1 Firing on all cylinders: Leveraging organizational culture to approach invested detachment for effective change in small, blue-collar organizations Conner Todd Wangsgard Master’s Thesis Department of Communication, Lindquist College of Arts & Humanities, Weber State University Master of Professional Communication 12/12/2025 ______________________________(signature) Faculty Advisor, (Dr. Elaine Schnabel) Committee Chair Michael K. Ault ______________________________(signature) Michael K. Ault (Mar 16, 2026 10:55:55 MDT) Second Committee Member, (Dr. Michael Ault) Committee Member Signed Cover Page Final Audit Report Created: 2026-03-16 By: Conner Wangsgard (connerwangsgard@mail.weber.edu) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAd1CdisegzS4ZUaOYstAPhv0e68wBRSZu 2026-03-16 "Signed Cover Page" History Document created by Conner Wangsgard (connerwangsgard@mail.weber.edu) 2026-03-16 - 4:01:47 AM GMT Document emailed to Michael Ault (michaelault1@weber.edu) for signature 2026-03-16 - 4:01:52 AM GMT Document emailed to Elaine Schnabel (elaineschnabel1@weber.edu) for signature 2026-03-16 - 4:01:52 AM GMT Email viewed by Elaine Schnabel (elaineschnabel1@weber.edu) 2026-03-16 - 2:50:41 PM GMT Document e-signed by Elaine Schnabel (elaineschnabel1@weber.edu) Signature Date: 2026-03-16 - 2:50:55 PM GMT - Time Source: server Email viewed by Michael Ault (michaelault1@weber.edu) 2026-03-16 - 4:54:06 PM GMT Signer Michael Ault (michaelault1@weber.edu) entered name at signing as Michael K. Ault 2026-03-16 - 4:55:53 PM GMT Document e-signed by Michael K. Ault (michaelault1@weber.edu) Signature Date: 2026-03-16 - 4:55:55 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2026-03-16 - 4:55:55 PM GMT 1 Firing on all cylinders: Leveraging organizational culture to approach invested detachment for effective change in small, blue-collar organizations Conner Todd Wangsgard Master’s Thesis Department of Communication, Lindquist College of Arts & Humanities, Weber State University Master of Professional Communication 12/12/2025 2 Introduction At the heart of organizational communication research in the last several decades has been the treatment of organizational culture. This idea that the group culture of each organization defines its very substance through norms, values, and individual and group identities has driven research into individual attitudes about many organizational factors (Collinson, 1999; Gherardi et al, 1998; Mumby, 1998). Indeed, this idea of organizational culture has been instrumental in helping leaders understand how people organize, what they value, and which tactics will actually work when seeking to increase productivity. I wish to use the cultural theory of organizations to help leaders leverage their organizational culture and the specific identities which create it in an effective way. I will be treating this issue specifically as it relates to large-scale change in small blue-collar organizations. I take this focus because I have a particular interest in the way that blue-collar masculinity shapes organizational culture, and how leaders might leverage those factors to create effective change. The purpose of my study is to add to the current literature surrounding these themes and expand on our understanding of blue-collar identity and organizational culture (Collinson, 1999; Mumby, 1998). My study brings these ideas into tighter focus around a phenomenon I encountered which I will term “invested detachment” and explain more in depth further on. This information is designed to help leaders in similar circumstances gain a more informed understanding of the identities of their workers, the culture which they comprise, and the struggles that they face when responding to change. The intersection of these factors will serve as a benefit to the 3 field of organizational communication and a guide to leaders who are looking for ways to approach change more effectively. This study also takes place in a neoliberal organizational space, falling into a post-Fordist working environment. In the era of Fordism, more credence would be given to an employment model that sees an employee as someone to take care of and to whom a business would be reciprocally loyal. This idea is connected intrinsically with the work being done at a business, and an employee in this model would typically feel this connection with their work (Watt, 2020). After this period of time, the typical workplace in the western world saw businesses and their employees a little bit more detached than before, with an emphasis on being able to move around in response to the market. Employee specialization became less important, and people were typically asked to be willing to take on multiple kinds of roles at work (Kincheloe, 1995). Homestead Response experiences much of the flexibility of the post-Fordist era, as it uses its loosely-banded and less-specialized workforce to respond to new challenges pragmatically. Rather than having a specific role and expecting routine and protection from the company in exchange for dedicated work, Homestead and its workers are to each other as flexible partners whose expectations of each other are constantly subject to change. My aim is to take what we have learned about the organizational culture, individual and group identities, and communication theory at large, and add to the body of research that deals with disruptive organizational change. This literature, research, and interactions I have had are brought together to shed light on the interrelationships 4 between organizational culture, leadership, relationships, and identity when examined as they relate to organizational change. Ultimately, the goal of my research is to learn how leaders in organizations can leverage the identities of members as well as theories of communication to create an organization culture that can withstand and intelligently respond to change. I wish to shed light onto how change can come with limited anxiety, and be communicated in a way that inspires members of organizations to get on board and/or effectively communicate concerns and reach solutions. Background I have chosen as a specific site of study a small, unique, blue-collar organization in northern Utah which, for the purposes of this study, will be called Homestead Response (or simply “Homestead”.) Homestead Response is a diesel garage and manufacturer of restored military vehicles, armored response vehicles and aftermarket parts. This organization will provide a place to examine blue-collar attitudes and identities as well as culture in a very specific way. Its size, organizational structure, and niche market will be a unique point of research, and hopefully explain trends and attitudes in workplaces of a similar scope. Other authors have conducted research at sites of large corporations in well-known fields (Collinson, 1999), and some have studied small businesses (Putra & Cho, 2019), but this study will add depth into small businesses of a certain kind. Homestead Response is an organization that has experienced much volatility in staffing in the few years that it has existed. Until just recently, the average worker has stayed with the company for fewer than three years, which has added to the struggle for 5 a cohesive culture. Though an organizational culture has always existed, the last few years have provided those working there with more unity and identity with the company on average than had been experienced previously. Attitudes toward the organization’s mission and values before around 2023 had been flippant at best, and people did not seem to see themselves as part of a group which they cared about most of the time. Though some of my study is based on what I have experienced during the whole of my time at Homestead, the bulk of the research comes in the form of qualitative, ethnographic research through formal interviews and informal observation. I gleaned much information about individual and cultural identity, and attitudes and responses regarding large-scale organizational change by interviewing over a third of the current organizational membership and observing worker interactions and behavior between interviews. One aspect of Homestead Response’s structure which sets it apart from most other small businesses is the way it classifies its workers. Those who work at Homestead are not technical employees with W-2 tax forms and benefits, but 1099 subcontractors. There are many implications for the relationship between these workers and the organization due to this status, including a sense of loyalty that does not match what might be typical from an actual employee. I will discuss details of this arrangement in greater depth later on, but this structure is foundational to understanding the identity and cultural struggles that leaders at Homestead face when trying to enact change. In the beginning of 2025, team leads discussed, presented and reiterated a specific procedural adjustment to everyone at Homestead very clearly and certainly in a series of shop-wide meetings: In early 2025, Homestead changed its compensation 6 method from hourly to piece-rate, meaning that a person’s actual production output would determine their wage, not how much time they spent clocked in. This announcement was met with high levels of concern across the small organization. The change was announced to take place by August, though the owners conceded that this might not be possible on all levels due to many processes and products which were not yet standardized to the point of having an assigned price. This ambiguity at the outset and the long process of determining exactly what it would look like lent itself to an excellent opportunity to study how org members make sense of organizational change. By studying qualitative data from this project, I have discovered findings regarding clear communication (including transparency and structure), identity (in the form of individual and collective ownership), and trust and support. These findings add to the body of knowledge surrounding organizational culture, and connect the theory with application to large-scale change. I have done my research from a small-business perspective, under the unique circumstances of Homestead Supply’s position as a mostly-1099 organization. The challenges inherent in change are only made more difficult when the typical benefits of a traditionally employed workplace are absent. Thus, the results should prove useful to all leaders, and demonstrate that the principles discussed can be effective under the most complicated circumstances. These initial findings led to narratives containing deeper themes surrounding the embedded cultural values found at Homestead, which have been molded over time by external and internal influences of identity and culture. Those I studied took a main cultural approach that I will term “invested detachment.” This is a phrase tied up in many factors, but it is a state of being I observed among people who do their day-to-day work 7 as though they were an employee, but who, in some ways, experience the autonomy of a contractor. Through their interviews and work that I observed, the participants in my study demonstrated a self-manufactured emotional distance between themselves and the company. Because their livelihood ultimately depends on Homestead, they feel a certain closeness and obligation to the organization. At the same time, their status as a contractor causes them to feel an illegitimacy to their position which manifests as apathy, resentment, or nonchalance in their work. This dual reality which causes cultural and identity disconnect, and which underlays all the narratives told at the company, is invested detachment. Blue-collar identities, whiteness and LDS culture, and the specific elements of work life at Homestead Response create this invested detachment within leaders and floor workers alike, and this study aims to use an understanding of the cultural values and analysis of practical communicative principles to help leaders navigate the difficulties of such an entrenched attitude. My results point to the notion that success in change can be achieved despite this invested detachment by focusing on the themes discussed. Drawing on members’ blue-collar identity and reshaping the organizational culture can lead to better ownership because of the pride such people are already known to feel in their work. Creating better structure and methods can help blue-collar “doers” know what to do and how to do it. Proper transparency can help the culture be one that is trusting, and capitalizing on that trust can encourage more of the same. I will begin with a review of current literature surrounding organizational culture and blue-collar identity, explain my methods of research, analyze responses and observations, and end with a discussion of the implications of my findings. 8 Blue-Collar Working Identity A critical aspect of the organizational culture of Homestead Response is the identity of the majority of its members with a blue-collar work ethic and ideals. The way that the organization reacts will be influenced by its position in the industry as a company full of tradespeople and laborers, who are proud of the skill that they have with their hands. Research provides many insights into this blue-collar identity, and reveals trends which are foundational to similar industries (Gibson & Papa, 2000; Zoller, 2003). These trends determine in part what the culture will look like, and how organizational members will act and respond. For example, we know since blue-collar workers tend to mask certain feelings that they might perceive as weaknesses (Edley, 2001), people at Homestead Response will likely seek to employ similar practices. We may then assume that if faced with change, they might try to downplay the difficulties they experience with it to seem more capable and independent. For the purposes of this study, the term “blue-collar” will refer to a type of work that is concerned with manual labor such as manufacturing, welding, and mechanics (Southern, 2000; Thomson et al., 1984), also known as the trades. This grouping of occupations does include men and women; however it is most commonly understood to be a male-dominated type of work. Some trades that would be considered “blue-collar” by virtue of the work they do are usually done by women, such as household cleaners, though they are routinely excluded from this label because of how heavily masculinity has been associated therewith (Baxter & Wallace, 2009). Homestead Response does have female workers, and I have gathered insights from them in my research, but the 9 overwhelming majority of workers and the largest share of the culture are rooted in stereotypically masculine ideals. When it comes to the way that organizational culture is perceived, cultures consisting of blue-collar workers are typically imbued with a hand-dirtying, no-nonsense sort of attitude. Men in the trades have a high identity connection to their strength, machismo, sexuality, and neutered emotional self (Collinson & Hearn, 2001; Edley, 2001; Mumby, 1998). For those who work in these fields, the expectation is almost always a gruff, strong, independent male figure, to an even greater extent than such ideals are espoused by corporate capitalism in general. In the line of blue-collar work, manliness is not just a point of pride, but the default. Take the workers in Mumby’s study (1998), for example, who would work to the point of extreme burnout to be perceived as equal to the task and not some sort of “nancy boy.” Those kinds of attitudes are common in the trades, and are certainly found in no small measure at Homestead Response. Such a strong identity with such masculine ideals may seem oppressive, but this identity can lead to good work and important results for organizations which benefit therefrom. The desire to prove oneself by working past the point of exhaustion to prove that you really are a “blue-collar man” can create impressive results for such organizations, though they may negatively impact individuals who display such behaviors (Collinson, 1999; Mumby, 1998; Zoller, 2003). The findings of Zoller in particular show that such attitudes maintained over time can lead to adverse health effects for organizational members. The burnout, fatigue, and subsequent resentment 10 that can emerge from working past one’s limit greatly lowers emotional clarity, and so it follows that large changes could be quite hard to digest in such an environment. Though it is not always overtly oppressive, this default shapes what effective change looks like in such organizations. It is no less important to avoid fitting in with this mold by leaning on authoritarian or paternalistic modes of workplace masculinity (Collinson & Hearn, 2001). These two researchers found that paternalistic methods of leadership can use emotional leverage to exploit people, pretending to act as an equal with a high level of care and morality in order to seek their own motives and gains. This is at once a manipulative and patronizing means of change, and will not be effective with people who can see through the “caring parent” look of it. At Homestead, management thankfully uses little of the rhetoric of a “work family” to achieve the goals of the organization and its leaders, but they are not immune to portraying leadership through change in