The Emergence and Development of a Psychodynamic Approach to Japanese Managerial Operations

In Search of Hidden Relationships:
The Unconscious Process of Organizational Socialization

I. Introduction

Organizational socialization is defined as "a process in which people learn the rules, norms, culture of the organization, roles that were provided by the organization they join, and technical skills that were inevitable to well perform their job(s)" (Takahashi, 1994a). Since the terms "people" mostly refers to the newcomers of organization, organizational socialization is frequently meant as longitudinal "learning-the-ropes" process of newcomers (Schein, 1968). As mentioned in sociology, socialization is composed of essential groups of tasks in order for people in the society to become members of the society, so organizational socialization is a requisite assignment for the outsiders of the organization to be insiders therein.

Past studies of organizational socialization were mostly executed by organizational psychologists and sociologists (Takahashi, 1993). Their primary purpose was to reveal: (1)the identification of socialization variables: antecedents, contents, and consequences, including development of scales for measuring people's degree of socialization (e.g., Chao, O'Leary- Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardener, 1995; Takahashi, 1994a; Taormina, 1994); (2)the process wherein casual relationships among those variables can exist (e.g., Buchanan, 1974; Feldman, 1976; Schein, 1978); (3)the strategies/tactics adopted by agents of socialization to facilitate people's accomplishment of socialization tasks (e.g., Jones, 1983; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979); and (4)the relationships between agents and newcomers (e.g., Kram, 1985; Weiss, 1977).

Typical studies of organizational socialization could be categorized based on four criteria stated above. For examples, Feldman's (1976) cross-sectional empirical study, one of the most cited studies, could be classified as the combination of criteria (1) and (2), for he first tried to identify contents of socialization as eight categories of independent tasks to be accomplished and consequences as four work attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction, internal work motivation, job involvement, etc.) of newcomers.

Past studies of organizational socialization were based mostly on the quantitative approach, which we believe has limited our knowledge about organizational socialization. Based on Schein's (1978) argument, Takahashi (1994a) pointed out that organizational socialization is referred to as "a dynamic process among newcomers and agents of socialization mutually evaluate, interact, and influence whereupon psychodynamic relationships among them could occur." That is, the quantitative focus in past studies has narrowed our cognizance about the irrational process--a psychodynamic process--of organizational socialization between newcomers and agents of socialization, despite that all activities in the socialization process happen between two subjects: socializers (agents) and socializees (newcomers).

Reviewing the past studies which were based on rational viewpoint, agents of socialization were primarily meant for members, groups inside and outside of the organization, and the organization itself. In this paper, however, to the agents we add internalized agents on person's conscious and unconscious process, which allows us to deliberate on the irrational aspect of organizational socialization.

On entering into the organization, socializees must face a series of socializers whose formal mission (namely, expected role) is to socialize newcomers toward the organization. Nevertheless, relationships of both subjects are likely to be pathological so that the formal mission is contaminated. Socializers may hold and maintain past traumatic experiences and, if socializers are composed of a group of persons, their collective fantasies may also be arisen: this is a case to consider. Besides, there are cases in which socializers attempt to socialize newcomers toward themselves rather than toward the organization in order to create and keep their power, concealing adroitly between socializers and socializees. Such a socializers/socializees relationships (SS relationships) is a basic component of organizational socialization.

Except for a few researches (e.g., Baum, 1990, 1992), the irrational aspects of organizational socialization has not been explored eagerly and sufficiently. We have illustrated research topics above. They have certainly been discussed from a "rational" perspective (e.g.,perspective of organizational psychology), but they must also be explored from "irrational" viewpoints (e.g., psychoanalysis), since we believe there are many problems left unsolved and unsolvable. For example, past researches explored the SS relationships insignificantly, the perspective of which was "rational."

The purpose of this study is to argue some issues of organizational socialization from the perspectives of clinical psychology, psychoanalysis, and psychoanalytic studies. Especially, well considered is the "hidden relationships" between socializers and socializee. The arguments and consideration in this paper will be based on a mixture of clinical psychology, psychoanalysis, and psychoanalytic studies, rather than being too psychoanalysis-oriented. In order for arguments to avoid being too speculative, some actual interactions will be presented which were obtained from interviews.

