Workwell presented yet another way in which a nonprofit organisation can be involved with for-profit enterprises. As the employment arm of a large nonprofit, Workwell worked with employers to place people with disabilities into permanent jobs in the Sydney area. Two salient points, one to do with history and the other with organisational operation, are important to understand before proceeding with the analysis.
Recent history has significantly changed Workwell. It had been operating as a semi-independent entity for a number of years when the parent organisation decided to re-integrate it managerially into the larger nonprofit. This involved eliminating a layer of middle management and placing at the head of Workwell a manager who had been employed in the parent institution for just over three years. In conjunction with this historical change, the operational mandate of Workwell provided for some subsidies for employers who take on clients from the organisation. These subsidies were government funded, and therefore a pre-existing incentive for the for-profit to develop a relationship with Workwell.
Despite these waves of independence and then re-integration into the parent organisation, Workwell maintains a significant individual presence apart from the larger nonprofit. It has its own Web site, and it is interesting to note that the name of the parent entity only appears one level down from the main page. On the parent page, Workwell was identified by a generic geographical marker as an employment service. This illustrates that the tension between its prior independence and its new position under the control of the parent organisation still exists for Workwell
Workwell was funded through a federal government block grant. As of January 2001, the organisation was funded through a trial case-based funding program. The Manager at Workwell came from the parent company. He had been with Workwell for about six months at the time of interview and with the parent organisation for about three and a half years before that. The office employs six full-time staff. The Manager (Rob), the Training Co-ordinator (Frank) and the Project Co-ordinator (Jenny) were interviewed for this study.
The linguistic threads identified and analysed in this chapter include language matching, social identification, intra-organisational communication, documentation, understanding the relationship-building process and recognising the institutional context.
Language matching is the degree to which individuals shift their way of speaking to mirror corporate communication styles. In Workwell, this linguistic thread appeared frequently. One of the recurrent phrases was ‘core business’, which indicated a sense of private sector language in the operation of Workwell, as when Frank said, ‘for running the core business of this services’ in reference to the employment placement. Here is another excerpt from Frank describing his work to the interviewer:
So uh, what I, I, I’m in a business which basically selling product which is not quite right. Alright? Now, we know that, and all of those who actually using that product, I uh, talking about product of uh, labour from a person…
This language matching, as well as the last example in this section, were later explained by Frank’s reference to himself as ‘coming from a corporate background.’
Here was another example of the use of ‘marketing’ terminology:
We have a dual approach. Firstly we do some canvassing, some marketing, some general marketing, we'll approach businesses, do a presentation on what our service is about…for the future. They second style is marketing a particular client. So we have a client with particular, possibly…and we approach that organisation. Not so much in marketing specific clients but general marketing. We identify organisations, look for a key person, contact them first make an appointment go along, do spiel, we just look for any avenues that we may be able to assist them, promote our benefits to them.
Rob
This language matching is interesting because the linguistic thread occurred in both content and process. The individual words of ‘spiel’, ‘promotion’ and ‘marketing’ were indicators of language matching, but moreover, the process that Rob described above illustrated a degree of awareness of the process of a ‘sale.’
A third example of language matching emerged in a dismissal of the differences between what people who received services were to be called. Rob made the specific point that they were ‘job seekers’, but this exchange between the interviewer and Frank offered a different perspective in the discourse related to language matching:
Interviewer: I dunno if you call them participants, do you call them clients do you call them customers…? The people you support…
Rob: Doesn't matter.
Frank’s perception of language matching was much more ingrained in his narrative than that of his colleagues, to the point where he did not use a consistent label for the group of people with whom he is working to place them in employment.
In Workwell, language matching was linked to social agency. Frank used language matching as a matter of course and Jenny demonstrated deliberate adeptness at using the discourse of business. Although they approached it differently, both informants’ discourse indicated comfort with the language (in terms of both content and process) across both nonprofit and private sectors. Their ability to match language enhanced their possibilities of successful networking and placement, thereby strengthening their individual perceptions of positive outcomes and proactive engagement with business.
Language matching appeared frequently in the documentation and in the organisational symbols observed on site. All of the documentation except one clients-only brochure contained references to both nonprofit values and business concerns. On the front window of the organisation a by-line proclaimed ‘working with business, the community and government’, giving precedence to for-profit links but maintaining a service focus. A small, framed plaque in reception proclaimed the ‘F