Today, “organizations are [seen as] key sites of human identity formation in modern society” (Mumby, 2013, p. 47), which makes the modern corporation “the primary institution for the development of our identities, surpassing the family, church, government, and education systems in this role” (Mumby, 2013, p. 47, cf. Deetz 1992). A feature of late modernity that has led Deetz to coin the phrase “corporate colonization” of the individual’s life world (Deetz, 1992). Living in an era where the corporate colonization of the employees’ life worlds is the norm and where the organization has become a key site of human identity formation, implies that the responsibilities of good corporate governance (e.g. Solomon, 2007) have expanded dramatically compared to previously. 

In that sense organizations have truly become sites of power and control (cf. Mumby, 2013, p. 47), i.e. institutions which affect individual’s identity and life in a direct and fundamental way – a state of affairs which in and of itself calls for applying a critical approach to organizational discourse from an ethical perspective. For if indeed companies seek to influence the identity formation of its employees – and they do – then the scope of any company’s social as well as ethical responsibilities towards its employees is widened significantly as a result. 
For any organization it is crucial that it attracts and recruits the right employees. Whereas attracting and recruiting what appears to be the right employee is necessary, the act of hiring is not in and of itself sufficient to ensure that the new employee masters the task s/he is hired to perform, neither that s/he is on par with the mission, vision, and values of the organization. In order to secure this extensive kind of alignment, the organization’s strategic HR function typically sets up and runs an elaborate organizational socialization program that is “identified as the primary process by which people adapt to new jobs and organizational goals” (Chao, O'Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardner, 1994, p. 730). Activities, in sum, that are designed to guide (and if need be: to correct) employee behavior. In lieu of this it can perhaps come as no surprise that in the extant literature, the very first phase in any organizational socialization program is prototypically referred to as “breaking in”, as “molding”, or indeed as “people processing”. 

In this panel, we will present, discuss and (critically) evaluate examples of real-life organizational socialization discourses that – in our book – pay homage to the credo that employee identity (among other phenomena) “have to be actively engendered or manufactured” (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002, p. 623). And we will do so in order to shed some light on the dark side of organizational socialization by raising awareness of what is taken-for-granted within the fields of management and strategic communication. More specifically, the panel will deal with:

• Examples of Vigorous Socialization in Onboarding Practices (Marianne Grove Ditlevsen & Peter Kastberg)
• Examples of Strategic Corporate Journalism as a Vehicle for Ongoing Socialization (Peter Kastberg & Marianne Grove Ditlevsen)
• Examples of Socialization through Narratives of Organizational Success (Lise-Lotte Holmgreen)
• Examples of employee advocate schemes (Vibeke Thøis Madsen)

References
Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2002). Identity regulation as organizational control: producing the appropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies, 39(5), 619-644. 
Chao, G. T., O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organizational Socialization: Its Content and Consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 730-743. 
Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. New York: State University of New York Press.
Mumby, D. (2013). Organizational communication. A critical approach. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: Sage.
Solomon, J. (2007). Corporate governance and accountability. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.

Employability looks like an unquestioned goal of higher education. It is expected from universities that they produce ‘work-ready’ graduates. In consequence, there is currently a great pressure on teaching programmes - particularly on the Humanities in Denmark - to prove their usefulness for the ‘real world’ (Balslev Clausen & Andersson 2018). The goal of the panel is to discuss the ambivalences of employability in the communication sector. We want to explore both its bright side and its dark side. The four contributors will provide a diversity of perspectives.

The first academic contribution will introduce to critical perspectives on employability by referring to insights from organizational socialization research (Kramer & Miller 2014) and discourses on the ‘marketization’ of higher education (Natale & Doran 2011). It is argued that a ‘dark side’ of employability prevails, once the concept is understood as a kind of total alignment and identification with corporate expectations (Dukerich, Parker, & McLean Parks, 1998). Instead, new employees also ought to ‘make a difference’. Professional communicators in particular are expected to take the role of ‘boundary spanners’ with the outside world. Thus, they also need the capability to take a challenging – and at times disturbing – innovation function which collides with an understanding of employability as a predictor for a smooth integration ‘into’ the organization. The contributor will present results from a research project on the employability of communication graduates in North Jutland which indicate the tension between an instrumental ‘alignment’ approach and an understanding of university studies as an end in itself.

The second contributor is responsible for the marketing and market development of a company in North Jutland. The contributor will outline the expectations towards communication graduates from a corporate perspective. It is argued that small and medium-sized companies cannot but focus on the production of sales related communication. Respective programmes at universities would need to account for that.

The third contributor represents a union for communication and language professionals. The contributor will focus on the challenges that automation, artificial intelligence and big data will mean to communication professionals. Some job functions will disappear, others will be automated, and the relation man-machine will mean that communication professionals and educators have to redefine their roles and understanding of employability.

Some of the perspectives presented in the panel will complement each other, some of them will collide. Thus, the composition of the panel will guarantee a lively and constructive discussion on the bright side and the dark side of employability in the communication sector.

References

Balslev Clausen, H. & Andersson, V. 2018: Problem-based learning, education and employability: a case study with master’s students from Aalborg University, Denmark, Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, Doi: 10.1080/15313220.2018.1522290, 1-14.
Dukerich, J. M., Kramer, R., & McLean Parks, J. 1998: The dark side of organizational identification, in D. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (eds.). Identity in organizations, Building theory through conversations, London: Sage, 245-256.
Kramer, M. W. & Miller, V. D. 2014: Socialization and assimilation: theories, processes, and outcomes, in: L. L. Putnam & D. K. Mumby (eds). Organiziational communication. Advances in theory, research, and methods, 3rd ed., London: Sage, 525-547.
Natale, S. M. & Doran, C. 2011: Marketization of education: an ethical dilemma. Journal of Business Ethics 105, 187-196.