a way that is paternalistic and therefore condescending. Despite these challenges, the desire to identify with a blue-collar work ethic allows people to use that target identity to construct useful realities and changes in an organization (Collinson, 2003). By participating in these self-reflexive exercises, leaders can begin to understand the identities of those they lead in order to help them enact change with minimal turbulence and maximum results. Because I will be conducting field research among blue-collar workers in a small organization, this emphasis on identity is just as important as understanding organizational culture as a whole. Culture Impacts Organizational Change An organization’s culture is the organization (McFee & Zaug, 2000). Whatever can be observed to be the commonly held beliefs, practices, and norms of a group are 11 what makes the group relevant as a distinct entity. Just as more readily identifiable cultures such as ethnic and national cultures go through changes over time, similar shifts occur in the cultures of all organizations. Most of these changes are gradual, as the group mindset begins to shift due to a series of events, but sometimes organizational changes come abruptly as a result of policy from upper management (Carpenter et al., 2004). This paper aims to examine the way that those changes are confronted by individuals within one blue-collar organization, and how leaders can leverage the culture to meet those changes in a calculated and effective way. As a subject of study for communication scholars, organizational cultures and the way that they weather formal, imposed change provide valuable insights into how communication creates both the culture and its reactions to change (Faupel & Helpap, 2020). All norms, standards, reactions, and solutions within human organizations are created communicatively, and so understanding of these channels, methods, and styles of communication is crucial for getting to the root of cultural understanding and change management (McFee & Zaug, 2000). Individuals’ social identities shape organizational culture. Before everything else, how members of the organization perceive themselves and their relationship to the organization largely informs the direction of the organization as a whole (Collinson, 2003). The norms and attitudes of the group come from the group’s members, so understanding what they value and how they view themselves and their peers is critical for leaders to weather and champion change, using the organizational culture to their advantage. If leaders can understand the culture and influence it positively, it will be an asset to them rather than a burden. Examples abound of organizational dissent which 12 can hinder improvement (Gossett & Kilker, 2006). Dissent is an inevitable part of groupwork, but if leaders understand it in the context of the organizational culture, it can be managed at worst, and transformed into effective change at best. Although we understand that the organization, its culture, and the identities of those within it are constantly morphing (Myers & Anderson, 2008), it is important that we also understand that large, definite, and impactful changes happen while those smaller and more subtle adjustments are taking place. What happens when a large structural change is to take place? What is an organization to do in the event of a merger, a tragedy, or a mass relocation? Enacting change in organizations is difficult for at least two reasons. First, that the changes themselves might be difficult, and second, that those called upon to enact the change are human, and come with many imperfections, preferences, and identities to leverage (Swargiary, 2024). The very fact that people are subject to emotion makes change difficult, as emotions are often allowed to take over and subvert more practical ways of enacting work. As Scott and Trethewey (2008) found, people are often willing to reframe the poor decisions they may make at work to compensate for the desire to follow an emotional reaction to a situation rather than one rooted in protocol. At Homestead, emotions and desires could similarly thwart change if not understood and correctly applied. Organizational culture has long been studied, and has yielded important insights into the way that each organization has its own sort of ecosystem and patterns of thought. Organizational culture refers to the specific shared values and ideals that are held at a certain organization as a result of things like policy, interpersonal interactions, 13 how dissent is expressed and handled, and how individual identities align in the context of the organization (Sun, 2009). The work of Barker (1993) showed how the created culture of a small group can be a more powerful instrument for management than a bureaucratic system, as the ideals that the group creates are more tied to identity than orders from the top or directives from a manager. Organizational culture does not appear out of thin air. Even though an outsider may feel like analyzing the culture may be obvious, the details are complex, and based on many factors seen and unseen. Often, certain types of organizational cultures are similar to others across similar fields. For example, blue-collar, or more manual laborfocused fields tend to hold in high esteem masculinity, decisive action, a lack of commitment to self-preservation, and hard work for the sake of taking pride in hard work (Ashcraft, 2005; Collinson, 1999; Zoller, 2003). These identities and values of which I’ve already made mention are themselves contributors to the culture beyond their implications for each individual. This is important in gaining a base understanding of the things that people at Homestead Response value as a result of the kind of work they do, and how those attitudes contribute to the culture as a whole. These cultural ideals often model ideals found outside of the organization, and draw members in who are already somewhat similar to add to the culture. If members resonate with these ideals before they join the organization, the way that they integrate is smoother than if they had an aversion to such ideals. This concept was fleshed out by Gibson & Papa (2000) in their work about Industry International. They found that a certain type of person got along ok at the organization, and others did not fit in as readily. Efforts to assimilate found varied success, but those who felt the culture 14 embodied what they wanted for themselves and the organization were willing to put in more work and put up with more distress for the company. A solid understanding of organizational culture shows you who your organization believes they are, and this can aid leaders greatly in determining how to use their position to influence how people respond to change. Knowing what people who identify with the organizational culture are willing to sacrifice or commit to helps contextualize large changes in the lens of those sacrifices and commitments (Faupel & Helpap, 2020). Leaders must also know that this can be handled the wrong way. If power relationships capitalize on insecurities and use monitoring to cause those in lower positions to feel that they are a commodity rather than a member of a team, they will become embittered, as they are merely conforming rather than cooperating (Collinson, 2003). Creating an environment where individuals see themselves as actual contributors improves outlooks on self-value, leadership esteem, and personal effectiveness when faced with change. How individual people present themselves is integral to understanding the organizational culture at large. What people choose to share and what attitudes they typically hold are not only a reflection of self, but a mirror held up to part of the culture. In a way, how people present themselves within an organization shows an observer what they believe they contribute to the group (Trethewey, 2000). I wish to explore in my research how the individual contribution to organizational culture relates to the way that leaders can influence individuals as well as the group in times of change. The findings will bear out which things pertaining to the relationships between leaders and other organizational members, leaders and other leaders, and members and other 15 members, are useful to know when attempting to use the culture to make change effective for the organization and the individuals therein. Another important culture to consider when gauging the inherent values and attitudes of members at Homestead is LDS culture. Several of Homestead’s workers belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and all of them live in northern Utah, where the religion is prominent. Regionally and religiously, the group is saturated in cultural expectations inherent to the LDS church, and influenced to follow its teachings (Beaman, 2001). Among its teachings is an emphasis on being courteous to other people, and this politeness often causes a strange pull between typical bluecollar toughness and a culture that would have its participants be cordial and reserved to preserve and honor the feelings of those with whom they are involved. LDS culture is a strong corollary to the values that people at Homestead hold. This cultural element can often cause barriers to change, as organizational members choose to be polite rather than voice concerns. Leaders may hold back some things that they would otherwise say to make progress in favor of making sure that others feel they are being treated respectfully. Though respect itself is certainly not a negative trait, leaders at Homestead and in similar situations must temper the tendency for courteousness so that important dialogue can occur unrestrained. Leaning on the no-nonsense approach of the blue-collar identity is one way that leaders can shape the culture to avoid arbitrary politeness taking the reins. How Narratives Tell the Story of Small Businesses Hand in hand with organizational culture is narrative, or the discourses and stories that help shape the reality of organizations (Mumby, 1987). Everyone in the 16 organization helps to build these narratives, and they inform what members make of the culture. It is a form of “organizational symbolism”, and is one of the types of artifacts that make an organization what it specifically is (Mumby, 1987). The narratives that are used and the stories that are told drive much of the current understanding that workers have about Homestead Response and its values, and leadership must analyze and understand these narratives so that they can enact change effectively. Prior research has shown that these narratives are integral when people deal with organizational change, and that the dialogue within these narratives can drive that change effectively (Cox, 2021). In this study, I wish to determine how leaders can capture and influence the narratives negotiated by organization members to create better change outcomes for those involved. I want to specifically look at which narratives relate to the more dysfunctional side of the invested detachment experienced by members of Homestead, and help leaders understand what can be done narratively in that situation. Others have studied how organizational narratives can drive collective identity (Solbreux et al., 2024). By using what we know about collective identity through narratives, I will expand on how that identity can be strengthened through different values to decrease invested detachment. The history of the company is an important consideration when considering why its narratives are the way they are. Ernst & Schleiter (2019) found that the historical context of the organization may be useful in using narratives to navigate change. They also suggested that as managers used narratives to boost the organizational identity, they might help guide people through change. Homestead Response has an interesting and gritty history as a small business, and indeed it is at least interesting to those who 17 work there. Because the nature of the work done there is intrinsically “blue-collar,” and is wrapped up in a classical American small-business success story, Homestead’s history could be a particularly useful part of narratives designed to aid in change, as it may resonate with the individual identities held by members of the organization. Narratives matter in small business as a means of establishing the foundations for change, and serving as guideposts to empower organizational members and give them understanding regarding the purpose of the change (Rivers, 2019). My data show narratives that have been built by members of Homestead Response, and the embedded values which inform them. These narratives are born of the identities of the organizational members, and become the organizational culture as they are told. Once I have borne out the details of these narratives, I will then make suggestions for leaders to help understand all these elements and use them to enact good change. In my reading, I also found that crafting and maintaining narratives is helpful for cultural cohesion in more volatile business environments (Iftikhar & Sergeeva, 2024). This study focused on work done in a temporary megaproject, which served as a useful tool for me in examining a more transitory project experienced by many at Homestead in conjunction with another company, which I will discuss in greater depth later. All the narratives told at an organization create the correct context for reviewing other narratives. One or two in particular cannot live outside the ecosystem created by the others, and all play into what the organization is and thinks of itself (Geiger & Antonacopoulou, 2009). These same authors found that the narratives which persist in an organization are those that have been successful for its members in one way or another, so knowing what those narratives are is crucial for leaders’ understanding of 18 what has been working and why. If leaders at Homestead Response can review all persistent narratives and determine why they have had success in shaping the culture, they can then hold onto good ones and modify those which might not be as useful or effective. Methods: Qualitative Case Study of Homestead Response Rationale & Research Question I wish to expand the current understanding of organizational change, organizational identity, and leadership, and provide a specific point of reference for context on those fronts. My intent is to draw upon much of the research previously conducted in the field, such as the work done by Ashcraft (2005), Collinson (2003), and Dempsey (2009). I am particularly interested in understanding how individuals feel that their input is valued when considering organizational changes. Consequently, I have conducted an inductive, qualitative study at Homestead Response, Ltd, a company that deals in the restoration and outfitting of Humvees and other response vehicles. By interviewing those involved in this niche corner of the auto industry, I have gained small business insight into the ways that traditionally blue-collar workers view their own autonomy and their contributions to their workplace, and the extent to which they agree with structural changes such as the implementation of communication channels, the introduction of leadership policies, and other aspects of organizational culture. I explored the following open-ended research question: What cultural values do members of Homestead Response draw upon to narrate organizational change? 