First, we will refer to the nature of socializers and socializees and the irrational relationships between them. Both subjects must be dichotomized into socialized and unsocialized, experienced and unexperienced, and experts and novices (Fisher, 1986), even though they are not different in the very sense that they are working for/in the same organization.

Next, we will highlight dysfunctional and destructive effects that Human Resource Management policies have, per se. Central to the discussion is the "dissocializing influence" of the collective initiation training for newcomers (shin'nyu-shain kenshu, in Japanese). Finally, implication for future research is discussed briefly.

II. Nature of Socializers and Socializees

1. Socializers

In their board sense, facilitator of organizational socialization is defined as "all kinds of possible agents that facilitate newcomers' socialization toward the organization." Any facilitator that socializes newcomers are regarded as agents of socialization.

Agents of socialization can be categorized classified into four subgroups: media (e.g.,mass-communication devices), institution (e.g., company itself, school, family), strategy(e.g., orientation program for newcomers, realistic job preview, skill-up training), and human (e.g., peers, supervisors, mentors). In this paper, because of limited space, we will focus only on human agents, naming them socializers.

Socializers are composed of three kinds of persons: supervisors, colleagues, and mentors. Supervisors are provided with the formal mission to socialize newcomers toward the organization and formal authority in order to facilitate their mission. They are typically the heads of the department, managers, and/or fore(wo)men. Organization entrusts them authority to make personnel evaluation, so that their agency is authorized and the relationship between newcomers and them is formalized by the organization they join.

Colleagues have three subcomponents: seniors and peers. Ordinarily, senior colleagues of newcomers (senpai, in Japanese) tend to easily become socializers. Peers (douki-nyusha, in Japanese) can be socializers in case they have superior skills and knowledge even if they are also newcomers. If colleagues become socializers, they may not be qualified as formal agents by the organization. They are typically members of the department and/or work group with whom newcomers are working. Colleagues as socializers are sometimes given authority if they become socializers as well as supervisors of newcomers. Newcomers tend to view senior colleagues as authorized socializers, even if they are not qualified in the least and the organization regards them as mere novices as immature as newcomers.

2. Socializees

Newcomers of the organization, or socializees, are not homogeneous. They differ in their past experiences in socialization (e.g., educational, vocational, and organizational) and their current states and traits (e.g., personality, behavior, perception, attitudes, and values): that is, the difference among newcomers is derived from their past outer experiences and present inner states and traits.

With regard to the past socialization experiences of newcomers, the notion of transition is central to discussion. Transition happens when people finish one socialization process and then enter into the other kind of socialization process. For example, school-to-organization transition occurs when new graduates of college earn their credits and get a degree and then join organization to earn their living. Transition focuses primarily on dynamism of metamorphosis of people between two separate socialization processes. Focusing on the latter (later) socialization process, the former process can be viewed as the process of anticipatory socialization (Feldman, 1976; Takahashi, 1993) in which people make preparatory learning (Takahashi, 1993; Van Maanen, 1975) to prepare for their forthcoming socialization. Therefore, until the entrance into the organization, newcomers have experienced the process of anticipatory socialization including educational socialization, job-searching process as anticipatory socialization period, and/or socialization experience(s) to other organization(s).

How does the past similar socialization experience work? Adkins (1995) hypothesized that organizational socialization is easier for those who have succeeded in socialization to other organization(s) in the past than those who have not, since homogeneity of organizational socialization is greater than heterogeneity. We presume that this hypothesis will be substantiated in many cases, but there are exceptions. We will present an example of such an exception: the case of Mr. O, a partner of a consulting firm.

Case: Mr. O

Author:What college or university did you graduate from?

Mr. O:Department of Economics, National K University. I got a job at the urban commercial bank which I had worked in. It was soon after graduation. Well, to tell the truth, I wanted to study further at the graduate school, but the situation around me didn't allow me to do...

Author:Why did you choose urban commercial bank as the organization you worked in?

Mr. O:I thought I was competent, and that when the time came when I was going to change my job, I would get some other one easily: that's why I chose an urban commercial bank. Besides, I was interested in finance.

