Governing working bodies through leisure

Leisure Sciences, 27: 315–330, 2005 C Taylor & Francis Inc. Copyright !

ISSN: 0149-0400 print / 1521-0588 online DOI: 10.1080/01490400590962425

Governing Working Bodies Through Leisure DAVID MCGILLIVRAY Division of Media, Culture and Leisure Management Glasgow Caledonian University Glasgow, Scotland This paper focuses on what appears to represent the consummate extension and blurring of distinctions between work and leisure, with employers providing some form of leisure opportunities for their employees at, or associated with, the workplace. Empirically, the paper draws upon investigations undertaken with three Scottish-based case study organizations conducted from 1999 to 2001. The results showed that healthy leisure forms are central to contemporary active leisure initiatives at work, but that the docile assimilation of these messages is neither universal nor without contestation.

Keywords active leisure, work and leisure, genealogy, health and fitness

Leisure activities located in the work environment have been afforded scant attention in the UK leisure studies literature, even though they have been documented in company histories for more than two centuries. This paper corrects for this dearth by exploring the conditions for leisure activity as an essential component of an increasing number of workplace health initiatives in the UK and abroad. The discussion traces historical attempts to govern “unruly bodies” (Holliday & Thompson, 2001, p. 123) at work before identifying a transformation in contemporary organizational initiatives and the central role played by active leisure.

Empirical evidence is provided that demonstrates the presence of employee resistance to the promotion of active leisure by employers in the workplace.

Leisure at Work: An Historical Analysis Before focusing on the micro-level analysis that forms the main empirical focus of this paper, I will briefly outline some of the key historical developments that have shaped the contemporary context for leisure activity located in work environments. Although examples of employer-sponsored leisure provisions were visible as early as the 17th century (see Burton, 1994; Campbell, 1979), the most important employer interventions in the leisure lives of employees have been associated with industrial capitalism. In the 19th century, paternalistic, enlightened industrialists consistently provided leisure opportunities connected to the workplace. In fact, the moral and physical health of workers has “long been a preoccupation of capitalists” (Holliday & Thompson, 2001, p. 123), justified on the basis of controlling and disciplining undisciplined working bodies (see Cross, 1993) and with producing pliable, healthy and sober workforces (Danaher, Schirato, & Webb, 2000). In the organizational sponsorship of parklands, public baths, and gardens for employee recreation (e.g., Rowntrees, Robert Owen, Cadbury’s), the leisure choices of the industrial workforce Received 17 March 2004; accepted 15 December 2004.

Address correspondence to David McGillivray, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, Scotland, G4 0BA, UK. E-mail: dmcg@gcal.ac.uk.

315

316

D. McGillivray

were deemed a legitimate target. Industrialists, as part of the Rational Recreation movement of the latter 19th century (Bailey, 1978), sought to promote particular normalized values concerning appropriate rational leisure activity.

These industrialists also were predominantly concerned with the promotion of collective leisure forms (e.g., team sports and social clubs) (Griffiths, 1996a). Although team sports were prevalent, little evidence suggested that health enhancement was the primary aim or outcome of this form of workplace leisure provision. Instead, Cross (1993) argued that fostering workforce camaraderie and generating organizational loyalty were the principal reasons underpinning investment in these collective leisure activities. In contrast, over the last three decades, the number of workplace facilities for health and fitness (Docherty, Fraser, & Hardin, 1999; Griffiths, 1996b), including cycling and running (Holliday & Thompson, 2001), have noticeably increased. This increase reflects a growing organizational concern with employee health and wellness (Griffiths, 1996a; Kerr, Griffiths, & Cox, 1996; Shephard, 1996) that is driven by a desire to reduce the costs associated with employee sickness and absence.

The early 1980s saw a major increase in the number of organizations providing wellness programs concentrated on the modification of employee lifestyle behavior (Chu et al., 2000) and designed to enhance “organizational productivity� (Townley, 1994, p. 127). As individuals spend up to a third of their lives in the working environment (Scottish Office, 1999), the workplace is thought to represent a convenient, efficient and effective access point to the individual (Kerr et al., 1996), revealing close links between the promotion of active workers and productivity gains (Fielding, 1990; Holliday & Thompson, 2001; Kerr et al., 1996; Shephard, 1996). The legitimacy of this perspective is further enhanced by the supposed economic benefits accruable from encouraging employees to participate in active leisure forms. These benefits include reductions in absenteeism rates, improved morale and efficiency, reduced insurance costs, improved working conditions, and enhanced market positioning (Griffiths, 1996b).

From Social Clubs to Gymnasia The rationale for provision of leisure opportunities has undergone a metamorphosis with more active leisure forms (Coalter, 1998) replacing some relatively passive activities found in workplace social clubs (Connell & Grainger, 2002). This shift is also accompanied by the emergent language of health and wellness and a focus on the working body as the target of organizational interventions. Griffiths (1996b) emphasized this point in her discussion of employee exercise programs: In North America, a change of emphasis from leisure to fitness programs . . . began to take place in the 1960s . . . rather than helping employees play sports within the social club context, North American employers became increasingly concerned about promoting employee fitness . . . specifically designed employee exercise programs, with professional supervision, began to be offered . . . this pattern was followed in the UK (p. 2).

