver and new knowledge worker of the restructured workplace However, as it is the culture of the whole workplace - the changing discourses and practices &emdash; that creates these new ways for operators to be at work, the new unit itself has become a key focus of my study. It occupies a unique position within the organisation's hierarchical structure, ie as a wing with a middle level manager and senior workers imbued with responsibility. This is coupled with confusion among the members about the nature of their status and power, and a search for a secure location.

One of the facilitators explains their position in the organisational structure as:

The unit manager comes under the production manager so he's higher than the plant manager, and we're supposed to come under him, but we are not higher than the team leaders. I don't think we're higher than thepeople on the floor. I think mostly my level's there on the factory floor.

and

I don't think the plant manager has any authority over me ... well, he sort of does.

And further, commenting on the operators' perception of their relationship with the facilitators:

I think I get confused as to what they see me as ...

The first quote opens with two definite statements regarding the hierarchical positions of the people in titled, management positions. However, as the facilitator tries to find a clear place for her own position in the organisation &emdash; one which could be plotted on a flow chart &emdash; the ambiguities are immediately evident. A series of projecting, modalised clauses: 'I (don't ) think ...' plus 'supposed to', 'mostly,' 'sort of' and finally 'confused' demonstrate the struggle to articulate the status and location of the facilitators in relation to the plant manager, team leaders and workers on the factory floor. For management, questions about power and confusion regarding the unit are non-existent. It is a much simpler story: the creation of a new unit with specific functions working towards the common goal of improved productivity. They employ discourses of commodification and technologisation with which they are familiar in a manufacturing industry, and apply them to the production of the new worker. Thus, the new workers of the unit need some new things &emdash; in this case, new knowledge regarding participatory and problem-solving activities as outlined in contemporary management and organisational change literature. A large consultancy company is called in to provide a package of new knowledge in the form of train the trainer programs. The consultancy company, an organisation which audits the workplace; develops enterprise-specific materials and training programs and carries out the training, remains linked to the unit and works closely with them as a knowledge packager and transmitter.

The emphasis is on a rational, logical and linear development from a state of ignorance through a set of procedures towards enlightenment &emdash; a production pathway. The mode of knowledge production is very glossy; slick manuals and power point presentations carrying the essential message that it is up to each individual to act, to learn, to make a difference. Follow these rules and you will be able to do it. The workers are perceived as free and active subjects who have individual choices; there is little understanding of the complexities of the cultural construction of class, gender and ethnicity operating both within the practices of the workplace itself as well as within the cultural baggage brought into the workplace each day by each employee. This is the pattern set up for the facilitators which they in turn are expected to use in their facilitation roles.

This part of the story has foregrounded workplace practices which are linked to organisational and human resource management/development theory and practice literature where reforms are long term and iterative and where there are complexities and problems. Strategies are discussed and solutions posed &emdash; assumptions of (unproblematised) success predominate. I would argue that when these ideas and practices are applied in a particular context the emphasis is on streamlining solving problems. Management is in the business of making the process appear as simple as possible (just as they do with the production process).

However, for the unit manager and the facilitators the story is a different one. As they struggle with their own identities, there is a recognition that the human production line working towards the alignment of selves and work is not necessarily one with glitches which must be straightened out or solved by following the procedures in training manuals. Rather it could be seen as a site of on-going discursive construction of how and what to be in the new workplace. They constantly question and comment on what is going on. On the one hand they use the discourses of teamwork theory and practices with voices sweet to the ears of management. They want to succeed; to make it work; to do it right, while on the other hand they have become aware that it doesn't happen quite like this.

During my time with the unit both the manager and one facilitator have taken every opportunity to talk with me &emdash; they saw me as a confidante and counsellor. From the beginning I was an active participant (subject?) in the research. I too constructed a story, only my story had already been partly structured before entering the workplace. It went something like this. New workplace discourses and practices present a veneer of inclusiveness and sharing of power, whereas in reality they actively reproduce the hierarchies of power already operating. I have come to see this as a rather simplistic, ideological position. My discussions with the people above, and my shadowing of the facilitator in particular, highlight du Gay's and others' argument that these discourses and practices 'are not merely functional responses to, or legitimisations of, already existing economic interests or needs. Rather than simply reflecting a pre-given social world, they themselves' actively make up a reality and create new ways for people to be at work' (du Gay, 1996:53). It was not that the unit workers believed a set of truths set out in manuals and handed to them from management or in training sessions. They took what was laid out and went about their jobs in the contemporary moment however they found it, and within the parameters and constraints of a unit which often sees itself as 'without power'. I would argue that it may be the very location or (dis) location of the unit which has provided the opportunity for a different approach to developing workplace practices. As the members struggle with ways of being and the construction of subjectivities which are recognisable, credible and comfortable within this hierarchical and linearly-labelled organisation, they realise that it is possible to work like this in a more postmodern condition. Their discourses include cries of confusion about their 'real place', but they actively use this as a flexible position whereby they try out the new and different. It is the difference between the plant manager's definite position that:

what happens here on the shop floor ... myself or my team leaders are responsible. We are the owners &emdash; they (from the unit), are there as a tool to help us get to our final destination,

and the facilitator's view that:

the responsibilities aren't clear. The roles are not clear cut &emdash; perhaps they need to be a bit blurred because they are breaking down boundaries, old strict demarcations, but it does make things difficult.

That is, the facilitators see possibilities in hybridity. They are central players in the breaking down of boundaries. They are active subjects rejecting the fixed parameters and binaries of the 'old' work order' including notions of strict, linear pathway. This recognition of uncertainty is what may lead to outcomes which had not been envisaged. In the unit, the facilitators are not a neat fit with clear lines of power and responsibility. However, to see this position as a (re) location with the potential to open up a third space for different approaches and processes to work is part of the struggle for developing subjectivities which engender both feelings of insecurity and liberation. What about the operators themselves &emdash; the production-line workers who have been doing their jobs for many years? Here is another set of stories to tell. In all of the discourses and practices around participation, consultation and working in teams to problem solve and trouble-shoot, someone forgot to ask these workers what they think about it all. The first principle of participation and consultation implemented here is that it begins with a directive that teams will be formed. Then the makeup of the teams is determined; groups are organised and meetings are called at a designated time. Does the participation begin now? Well, yes after the teams have been trained (very quickly) to be in teams and there are enough roles in the consultant's STAR program to give everyone a job and a title. It also means everyone has quite a bit of reading and writing and numeracy to do as minutes need to be taken, quality reports read, production numbers calculated and so on. The meeting room is soon lined with computer-generated charts and graphs as well as information about team positions and structures, newsletters and other papers. But that is another story &emdash; a story about the extraordinary increase and complexity of language, literacy and numeracy practices in restructured workplaces.

Most of the workers want to succeed; they want to do well at their jobs: I'm a bit of a perfectionist. I like everything perfect and I like everything right'. Some talk about helping the company to retain the competitive edge &emdash; there was even a rumour expressing concern that I was a spy for a rival organisation. This was in contrast to the belief that I was a spy for management and would report exactly who said what about whom.

Contestation and struggle are evident. For example, one worker, talking about himself on the production line states: I do my job and I try to do it as properly as I can and then describing his part in a team meeting repeats: let's find the best way together ... that's the only way we'll fix it. Later in the interview he vents his frustration: we haven't got any power to say 'look we said we are going to fix this, and you the supervisor, whoever's in charge of us, you haven't done anything. Well, you gonna fix it or what?'. The worker shifts from the first person 'I' of his production-line role, to the inclusive 'we' of the team meeting discourse &emdash; a 'we' that includes co-workers/team members, team leader and facilitator; and finally to the juxtaposition of 'we' and 'you' where the 'you' is the team leader (still often referred to with their former title, supervisor). This movement from first to second person and from singular to plural and then to second person singular, demonstrates how he is grappling with his roles and positions in the changing workplace. The new social relations of the meeting room are complex, and serious games of inclusion and exclusion are played out in struggles around formation of identities. New ways of being in teams is not just happening easily after a little training in speaking out and conflict resolution and the like.

My one brief and unexpected conversation with the then production manager elicited the comment that: I can't understand why they just won't co-operate; there are too many who just don't want to change. For him the change was a development of some communication and group skills and then the use of these skills to move production along. Anyone who didn't go along with this, ie any disruption, was read as non-compliance and active obstruction. For him the struggle and contestation was of a different framing. He remains light years away from his workers. The discourse communities of the managers and the workers overlap, but the meanings being constructed about their worlds of work and about themselves as workers are very different.

There is an expectation that the operators or team members will meet regularly and take on projects &emdash; this means they identify a problem and follow a set procedure (Problem Solving Plus) to solve it. As might be expected, different subject positions are taken up. Some take to the challenge, others remain silent and/or inactive and yet others are loudly cynical or angry. There is some confusion here too about what the new relationships are and what power they have. It is not a simple story of creating discourses to make the workers believe they have some decision-making power. The teams exist and the workers meet to discuss and work to solve problems in their material world, while at the same time they work at discursively constructing selves in these new roles. The facilitator is always there and seems to recognise this dual construction. Sometimes the formation of subjectivities dominates in team meetings and no progress is made towards solving the production problem. There is a balancing act going on. There is a point at which the team is brought back to the material task and the performativity principle wins out. But the disruptions are there and the spaces to see them as a necessary and productive part of reconceptualising work and workers open up. The facilitators and the team members are at once part of the same struggle.

Conclusion

For the facilitators and operators the new discourses and new knowledge are not so much about how to work in teams and how to problem-solve and be participatory, but rather how to 'be' and 'do' in this new context of work as talk. They have already learnt what to do on their section of the production line and now the learning is of a different kind. It is more than the learning of consultancy manuals and training programs constituted as sets of skills and strategies; and it is more than the mastery of new language and literacy demands. It is understanding that what is involved in the new work order is the production of new subjectivities. And it is also creating the spaces in training rooms, meeting rooms, literacy classes and so on to work with this knowledge to develop active subjects. The challenges for us, as educators and trainers are substantial. In our work as language, literacy and numeracy practitioners involved in workplaces, an engagement with the (re)structuring of workers is part of critical learning and teaching.

In our own restructuring workplaces we, too, are being asked to (re)locate traditional educational teaching and research practices. Whether this involves roles as commissioned researchers and/or teachers working within new collaborative partnerships with industry and government bodies; or substantive changes to existing curricula and student (client?) cohorts, paradoxically, ongoing change is becoming the only certainty. Thus, educational institutions and industrial workplaces can, in some ways, be examined alongside one another. The 'new work order' fuelled by global, economic productivity principles and beliefs is spawning restructuring of work and workers in seemingly dissimilar sites and locations. I am very aware of the irony inherent in my own engagement in researching and writing about the restructuring of work practices and workers' identities in 'other' workplaces, while at the same time struggling with the positions and possibilities for my own academic practices and identity in the academy.

We must not lose sight of the importance of working to understand the complexities of these new times and the importance of foregrounding the struggles employees across a range of workplaces are facing in developing ways of being and knowing at work. It would be easy to get getting caught up in prevailing political binaries which position workers as either passive compliers or active resisters. If the world of work is a world of change for all of us then neither of these subject positions is a very useful one. Similarly, practices which concentrate on a linear pathway to (often economic) success, approaching the shaping of subjects as the assemblage of a production line, are inadequate and often counter-productive. 'Under postmodern conditions persons exist in a state of continuous construction and reconstruction; it is a world where anything goes that can be negotiated' (Gergen, 1991:5). Exploring the complex negotiations and (re)locating them in a legitimate space for development of new identities and multiple subject positions, rather than as problems to be overcome and solved, is an alternative approach to understanding and learning to 'be' at work.

References

Bolman, L and Deal, T (1991) Reframing Organisations: Artistry, choice and leadership, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.

Deetz, S A (1994) The Micro-politics of Identity Formation in the Workplace: The case of a knowledge intensive firm, Human Studies, vol 17, pp 23-44.

du Gay, P (1996) Consumption and Identity at Work, Sage, London.

Field, L (1990) Skilling Australia, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne.

Gee, J, Lankshear, C and Hull, G (1996) The New Work Order: Behind the language of the new capitalism, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

Gergen, K (1991) The Saturated Self, Basic Books, New York.

Hull, G (1995) Controlling Literacy: The place of skills in 'high performance work', Critical Forum, vol 3, nos 2 & 3, pp 3-26.

Iedema, R (1998) Institutional Responsibility and Hidden Meanings, Discourse and Society, vol 9, no 4, pp 481-500.

Marginson, S (1993) Education and Public Policy in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1991) Technology in a Changing World, OECD, Paris.

Scheeres, H and Solomon, N (in press) Methodological Dilemmas in Collaborative Research Practice, in Lee, A and Poynton, C, eds, Culture and Text, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

Senge, P (1992) The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation, Random House, Sydney.

Swales, J and Rogers, P (1995) Discourse and the Projection of Corporate Culture, Discourse and Society vol 6, no 2, pp 223-242.

Zuboff, S (1988) The Age of the Smart Machine, Basic Books, New