Author:Could you tell me your past job experiences at the bank?

Mr. O:You know, at first, I experienced "goin' around the branch [offices]" as everybody did about 8 years. But then, they made me back to the Department of Loaning of the Head Office, at the age of 30 or a little older.

Author:Why did they return you to the Head Office and assign you loaning job?

Mr. O:Sorry if it sounds too proud--I had worked very hard until then, and I had earned good scores on qualified examinations in the bank. Well, but, I suppose that I could have had "support and connection" from the chief of the department. He also graduated from the Department of Economics, K University...but it is just an addition.

Author:Had you engaged in a loaning job until you got your new, current job at a consulting firm?

Mr. O:Yes, mainly, [I had engaged in] credit checking.

Author:Do you think you had some special events which made you decide to change your job?

Mr. O:Well, I didn't know why, but I was a little fed up with credit checking. At that time, my boss assigned me a long-term credit checking project that required me to have actual involvement in the company, so I went to a company in Kyoto. There, I had worked with top management and really enjoyed it; it gave me the exact "total map of management" about human, products, finance, and accounting...It was really dynamic and excited me very much. After that, I began to feel that I wanted to be a business consultant.

Author:What did the people around you say when you told them about it?

Mr. O:Of course, at first they were against my decision to change my job. My colleagues were surprised, and my supervisor who had supported me for so long said to me: "Well, come on, don't do such a foolish thing!" My wife was strongly--completely--against it, too. But finally, they all understood my decision, but it took time.

Author:How was your new job on entering a consulting firm?

Mr. O:It was in 1988, the year that the "Bubble Economy" popped up like a balloon at that time, I was unbelievably busy and it is not an exaggeration at all to say "I didn't even have time to sleep." In the firm, I was the only consultant who had--and still has--special knowledge and know-how in bank and banking business. I enjoyed my new job, freed from complicated interpersonal relationships in the bank. I also enjoyed the professional-like job; I like it very much and I had seen myself as a professional until then. It was nice for me not to take a long time to understand the contents and processes of consultation. Under the Bubble Economy, the projects I joined were successful. It was fun to work with marketing consultants to develop corporate strategies. Time was when I enjoyed my job very much...

Author:So, why not now? Why can't you enjoy your job now?

Mr. O:No, not now. Since I become a "partner" of the firm, I now have to evaluate my colleagues, just like a head of a department does. It's more difficult and harder than just executing credit checking. Sometimes, I remember the "good old days" in the consulting firm...

Critical questions for this case may be two that follow: (1) can we conclude that Mr. O succeeds in the current socialization to the consulting firm he worked in? and (2) how does his former socialization experience influence the current socialization?

Answering those questions, we presume that we must distinguish objective success and subjective success in organizational socialization. Seeing the case of Mr. O based on the criteria of objective success/failure, he succeeded in socialization so that he could be a partner: in this case, advancement is a symbol of objective success. His own statement, nonetheless, did not secure his subjective success. He appealed sense of loss with jobs that he could have enjoyed until he became a partner: he evaluated that subjective results of socialization is divided into success and failure (or malaise) before and after the advancement.

A failure in socialization as he saw himself, he often remembered (or regressed into?) his "good old days" in the consulting firm he was still working for. It should be noted that his remembrance did not concern and go back to his early socialization experience toward the bank and his job(s) therein. It can be expected that he could not keep a good relationship or position with first organization and job(s): that is, his first socialization to the bank failed, because of "complicated interpersonal relationships" which he had not clearly mentioned as well as dynamism and excitement in business administration. The consulting firm did not notice those reasons and his commitment to the consulting work, so that it enhanced what he disliked and diminished what he liked, and gave him a superficial management position that required him to do what he hated. Less endorsement allows us to conclude it, but he was "forced to dissocialized" by the Human Resource Management policies of the firm.

Separation of objective and subjective success in organizational socialization, previous experience of socialization, and organization's negligence of newcomers' emotion and intention are discussed very briefly in this paper. For more detailed consideration, the nature of organization should be deliberated: especially classification of organizational neuroticism and psychoticism (e.g., Kets de Vries & Miller, 1984) is an important variable.