Although slower to catch on in the UK (Kerr et al., 1996), a growing body of literature suggests that health and fitness programs now make up a more significant component of wider organizational wellness or workplace wellness programs than they did a decade ago (Aldana, 1998; Connell & Grainger, 2002; Docherty et al., 1999; Haynes, Dunnagan, & Smith, 1999). In some workplaces, the promotion of health and fitness now extends to state-of the art fitness centers (Foley, Maxwell, & McGillivray, 1999), aerobics studios, and

Governing Working Bodies Through Leisure

317

cycle tracks (McGillivray, 2003), which are often built on site or as part of a more extensive business park development. Furthermore, some organizations now refer employees to these facilities for weight management advice or other therapeutic treatments (Holliday & Thompson, 2001).

For critical commentators, some workplaces now resemble corporeal garages where the body is “moulded and directed, disciplined, punished or rewarded to meet the demands of the rigours of work” (Hancock & Tyler, 2000, p. 85). Moreover, as facilities are located in workspaces, the sacrosanct distinctions between work and leisure are also blurred. Employers extend their interests in employees “health habits” and “lifestyle” without the old regard for whether they occur at work or at home” (Conrad & Walsh, 1992, p. 99).

Therefore, a productive mentality crosses over into the leisure time and space. Despite these claims, little empirical evidence exists to either corroborate this contention or measure the extent of employee resistance to this creeping organizational reach. Before moving to discuss the research process in more depth, I will discuss the possibility of employee resistance at the micro-level.

Theorizing the Resistant Other (s) Michel Foucault, the French philosopher/social theorist, wrote about the possibility that individuals could actively resist what appear to be dominant structures, or “external discourses and strategies that attempt to discipline them” (Lupton, 1997, p. 103). For my study, I was interested in employee resistance to organizational programs such as those promoting health and fitness participation. Foucault (1982, p. 790) suggested that when faced with “a field of possibilities,” several ways of reacting are possible. Rather than accept that employees will exhibit docility by unwittingly assimilating organizational advice, Foucault urged the critical commentator to look for evidence of non-compliance and contestation to dominant social mores. This approach to social enquiry is demonstrated in the genealogical approach (see Kendall & Wickham, 1999). For Foucault, the genealogist occupies the role of the precocious child, posing difficult questions that others would prefer remain unanswered.

This approach to social enquiry problematizes apparently coherent bodies of knowledge, “opening up a space to question that practice” (Moss, 1998, p. 8). For this paper, a genealogical ethos is upheld by investigating employee thoughts and behavior at the micro-level to provide evidence of employees constructing their own lifestyle choices. In the process, the rhetorical statements emerging from organizations are challenged, and a more complex understanding of the dynamic work-leisure relationship is provided.

Some evidence challenges the effectiveness of those organizational initiatives, which have at their center the promotion of active leisure forms. In investigating the relationship between workplace wellness programs and productivity gains, Grant and Brisbin (1992) noted that a marginalized majority of employees fail to conform to dominant healthy lifestyle messages primarily because other competing temptations, such as those of consumption, contradict these messages. Lupton (1997) concurs but points out that particular social groupings benefit disproportionately from healthy lifestyle messages because they assign greater value to health and fitness. A series of other research investigations have produced comparable results indicating that people most at risk from lifestyle-related health problems are the least likely to participate in workplace initiatives even though they have the most to gain (Fielding, 1990; Shephard, 1992, 1996; Springett & Dugdill, 1995). Fielding warns those organizations investing in workplace health and fitness initiatives of the real possibility of resistance from the non-health oriented portion of the workforce. In fact, he produces evidence that indicates that a minority of the employee population will be willing to participate in such programs. Those employees that do are already likely to invest time and effort in body maintenance.

318

D. McGillivray

In summary, despite a growing recognition of the benefits of active leisure at the macrolevel (i.e., from governments and the wider health lobby), at the micro-level employees continue to exhibit varying levels of compliance with these messages. The forthcoming empirical component explores the extent to which employees are able to elude and perhaps undermine the successful implementation of these initiatives. Therefore, this investigation grounds the “ideas of local resistance in specific empirical contexts” (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000, p. 110).

Methods Maintaining Foucault’s (1982) emphasis on micro-practices and genealogy, this research investigation concentrated on results derived from the case study element of a wider set of empirical investigations (McGillivray, 2003). I focused on three Scottish-based case study organizations that each provided employees with some access to active leisure opportunities primarily in the form of health and fitness provision. The selection of these case studies drew on Fielding’s (1990, p. 77) stages of evolution model (see Figure 1). The three organizations chosen were Braeval Inc., Kymer Corporation, and Crombie International. Each organization was assigned a pseudonym to maintain confidentiality.

Braeval Inc. was a not-for-profit organization that managed a Scottish local authority’s sport and recreation facilities that offered employees free access to these leisure facilities through the use of a Staff Leisure Pass. The organization was identified as being at stage one of Fielding’s (1990) stages of evolution model, as it provided active leisure opportunities for its employees on a largely ad hoc basis without a clearly defined strategic purpose.

In contrast, Kymer Corporation was an immigrant organization from the United States.

Much of its innovation in the field was drawn from the specific healthcare system operating in North America, where employers have more responsibility for the healthcare costs of their employees than is the case in the UK. Under the banner of its “Live for Life” program, Kymer Corporation had also been providing active leisure opportunities for employees since

FIGURE 1 Active leisure stages of evolution. Source: Fielding (1990, p. 77).