19 This question has allowed me to openly analyze the factors that cause tension when the organization must pivot. I have also gained insight into the ways that leaders can be more inspiring and helpful regarding change. I found these insights in the form of attitudes, values, and language applied by organizational members. These findings will help leaders in similar situations understand how to respond and mold invested detachment into a workable model for organizational change. Homestead Response: Tight-Knit and Often Related Homestead Response is a small company of just under 30 people, which builds unique military and armored response vehicles and aftermarket parts for civilian and military markets. Though its operations overlap in type with other auto manufacturers and diesel garages in the area, it is unique in its clientele, and does not share many operating procedures with larger plants. Founded in 2008 with just three members, the company has grown significantly, but has not attained corporate status. The small business thrives in Utah for the most part, due to the state's hospitality toward entrepreneurship (Miller, 2025). The original founders, a pair of men in their 40s, own the company, and it is staffed by 1099 contractors in most cases rather than traditional employees. The distinction between W-2 employees and 1099 contractors is not insignificant. W-2 employees are hired on to an organization and then become the company’s responsibility as far as withdrawing taxes, providing benefits, and contributing to social security are concerned. They are protected under federal law in ways that 1099 20 contractors are not. By contrast, 1099 contractors are responsible for their own tax withholdings, insurance, and retirement plans in exchange for more flexibility, more opportunities for tax write-offs, and typically less obligation to assimilate into the organization (Spark, 2026). At Homestead, these lines are blurred because while most workers are 1099, everyone is expected to maintain the schedule and responsibilities of an employee while not being granted access to benefits. Homestead’s owners maintain that the cost savings provided by this system allow them to pay their workers more than they could otherwise, and this is generally accepted by the crew. Since the organization is a small business with a unique goal, many people are willing to adapt to this unfamiliar way of worker enrollment because they feel that the benefits outweigh the costs. This sentiment is not consistently expressed by everyone, and is seen in a more positive or negative light depending on what’s going on at a given time. The predominance of 1099 contractors in the organization has set the stage for each person to operate as their own company, though Homestead relies on each one for business to function normally as they would an actual employee. This has been a cause of tension in the past, as Homestead Response’s attempts to standardize policy and procedure are often met with pushback from members acting as their own businesses, who believe they deserve more autonomy. From an ownership standpoint, hiring only subcontractors is a way to keep costs down, provide flexibility in schedules and responsibilities for workers, and avoid complications and unnecessary personnel procedures. For the contractors, it often feels less like an opportunity for freedom and 21 entrepreneurship, and more like a way to gain loyalty and consistent work as a company would from an employee without having to provide protections and benefits like one. Attitudes surrounding this way of structuring the company are fraught and ever-present in the organization’s culture, though how these tensions manifest changes from person to person and from time to time. Being located in Utah, the company is also saturated in a largely conservative and traditionally religious landscape, which factors influence company culture. Most members of the organization hold conservative ideologies, and almost all are religious in some fashion. These political and theological positions largely reflect the trends seen in the state of Utah broadly (Pew Research Center, 2025; Utah.gov, 2025). Both owners are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as are many other members of Homestead. Members and others are generally open to discussions about their beliefs in the workplace. This leads to personal discussions which are more frank than might be typically allowed, as the nature of people’s job status requires no HR department to regulate conversation. This general alignment in theopolitical beliefs leads to a sense of unity which has helped the organization be cohesive, but would be restrictive and uncomfortable for someone who was not affiliated with those beliefs, as the research expressed (Gibson & Papa, 2000). The ideals of Christian conservatism in the United States are a matter for other studies, but the tone of those ideals helps contextualize personal and group identities that are influenced by factors outside of the workplace and then brought in to influence the organizational culture of Homestead. 22 The structure of Homestead Response consists of two owners, eight team leads, and 12-18 other workers that fall under one or more of the teams, depending on the season. The company is about 65% white and 35% Hispanic, despite a less diverse racial makeup in Utah generally (Healthy Salt Lake, 2025). Worker turnover has historically been quite high, with most people joining and leaving the organization within three years, as mentioned earlier. During the course of this study, one person interviewed left the company. Several members of the company are related to each other, or were acquainted before joining the team. Positionality I am the director of the department of shipping and receiving, making me a team lead. When I joined the company, I was a floor worker for approximately two years, before moving into project management and then my current position. Those few who have worked there for many years will remember me holding varying degrees of authority. I occupy a liminal space, being a team lead over a department of only two people. I have cordial relationships with everyone working at Homestead, and have developed deep relationships with a few of my peers. Because I only have one direct report, people in other departments tend to trust me, as I cannot determine rewards or punishments for them. Though my position in the company does not directly affect assignments, I am Bruce’s nephew, and my direct report is his daughter, Patty. Bruce is the founding owner, so he has arguably the greatest vestige of power within the organization. As a member of one of the owners’ families, some people may hesitate to 23 express negative feelings around me for fear that I may pass those thoughts along in my interactions with him. These names, as well as all others in this study but my own, are pseudonyms to protect the privacy of the individuals interviewed and spoken of. Because of this position, I gained information in two different ways: interviews and ethnographic research. Where people may have been more reserved and proper in formal interviews, I observed them at work in a setting where the stakes felt lower. This enabled me to learn more details and depth about what I was told in my interviews. Participants & Procedure For this study, I interviewed 10 participants from Homestead Response. The requirements for the sample were that the participants be adults and work at Homestead, thus giving insight into the thought processes of workers in these specific circumstances. These people were recruited through workplace conversations, and consented to be interviewed based upon their current associative relationship with me. Data was gathered via one-on-one interviews with each participant. The interviews were carried out during break periods on site at the workplace, in person. Each interview was conducted in a private office to improve candor and confidence, and to provide a quiet recording environment. Informed consent was obtained prior to each interview, and no participants had hesitations being part of the study. The average length of each interview was just under 21 minutes, approximately. The fact that people were readily willing to interview with me during an unpaid period during their workday is a testament to the “invested” part of invested detachment, as it implies that they care 24 enough about Homestead and also have enough trust in me to offer up their thoughts about the organization with no incentive. Eight of the participants were male, and two were female. Four belonged to middle management, and the rest were floor workers. The men were young to uppermiddle-aged adults in their 50s, and the women were young adults in their 20s. Each had worked for various amounts of time in their field, ranging from around one year to over 30. All participants worked in different departments, such as fabrication, assembly, engineering, and shipping and receiving. Of those interviewed, four spoke Spanish as a first language, which had minor impacts on phrasing and clarity of expression when interviewed in English. These impacts varied from subject to subject. For context, Figure I outlines the familial relationships between those interviewed. Note that other members of Homestead Response were mentioned in interviews, but have been excluded from this figure for the sake of clarity. Figure I 25 In addition to the interviews, I conducted immersive, ethnographic research as a member of the organization. Every day I worked, I took notice of the things that were said relating to change, the relationships people have with each other, personal and group values, and the like, and I took note of trends I saw. My ethnographic notes were often mental, though I did write down several situations and reactions that I wanted to remember especially well. I could then compare these immersive findings with the discussions I had with members of Homestead which were formal and recorded. I used this method concurrently with the interviews to understand organizational language as it is spoken between co-members and not to an interviewer (Kalou & Sadler-Smith, 2015). My findings may not have been so thorough if they were confined to an environment where my participants were ever-conscious that what they said was being recorded and analyzed. A qualitative study using these two methods provides a more thorough understanding of the communicative nature of change and change management. Interviews offer an efficient way of gathering information that can not be counted (Guest et al, 2013, Gorden, 1998). Doing qualitative research provides access to stories, reactions, cultural values, and expressions that quantitative research does not encompass. The numbers do not give us a full enough picture of how individuals within the organization experience their own identity or the organizational culture. In order to gain appropriate insights on how blue collar workers navigate and create the culture at Homestead, qualitative research must be performed. The observation portion of this case study provides nuance that would not be shared in a formal interview due to forgetfulness, self-consciousness, fear of reproach, or some other reason (Yin, 2014). 26 The formal and informal collecting of data was designed to help me gain a more holistic view of the culture and its implications for large-scale change. Instrumentation The interview protocol was similar between floor workers and middle management, but the questions were altered to be tailored to individuals sampled from the groups specifically. Topics included perceptions of organizational change, feelings of involvement, satisfaction with company culture, and relationships between different kinds of personnel. As an example, one question reads, “How do you view your relationship with Homestead’s leadership?” These questions were asked in order to answer the research question pertaining to the way that blue-collar workers perceive organizational change. Differences in wording between management levels were intentionally provided to gain perspectives in an authentic way to the individual’s level of leadership and influence. I included follow-ups to many questions, which were sometimes ignored, reworded, or added upon during the course of each interview. For example, I followed the previously stated question with, “Does this relationship vary from leader to leader?” Had the subject already touched on this, I may have skipped it or asked for more detail. Generally, when participants mentioned something that I felt was worth exploring, I asked for further explanation. I conducted my ethnographic research as a member of the organization working in the normal, day-to-day operations of Homestead Response. I paid attention to things said, work done, and attitudes displayed that enhanced or contradicted what I was 27 learning from my interviews. For example, some things people said in my presence “off the record” expressed frustrations that were not brought up when directly asked in interview. This was a useful addition to the interviews, a cue taken from the likes of Gherardi & Nicolini (2002), who shadowed a singular person at their chosen organization, to similar effect. Additionally, some people claimed to value certain things that they did not consistently put into practice during the normal course of their work. At times, my observations confirmed things that were shared with me, and at others they contradicted them. Data Analysis After having recorded each interview to a cell phone, I transcribed them using a transcription software. During my first reading of these transcripts, I anonymized all names and identifying information and corrected errors made by the AI transcription process. This process yielded a total of 86 pages of single-spaced transcribed interview, which could then be looked over to glean focused information and common themes. I then identified the pertinent and repeated themes found within participant responses. These directly related to the ways in which people narrated the change in the organization by drawing on particular values. These values repeated throughout the data and by all participants Next, I analyzed how each theme was related to organizational change and the ways that participants narrated that change. I went through each interview line by line, marking phrases that I thought were impactful and relevant to my research. I wrote proto-themes for them in the margin, and 28 then looked for places where participants agreed and disagreed (Tracy, 2013). I transferred the four most pervasive themes onto another paper and described how their instances could be found. I also noted the themes’ relationships to individuals within the organization. The four themes that ended up being most useful in explaining how my questions could be answered were “Personal/Collective Ownership”, “Structure/One Best Method”, “Clarity/Transparency”, and “Trust/Support.” I will treat these themes and their implications with more depth in the following sections. As I analyzed quotes from my participants that related to those themes, I was able to detect invested detachment throughout. Reviewing what was said allowed me to get at some of the ambivalence that workers at Homestead feel and understand the cultural values that lead to their approach to that ambivalence. By reviewing all of those components, I was able to see how leaders may help initiate and follow through with change despite the difficulties presented by invested detachment. For my ethnographic research, I compared the notes I had taken from my experiences with the transcripts and themes from my interviews. I found that informal conversations and behaviors sometimes fell in line with what was said in interviews, but sometimes would contradict what people told me about how they felt or perceived a situation. By observing the work done in “real life” by those I had interviewed, I could tell to what degree they truly seemed to value the things about which we had spoken. This addition of “language-in-use” (Katriel, 2015) to the interviews allowed me insight on how closely the two aligned as far as my research was concerned. I also got a feel for how 29 widely the values shared in my interviews were adopted by those I did not get the chance to interview. I could look at people’s contributions through the lens of how each of my 10 participants felt the organization should operate to see how those experiencing invested detachment really react to change, and what would make leaders most effective in responding to and influencing these reactions. Results Because workers at Homestead experience 1099 work in a more formally structured environment, there is an acute level of ambivalence among them. On the one hand, they want to put forward good work and be satisfied with it as one of several business owners plying their trade at the company. On the other hand, they can often feel that they aren’t supported in a way that merits such a specific effort toward Homestead as opposed to being able to choose exactly what they will work on and for whom. I found the more that people could move through this ambivalence from detachment to attachment (i.e., working as a team) and lean into their investments through individual efforts, the effect toward change was more positive, and they felt better about their own situation despite its nuanced peculiarity. The main significance of my results revolves around the invested detachment experienced by members of Homestead. The phenomenon of invested detachment is a state of being for the 1099 contractors in this organization in which they feel a level of loyalty to the company because of their working there, but are also prone to protect their interest through emotional and/or physical distance to Homestead’s aims and processes. Throughout the interviews and my interactions with them, this phenomenon framed all interactions, and the themes I extracted and values I analyzed are all brought 30 forth in an effort to draw upon the usefulness of individuals who experience invested detachment. Any success experienced by the organization and its members is a testament to the fact that this feeling can be positively leveraged, and is not ultimately a recipe for failure given attention and good practices from the leadership. Feelings of ownership, structure, clarity, and trust help leaders navigate invested detachment by drawing on the personal values of their subordinates to encourage positive narratives of organizational change As leaders tap into those personal values, they are able to better guide others to change narratives fueled by invested detachment. They can move to a better space for change by helping their subordinates co-create narratives that are more invested and less detached. These values will help increase confidence in the feasibility of change implementation, and its relevance to people who felt disconnected from it before. Personal/Collective Ownership. This theme references any time that people interviewed mentioned investment through the importance of taking responsibility for their own work, identifying as a member of a larger team, or both, either as conflicting factors or complimentary ones. When