EXPLOITATION, TRUST AND THE MANAGEMENT OF COMPLAINTS: THE CASE OF AUTO REPAIR WORK

This thesis examines from a symbolic interactionist perspective the patterns of, and contingencies in interaction between mechanics and their customers. Three main sensitizing concepts derived from symbolic interactionism (i.e., negotiation of reality, trust, and role-specific concept) were used to make the dynamics within the auto repair industry intelligible.;Analysis of the data suggests the prevalence of situations that are subject to negotiation between the mechanic and his clients. Consequently, opportunities abound for mutual exploitation and for mutual suspicion of exploitation in "negotiable" situations. Mechanics respond to the "negotiability" by developing standardized procedures or norms for use in recurring situations. Numerous standardized procedures have been documented and analyzed in this thesis. However, the data also show that the standardized procedures vary significantly between mechanics and with the same mechanic from one situation to another. This thesis argues that the variety of norms can be explained by more abstract or "basic" norms, here called "pattern approaches," that guide the mechanic's behavior.;One pattern approach is the effort to develop and sustain a trust relationship between the mechanic and his customers. The mechanic selects standardized procedures that will, in his judgment, enhance trust relationships. He responds to customer complaints in a manner consistent with his efforts to build or maintain trust relationships. The second pattern approach is to enter specific, contractually limited agreements with customers prior to any repair work being done. In comparison to trust relationships, this approach generates different types of customer complaints and methods of resolving them. However, in both of these approaches, the mechanic strives to sustain a positive self-concept, which in this thesis is described as the effort to "protect his occupational integrity." In interaction with customers, the mechanic selects from a large repertoire of standardized procedures the lines of action that are consistent with his preferred pattern approach, and at the same time supportive of his occupational integrity. . . . (Author's abstract exceeds stipulated maximum length. Discontinued here with permission of author.) UMI.;Data were gathered by the author primarily in two ways: by direct observation during part-time employment at a service station, and through unstructured interviews with 42 mechanics or employees of auto repair shops. Supplementary data were collected in a number of other ways.