Governing Working Bodies Through Leisure

319

the 1980s. For this reason it was at stage two of Fielding’s (1990) model (see Figure 1) but had yet to consistently record and analyze the impact of its interventions on employee health and/or organizational performance.

The final organization, Crombie International, was also an immigrant organization from the U.S. It was deemed worthy of investigation because it provided employees with access to multi-purpose, state-of the-art health and fitness facilities designed to relax, renew, and re-energize employees. It was at stage three of Fielding’s model because it operated a fully integrated health and wellness program supported by an extensive evidence base. It had also linked the promotion of health and fitness into its other business operations, including the development of an integrated sickness and absence policy that allowed for employee referral to the on-site gymnasium.

Within each case study, a multiple methods approach was used (Flick, 1998; Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2003). Yin (2003) supports the use of multi-methods in case study research in the name of triangulation (Silverman, 1993) so that a more complete picture of the real-life context is accessible. First, a discourse analysis of a range of documentary sources from each case study organization was undertaken (see Table 1) using the WINMAX qualitative data analysis software package. Policy documents, performance reviews, internal promotional materials, and external literature pertaining to the specific organizational initiatives were reviewed (see Table 1). These data provided an insight into the internal and external decision-making processes that each organization used to promote health and fitness participation to its employees.

The second research method utilized was semi-structured interviews (Saunders et al., 2003). These interviews were conducted with management personnel drawn from each case study organization (see Table 2). These personnel were chosen to ascertain the rationale for organizational provision. In reporting, the interviewees’ identities have been concealed by the use of pseudonyms. In total, 11 interviews were conducted across the three case study organizations (see Table 2). Each interview was tape recorded and transcribed.

Finally, employee focus groups were proposed to access the opinions of employees to the organizational promotion of active leisure messages. These focus groups were designed to explore the lived or subjective experiences of employees (Lupton, 1997) by providing a medium for understanding employee resistance to active leisure provision at the workplace.

Focus groups usually are worthwhile as they facilitate a more in-depth analysis of issues arising from the other methods and provide further clarification and elaboration (Wolff, Knodel, & Sittitrai, 1993). Unfortunately, only one of the three case study organizations, Kymer Corporation, permitted access to their employees for focus group enquiries. These TABLE 1 Forms of Documentation Braeval Inc. Board of Directors minutes 1998–2001 Staff Leisure Pass registration documents Employee newsletters Issues 1–10 Employee newsletters Issues 1–15 HR policy documents

Kymer Corporation

Crombie International

Live for Life ‘Spring into Life’ pack Live for Life Operational Philosophy Live for Life ‘Give Your Health a Lift’ pack Live for Life Health Profile Questionnaire Employee newsletters 1998–2001

Fitness Center Policy statement Teaming for Excellence program WHAM mission statement Employee Health Bulletin

D. McGillivray

320

TABLE 2 Case Study Managements Interviewees Braeval Inc. Ian, Chair of Braeval Inc. Management Board Mark, Chief Executive Jim, Director of Marketing and Quality Cathleen, Director of Operations Robert, Director of HR Kevin, Director of Finance

Kymer Corporation George, Occupational Health Manager Denis, Director and Live for Life initiator Caroline, HR Manager

Crombie International Eric, Site Services Manager Malcolm, Fitness Center Manager

access problems were a result of indecision and changing business priorities beyond the control of the researcher.

Nevertheless, two Kymer Corporation employee focus groups were undertaken (Table 3). Each group consisted of eight participants. Results generated from an earlier survey (McGillivray, 2003) indicated that Kymer Corporation’s health and fitness facilities had a range of regular (i.e., every week), lapsed (i.e., not for the last four weeks), and nonusers, and each focus group contained representation from each participation segment. Thus, each focus group contained at least one regular, one lapsed, and one non-user. Furthermore, to incorporate the spectrum of employees within Kymer Corporation, representatives from both the administrative and production divisions also were present. Although not ideal given their role in this element of the research process, the two focus groups did generate some interesting comments that will be at the heart of the forthcoming presentation of results.

Focus group discussions were tape recorded and transcribed.

As with every research process (Bechofer, 1974) limitations are inherent in both the methods themselves and in their application to the topic at hand. The lack of focus group data from Crombie International and Braeval was disappointing and detracts from the comprehensiveness of the investigation. The focus group method was central to the generation of data at the micro-level, but it suffers from similar criticisms to other qualitative research approaches for its lack of representativeness, validity, and reliability. However, these variables were not of principal concern here. Instead, the focus group component provided a stage for the voice of the employees to be heard. Subjecting the pronouncements of management and organizational statements to employee scrutiny is valuable and, to some extent, was fulfilled by the focus group component.

TABLE 3 Kymer Corporation Focus Groups Focus group # 1 (Main campus)

Focus group # 2 (Campus 2)

Carol, production worker Fiona, administrative worker Jenny, production worker Lynn, administrative worker Katrina, production worker Emma, production worker Kirsten, administrative worker Jennifer, administrative worker

Angie, production worker Katrina, production worker Susan, administrative worker Sheila, production worker Caroline, administrative worker Gillian, administrative worker Jo, production worker Shona, administrative worker

Governing Working Bodies Through Leisure

321

It is also necessary to challenge the pretence that research investigations are seamless, trouble-free projects, consistently well planned, and executed and devoid of major obstacles.

As documented, several problems were encountered in implementing the chosen research strategy and each could be seen to diminish the contribution of the study in some small way.