people mentioned feeling personal responsibility and a sense of common investment toward changes and goals, the narratives trended more positive. As I interviewed my participants, I noticed that there was a strange sort of dichotomy born of the circumstances of employment at Homestead Response. Almost all workers are 1099 subcontractors rather than employees. As such, it can often be difficult to appreciate changes and unpopular policies because people feel that they are being robbed of their independence to some degree. This invested detachment can 31 make it very difficult for individuals to accept changes and act as a team player, though their independence can often be the solution to such a notion. The more pride that people take in their work, the better they are able to be positively involved with policy and change. The same energy that causes blue-collar men (Mumby, 1998) to burn out to prove that they’re tough can be redirected to provide them with personal responsibility and collective ownership. By taking individual ownership, participants in this study were able to make it a point of pride to present their company as the type of business that can provide excellent results for Homestead Response. Once enough people feel this kind of individual ownership, a group can start to form that feels pride in working together to achieve certain aims for Homestead, thus transcending their own personal success and adding that of the group. This is the “invested” portion of invested detachment. One reason folks resisted change is that they have not experienced personal and/or collective ownership to some degree. In one interview, a subject mentioned that her assigned tasks feel important to her, even to the point of slight worry: I just sometimes fret about if I’m accomplishing [tasks] correctly or efficiently sometimes. I’ve been able to, like, have a better understanding of, like, the importance of each little thing that gets done, though. (Patty, ln 306-308.) This example showcases an instance where Patty taking pride in her work transferred to care for the place that said work has within the organization. Management I interviewed also made mention of this phenomenon: 32 There’s a camaraderie of individuals here that we all have a passion and a desire for what we do, and even if that bleeds out into emotional confrontation…we still have the greater good. (Murphy, ln 393-397.) His citing of task conflict highlighted how sometimes discussions about quality and change can get heated when people truly have passion for the kind of work they put out. He focused also on the ways that people are able to reconcile these emotions with a drive for collective success, which has proven to be helpful in bringing people to terms with change at Homestead. These and other comments have lent to the idea that perhaps the method for success as it relates to this theme is not making sure that people feel enough individual or collective ownership, but that they understand how vital both are for weathering change. At Homestead Response, both types of ownership are so integral to each other that focusing on one is bound to bring the other up. Consider this excerpt from the interview with Ramona: You know, if I do a pretty bad job, it makes me feel bad, and also it makes me look bad as they put that trust in me to do things correctly. And if I'm not performing to standards, then that does make me feel bad because what am I doing, you know? (Ramona, ln 299-301.) For Ramona, failure to perform reflects poorly on her own work, and also betrays a trust that has been placed in her by her superiors. Not only does she recognize that bad work has her name on it, but that this work will also bring down her department and cause the group to suffer. Throughout her interview, Ramona talked about changes and concerns in a way that highlighted her personal responsibility and the relationship that she had to have with her team lead in order to ensure success. 33 Some of the language used when talking about how changes have been implemented did make certain aspects of change feel like an imposition to certain people. For example, in his interview, Colby framed some organizational change this way: I mean, we've had the leadership restructured a little bit. More responsibilities pushed on to other people. Which has helped to spread the communication chain. (Colby, ln 71-72.) I wanted to understand a little better what he meant by “pushed on to,” and after seeking clarification, he said this: I guess not pushed, but spread out between more people so that it's easier for… So a little bit more shared responsibility at a structural level. (Colby, ln 83-84.) I had suspected that this ask for clarification would cause him to back off of the initial language used to sound like the circumstance wasn’t so harsh. It is not uncommon for people at Homestead to favor more gentle words when describing change, as I found in my ethnographic research. This is one of the deeper values present in the workforce at Homestead Response: an appeal to politeness. Juxtaposed with the perceived gruffness of a blue-collar worker (Edley, 2001) is this seemingly contradictory communicative trait of being polite for the sake of preserving others’ feelings, or potentially avoiding retribution. This is rooted partially in the politeness culture present at Homestead, but also in invested detachment. Since contractors like Colby are not part of the organization like employees would be, they would rather be polite and move on than invest in a difficult conversation. Their tenuous position as a mere contractor 34 also incentivizes them to avoid ruffling feathers so that they can maintain their work situation. Because of my position as a team lead and therefore my relationship with Colby’s team lead, there was reasonable worry that the sentiment he shared about this change being overbearing could get back to his lead, despite my declared commitment to privacy. I had overheard and witnessed other instances of people speaking more freely and with less commitment to sugar-coating when they assumed that their lead would not be privy to the conversation. If workers are able to maintain the appeal to good relationships that their politeness would accomplish while still speaking plainly about their concerns, it would be easier for them to experience a sense of group cohesion. This would also assist managers in knowing how people feel that they are able to be responsible as an individual and within the broader community of the organization. Still, everything that Colby said was helpful in showing me how people felt about their own work and the responsibilities of their respective teams as change had taken place. Though participants in this study usually found that they were good at taking ownership of their work and being responsible, some mentioned that the people that they work with did not always care as much. I noticed this sentiment also from several people in day-to-day interactions. No matter who was commenting on current conditions, suggesting strategy, or evaluating how effective change had been, the general tone of their comments would suggest that they cared at least as much about the task at hand as others in the organization, if not more. Whether or not this was the case, people seemed to believe that they were average or above average when it came 35 to taking responsibility and being a team player. This was an expected manifestation of the Lake Wobegon Effect (Wilbers, 1989), but is unique to the setting in that leaders tempered their perception of superiority with a desire to frame it in a way that was gentle on those perceived as less invested. Most of the time the feeling was purely suggestive, and names were not named, whether to be polite, avoid retaliation, or for some other reason. This appeal to politeness relates directly to LDS culture, as members of Homestead are familiar with the ideals and aims of the church, which are a part of their lives to varying degrees. I found that it was common for people to keep negative thoughts to themselves, or speak about them in the vaguest of terms in order to keep people happy and not call out anyone in particular. This softness only lends itself to the invested detachment experienced by people here, as it keeps even the wording of their complaints and suggestions aloof, avoiding personal responsibility for the thought itself and, consequently, collective ownership of change and improvement. In interview, however, one subject was more explicit about how he felt regarding this perceived phenomenon: Because I want to make sure it's going to be working. You know, when you say, one day you take a truck, it's like, “Hey, the AC works.” Like... feels good [to me]. But for other people, maybe like, “Whatever, yeah, it works. I get paid. I don't care.” That kind of mentality kind of sucks. (Franco, ln 297-300.) Nearly everyone in the organization exhibited this “whatever gets me paid” attitude in nearly everyone at one point or another, including myself. Because I exist as a contractor just like my participants, there have been various instances where my highest 36 priority was earning a paycheck by being clocked in for a certain amount of time rather than creating any meaningful progress. My own experiences with invested detachment have helped me understand how it feels to those with whom I work. When I adopt this attitude rather than committing to my work, I lose all sense of responsibility or ownership. Leaders, then, need to identify when this phenomenon is taking place and work to help members move toward ownership rather than staying in the slump of paycheck chasing. This is a feeling that can be especially pervasive amongst 1099 subcontractors, as they have fewer reasons to be loyal than an employee with health benefits might. This general understanding of work, which has become a part of Homestead Response’s organizational culture, is an indicator that there is work to be done to convince members that they are part of a team. If leadership can navigate change in a way that encourages others to align with the collective goals of the organization, they may take more responsibility in outcomes and become more loyal to the company rather than coasting through on the bare minimum. Despite a struggle to feel loyal to the organization, some people do value personal ownership. If more people can experience a core feeling of desire to be proud of their work rather than just follow a routine that leads to a paycheck, that ownership and attitude will lead them to experience change at a more involved and successful level. Pride in the work that one does is a hallmark of blue-collar workers, and this sentiment can be leveraged to the benefit of the organization as leaders help people take personal ownership for what they do. There is an inherent tie to the existing work ethic in similar fields that can make this easy to do. The tricky thing is convincing people 37 that they are part of a collective that shares partial responsibility for the efforts of each member. Understanding better the culture of Homestead Response and working to augment it to include these themes will create success in response to change. If bluecollar workers are tough, and the culture of Homestead is one of unity and responsibility, taking ownership is a natural way to effectively respond to change. Structure/One Best Method. This theme marks any mention of the importance of reducing detachment by implementing clear structure and methods regarding new policies or procedures at Homestead. In discussing the history of Homestead Response with participants, I found it clear that organization has not always been the company’s strong suit. Some cited high turnover in the past and frustrations throughout the business’s years as a result of a lack of formal structure, usually leading to ambiguity surrounding the methods of completing tasks and carrying out procedures. The lack of structure caused feelings of detachment because contractors who already felt overwhelmed by their situation did not feel like coming up with structures when the benefits to them were unclear. All people I interviewed mentioned that a focus on defining organizational structure and having a mindset of looking for a singular, most effective approach to each process had had a positive impact on the way that people view change and new communications. They made it seem to me that their investment would increase if leaders could do the structural legwork for them, giving them confidence that they would know when they were doing things the right way. This confidence in the structure can help them become more reattached to the organization. Commitment to good structure by leaders will help reduce the negative impact of invested detachment by giving members of Homestead an organizational framework to 38 reference. When people experiencing invested detachment suffer from limited structure, their instinct is to pull away from commitment to change due to a lack of support. If leaders lay out specific methods, the risk to invest is dampened, and people who might otherwise care less about the initiative can work within the framework set to accomplish the goals of the organization. As contractors, people at Homestead feel that they might be in more trouble when they do something the wrong way than an employee would, and so leaders laying out the “right way” allows for more confidence when engaging with change. By giving people the reliability of a consistent leadership and organizational structure, it seems that workers can more fully trust leaders to make changes, and feel that said changes will likely benefit them and their companies, and not just Homestead Response at large. This increases investment. Of education to this end, one subject said: I think the other thing that’s important is that we’ve looked at having everyone understand where they fit in the organization, but then also step out of the organization a little bit and understand why and how some folks have to do different things. (Stewart, ln 124-127.) This experience has been one that Stewart has pursued over the course of the entire last year. Coming from a background of engineering as well as organizational leadership, he knows how to make things and people fit and utilize their strengths. These skills have helped Homestead lately as they seek to decide and define where people go, and how tasks are carried out. As people have understood the structure more, they have been more compliant and involved in processes of change. 39 Using individual strengths that people possess to inform the structure of the company has impacted understanding of that structure significantly. At another point in his interview, Stewart said: ...from a leadership standpoint, [we’ve been] looking at individual skill sets and individual experience and trying to implement their skill sets to maximize the efficiencies and deliverables of this company. (Stewart, ln 78-80.) Going hand in hand with the first theme, defining structure allows people to know where they fit in and belong, easing the way for personal and group ownership to take place. These twin ingredients greatly impact workers’ outlooks on changes and policies. In his interview, Dave found that an increased dedication to structure has helped his team immensely during times of change. He mentioned a past at Homestead Response where rules and schedules were much more fluid and relaxed, but expressed that more regimenting of the team and its functions has caused people to feel more involved and accountable in changes: Well it's now a requirement, it's mandatory that my team, my guys are supposed to show up at 8-8:15. I have a tag-up meeting, a daily tag-up meeting to talk about what team leads are going over. What issues have come up during the day and if they can voice their concerns on what we're working on. (Dave, ln 85-88.) This example of the tag-up meetings is a procedure that was introduced by Stewart, and which has become a codified structure in every department. Having participated in tagup meetings at a departmental and team lead level, I have witnessed how despite variations in meeting efficacy from day to day, the institution of a structured time for 40 voicing concerns has indeed given floor workers more of a voice and an understanding when it comes to change. Being part of formalized methods like this has helped people identify with the organization and feel valued. For instance, as I have wandered past the tag-up meetings of each department, I have heard more non-lead members of the organization speaking up and airing out concerns than they ever had in our companywide meetings. Part of the effectiveness in outlining these tag-ups is that they create a structure that is clear in its efforts to draw discussion out from everyone. The smaller group size inherent to these meetings increases confidence that people have in voicing information. The creation of additional structure did also cause an unwanted side effect, appearing in the form of people’s perception of Homestead’s unique nature changing. As I observed people working there go through these additions of structure and outlining of best practices, some people felt that the easygoing charm of Homestead Response had lain in its lack of certain structures. There was some complaining about formalization