3. Relationships between Socializer and Socializees

Socializers/socializees relationships can easily be pathological. Both of them are laid in the contexts of organization which is united by the economic logic, given roles, expected to learn norms and rules of organization, and anticipated to be effective members. Since it is impossible for an organization itself to socialize all the newcomers and keep on socializing all the members, the organization selects some members (usually they are seen as "good-enough" socialized members) and gives them a formal mission and authority to socialize novices toward the organization.

If socializers correctly exercise formal mission and authority given by the organization, SS relationships will work effectively and the organization can obtain fruitful results derived from such effective relationships. Unless socializers exercise them effectively, for example, they utilize authority in order to develop their power and cliques, the results are destructive for the organization, socializees, and even socializers themselves.

Both patterns are less problematic since they are apparent and the cure for the latter case is clear: only to remove formal authority and mission from wrong socializers and/or dismiss them. More problematic and unclear is "hidden relationships," which means the relationships in which socializers and socializees see their relationship as sound and effective, but pathological aspects are hidden beneath it, so that it does not work and they do not know why.

In what conditions are pathological aspects hidden in SS relationships? It can be hypothesized that either socializers or socializees or both (1)obtain past traumatic experiences (Freudian perspectives); (2)make a projection of good or bad beings into the counterparts (Kleinian perspectives); and (3)find "Anima" or "Animus" in the counterparts (Jungian perspectives).

We will present a case of a president of a small-sized enterprise. His status is founder, current president, a powerful and ultimate socializer of the enterprise who has created the organizational culture. In our personal opinion, this may be a typical case with Japanese presidents of small-sized enterprises.

Case: Mr. F

Author:Could you tell me what motivated you to found your own company?

Mr. F:Money.

Author:Pardon? Could you tell me in more detail?

Mr. F:It was money that motivated me and still is. I wanted to earn money; It hasn't changed. I wanted to earn a lot and buy a very large house, a gorgeous foreign car, and live high on the the hog (=luxuriously). My family must enjoy it. That's all.

Author:Am I right in assuming that your first priority, or value preference, is economic matters such as money?

Mr. F:Yeah, sure. Don't ask me twice...Money's important. You know, I hate glossing.

Author:What do you think is critical in operating your own company?

Mr. F:Most important is "credit." Without it, my company can't get along with it because it's so small. "Credit makes money"--it's my motto, belief, so I don't wanna change it--never change it--even if my workers wanna put it aside. I always tell them to understand it whenever I went drinking with them; I never failed to announce my belief. So the business has done so well so fine; it's because my motto influenced them pretty well. If my workers can't agree with it, I don't need such folks. (Mr. F began his speech-like talk which continued almost 10 minutes, and then suddenly stated) Do you know what most important to human is? --It's money, money, and money! All my workers will agree with it. You know, I hate glossing...

Author:(To one employee of Mr F's enterprise, who was listening to the interview silently) Do you think what the president said makes sense and do you agree it?

Empl.:(Avoiding eye-contact with the author) Yes, I do.

Mr. F:(Interrupting an employee's answer) I wanna allow them--my workers [sic]--to have large houses. When I buy a 4-bedroom house, I think they should have 3-bedroom ones. When I buy a Mercedez- Benz, they should have fabulous Japanese cars...I shall allow them to have it! It's their happiness.

Author: What do you do if your workers say to you: "I put my greatest importance on the works itself; so I cannot agree with your money- priority thinking and operations, sir."

Mr. F:(Apparently looking upset) No, no...I don't have such an employee. It's exactly a gloss! (Suddenly) You are a scholar, ain't you? You must know that the most important thing in business is money!
Mr. F's primary value was money. It was his own right to have it as a symbol of his success and a token of his compensation for his own unfulfilled fantasy. Problems are: (1) his values was integrated into the value of the enterprise which he established himself; (2) he had great authority and entrust it to himself to socialize employees--that is, he made himself as omnipotent socializers with self-producing and self-entrusting authority; and (3) socialization tasks (e.g., culture, norms and values) which were strictly determined and employees' deviation from them would be punished severely.