However, rather than invalidate the study because of its imperfections, I contend that every research project contains such imperfections. This study, imperfections and all, provided a particular representation of an organizational phenomenon that is open to legitimate critical scrutiny from others who employ an alternative conceptual framework to study the same issue.

The Production of Active Workers Research investigations across the three case study organizations revealed a heightened awareness of organizational responsibilities vis-`a-vis employee wellness. This was demonstrated in a number of distinct ways, especially in the discourse analysis and management interviews. First, each organization had either registered with or was working towards achieving recognition from the national initiative set up to promote employee health in Scotland (i.e., Scotland’s Health at Work award scheme). Second, management interviewees indicated a growing sense of responsibility for employee health. This idea was expressed in the words of George, Kymer Corporation’s Occupational Health Manager: “There is a shift . . . it is a perception thing . . . from government burdening themselves with all this responsibility, to passing on the burden to employers in particular, because they see employers as the ones who have got the wealth.” The management interviewees also demonstrated a keen awareness of the economic benefits accruable from an investment in workplace health. For example, Eric, Crombie International’s Site Services Manager, alluded to the organizational benefits deriving from his organization’s engagement with health and fitness at work: If we can provide the means for people to be fitter and healthier, then having a generally fitter people about you will be at work more often . . . not only are we maximizing the return on what we have invested in them, you are not having to pay someone else to do that person’s work.

Even interviewees from the least strategic case study organization, Braeval Inc., expressed an awareness of the business benefits to be accrued from the promotion of relatively inexpensive, non-threatening, and popular health and fitness programs. To illustrate, a review of Braeval Inc.’s staff newsletter provides a flavor of why this organization introduced its Staff Leisure Pass initiative. Under the banner heading “Improve Your Health,” the extract reads: Braeval Inc. staff will soon have the opportunity to make use of sport and leisure facilities free, as part of a strategy to promote the health and well being of staff and hopefully lead to a reduction in sickness/absenteeism levels. . . . research suggests that sickness costs a company an average of £350 per employee. For Braeval Inc. this equates to £213,000. In reality absenteeism will cost the organization in the region of £411,000 this year. Offering incentives such as free casual use of the facilities may help to reduce this, and bring positive benefits to employees (Braeval Inc. newsletter, Issue 3, Oct/Nov 1998).

322

D. McGillivray

The interventions of each case study organization into the leisure sphere were based on providing employees with health information and formal facilities so they could make more “informed,” and by definition, more appropriate, lifestyle choices. Eric, Crombie International’s Site Services Manager, stated, “If we can do something to help them get into a better routine, helping them with fitness and eating better now, then hopefully it will pay off later on in terms of sickness and absence.”

None of the case study organizations provided employees with access to activities not deemed health enhancing. Instead, access to a narrowly defined range of active leisure forms was encouraged. This result concurs with the earlier discussion of a shift from the promotion of collective, potentially health-damaging activities (e.g., social clubs) to individualized, health-promoting ones. This shift was articulated by Malcolm, Crombie International’s Fitness Center Manager: The old sports and social aspects fitted closer to probably the traditional lifestyles of what would be the manufacturing industry. Going out to the social club to have a few drinks and a game of football or rugby. They are more and more going away from that and providing the health and wellbeing—because the way that the media are going now, more people know about the benefits of health and wellbeing.

Malcolm’s comments reflect Griffiths’ (1996b) view that organizations increasingly invest time and resources into workplace leisure initiatives on the basis of their health promoting, and by implication, productive properties. Despite their varying levels of investment in facilities, each case study organization offered health-enhancing leisure activity as a positive means of alleviating poor health practices. In each case, active leisure opportunities were not only provided but also subsidized. Kymer Corporation and Braeval Inc.’s provision was free, while Crombie International charged a discounted rate. Despite the organizational rhetoric, the managerial interviewees provided intimations of employee conflict, contestation, and resistance to the organizational initiatives described. Accordingly, the imperfect dissemination of active leisure messages forms the basis for further discussion.

Resistance to Active Leisure at Work This section provides evidence of resistance to active leisure, especially how it emerges and is manifest at the local organizational level. In doing so, it draws on examples of contestation and conflict arising in the case study organizations. These results draw principally on data generated from the Kymer Corporation employee focus groups, although the views of management interviewees are also accorded some space.

The results indicated that employees can and do challenge and sometimes reject the role their employer plays as a guardian of their wellness. For example, self-governing attitudes were not found consistently across the workforce in either of the three case study organizations. Instead, a plethora of variable employee reactions to the promotion of active leisure at work was apparent. Most often the variable responses were associated with social demographic factors including age, gender, and occupational status. In some instances, these factors contributed towards non-participation in workplace initiatives. This non participation was demonstrated by the comments of the following two Kymer Corporation employees: “No matter what you do, no matter how you publicize, there will be certain people that will never use the facility and you could promote until you are blue in the face and it is not going to change anything” (Lynn, Kymer Corporation administrative worker), and “I think as you say people will go anyway. There are people who have been here for 20 years and they don’t care about it now” (Katrina, Kymer Corporation administrative worker).