because the company as it was when people had been contracted in seemed to not exist anymore. One draw of Homestead was the idea of an easygoing place with fewer lines of corporate red tape than other places, and so people liked to grumble when more procedures were formalized. The narrative of a flexible workplace seemed to them to be in jeopardy with the introduction of more structure. If the new narrative was not able to maintain the interest of those working there, it would cause more detachment by pushing people away from the charm of Homestead without replacing that charm with an equally useful narrative surrounding structure. This was 41 even a potential factor in Martín choosing to leave the company, as he began to appear uneasy when new structures and changes were introduced. By this example, it seems that certain people not only experienced invested detachment, but enjoyed it. Being somewhat aloof allowed them to shift responsibility, and the more that leaders introduced structure, the less aloof they could be. As the company codified procedures during change, people contracted to work there found the details of their job being more tightly controlled. The new structure created a doubleedged sword, where contractors could now engage with their work by shifting responsibility for failure to the architects of the processes, but they were also expected to follow certain rules that had been left up to them before that point. If leaders want to increase buy-in among those so affected, they must make the investment more appealing than the detachment, pointing out its ultimate benefits to the individual businesses that each contractor represents. The ability to become used to this structure, and the effective outlining of it by leadership was important to make up for the mourning of the “old Homestead Response” that was more relaxed than leadership was hoping to become. Without this structure, many organizational objectives fall apart, which is bad for the members in the long run, even if they are more comfortable without the structure at first. This was a struggle that usually made itself manifest more in facial expressions and quiet slothfulness in adherence to new policy rather than vocalized complaints in most instances. Being able to work precisely is something that blue-collar workers can identify with. If the proper procedure is seen as part of Homestead’s culture and a means for 42 helping hardworking members better perform at their craft, it can be a tool to create change that people are proud of and from which the organization can thrive. Leaders have the power to construct narratives that defend procedure and make it appealing to others, and they must use this power to convince their subordinates of the value of good structure. If blue-collar workers are “doers” by nature, then good structures outline what they are to do and how, so that they know if they’ve been successful. Clarity/Transparency. This theme is any mention of the need for leadership to create investment by clearly communicating expectations or divulging necessary details to other members of the organization. When leaders disseminate information, it is all too easy for it to be muddled, confusing, or incomplete. Poor communication can cause serious issues, and destroy positive perceptions of organizational change for floor workers. These issues and destruction of positive perceptions directly influence the level at which people lose investment in the company. If changes are not delivered clearly and with the utmost honesty and detail, it can be difficult for individuals to experience feelings of ownership, or to trust in the structures and methods surrounding the change. They will be less likely given those circumstances to contribute to positive narratives surrounding change. They will instead choose to detach from the narrative entirely. I found that transparency does not necessarily mean giving all people all available information–in fact this can often be worse than keeping the information contained–but that people simply need to know what they are to do, and why they are to do it, insofar as the explanation is relative to their specific role. Clarity and transparency were points that all of my participants brought up often, and everyone seemed to regard these attributes as essential to the proper function of 43 the business, right down to the morale of the workers. Of the hazards of a lack of clarity, Patty said the following: I think sometimes when there’s a change in, like, a workplace, there can be a little bit of, like… like, some kind of pushback or, like, resistance maybe, because it’s, like, especially if you don’t really understand why they’re being implemented or you don’t know what that’s going to look like, it can be hard to, like, get on board with that… (Patty, ln 113-116.) Patty citing resistance as a result of a lack of clarity helps spell out just how simple it can be for communication about change to be effective. People generally seem to want to know the “what” and the “why” if they are going to move forward in support of a policy or notice. If people do not understand these two details, there are things that they can do to gain clarity, which can help those who struggle under poor communication: I think addressing [concerns] in the right times, not necessarily all the time. We address it in a meeting or address it to the people that could affect the change the most.” (Stewart, ln 189-191.) Organization members being able to speak up is crucial in obtaining clarity sometimes. It is easy for leadership to believe that they have done a good job of explaining something, but people receiving the explanation may be resistant or disaffected if they do not speak up and ask for more clarification. It is evident that a lack of clarity and transparency has been a roadblock to accepting organizational change at Homestead Response. 44 This clarity is important from every member of the group, but it is especially important coming from the top down when it comes to how people view change. An appreciation for clear communication came from Martín: It's just every time I have a question or I need an answer, I can just go to you and you will direct me in the right direction. Even if you don't know it. And so it's just so useful to have people like you guys around because you guys just know all this stuff. And honestly, you guys are leading a lot of us because without you guys, it'd probably be a chaos. So it's just so useful that you guys are so knowledgeable and have been with Homestead for so long. And you know what direction we're going towards, so it just helps that we're all on the same page. (Martín, ln 232-240.) This being on the same page is the litmus test for proper clarity in an organization. If all members feel that they understand, clarity has been achieved. I noticed that “being on the same page” rarely meant that all floor workers had all the information available to managers, or that managers had all the information that the owners had. As Martín said, the sure knowledge that bringing a question to any lead will get someone pointed in the right direction was enough to feel that clarity was present. Creating a culture where people know that they can find clarity will increase their level of investment by reducing feelings of helplessness. Being honest about the extent to which leaders can help can also make people feel more comfortable seeking clarity. Often, admitting that you are not the best source for information is as good as having the information in the first place if you can be clear about who can help with that specific concern in your stead. This leads into the final theme of trust. Even if one’s direct lead did not have the knowledge 45 requested, trusting that they would lead you to the person who does is key to being appropriately transparent. The right information is all it takes to prevent confusion and inspire confidence. This theme was not without contrast in my immersive study at Homestead Response. There were many times that people expressed frustration surrounding having insufficient information to complete tasks or understand changes, so it seems that not everyone agreed that the right level of clarity was actually present when taken out of the formal interview. There was a personal element to clarity when it came to invested detachment. Leaders needed to learn what it meant to each of their people to be “clearly informed” so that they could have what they needed to feel attached to the information. It was not so much that people wanted all the information possible all the time, but that they wished to have enough to do their job and anything else that leaders were willing to share. When people felt that they were underinformed or did not know who to ask certain questions, however, they could usually resolve it quickly. This quick resolution seems key at Homestead for people to gain clarity and feel adequately informed. The principle of quick resolution serves to prove my main point about clarity and transparency, namely that everyone does not need all available information. If the basic “what” and “why” are served, and ancillary information can be readily obtained as needed, basic clarity will have been achieved. Additionally, I did not note negative feelings surrounding information clarity and transparency as frequently as feelings of confidence or contentment, so it seems that they were being effectively managed by leadership. 46 Blue-collar workers often appreciate not being bogged down with unnecessary information, or being given vague answers and instructions. Their desire for conciseness and clarity and a “cut through the BS” attitude can be used to make sure that they are given relevant and adequate information. By co-opting this blue-collar value of clarity, leaders can be clear enough that their subordinates experience investment in the information, laying the groundwork for investment in initiatives as a whole. Creating an environment where this is the case helps people embrace change with less skepticism and more confidence. Trust/Support. The final theme I examined deals with relationships or attachments. Whenever someone mentioned the importance of establishing and maintaining trust between members of the organization, or the necessity of receiving or giving support, this theme emerged. This may be the primary reason that people are hesitant to accept change or act in compliance with policy. If they feel that they do not trust those implementing it, or are not trusted by the same, they will likely experience a degree of resistance. In like manner, people must also feel a sense of attachment to the person to whom change initiatives can be attributed. When they do feel a sense of attachment to that person, the change is likely to be more effective. This theme was defined by instances of people mentioning feeling as though they trusted their departments and leaders and were trusted by those departments and leaders, as well as times that they mentioned continued support being of importance. As was the case for clarity and transparency, the trust and support that came from members of the organization relevant to each individual mattered most. A massive, company-wide shared trust does not seem to be required, but the relationships between 47 people who work together often are of imperative importance These feelings of trust typically do not come easily, and take time to develop. Stewart shared: Building a relationship comes from individuals building a relationship. I haven’t worked with everyone, so I don’t have a relationship with everyone. Those folks that I work with every day, our leadership team, Bruce and Roy, I think we have a pretty good relationship with. (Stewart, ln 271-276.) As members interact with each other, rapport can be built, which will encourage trust in the processes. All of it starts with taking time to understand and build relationships between people, so that they can experience trust in both directions. When people can experience trust, they can see that their goals are aligned across the organization. Patty said of this: ...downstairs, everyone also is very helpful and is, like, they’ll have the same goal, and it’s aligned with also, like, the owners as well, so I feel like it’s kind of, I could go to anybody and I know everyone’s trying to get to the same place, and everyone’s always, like, very kind and helpful. (Patty, ln 276-279.) This experience explains Patty’s quick acceptance of organizational change, and feelings that she can contribute to it. Because she views her relationships with everyone in the shop and the trust shared therein with such positivity, it is easy for her to make suggestions when necessary, and trust processes in the meantime. The trust between people and expectation of support from leadership directly increases positive reactions to change at Homestead Response. At this organization, trust seems higher than what one might expect in similar industries. From an observational standpoint, this high level of trust seems to be related 48 in part to how small the organization is. Because everyone has to interact with nearly everyone else at some point during the average week, members build familiarity between each other at Homestead. These close quarters all but force trust to be built, and create a space where people generally feel enabled and motivated to support one another. If someone asks for help, it is rare that the person asked will not stop what they are doing to assist. For instance, I often move and place items that require two sets of hands, and have never had someone turn down my request for help, no matter who they were or what they are doing. I have also observed this behavior with other people without regard to status or relationship, as it seems to be the default at the organization. This feeling seems to be common among floor workers and leadership alike. Santiago, a team lead, expressed it this way: The conversations we have and the way [floor workers] come and talk to me about any type of issue at work or anything… the way that we connect to have… the trust that we built, I think that’s one thing here at work. (Santiago, ln 304-306.) There are, of course, plenty of instances of interpersonal dialogue taking a turn where trust is breached by one individual or another, but it is more common that people heal and move on than stay hung up on conflict. In some cases, conflict is actually wielded in such a way that it adds to the strength of trust after tensions have cooled. One specific example that I observed was a verbal fight between Murphy and Martín in which each raised their voice in disagreement. I came to find out that Martín, the floor worker, was actually frustrated that work was not being done effectively enough, and that change was slow to take place. Murphy, the team lead, had to explain the process that was 49 being implemented, and talk through Martín’s suggestions in a way that leveled them both out. Martín brought up this incident in his interview: I have an experience where I did speak out, so I can speak on that experience. And it was with Murphy, and I kind of wanted to tell him that we weren't moving as fast as I thought we could be moving. And so, the way I expressed myself probably wasn't the best. (Martín, ln 126-128.) What is striking about this account is that Martín had created a bit of a reputation for stubbornness, and yet had come to admit that he could have handled that incident better. Even the day that it happened, he shared similar sentiments, and he and Murphy were reconciled without much ado. In response to how he felt about the state of the company, Murphy said this: There's a camaraderie of individuals here, that we all have a passion and a desire for what we do, and even if that bleeds out into emotional confrontation, emotional debates,... even if it brings out some of our passion more times than others, we still have the greater good… (Murphy, ln 393-397.) From the timing of this interview, I found it evident that this was largely in reference to his conflict with Martín, but even earlier in the interview, Murphy had cited Martín as someone that he specifically trusted within the organization, as if the desire to sort out conflict itself was a key indicator of trust at Homestead. The more that I observed people collaboratively working through task conflict, such as differing opinions on the development of newer products, the more that this idea held true. Working through our conflicts built trust, increased the support that members were willing to give and receive, and increased the solidity of the individual and group identities of those involved. 