The interviewer (the first author) remembers the answer, vocal tone, and physical reaction and move of one employee who happened to sit beside Mr. F. In contrast to Mr. F's animated physical activity and a bit rude but active voice, his total reaction looked restricted by something. He kept avoiding to make eye-contact with Mr. F and the interviewer, moved very little, did not seem to have interest in the content of interview, answered rather briefly when the interviewer asked him, and went back to his own world of silence. Intuitively the interviewer presumed to tell that he was just like a kind of schizophrenic patient with negative symptoms; but in this case it is different to the point where he seemed to be prohibited to see, move perceive, and speak freely. It is certain that he might not be a typical employee in Mr. F's enterprise, but the contrast between him and Mr. F, who kept speaking the term "money" and "I hate glossing" a little obsessively appealed to the interviewer.

Where does such an obsessiveness come from? Surrounded by a severely competitive business environment, typical Japanese presidents of small-sized enterprises tend to have strong anxiety. It is only an assumption and we have little evidence to prove it, but in an excessively competitive environment, companies may fail if they allow employees to have diversified values. Organizational culture, norms, rules, and values are essential as "totem" in order to integrate and homogenize all employees internally and to fight against enemies (competitors) externally.

Such a totem is usually created based on the value of the president because (s)he is the only powerful and authorized person in the organization to do so. Employees' deviation from socialization tasks(e.g., organizational cultures, norms, value, etc) are forbidden since the president believes it will weaken the organization's cohesion required to live in a rather competitive situation, and that it means a "profanity" of holy token that shall protect the organization from a severe environment.

Socialization tasks as a totem are created in order for the president to reduce his/her anxiety: that is, totem is an anxiety-reduction system for him/her (the president) and is a group of requisite socialization tasks for employees. Therefore, attitudes toward the totem are different between the president and employees. For employees, the totem is only a series of difficult tasks to complete, even if they seem quite strange. In contrast, the president at first remembers that he/she made totem as an only anxietyreduction system, but as the holiness (strength to competition) of totem is enhanced by employees, soon the president forgets the origin and function of totem and deifies it as the "omnipotent being." However, it should be noted that in many cases, token, or a series of socialization tasks, was

based on the president's value. Presidents of companies create their token, deify it, require employees to complete a group of socialization tasks as a token. It is a process of self-deification of a president; omnipotence, sense of feeding-my-employees, and employee's sense of awe arise.

4. A Hypothesis on Mentorship

There are some topics as to SS relationships, but they cannot be deliberated thoroughly because we have no case for each topic. In the following, we will present an attentive hypothesis as to SS relationships, especially mentor-protege relationships, to consider and encourage verification in the future research.

When speaking to the degree of formality in socializing newcomers, mentors are more informal than supervisors even though both of them are socializers. As stated above, supervisors are authorized as a formal agent by the organization, so that newcomers tend to see that supervisors are closer to the organization than mentors are. Previous research revealed that the functions of mentor are two: psychosocial and career (Kram, 1985). The former means a series of psychological and emotional support for the protege, whereas the latter refers to a group of support to facilitate the protege's advancement in the organization. Both supervisors and mentors have those two functions, per se, since a supervisor of a newcomer can simultaneously become a mentor, and vice versa.

Suppose there is a newcomer whose supervisor and mentor are different. In that case, it is expected that a newcomer depends on the supervisor for career support and relies on the mentor for psychosocial support, since mentor-protege relationship is informal, emotional, and less-authorized than supervisor-subordinate relationship that is formal, rational, and well-authorized. Both relationships are different: newcomers of organization can choose either supervisors or mentors or both of them as psychosocial and/or career supporters. For example, one newcomer chooses his/her supervisor as career supporter and mentor as psychosocial supporter, whereas another newcomer selects his/her supervisor for both career and psychosocial coach.

Newcomers are novices who do not have enough knowledge and know-hows to be socialized: namely, they do not know who the effective socializer is, whom they should contact, and even how they should contact and keep a good relationship in order to have good psychosocial and career support. Supervisors are given "a wide berth" by newcomers, because for them supervisors are a symbol of the "great, fearful, and even intangible" organization toward which they are not well socialized. First, newcomers do not even know what their socialization tasks are to accomplish. Organization advises and/or forces newcomers to contact their supervisors to acknowledge those tasks, but it does not work. As a result, newcomers seek mentors instead of supervisors. For newcomers, mentors are not so formal, strict, and ceremonial in order to meet socialization requirements from the organization they join.