Governing Working Bodies Through Leisure

323

These comments provided support for the results of previous research (Foley et al., 1999; McGillivray, 2003) that indicated a significant level of either non-usage or lapsed usage (i.e., defined as no participation in last four weeks) in workplace health and fitness initiatives. Despite relatively high levels of initial usage, significant attrition rates are found in workplace initiatives (Grant & Brisbin, 1992). Participation drop-off reflects those experiences documented across the health and fitness industry where attrition rates are notoriously high (Coalter, 1998; Philips & Drummond, 2001). These data are given support by the comments of George, Kymer Corporation’s Occupational Health Manager, who articulated the problems facing his organization with its “Live for Life” initiative: “Whether it was a timing issue, whether we were too early, or whether it was symptomatic of people’s attitudes to this sort of thing in Scotland, participation dropped off.”

George’s comments can be interpreted either as evidence of resistance per se (e.g., to fitness) or perhaps of resistance to organized leisure forms located at employee workplaces.

The focus group results demonstrated different reasons for and ways of expressing this resistance. Some reasons were more visible than others. For example, a lack of time and family responsibilities were cited as the most common reasons for non-use of Kymer Corporation’s “Live for Life” facilities. Given this organization’s predominantly female workforce, these barriers to participation were not unexpected. The following comment from Angie, Kymer Corporation production worker, demonstrates the difficulties female employees encountered in accessing workplace programs: “There are classes again after work, but that is using time again—some people have got kids and they need to get back.” Results concurred with previous research that has consistently identified childcare responsibilities as a barrier to sustained female leisure participation (Deem, 1986; Wimbush, 1986).

Continuing with the gender theme, issues of personal safety and body image were also identified as factors restricting “Live for Life” participation. Female focus group members concentrated their participation in particular spaces, deliberately choosing organized and collective fitness classes over casual and individual gym use. As Lynn, Kymer Corporation administrative worker, suggested: The types of classes we have here are more geared at females. Apart from Body Pump—and we do get some men coming to Body Pump, otherwise you have bums, tums and thighs and stretch and tone type classes—I would find it very strange if guys came into that class. Not that they are not welcome, but I don’t think they would come into that.

These responses collected from the Kymer Corporation focus groups illustrated a distinction between what participants perceived to be female and male health and fitness concerns. Men sought to develop muscles, while females wanted to tone up. Female users also explained that they were intimidated by the mere presence of male users in their territory. For example, Emma, Kymer Corporation production worker, said, “I find that because I am overweight . . . I find that if I am working out I get really uncomfortable if a man comes in. Because I have no self-confidence in myself . . . so if a guy comes in then I just sort of stop.”

One further gender-specific observation emerged from the Kymer Corporation employee focus groups. Several respondents indicated additional pressures upon personal health and bodily appearance in their reasons for participation. They expressed an acute awareness of the external pressures exerted on women to display fit bodies at work. Jenny, Kymer Corporation administrative worker, articulated the reasons for her need to exercise in the following comment:

324

D. McGillivray You have all these skinny women walking about these days. I know myself it is more than just doing it for myself. There is a lot more pressure put on you these days to look good . . . I think some people to be honest just can’t be bothered—and neither can I to be honest—but I just feel I need to—or else it is all going to go horribly wrong.

Although gender disparities were apparent, this was only one variable that indicated employee resistance to active leisure at work. Another significant variable was the relative value accorded to health and fitness by employees. George, Kymer Corporation’s Occupational Health Manager, illustrated the problem that other organizations face when commenting that: On a conceptual level it seems to make sense that if you got employees to take more responsibility over their own health and help them in doing that, you’re going to reduce absence, make your working population healthier . . . but people who are looking after themselves anyway just make use of what is being provided and think ‘great.’ Those that don’t take any interest in their own health they are just going to say ‘Oh really’ and it doesn’t matter if you put it under their nose, they are going to make the choice.

George articulated that employees with a predisposition to participate in healthpromoting activities benefited disproportionately from the promotion of active leisure initiatives in the workplace context. Conversely, those employees most at risk from the major health risks (e.g., coronary heart disease and stroke) invariably shunned participation in such initiatives. Malcolm, Crombie International’s Fitness Center Manager, elaborated on the dilemma created for his organization: In very many ways, the people who join within the first year are the people that you don’t want, because they are already committed to doing that. They will do it anyway, whether it is within their own work environment or outside.

Evidence supporting this predisposition to participation is provided by Jennifer, Kymer Corporation administrative worker: “If I joined this company, being into fitness as I am, if I knew they had a facility I would find it . . . I would phone occupational health. But not everybody would do that.” Fiona, Kymer Corporation administrative worker, also heaped praise on her employer for facilitating her participation, “It is good that the company sponsors it for us. It is nice to get a break from your desk and go down and do something a bit energetic, especially if you are office based. I really enjoy it and really look forward to it.”

These two responses were generated from regular users of Kymer Corporation’s “Live for Life” facilities. It appeared that if an individual was an active participant in health and fitness activities and already concerned about personal health, then the provision of a workplace initiative was a significant value. Participants talked of having more energy, being fitter, happier, and more productive. These employees were essentially expressing self-regulating attitudes, illustrated in the following comment from Malcolm, Crombie International’s Fitness Center Manager: “They will do it anyway, whether it be within their own work environment or outside.” Those employees who identified themselves as users were the least problematic employees for the case study organizations because they were aware of, had assimilated, and had put into practice healthy habits in their everyday lives. Conversely, non-users were seen to be more of a risk in health

Governing Working Bodies Through Leisure

325

terms, yet, the difficulties encountered in attracting and sustaining their usage were more complex.