50 Though people often don’t think of blue-collar workers as being very touchy-feely, they often identify as people that can lean on each other (Collinson & Hearn, 2001; Mumby, 1998). Tradespeople stick together and offer help and expertise when it is needed. When leaders trust their people, and show that they are also worthy of trust, it resonates with the blue-collar identity of being a helping hand. Discussion: Practical Applications for Leaders In my results, I discussed themes, values, and narratives that leaders can recognize and analyze in their organizations. I have discussed the relationship between those themes and the concept of invested detachment. In the discussion, I will use those themes to identify ways that leaders can leverage the values and narratives present in their organization to effectively manage invested detachment and enact effective change. These applications will add instructive insights to the body of research regarding organizational culture, and will introduce tactics relevant to the phenomenon of invested detachment. One example of a season at Homestead Response which yielded good modeling of these leadership behaviors was a series of trips to Kentucky as a part of a large contract undertaken in 2024. For the purpose of this study, what is relevant about these trips is that they involved nearly everyone, took up lots of working hours, and consisted of strenuous conditions with little leisure time in an unfamiliar environment. Crews worked closely together across department lines, shared temporary housing, and ate every meal together. Due to the timeline constraints of the contract, every stage of the process felt urgent, but leaders were able to use tactics including those I will discuss to create more investment than detachment. Leaders also tried to implement these 51 strategies under normal working conditions and found them to be useful, though the overall intimacy of the situation in Kentucky (for lack of a better term) was difficult to replicate. The following leadership strategies are intended to be applicable broadly. Cultivate and Share Ownership As important as it is for the individual to realize their own contributions and take pride in their work toward the end of group success, it is equally important that leadership encourages this kind of thinking. Leaders seeking success regarding change must create a culture of responsibility through narratives of ownership. If people are to realize the importance of putting their honor on the line and working toward something of which everyone can be proud, leaders must model that behavior and explain how it can come to pass, first as an individual, and then as a collective. By modeling responsibility, leaders can increase the likelihood that organizational members will also take responsibility and thus be more invested in the narrative of ownership. This modeling, of course, takes time, as most things do. To this end, Murphy reflects: My place in the company… I feel like it matters. I feel like it’s evolved over the last four and a half years from when I started to what that role is now. I hope that people look at my position and feel that there’s value in what Murphy does. (Murphy, ln 381-383.) Allowing your constituents to take part in changes and work in a collaborative way is also critical if you are to have them take ownership for their work and the outcomes of the team. Patty mused on this principle in action during the Kentucky trips that many 52 people made last year. There was an increase of personal pride and ownership during those trips, and of it, she said this: We could kind of visualize [the purpose of change] and we understood why we were making the changes we were, and we were even, like, kind of part of making some of those decisions, which made everyone, like, much more quickly and fully get on board, which made the changes happen faster and better. (Patty, ln 119-121.) Being part of a collaborative process led to greater support for change, as people took pride in their part in making the change occur. As a participant in two of the several trips taken during that project, I witnessed this play out. Because the owners and the team leads had exhibited an ability to work at the level of their subordinates and an extreme amount of trust in the team, members of Homestead took more ownership, and people felt deeply connected to the organization in a way that had not been accomplished before. In the weeks following each trip, people working at Homestead generally had a more positive demeanor, were quicker to be sociable, and tended to better work the hours asked of them than they had prior. Positivity and compliance increasing seemed to have partly been the result of the modeling of ownership behaviors shown by company leaders. People also mentioned times where leaders worked hard and made the work environment fun and personally satisfying more often after these trips. When leaders at Homestead showed their subordinates that they were willing to work at their level as well, people were more likely to respond positively to direction and change, and feel the sense of ownership that leaders desired them to. 53 Though the days were much longer and the work much more strenuous in Kentucky, I heard many people at all levels of the organization wax nostalgic about the time spent there and the success that each individual had as well as the group. Many look forward to a similar contract happening again soon, and are willing to be quite flexible with their personal plans to that end. Perceptions of leadership and their personal commitment to responsibility, as well as their willingness to support the needs of the team, are highly important to consider. To this end, Romona praised Santiago for his skills: Yeah, he’s very hands-on as well when it comes to explaining certain things. And if we don't get it, he has the patience to kind of repeat and explain again how to do certain stuff. (Ramona, ln 281-282.) In my experience working with and observing Santiago and his team, I found that he was uniquely skilled in this regard. Whereas many managers feel inclined to default to delegation, his team understands that he has the skills to do any of their jobs himself, but the patience to be clear and keep the team supported as they are learning to do their work. This approach has increased the confidence of floor workers within and without his team, and has made his team more cohesive and resistant to the negative effects of change. Because Santiago himself is 1099 like the rest of his crew, those reporting to him can see that group ownership can be achieved despite the tendency toward invested detachment experienced by contractors. The organizational culture must be one that recognizes individual efforts and contributions as well as team vision and successes. If leadership can create buy-in to the idea that everyone’s work matters on its own merits, and that the combination of all 54 those efforts creates something that is both impressive and more than just the sum of its parts, people will be more motivated to push through change and take accountability both for their own work and its place in the organization. Leaders, then, must participate in narratives of ownership, and model this ownership in their own work by being handson. Taking action like this will direct organizational members to participate in ownership behaviors, which will improve the organizational culture and help it weather large changes. Create Structure and Standardize Methods If having a clear structure and one solid method for each process causes people to be less resistant to change, then an action that leaders can take to increase buy-in is to continually work to refine that structure using lower-level input. Leaders must infuse the organizational culture with narratives of structure, and ensure that members understand the existence and importance of proper methods used within the organization. The more that they drive home the best methods and remind others of the way that operations are formatted, the greater chances of success in all sorts of processes with regard to higher reception of change and fewer instances of detachment. If there is not already a best method for something, accepting feedback is a great way to get to the best method. This will also increase member investment by actively seeking their involvement in change narratives. Patty spoke of a reaction to a structural issue this way: ...even if I didn’t really know the way to fix [the problem], I at least brought up that, like, we’ve got to see if we can figure something else out, if we can, that would make it work better. (Patty, ln 162-164.) 55 I have seen in my observations that leaders are willing to hear out solutions irrespective of who brought them to their attention, and that fair consideration is usually given. Shadowing meetings of other departments, being close by during one on one procedural conversations and hearing leaders mention their peoples’ commentary and suggestions in our meetings have shown me that the increase in good procedures has opened people up to taking part and leaning into change. It is important that getting to good structure is not a one-way street, as people working at lower levels are typically closer to the problems that the structure aims to solve, and are thus often better suited to offer suggestions on details pertaining thereto. This ties into the principle of collective identity, in that the methods mean more to the people asked to carry them out when they at least had a hand in the process that led to their implementation. Good structures that feel significant and relevant to the individuals concerned can help people feel more oriented and invested in the face of change. Sure structures that have been influenced by lower-level workers root out uncertainty, and such implementations helped people working at Homestead Response to be less cynical about the perceived success of changes to be implemented. New structures included stricter adherence to build-tracking software, more solid chains of reporting, and even reorganization and relocation of hardware and instructions physically in the shop. Martín spoke of this change of methods in his interview: ...before, I feel like it was just such a waste to go look in the [hardware] chest because everything was missing. Not everything, but a lot of the stuff was missing out of there and now that it's more organized, you can go get a chest and you get everything you want or that you need from there and it just makes it a lot 56 easier and you're not running around. So it's been good for us to have those changes even though sometimes change can be a little bit difficult. (Martín, ln 58-62.) Because the new and clarified structure helped Martín feel like he could do his work with more certainty, he was able to buy in more fully to change at large. As the person responsible for making sure that the hardware in those chests are properly stocked, I had gotten many earsful from him personally about problems with the system until it improved. Once leaders took this feedback and improved the system, some trust was regained, and Martín was more enthusiastic about supporting team leads as they sought to enact change. In addition to accepting feedback, structure must be declared with intentionality. When it is thoughtful, defined, and well-processed, it can be better accepted by the team. If leaders do not bring attention to structural change and emphasize its importance, those changes will likely have a much less devout following. People will either believe that they are unimportant, that leadership is not entirely convinced of them, or that other people need to pay attention to them, but they may not. This reduced investment and deepens attachment. Toward this end, Stewart explained: Yeah, I think [direction] comes from organizational structure and that communication from the top down to the team. As soon as we’re able to get those chains and lines of communication open and more of our meeting structure is very defined, better towards what those things are, what our deliverables are, then I think that will help us a lot. I think the randomness sometimes of our leadership sometimes is needing to be more intentional, I guess, and be part of 57 that communication chain and maybe establishing what that communication chain is. (Stewart, ln 231-237.) In observing structural and methodological change at Homestead Response, I have found that poorly-defined or narrowly broadcast changes were seldom effective. If leaders actually wanted a response from the group, they needed to implement structural change publicly, field questions, emphasize importance, and mitigate opportunities for ambiguity. Even changes that were unpopular gained better adherence when they were clearly stated and allowed to be contested rather than when leaders only told a few people, did not flesh out the seriousness of the matter, or displayed a lack of conviction of its importance. At a cultural level, there needs to be an expectation of structure. It should go almost without saying that procedure exists and that following it correctly will yield favorable results. Leaders often mention in meetings that doing something the way that it is outlined will almost never get someone in trouble, because the correctness of the protocol is up to management. More emphasis on this will give a cultural route to decisiveness that leads to confidence when faced with change. Moreover, if leaders are able to alleviate feelings of anxiety toward the repercussions of following protocol and still achieving a negative result, members of the organization will be less likely to detach out of fear of taking the blame for failed processes. Seek for Functional Clarity through Appropriate Transparency The organizational culture is dependent on many factors, including the information that is shared and how it is disseminated to members. Creating a culture that seeks out information will help leaders know when they can be more clear, and help 58 people feel that they are being dealt with honestly and given the information they need. This cultural creation will include narratives that encourage the acquisition of information, feedback from all members, and repetition necessary to achieve clarity. All of these factors will help members feel more invested in the organization. Leaders must make every effort to share all appropriate information with their teams, good and bad. By sharing successes and failures, they can give people a broader and deeper perspective of why and how changes take place, creating attachment to the changes. By leaving no room for ambiguity and instilling information with lots of succinct detail, leaders can provide people with the best chance of accepting information and interacting critically with it. In regards to the fact that he feels that not every relationship he has is imbued with completely mutual trust, Murphy said these conditions create such a state: Whether I feel like there might be a disconnect between what was said and what was understood, there may have been a communication issue. (Murphy, ln 363364.) If things are unclear, leaders cannot influence people to get on board with change, and relationships can suffer as a result. This relates the current theme to the final one to a degree, but I will focus on clarity by itself and trust as its own feature, so as to have a more thorough understanding of each principle’s role in good leadership for change management. Some of this clarity and transparency is as simple as how assignments are made, or whether it is easy to reach someone for information. When asked about her relationship with leaders at Homestead, Patty cited: 59 [I have] a little struggle with, like, communicating time expectations correctly, and sometimes picking up the phone, but when they’re around it’s good. (Patty, ln 259-261.) Because of how little things like answering the phone and clarifying everyday details may seem, leaders might easily (but mistakenly) disregard them. However, those everyday situations build or lose rapport, cause changes to be viewed with support or contempt, and make people feel that they have the information and tools they need or that they do not. If the organizational culture does not involve an abundance of clarity, members of that organization will not be as equipped to deal with change. They will choose to detach rather than seek to understand the information despite its lack of clarity. In this effort, something simple, yet effective, is the willingness to be appropriately repetitive. Because every organization has multiple aspects, and every member has multiple things going on personally within and without it, members may easily forget details of changes if they are not reminded often. One of my participants gave a specific example of a failure to this effect: We communicate how we, the shelves, it has to be clean and nice, the paints, etc. Patty fixed it, all that, and I thought, “I bet you a hundred dollars in the next few months it's going to be the same.” And it's the same. (Franco, ln 94-96.) Later in the interview, Franco suggested that having repeated the emphasis on that new way of storage and organization would have led to improvement rather than devolution back to the mess that had existed before. With the volume of new information given each week in meetings, I noticed also that many things were not brought up more than 60 a couple times, and as a result, some changes failed to stick, and some things never improved. As I observed the leadership, I found that they often avoided repetition in an effort to not insult the intelligence of floor workers, or sound like a broken record. In leadership meetings, participants often brought up items multiple times that never made their way down to the floor, and the repeated mentions of them were discussed as though the other workers should not need reminders, and that leaders did not want to have to give them. In reality, more reminders would have helped greatly in reinforcing