There are, however, two problems in the trial of newcomers: (1)the start of mentor-protege relationships and its influence, and (2)mentor's scarce formality in their function. The beginning of a mentor-protege relationship is usually voluntary: it is not determined by the work group, division/department, and organization itself. Newcomers become proteges of mentors if they would like to be, knowing that their relationships are based on their emotion and unconsciousness, that the relationships are vicarious and alternative to formal supervisor-subordinate ones, and that mentors can support proteges more psychosocially but less in giving them career perspectives because of their lack of formality. Mentors are not always successful persons in the organization so that newcomers easily tie mentor-protege relationships with them.

In the case where proteges want career support from their mentors who are very little formalized by the organization, compensation may occur between their relationships. Proteges, emotionally tied to their mentors, feel guilty to ask them for career support so that some proteges will seek formal relationships to have such a support. However, if there are some proteges who are attached to mentors, they unconsciously abandon searching for new relationships and their sense of guilt is maximized, which force dependent proteges to develop a sense of "compensation" in order to keep their relationships secure. Sense of compensation makes proteges commit emotionally to their mentors as a substitution and hope their mentors will give them more psychosocial support. Seemingly their relationships are healthy, well-tied, and friendly, but substitution makes proteges' emotional commitment to mentors excessively attached, so that their relationships can be pathological and destructive.

Ordinarily, organizations hope that their members will eagerly become mentors for the forthcoming newcomers (proteges) since preparation and maintenance of formal vertical relationships between supervisors and subordinates are costly and are avoided by newcomers. Organizations, especially Japanese organizations, tend to utilize mentor-protege relationships eagerly, and many of which even formalize those relationships as HRM policies: e.g., brother and sister support groups. It should be noted that the success of mentor-protege relationships depends on the nature and characteristics of the mentor and protege as was stated above.

III. Dysfunctional Human Resource Management Policies

1. Pursuit of Rationality in HRM: Excessive Deprivation in HRM Policies

As shown in the case of Mr.O, it is found that organizations easily ignore its newcomers' emotion, intention, and perspectives in the name of "rational choice" and "HRM strategy." The consulting firm which Mr. O worked for certainly knew the reason why it was chosen as the new organization to which he was socialized. The firm did not know, however, the hidden reason why Mr. O lost interest in his job at the bank, which seemingly was a stable and secured economic la vie en rose in the forthcoming future.

Mr. O's previous socialization experiences to the bank was a success objectively, but was a failure subjectively in which he changed the workplace to a counseling firm where he believed his intention came true. The consulting firm, at first, gave him a consulting job that fascinated him, but later, probably because of HRM requirements, he was assigned additional job duties of managerial nature to make evaluations of subordinates, which he did not like. That is, HRM policies of the consulting firm wanted Mr. O to work like a bank clerk, neglecting his intention, emotion, and perspectives. It is an excessive deprivation which gives employees despair and hopelessness.

Human Resource Management policies in organization must have development function (De Cenzo & Robbins, 1994) in order to develop human resource and socialize employees. Nonetheless, the case of Mr. O suggests that HRM policies is natured to deprive internal things of members in the name of rationality. This is an example that the pursuit of rationality destroys employees.

What implication does the case bring us in considering the basic attitude of HRM policies that pursue rationality? The answer is clear. HRM managers, especially managers in charge of recruitment and selection of new employees, must have an advanced knowledge on clinical psychology, psychoanalysis, and psychoanalytic studies as well as organizational behavior by which they can compose, restructure, and give meaning to careers of applicants. In job-interview situations, interviewers ask applicants typical questions, for example, "Why would you like to join our company?", "Are you sure your skill is enough to execute the job?", or so, and applicants answer them correctly: they will never answer "Why this company?...I don't know," and "You mean my skill is enough?...No, maybe not." Applicants prepare for such questions thoroughly and know "the correct answers" in such a situation. They emphasize their merits and hide their weak points; they ordinarily stress that their previous experiences of organizational socialization were successful and conceal the hidden, actual reason to quit the former organization; and they usually do not mention their fantasy, past traumatic experiences, and/or their emotional state, trait, and personality. If HRM managers have such knowledge or they hire professionals in those disciplines, SS relationships may remain psychologically sound, which will make the organization itself healthy and free from organizational pathology.

2. HRM policies contaminated by the omnipotence

The case of Mr. F gives us another insight into the basic attitude of HRM policies. If presidents of the small-sized company have great power to create socialization tasks as a totem, HRM policies are contaminated. It is natural to consider that they are determined by a projection of the president's unfulfilled fantasy. Employees are deprived of their own emotion, value, and the way of thinking because HRM policies are holy and determined by the president him/herself who is omnipotent. Those contaminated, irrational HRM policies are attached to the organization as a great myth, which influences the way of decision-making of current and later employees even if such a myth is completely out of date. This is an instance of the "omnipotent but irrational" socializer.

Can HRM managers, however, protect HRM policies from such contamination made by the almighty socializer? The answer is probably no. Even though HRM managers try to develop all HRM policies without pollution, their efforts fail since they are also weak socializees who are permitted to be members on account of their submission to the president. Rather, they try to avoid the risk of being doubted as delinquent persons in the organization who neglect socialization tasks, that is, impious persons to the totem and its derivative HRM policies. In order to avoid such a risk and hold their inner integrity of mind, they do not fight against any HRM policies, eagerly become clergy who serve the omnipotent being (the president), and treat HRM policies as a miracle, believing they protect employees from all the offenses by external competitors.

3. Collective Initiation Training for Newcomers (CITN)

We will present a case that implies destructive effects of Collective Initiation Training for Newcomers, CITN, on newcomers. We would like to argue the pathological aspect of CITN, an example of critical HRM policies.

Case: Mr. N

First Interview: September 1993
Author:What do you think after your assignment to the Marketing Department? I suppose it took three months from your assignment.

Mr. N:Yes, it took as long as three months, sir. I am doing fine. I had been afraid of my company life before I entered the company, but I keep good relationships with my colleagues and supervisors.

Author:What do you do in your job?

Mr. N:As for my job, I am doing fine and try to complete my work by myself--not to depend on other colleagues' help. I am trying to be a good worker, sir. I do not want to break any rule in my company.

Author:What do you think the reality of the company you are working for? Do you have any complaint and/or disappointment derived from a mismatching between your expectations and reality?

Mr. N:No, nothing, sir. It is just what I had expected.
Second Interview: September 1994

Author:How is your work life recently?

Mr. N:Well...um...just so-so.

Author:I can agree with you. I am sorry if it sounds impolite, but I suppose you were very much "strained" last time.

Mr. N:(Smiling wryly) Yes, you're right. I was tense at that time, just [three months] after CITN and my first assignment. Well, now I know such a strain sometimes leads to worse results.

Author:May I confirm that you said "I expected something special at CITN" in the last interview last year?: What is "something special" and your current evaluation of it.

Mr. N:(Smiling wryly again) It was "memorization," memorization of history of the company. One day during CITN, an instructor appealed and ordered us (all newcomers of the company) to memorize it. He said it was the best way to have a close relationship with the company... Finally, a "Final Exam" was assigned it to us many times, until we could earn good grades... Piles of Tests! I can't stand it any more!

Author:Do you think your special experience at CITN produced good results afterward?

Mr. N:Well, not at all. Now I can remember at that time I was "tired" and "fed up with it." But at that time, and sometimes after CITN and the first assignment, we were made tense. I had a good deal of pressure, because at CITN, the initial instructor announced to us: "Welcome to CITN, Mr. and Miss newcomers. The record of 'shortest membership' until last year is one and a half days. Now five minutes have passed...Please don't make the shortest record." Pressure accumulated after that...
It is believed that memorization of company's history did not work; it only gave a sense of exhaustion and weariness to participants of CITN. We suspect that in Japan, the evaluation study of the effectiveness of CITN programs has scarcely been executed, since typical programs are not scientifically and strategically structured, the goals of which seemed unclear.Reaction of participants toward CITN programs are not the same. there is a CITN program which makes participants feel a sense of anxiety. Following is an answer from Miss T, a newcomer of a medium-sized information processing company, to the question: "What did you think of/during CITN?"

"I felt very, very anxious. During CITN, I had kept a sense of 'brainwashing.' I felt, personally, as if I were forced to change even if I did not want to. Well, I believe the CITN program was a sort of brainwashing device. I fought against the force."

Miss T evaluated CITN program as a device for brainwashing newcomers. Need for brainwashing-like program is secured because it is believed to better facilitate newcomers' socialization. The reason of existence of CITN programs is not limited to facilitation of newcomers' socialization. Miss T continued:

"We, participants, were assigned to join a 'group discussion.' The coordinator was one of the instructors of the CITN program. I don't know if it was intentional, but he became coercive and began attacking us. I maintained my composure, which made him more critical. I was afraid the discussion would get out of control completely--the coordinator got so angry--but it didn't, because one of the female participants began sobbing. The coordinator seemed relaxed and easy. Maybe it was his goal to announce 'Newcomers must be tough' so he was afraid of being refuted. That sobbing woman and I are working in the same department, and she still sobs sometimes when she is at a loss, and my colleagues willingly support her...Well, she's that kind of girl."

Both examples of CITN of imply: (1)both programs gave participants much pressure in coercive fashion, and (2)the participant who began sobbing under the pressure of coerciveness released tension; she might be welcomed by an upset coordinator, without being criticized for losing her reason.

The second implication concerns the sobbing newcomer's behavior afterward. Her behavioral pattern was to "sob for help" when she faced difficulty and someone would help her. This is an immature behavioral pattern that must immediately be abandoned if she would like to be an effective members that is, well-socialized member; colleagues around her must advise or warn her to give up such an easygoing behavior, but they did not. It was because the organization hoped to have such immature childish members therein. Unlike what they do to less-socialized members in organization, the organization and socializers do not try to socialize such immature members and even help them to remain immature. We regard such immature members as "intentionally regressed members" that are permitted by organization. We presume that this is one of the pathological and destructive perspectives of CITN.

What is rationale for such a person, since they seem to do harm to other newcomers' socialization and sound SS relationships? One answer to this strange phenomenon concerns organization's ostentation for its great authority of socializing newcomers. In some cases where organization influence such authority on newcomers to socialize them, intentionally regressed members become childish and cannot hold their reason. Their behavior (e.g., anger, sobbing) becomes a symbol of organization's ostentation for its great authority. Organization and authorized socializers are afraid of being challenged by socializees; so that such an ostentation is essential to prove their competence in socializing newcomers. The reason may be the same that the manner of CITN programs was so coercive: organization and authorized socializers had a persecution complex to be challenged and attacked by newcomers, so that they accept and even welcome immature members. They do not have responsibility, however, that if such immature members leave pathological organization, and enter another sound one in which they are assessed correctly and labelled "(unbelievably) less-socialized."

IV. Conclusion

This paper is our first attempt to reorganize organizational socialization in the perspectives of clinical psychology, psychoanalysis, and psychoanalytic studies. Importance was put on socializers/socializees relationship, its pathology, and the implication for Human Resource Management policies. Comparatively, less attention was paid to the contents, process, and results of organizational socialization.

There are many problems left unsolved. Especially, those topics that follow should be discussed:

(1) Multiple agency and their fantasy: How many agents do socializees need? How does collective fantasy among agents influence socializees?

(2) Retroactivity to past traumatic experiences of socializers/socializees: How do past traumatic experiences affect SS relationships?

(3) Approach to ego-defense mechanism of socializers/socializees: In what conditions, do their ego-defense mechanisms occur and work?

(4) Closer look at and verification of "totem-making" hypothesis: Through what process, does it happen?

(5) Description and evaluation of polluted and pathological HRM policies: How is HRM policies polluted and pathological?

In closing, we would like to thank all the persons who became interviewees willingly, even though we believe that the greatest gift for them is to shed light on the dark side of organizational socialization, hidden relationships between socializers and socializees.