The final variable emerging from the Kymer Corporation focus group analyses was the issue of occupational status. Differential participation levels were evident between those employees working in largely administrative or support departments (e.g., management and clerical staff) and their colleagues in manufacturing or production units.

It appeared that expressed commitment to active leisure (i.e., regular participation) was influenced by occupational status. Furthermore, some employees expressed a desire to maintain distinction within the workplace through their participation in health and fitness programs. This view was supported by Malcolm, Crombie International’s Fitness Center Manager: I think the concept of health and well being is taken more on board by the managerial classes . . . they are more likely to know of the research and what that can do for them . . . whereas the old sports and social clubs fitted closer to probably the traditional lifestyles of what would be the manufacturing industry, going out to the social club to have a few drinks and a game of football or rugby.

Malcolm’s argument was that the composition of the workforce is likely to have an influence on the way employees interpreted the active leisure message. The perception of case study management interviewees from both Kymer Corporation and Crombie International was that having a significant proportion of manual employees worked against the successful dissemination of the active leisure message because these employees did not accord the same value to the activities provided. Both organizations had clearly differentiated production and administrative units in which employees worked different shift patterns, had varying conditions of employment, and perhaps most importantly exhibited contrasting social demographic profiles. Occupational status and social class have both been acknowledged as important variables in gauging leisure participation patterns (Coalter, 1998) and engagement with health discourses (Lupton, 1995).

These results also concur with Lupton’s (1995, 1997) view that those individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds are less likely to assimilate the healthy lifestyle message than those from professional backgrounds. Malcolm, Crombie International’s Fitness Center Manager, reinforced this view when arguing that “Office staff or support staff are better attendees. The manufacturing line we have the most difficulty with.” Although social profile variables are multiple and complex (e.g., social class, gender, age, ethnicity), substantial literature supports the contention that each has a role to play in influencing participation in leisure and other consumptive practices (Clarke & Critcher, 1985; Coalter, 1997; Collins & Kennett, 1998; Deem, 1986; Droomers, Schrijvers, Van de Mheen, & Mackenbach, 1998; Henry, 1993; Long, 2000; Roberts, 1999).

In summary, the extent of resistance encountered is worth reiterating, especially in Kymer Corporation and from limited evidence also in Crombie International. The translation of active leisure rhetoric to practice was less coherent and uni-directional than appeared on initial appraisal. Not only do employees convinced of the merits of active leisure benefit disproportionately to non and lapsed users, but they also seemed clear about the advantages of participation to both themselves and their employer. Conversely, those employees who do not actively engage with these messages (i.e., those employees at highest health risk) appeared to assign less value to the opportunities provided and, therefore, remained unconvinced of the benefits accruable from participation. Gender and occupational status emerged as the most influential variables in understanding micro-level resistance to active leisure programs located at the workplace.

326

D. McGillivray

Discussion In the opening theoretical preamble, attention was given to the interface between leisure practices and health policy in relation to the workplace. I argued that contemporary organizational initiatives now frequently incorporate a particular set of leisure activities that correspond with concerns at the heart of a wider health policy arena.

Although wary of overestimating the comprehensiveness of the data generated for this particular investigation, the results presented indicated that, within selected workplaces, more passive and collective leisure forms are largely discounted in favor of active leisure, especially in the form of health and fitness. These activities solidify a largely instrumental and calculable relation with the body that can lead not only to workforce health improvement, but also to wider wellness objectives at the macro-level (see Haynes et al., 1999).

Because each of the three case study organizations provided access only to specific health enhancing leisure activities, Hughes’ (2000) view was reinforced in that within the workplace, the rhythms of leisure are increasingly transformed to alleviate the preventative risks of inappropriate lifestyle behavior. This idea was further reinforced by the documented shift away from sports and social clubs that contain less healthy (i.e., risk inducing) activities towards health and fitness provision with its productive, self-disciplined, and calculative rationality (Griffiths, 1996a).

These developments correspond to a drive towards wellness across a number of social spheres (e.g., schools, communities and workplaces). For example, Opatz (1994, p. vii) argued that both business and government are seeking a more rational approach to disease prevention and control of health care costs. Moreover, the wellness movement seeks to reduce the unheralded levels of obesity being recorded across the western world (Grundy, 1998). However, few of these researchers have questioned whether or not workplace interventions are as effective as the rhetoric suggests.

Rather than accept the organizational promotion of active leisure programs as producing docile (Foucault, 1982) healthy bodies at work, a plethora of alternative employee responses to workplace initiatives dilute the intended outcomes. To depict these responses, a spectrum of self-governance has been developed (see Figure 2). Using this spectrum, employees are placed at different points ranging from those who participate regularly to those who are either intermittent or non participants. Foucault’s (1986) notion of the project of the self is worth employing to interpret the behavior of those employees who reinforce their sense of self by participating in active leisure practices at work. For example, results from this study indicated that some employees arrive at the workplace with a pre-disposition to participate in active leisure. These employees represent ideal corporate citizens as they contribute to the achievement of aggregate targets for employee health improvement while requiring little persuasion to participate.

FIGURE 2 Spectrum of self-governance.

Governing Working Bodies Through Leisure

327

Conversely, as the spectrum of self-governance illustrates, the workforce as a whole does not possess the same self-disciplined attitude. Instead, for a significant proportion of the workforce, active leisure participation remained subject to localized strategies of resistance and reinterpretation. Some employees contest the appropriateness of active leisure programs and express their feelings either through irregular or non-participation. On the spectrum of self governance (see Figure 2), these employees occupy the transient or non-recognition position. McGillivray (2003) previously provided support for the view that a majority of employees will occupy this position, demonstrating that the translation of organizational rhetoric into operational reality is at best uneven.