and maintaining the changes that they desired. Sometimes, floor workers I observed portrayed, either explicitly or implicitly, an attitude that they did not have all the necessary information to handle changes and new things asked of them. With this concern comes the issue of how much information is appropriate to share down from top levels of leadership to the floor, as some things may be sensitive, confidential, or tentative, especially when dealing with government contracts and high-level fiscal planning. In my observation, many of these concerns were valid, as more information would be necessary for people to carry out new protocols and learn new policies. To move the culture away from invested detachment, leaders have to be sure that they are sharing as much pertinent information as possible, and must sometimes ask their subordinates if they feel that more information is necessary. Oftentimes, the owners were not gatekeeping from the team leads, nor the team leads from the floor workers, but changes were still in process or being pushed forward without all the necessary information, so leaders just did not always have information to give. If leaders alter narratives to be sure that everyone feels that they are in the loop, they can increase attachment without having to overshare information 61 that is sensitive or irrelevant. This requires a culture of frequent and effective communication between leaders and their subordinates. This has led me to believe that the flow of information and rate of transparency at Homestead Response is actually fairly effective, but that structures and methods are sometimes implemented too soon, before issues can be fully resolved and information fully gathered. This is why the structure/one best method theme is important in conjunction with the pursuit of clarity. Of information transferred through the ranks, Dave had this to say: I think they have a good balance right now. I don't feel like I need to know dollars and cents. But it is nice to know that way I can disseminate that information. Like, hey guys, these trucks are built, but we still have some fine-tuning to do, and the truck's been paid for, so now that's on us to get it done. (Dave, ln 280-284.) Having the right information and then effectively distributing it is no small task. With the proper amount of clarity and discretion, what is needed to know can be known, and the information that will lead to effective change can be had out in a way that empowers organization members to understand and then act. Inspire Trust and Provide Support Finally, leaders can help people come into harmony with organizational change by being trustworthy, helping them feel trusted, and providing support in the implementation of change. Creating a culture that engenders trust between organizational members should be a critical aim of leaders. They should participate in narratives that assure their subordinates that they will be supported when they face challenges, and concurrently show that they trust their teams to accomplish whatever is 62 necessary for success. By being trustworthy and investing trust in their teams, leaders can demonstrate that investment in company aims will be met with honest support. This will encourage members not to detach by demonstrating that they have valuable relationships with people that can help them succeed. At Homestead Response, it seems to Murphy that this kind of shift has been taking place, and people feel more confident in their ability to present ideas to leadership and get support from them. He said: ...I do think the rapport is a little bit different, and if [lay workers] have concerns, or they have ideas, then maybe they feel like they can present those easier through management than before, that maybe they couldn’t do that, or they know they felt like maybe they didn’t have a say. (Murphy, ln 113-117.) He realized that the space that leaders had been creating for collaboration, and the support that they were sharing increased confidence and grew interpersonal relationships at Homestead. Leadership had a unique opportunity to grow the relationships they had with other workers during the Kentucky assignment last summer wherein people were working long hours, sharing rental housing, and spending most of every day together. Stewart described it in this way: We’ve established a pretty good relationship early on with the contracts we had to work. We were all involved in that, and we all had to get pretty close to each other in a quick way when we were in Kentucky working, but I think overall I have a lot of respect for the team and what they do. (Stewart, ln 251-254.) 63 Allowing for this intimacy created a space wherein leaders could really get to know floor workers. By sharing humanity, being vulnerable, and living together, trust and rapport were fostered such that everyone felt more supported at the close of the project. This illustrated to many within the company the power that sharing trust has in enabling adaptation to and participation in change. This intimacy provided superb conditions for increasing attachment to company aims by increasing awareness of each member’s reliance on the other members of Homestead. This kind of forcibly tight-knit experience is, of course, a rarity at the typical workplace. As I was doing ethnographic research, I felt privileged to have been able to speak with members of Homestead about this singular experience. In interviews and casually, the Kentucky trips were often regarded as a time where people were driven, relationships were tested and strengthened, and the company operated at its absolute best. Franco said this: Last year, you know, I saw a lot of work and it feels like everyone was happy, for me. It feels like, you know, going to those trips and Kentucky and building. That for me was huge. (Franco, ln 473-475.) He was not alone in this feeling. Many people cited these trips as the peak era of the company in their somewhat limited experience there. Despite having a strict and rigorous schedule, working 12-16 hour days, and experiencing much stress and soreness, people reacted to these excursions overwhelmingly positively. Most people in speaking of it attributed that feeling to the newfound relationships that they had forged. Kentucky required the team to be newly trusting and newly supportive if the contract was to be successfully fulfilled on time. 64 This project increased trust in a way that broadened the way that people communicated back at home. Members of Homestead Response seemed more willing to weather changes and try new things even when they were difficult. I had mentioned that Martín left the company following this project when faced with large organizational changes, and so did one other worker that I did not interview. Compared to previous years, however, this was a pretty small number. People that likely would have left the organization rather than square with the possibility of change ended up staying, I believe in large part because of the trust built in Kentucky. I had asked Preston if the trust and support he felt from people outside of his department was the same as from those within it, and he said: Yes, and even outside of my department. I mean, Santiago is a good example of that. He's completely out of my department. But if I have to go to him for something related to what I'm doing, we have the same interaction, same exchange that even in my department we have. (Preston, ln 260-264.) Trust must be cultivated between all people that interact within an organization, not just those doing related tasks. Having multiple people inside and out of one’s department will help them reckon with change and feel like they can respond to it in a way that benefits them and the organization. The organizational culture needs to become one of trust in order for change to be effective. If people do not feel that they can trust their leaders, or that it is not inherently important to the organization that they be supported, they will be skeptical of change. Members will experience more detachment if they cannot trust their leaders. If they 65 identify with a culture of trust, they will feel that they are important and that leaders will actually help them through difficulties and uncertainty. Conclusion These findings show that if ownership is not realized, structure is not defined, communications are not clear, and/or trust and support are not shared, people will be more likely to resist organizational change. People see these shortcomings as a threat, and will not be able to understand the reasons and benefits associated with the change as fully as they might have if they were privileged with the opportunity to experience one or more of those conditions. For success to take place on a consistent basis, leaders must drive narratives that support and demonstrate these themes. This will lead to a change in the culture toward an emphasis on these values, shoring up defenses against detachment and divestment in the future. As a response, leaders must ensure that these conditions are met, and strive to constantly improve upon them. They must model ownership and point out how people can experience it for themselves and as a team. They must define structure and instruct the best methods for carrying out relevant processes to the organization. They must communicate clearly, and share as much information as is appropriate so that people feel properly informed. They must spend time with their subordinates to share trust with them and demonstrate their support for their continued growth. As I learned in my research, the members of Homestead showed that culture was a creation of communication (Geiger & Antonacopoulou, 2009), and what was valued and understood was always influenced by how and what was shared. This concept came to light in my analysis of clarity and transparency, and showed that for 66 those experiencing invested detachment, the proper execution of communication is as important as its contents. Supporting similar research (Ernst & Schleiter, 2019), I saw that the organizational identities of people working at Homestead were tied to narrative content and delivery as well as modeling and attitudes of the same by the leadership. The spoken and unspoken norms directed how the organization really was. The kinds of things that people chose to say to me about their experiences were indicative of how things would play out in the future if the course was maintained. In interviewing and observing during working hours, I found that the way people feel about the narratives being peddled will come to the surface in comments, attitudes, or perceptions of the organization. Creating a culture where leaders pay attention to the way narratives are received and respond collaboratively will be more successful. Contributions to Culture These findings illustrate the theory of organizational culture, because they provide details into the ways that all communication is pivotal to defining the culture found at a given organization. If leaders and followers do not benefit from interactions, the systems that connect them will begin to degrade. Improving communication channels and creating more positive interactions happen when leaders and followers are responsive to the ideas behind the themes found in my research. Beyond upholding the theory of organizational culture, these findings allow for more specific instruction regarding the handling of invested detachment. They show the role that the culture and its values play in mitigating this condition as it may be experienced by all sorts of people in any organization, specifically those working blue-collar. 67 In reviewing literature on the subject, I found that culture is the substance of organizations (Sun, 2009; Trethewey, 2000). My interviews and ethnography confirmed this, as I witnessed the makeup of Homestead Response to consist of artifacts of meaning from individuals and groups within the organization. Helping guide that culture through good communication, specific work events, and policies was a marker of success or failure. The things people believe about the company are, in effect, what the company is to the people that work there. Previous research has discussed the communicative nature of organizational culture in such a way that has revealed it is comprised of both the explicit and the implicit (Trethewey, 2000). That is, culture is affected by what is said and done in formal settings, but also includes attitudes, personal ideas, and concerns which are often only vented privately, which often go unnoticed. The fact that certain things were said in interviews which were not always displayed in the same way in the day to day work at Homestead shows that what people present to a culture includes things that they do not say. In the midst of changes at Homestead, both large and small, culture was constantly being altered and created by the way that leaders and others chose to react to situations and challenges. This narrative making was a principle feature of the experiences that people had, and determined how successful initiatives ended up being. These ideas that I observed confirm findings about narratives informing change (Cox, 2021). My research applied these findings to determine how the experience of invested detachment could be dampened by effective leadership narratives. I found that if leaders could harness the values of their subordinates in narrative making, they could 68 enrich their narratives with meaning that was important to those people. Specifically, creating and modeling narratives of ownership, structure, clarity, and trust will help leaders successfully approach invested detachment. Past research has borne out that organizational culture is in a constant state of change (Mumby, 1987), and I set out to see how it applied to large, formal changes. There was indeed at Homestead fluctuation in the culture depending on moods, attitudes and trends, and these changes did seem to affect how larger changes were weathered. When leaders made a concerted effort to improve the culture through modeling ideal values and focusing on those which were important to organizational members, large projects and determined changes were met more effectively. By focusing on ownership, structure, clarity, and trust, and making sure to manage states such as politeness and detachment, they could create effective narratives for change. As leaders learned to work with the four themes discussed, small changes improved large ones. As is suggested by other research (Iftikhar & Sergeeva, 2024), this study has shown that understanding themes of culture and identity can help navigate volatility in the organization. Where uncertainty and conflict are inherent, identifying and improving upon useful themes such as the four discussed in my results can help leaders face volatility with clarity and composure. The research I have done was collected in a time of great change at a bureaucratic level, but also at the level of individuals. The way that people perceived themselves and their environment changed greatly while I studied the culture, and it has shown that volatility can be managed with an appropriate understanding of useful themes. 69 Identities at Work As I organized my results, I found it best to first start with identity, and then with change. Consistent with the research, I discovered that at Homestead Response, identifying who you are dealing with will let you know how they contribute to that culture, and how leaders can shape that culture with the understanding of individual identity. This was explained in the ownership theme as well as the trust theme, as people felt more trust for people who seemed to understand them better. In moments where the organization grew closer at a personnel level, they experienced this growth because of increased understanding of individuals. This understanding of individuals led to an understanding of the culture, which is critical in managing change. That idea supports the research which found that organizational culture is a better predictor of effectiveness than formal policy or bureaucracy (Collinson, 1999). The rules and policies at Homestead had a hard time changing behavior until the culture was changed. Individuals I interviewed and observed each had their own preferences and experiences. The communicative artifacts that they held lent to the unique makeup of the company, and confirmed research surrounding the way that individual identities create collective identity, and therefore culture. I found specifically in my interviews that understanding ownership in the context of the whole company started with understanding ownership in the individual. This builds upon prior research (Solbreux et al., 2024) as it singles out one aspect of effective narrative creation that can help with organizational change. Leaders proved to be most effective when they helped people identify their work first with themselves, and then with the organization at large. 70 Leaders could understand and leverage the identities that individuals had, and the culture that those identities create to better understand change. As leaders increased their focus on the themes discussed, they had more success in helping people identify with their work through its connection to their perceived identity as a specific member of Homestead, with unique values. Some of these values were already shared across the board, which helped leaders learn and leverage more quickly through shared approaches. The necessity of understanding the individual was not cast aside in this effort, however. In fact, my findings show that the better that leaders could understand and connect with individuals on their teams, the higher likelihood that implementation of positive and relevant narratives would be successful. As I mentioned, the way that masculinity presents itself is distinct at Homestead. While certain values which are usually seen as masculine are certainly present in abundance, and the majority of workers are male, there are enough women on the shop floor to have a noteworthy influence. In addition to this expected identity, I found values of politeness and reservation common to Utah and LDS culture which challenge typically masculine attributes. As leaders were better able to promote and model narratives that used the positive aspects of each of these values and dampened the negative ones, change was more successful and people were more invested. The changes that the organization has gone through and will yet go through will depend on this effective management of the masculine, a point which would warrant future study. The classic blue-collar tendency to work past one’s breaking point is found at Homestead Response, and some of the frustration of leadership comes with a measure of unwillingness to tolerate burnout from certain members. Though related, equating 71 working past one’s breaking point to taking appropriate individual ownership of one’s work would be erroneous. Sentiments shared with me sometimes reflected this view, and a more appropriate study of how best to take ownership would temper this desire to see burnout in a way that actually helps people be effective in the face of a changing work environment. There is a difference between overwork and good results, and the old adage of “work smarter, not harder” may be of use. The themes outlined created better change management at Homestead Response than working hard for the sake of working hard. During the course of the study, I witnessed leaders who were imperfect. Some behaved in ways that could be interpreted as paternalistic and condescending. The current literature finds this tendency to be common (Ashcraft, 2005). In my research, leaders did not overtly mention a “work family” or lean into verbiage and tropes of the sort, but instances such as the argument between Murphy and Martín show that leaders aren’t always above approaching challenges with a “leader-knows-best” attitude. In my trust and support theme, one might wrongly conclude that acting as a “father figure” would qualify as a means of support, but it sabotages one’s individual ownership by moving them from a place of collaboration to a place of admiration only. The themes I outlined are intended to effect good change by counteracting ineffectiveness in all aspects, including delivery of advice, correction, and instruction. Leveraging Narratives, Culture, and Identity against Invested Detachment At the root of the themes investigating efficacy through change is the idea that individual contributions make up success. How people choose to identify themselves in the context of the organization will be the first point of reference as leaders determine 72 what they add to the culture. Continuing to recognize individual contributions and work collaboratively through narrative making will connect members to the four themes discussed, leverage their identity, and influence the organizational culture as a whole. It is constant work to continue to understand individuals and watch how they present themselves. Leaders cannot decide what parts of the culture resonate with individuals, but they can observe and suggest, creating a space where individual contributions positively impact the group, and invested detachment decreases. My findings are distinct in the context of research surrounding individual identity and organizational culture because they display those of a very niche company with a high level of invested detachment. Because this organization is small and specific, and hinges largely on each individual, it is an interesting site for observing the expression and applications of cultural and narrative principles. Members of the academic community can benefit greatly from my findings, even if they don’t deal with small organizations, as the principles discussed are widely applicable. In reviewing my research, those who are dealing with small organizations will likely find that the values and narratives expressed by the team at Homestead ring familiar to them, and they may find my suggestions for leaders to be especially poignant. These findings are consistent with research about identity and culture, and add to the corpus of data in a unique way. They highlight how theories regarding leadership and relationships are useful in creating tangible results to businesses and other organizations. In these interviews, the idea of culture was consistently alluded to, as all my participants believed that what they experienced at work led to a distinct environment constructed of individual personalities and attitudes, leadership styles, and 73 formal policies. The interviews also bear out the specific ways that organizational culture is slightly different in a small company that contracts with 1099 workers rather than formal employees, and ways that it is similar. All this builds on, supports, and expands previous research, offering unique perspectives to a small, blue-collar business through the lens of invested detachment. Further Research Future research could certainly be conducted by interviewing more people at Homestead Response, and at other similar companies. More theories could be applied to extract further value from the findings. This research is limited, however, in that it could never account for the specifics of every single organization and situation. The difficulty in carrying out the suggestions borne by it also makes progress hard to track. People are fallible, and will not always consistently improve in all areas. Further research can bring in unique stories and insights, each valuable in creating conditions for more effective reactions to change. The value in this study’s contribution to the body of knowledge surrounding organizational culture is its unique take on the concept of invested detachment. All work and interactions happen in an environment that is novel, relatively new, and made up of people who largely know each other well, though they experience this phenomenon. Homestead’s culture is constantly at the center of change and development, as the company itself has been trying to adapt and gain its footing year after year following market changes, supply difficulties, and large-scale turnover. Even the thoughts and reactions shared in my study would have varied intensely from information I may have gained when I began working for Homestead Response in 2020. Not only the company 74 itself, but the particular people and the invested detachment they experience are a distinct subject of study that has had much to offer in the way of highlighting methods of effective change. I did not spend time in this study treating whether people who were already similar to members of the organization would assimilate more readily, as my focus was elsewhere. In the future, the people that are contracted on can be observed to fit in quickly or more slowly, and these findings could add to the current findings on organizational culture. In conclusion, change can be difficult, but understanding how and why people respond the way they do can cause people to buy in easier, and can even enact better changes in the future. Leadership is a collaborative process wherein people must seek to understand one another and provide content level and relationship level support and understanding. By taking and helping others take ownership, outlining structure and defining best methods, communication with clarity and transparency, and participating in trusting and supportive relationships, leaders may understand identity and shape culture, thus helping members come that much closer to better and more supported change within organizations. 75 References Ashcraft, K. L. (2005). Resistance Through Consent?: Occupational Identity, Organizational Form, and the Maintenance of Masculinity Among Commercial Airline Pilots. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318905276560 Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 408–437. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393374 Baxter, J., & Wallace, K. (2009). Outside in-group and out-group identities? Constructing male solidarity and female exclusion in UK builders’ talk. Discourse & Society, 20(4), 411–429. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42889271 Beaman, Lori G. (2001). Molly mormons, mormon feminists and moderates: Religious diversity and the latter day saints church. Sociology of Religion, 62(1), 65–86, https://doi.org/10.2307/3712231 Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. (2004). Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30(6), 749-778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.001 Collinson, David. L. (1999). ‘Surviving the rigs’: Safety and surveillance on North Sea oil installations. Organization Studies, 20, 579600. 76 Collinson, D. L., Hearn, J. (2001). “Naming Men as Men: Implications for work, organization and management” Gender, Work, and Organization Collinson, D. L. (2003). “Identities and insecurities: Selves at work.” Organization, 10, 527-547. Cox, J. W. (2021). Success talk: Narrative accounts of organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 58(1), 157–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/00218863211058465 Current voter registration statistics. Utah Voter Information. (2025, November 21). https://vote.utah.gov/current-voter-registration-statistics/ Dempsey, S. E. (2009). The increasing technology divide: Persistent portrayals of maverick masculinity in advertising. Feminist Media Studies, 9(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680770802619482 Edley, N. (2001). Analysing masculinity: Interpretive repertoires, ideological dilemmas and subject positions. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 189228). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ernst, J., & Schleiter, A. J. (2019). Organizational identity struggles and reconstruction during organizational change: Narratives as symbolic, emotional and practical glue. Organization Studies, 42(6), 891–910. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619854484 Faupel, S., & Helpap, S. (2020). Top management’s communication and employees’ commitment to change: The role of perceived procedural fairness and past 77 change experience. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57(2), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886320979646 Geiger, D., & Antonacopoulou, E. (2009). Narratives and organizational dynamics. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(3), 411–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886309336402 Gherardi, S., & Nicolini, D. (2002). Learning the trade: A culture of safety in practice. Organization (London, England), 9(2), 191-223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508402009002264 Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D., & Odella, F. (1998). What do you mean by safety? Conflicting perspectives on accident causation and safety management in a construction firm. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 6, 202213. Gibson, M. K., & Papa, M. J. (2000). The MUD, the blood, and the beer guys: Organizational osmosis in blue‐collar work groups. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28(1), 68–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880009365554 Gorden, R. L. (1998). Basic interviewing skills. Waveland Press. Gossett, L. M., & Kilker, J. (2006). My job sucks: Examining counterinstitutional web sites as locations for organizational member voice, dissent, and resistance. Management Communication Quarterly, 20(1), 63–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318906291729 78 Guest, G., Namey, E. E. ., & Mitchell, M. L. . (2017). Collecting qualitative data: A Field Manual for Applied Research. Sage publications. Iftikhar, R., & Sergeeva, N. (2024). Crafting and maintaining organizational identity narrative in a temporary organization: The case of Tideway Megaproject. International Journal of Project Management, 42(4), 102593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2024.102593 Kalou, Z., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2015). Using ethnography of communication in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 18(4), 629-655. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115590662 Katriel, T. (2015). Expanding ethnography of communication research: Toward ethnographies of encoding: Expanding ethnography of communication research. Communication Theory, 25(4), 454-459. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12072 Kincheloe, J. L. (1995). Post-Fordism, Postmodernism, Post-industrialism, and Posttoasties. In Toil and trouble: Good work, smart workers, and the integration of academic and vocational education (Vol. 7, pp. 75–102). essay, Peter Lang AG. Lake, H. S. (2025, May). 2025 demographics. Healthy Salt Lake :: Demographics :: State :: Utah. https://www.healthysaltlake.org/demographicdata?id=47 McPhee, Robert D; Pamela Zaug (2000). The communicative constitution of organizations: A framework for explanation. Building Theories of Organization: The Constitutive Role of Communication. 21–45. 79 Miller, D. B. (2025, May 6). Entrepreneurs welcome: Why Utah is a small business haven. Utah Business. https://www.utahbusiness.com/thoughtleadership/2025/05/06/entrepreneurs-welcome-utah-small-business-havencultivate-success/ Mumby, D. K. (1987). The political function of narrative in organizations. Communication Monographs, 54(2), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758709390221 Mumby, D. K. (1998). Organizing Men: Power, Discourse, and the Social Construction of Masculinity(s) in the Workplace. Communication Theory, 8(2), 164–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00216.x Myers, S. A., & Anderson, C. M. (2008). The fundamentals of small group communication (1st ed.). Sage Publications. Pew Research Center. (2025, February 26). People in Utah: Religious landscape study (RLS). https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/state/utah/ Putra, E. D., & Cho, S. (2019). Characteristics of Small Business Leadership from employees’ perspective: A qualitative study. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 78, 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.11.011 Rivers, O. R. (2019). Change management implementation strategies for small businesses (dissertation). Change Management Implementation Strategies for Small Businesses. Walden University, Minneapolis. Scott, C. W., & Trethewey, A. (2008). Organizational discourse and the appraisal of occupational hazards: Interpretive repertoires, heedful interrelating, and identity 80 at work. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(3), 298–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880802172137 Solbreux, J., Hermans, J., Pondeville, S., & Dufays, F. (2024). It all starts with a story: Questioning dominant entrepreneurial identities through collective narrative practices. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 42(1), 90–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/02662426231184164 Southern, J. (2000). Blue Collar, White Collar: Deconstructing Classification. In Class and its Others (pp. 191–220). essay, University of Minnesota Press. Sun, S. (2009). Organizational culture and its themes. International Journal of Business and Management, 3(12). https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v3n12p137 Swargiary, K. (2024). The Big Five in the Workplace. In The Big Five Trait Theory: Foundations and Implications (pp. 76–84). essay, LAP Lambert Academic Publishing. Thomson, A., Kocka, J., & Kealey, M. (1984). White Collar Workers in America 18901940; a social-political history in International Perspective. Labour / Le Travail, 13, 243. https://doi.org/10.2307/25140432 Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, Communicating Impact. Wiley-Blackwell. Trethewey, A. (2000). Cultured bodies: Communication as constitutive of culture and embodied identities. Electronic Journal of Communication, 10. Retrieved August 1, 2001, from http://www.cios.org/www/ejc/v10n1200.htm 81 Watt, P. (2020). Ford’s Metaphysics: On the transcendental origins of Henry Ford’s fordism. Organization, 28(4), 577–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508420910577 Wilbers, S. (1989). Lake wobegon: mythical place and the american imagination. American Studies, 30(1), 5–20. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40642312 Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publication. Zoller, H. M. (2003). Health on the line: Identity and disciplinary control in employee occupational health and Safety Discourse. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31(2), 118–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/0090988032000064588