Foucault (1980) argued that resistance is always present, that the operation of power is never perfect, and that micro negotiations always take place. This resistance is evident in the influence of gender and social demographic factors. Gender effects were especially noticeable. Female employees felt that expectations to demonstrate appropriate attitudes towards body maintenance were more exacting than for their male counterparts. Furthermore, female employees found it more difficult to commit the necessary time and resources to participation particularly when faced with onerous domestic and childcare responsibilities.

Both results correspond with the dominant perception in the leisure studies literature that women have to overcome a double burden if they are to secure similar leisure experiences to men (Deem, 1986; Wimbush, 1986). If anything, the inequalities found in other leisure spaces seem to be reinforced in the workplace.

The other significant result emerging from the focus group enquiries was that social demographic variables contributed to participation disparities. In interpreting the impact of occupational status on the likelihood of participation in active leisure, Bourdieu’s (1984) discussion of physical capital is informative. He argued that attitudes toward the body and health are influenced by an individuals’ social status. Those employees with professional and managerial occupations are more likely to display an investment attitude towards their bodies. In contrast, others will see the body in purely functional terms and will see little worth in investing time and energy in its upkeep. In the case study research, evidence suggested that for blue-collar employees the value ascribed to healthy lifestyles was perceived to be low compared with those employed in professional occupations. Participation in health and fitness activity provided manual employees with nothing that had a tradable value within their peer or family group. In contrast, for professionals a commitment to wellness brought with it the possibility of distinction (Bourdieu).

This discussion demonstrates that employee lived experiences can be at variance with the mission statement pronouncements of their employer. Although organizational spaces were provided where body maintenance could take place (e.g., fitness centers, healthy eating canteens), continuing low, or irregular, rates of employee participation illustrated that intended organizational outcomes may not be achieved.

Conclusion Rather than simply arguing that employees passively assimilate active leisure messages cascading down from macro-level environments, I propose instead that a multitude of possible employee responses can be depicted along a spectrum of self-governance. As employees express these strategies of resistance, the persuasiveness of active leisure messages is challenged. At one level, some employees demonstrate an instrumental relation with active leisure to realize their own self projects. At another level, a series of social demographic variables dilute and re-interpret these messages leading to a host of transient employee responses. These responses range from compliant and docile working bodies that assimilate active leisure messages to the torn, dissonant, and resistant identities of those employees

328

D. McGillivray

whose lives are shaped by alternative circumstances. Paradoxically, for active leisure initiatives at work to bear fruit at the macro-level (i.e., in population health improvements), these resistant employees must be converted. However, unless their hearts and minds are secured, significant doubts are expressed regarding the effectiveness of workplace leisure initiatives in affecting both the organizational bottom-line and wider healthcare costs.

This paper identified several instances of resistance, or the imperfections of governance, contained within active leisure initiatives at the workplace. Social demographic and gender variables are worthy of further investigation. Of particular interest is a more detailed examination of the work of Bourdieu (1984) on physical and cultural capital as a useful means of exploring these localized resistances.

Undertaking further research on the UK and global contexts for workplace initiatives would be worthwhile. The scope of this study was limited to the Scottish context, but there is ample opportunity to investigate this organizational phenomenon beyond these boundaries.

More detailed investigations of activity within differential industrial sectors would also contribute to current knowledge in the area. Furthermore, this paper has also alluded to the close relationship now existing between the leisure and health realms both politically and operationally. More research activity is needed on the role of workplace leisure initiatives in improving population wellness and the contribution of leisure policy in this domain.

References Aldana, S. (1998). Financial impact of worksite health promotion and methodological quality of the evidence. The Art of Health Promotion, 2, 1–8.

Alvesson, M. & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical management research. London: Sage.

Bailey, P. (1978). Leisure and class in Victorian England: Rational recreation and the contest for control, 1830–1885. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Bechhofer, F. (1974). Current approaches to empirical research: Some central ideas. In J. Rex (Ed.), Approaches to sociology: An introduction to major trends in British sociology (pp. 70–91).

London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Burton, A. (1994). The rise and fall of British shipbuilding. London: Constable.

Campbell, A. B. (1979). The Lanarkshire miners—A social history. Edinburgh: J Donald Publishers.

Chu, C., Breucker, G., Harris, N., Stitzel, A., Gan, X., Gu, X., & Dwyer, S. (2000). Health-promoting workplaces - international settings development. Health Promotion International, 15(2), 155– 167.

Clarke, J. & Critcher, C. (1985). The devil makes work: Leisure in capitalist Britain. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Coalter, F. (1997). Leisure sciences and leisure studies: Different concept, same crisis? Leisure Sciences, 19, 255–268.

Coalter, F. (1998). Leisure studies, leisure policy and social citizenship: The failure of welfare or the limits of welfare? Leisure Studies, 17(1), 21–36.

Collins, M. & Kennett, M. (1998) Leisure, poverty and social inclusion: The growing role of leisure cards in public leisure services in Britain. Local Governance, 24(2), 131–142 Connell, J. & Grainger, S. (2002). Exploring attitudes to corporate fitness in Jersey: Employer and employee perspectives. Managing Leisure, 7, 176–193.

Conrad, P. & Walsh, D. (1992). The new corporate health ethic: Lifestyle and the social control of work. International Journal of Health Services, 22(1), 89–111.

Cross, G. (1993). Time and money: The making of consumer culture. London: Routledge.

Danaher, G., Schirato, T., & Webb, J. (2000). Understanding Foucault. London: Sage.

Deem, R. (1986). All work and no play—Women and leisure. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

Docherty, G., Fraser, E., & Hardin, J. (1999). Health promotion in the Scottish workplace: A case for moving the goalposts. Health Education Research, 14(4), 565–573.

Governing Working Bodies Through Leisure

329

Droomers, M., Schrijvers, C. T. M., Van de Mheen, H., & Mackenbach, J. P. (1998). Educational differences in leisure-time physical inactivity: A descriptive and explanatory study. Social Science and Medicine, 47(11), 1665–1676.

Fielding, J. E. (1990). Worksite health promotion programs in the United States: Progress, lessons and challenges. Health Promotion International, 5(1), 75–84.

Flick, U (1998). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.

Foley, M., Maxwell, G., & McGillivray, D. (1999). Women at leisure and in work: Unequal opportunities? Equal Opportunities International, 18(1), 8–18.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. Brighton, UK: Harvester.

Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Enquiry, 8, 777–795.

Foucault, M. (1986). The care of the self: The history of sexuality volume three. New York: Pantheon.

Grant, C. B. & Brisbin, R. E. (1992). Workplace wellness: The key to higher productivity and lower health costs. New York: Van nostrand Reinhold.

Griffiths, A. (1996a). The benefits of employee exercise programmes: A review. Work and Stress, 10(1), 5–23.

Griffiths, A. (1996b). Employee exercise programmes: Organizational and individual perspectives. In J. Kerr, A. Griffiths, & T. Cox (Eds.), Workplace health: Employee fitness and exercise (pp. 1–28).

London: Taylor and Francis.

Grundy, S. M. (1998). Multifactorial causation of obesity: Implications for prevention. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 67, 563–572.

Hancock, P. & Tyler, M (2000). Working bodies. In P. Hancock, B. Hughes, L. Jagger, K. Paterson, & M. Tyler (Eds.), The body, culture and society: An introduction (pp. 84–100). Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Haynes, G., Dunnagan, T., & Smith, V. (1999). Do employees participating in voluntary health promotion programs incur lower health care costs? Health Promotion International, 14(1), 43– 51.

Henry, L. (1993). Young people’s leisure lifestyles. London: Routledge.

Holliday, R. & Thompson, G. (2001). A body of work. In R. Holliday & J. Hassard (Eds.), Contested bodies (pp. 117–134). London: Routledge.

Hughes, B. (2000). Medicalized bodies. In P. Hancock, B. Hughes, L. Jagger, K. Paterson, & M. Tyler (Eds.), The body, culture and society: An introduction (pp. 12–28). Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Kendall, G. & Wickham, G. (1999). Using Foucault’s methods. London: Sage.

Kerr, J., Griffiths, A., &. Cox, T. (1996). Workplace health: Employee fitness and exercise. London: Taylor and Francis.

Long, J. (2000) No racism here? A preliminary examination of sporting innocence. Managing Leisure, 5, 121–133.

Lupton, D. (1995). The imperative of health: Public health and the regulated body. London: Sage.

Lupton, D. (1997). Foucault and the medicalisation critique. In A. Petersen & R. Bunton (Eds.), Foucault, health and medicine (pp. 94–112). London: Routledge.

McGillivray, D (2003). Governing working bodies: A genealogical analysis of organisational wellness, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow.

Moss, J. (Ed.). (1998). The later Foucault: Politics and philosophy. London: Sage.

Opatz, J. P. (Ed.). (1994). Economic impact of worksite health promotion. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Philips, J. M. & Drummond, M. J. N. (2001). An investigation into the body image perception, body satisfaction and exercise expectations of male fitness leaders: Implications for professional practice. Leisure Studies, 20(1), 95–105.

Roberts, K. (1999). Leisure in contemporary society. Oxon: CABI Publishing.

Sassatelli, R. (1999). Interaction order and beyond: A field analysis of body culture within fitness gyms. Body & Society, 5(2–3), 227–248.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003). Research methods for business students, London: Prentice Hall.

330

D. McGillivray

Scottish Office. (1999). Towards a healthier Scotland—A white paper on health. The Scottish Office.

Shephard, R. (1992). A critical analysis of work-site fitness programs and their postulated economic benefits. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 24, 354–370.

Shephard, R. (1996). Financial aspects of employee fitness programmes. In J. Kerr, A. Griffiths, & T. Cox (Eds.), Workplace health: Employee exercise and fitness (pp. 29–54). London: Taylor & Francis.

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction.

London: Sage.

Springett, J. & Dugdill, L. (1995). Evaluation of workplace health promotion programmes. Health Education Journal, 54, 88–98.

Townley, B. (1994). Reframing human resource management: Power, ethics and the subject at work.

London: Sage.

Wimbush, E. (1986). Women, leisure and well-being. Edinburgh: Centre for Leisure Research, Dunfermline College of Physical Education.

Wolff, B., Knodel, J., & Sittitrai, W. (1993). Focus groups and surveys as complementary research methods. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 89– 104). London: Sage.

Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage.