The Reality of Work cultures in the Modern Economy - Essay Example

The reality of workcultures in the modern economy By The Reality of Work cultures in the Modern Economy Introduction Richard Sennett’s book. “The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism” provides the readers with the view of the personal consequences of the change in the work during the flexible capitalism of 1990s (Sennett, 2011). The question of whether the work under the modern capitalism corrodes the character is quite an immense one. The very issue seems odd because it has been largely ceded to the conservatives and the conservatives have diligently ignored the damaging consequences of the capitalism. But allowing the conservatism the monopoly reduces the debate on the character and further misses the opportunity of deepening the critique of the transformation of the work and the markets under the modern working culture. Rather than writing a detailed study that is based on the multitude of the research on the impacts of the increasing uncertainty and flexibility at the work, Richard Sennett has contrastingly chosen a different path to present his arguments. In his study, Sennett has explored the disorienting effects on the self of the modern culture. Sennett’s argument is based on the assertion that the flexibilities and the uncertainties of the correct working life are eroding the integrity of the sense of the sustained purpose in the employee’s life in the manner that have existed before in the society (Bradley, 2009). Indeed, the new era of the economy and work inclusive of the globalisation of the work, breaking apart of the bureaucracy and flexibility changes the work values in the most profound manner. As the networks are constantly redefining their characters and structures, the same thing is bound to happen to the employees that work in the episodic work relations and the short-term contracts (Giddens et al., 2000). In Schumpeterian terms, the entrepreneur is served as an ideal Everyman alongside the “portfolio worker” (Winter, 1984). Sennett asserts that the corroding of the character is the inevitable consequences of the uncertainties that are present in the everyday practices of the vigorous capitalism of the 1990s. The character of the workers is mainly threatened by the new type of the labour in the modern economy-flexible work (Jessop et al., 1987). Thus, this conforms to Sennett’s assertion that flexibility in the workplace is the main characteristic of the modern working environment. Conversely, it’s true that flexibility brings advantages to the corporations and the enterprises. On the other hand, Sennett, argues that flexibility in the working environment is the major cause of the growing disorientation of the employees in the modern economy. However, looking flexibility as a modern culture of work from a divergent position, it implies being more responsible and autonomous of each worker. This does not only challenges the status quo, but also leads to the more uncertainty about the expectations (Scott, 1988). Therefore, Sennett seems only to glorify the past days of the Fordism when flexibility was non-existent and routines were structured in the manner in which work was carried out while also providing the workers with job security and stability. This is a rather strange argument. No person can blame the democracy/flexibility for the uncertainty for the future by giving the employees/workers to make choices. It seems imprudent to argue that the dictatorships are better for the employees because they lead to the certainties about the future and make the people feel better about the world. However, the employees that are facing flexibility need the guidance and it is prudent for the people, whether in the working environments or anywhere else to be equipped well in order to deal well with the uncertainties. Sennett’s observations in conjunction with the flexibility in the working environment are right, but his assertion that the New Economy is the one to blame cannot be substantiated by the plausible arguments. While the information technology has reinforced the supervision of the organisational process, it has similarly provided the formidable tool for bypassing the control and in the dissemination of the information within the organisations. Sennett neglects the vital feature that accompanies the implementation of the new technology in the New Economy; the strengthening of the informal networks of the people. It might be argued that the e-mail exchanges in the modern economy do not contain the forbidden information. The important aspect of the information technology is that it links the employees in the organisation in an effective manner. This ensures that the employees get support from the others, in the organisation of the meetings and gathering and shaping of the opinions in a manner that was not possible before. Therefore, the employees’ networks counterbalance the possible demerits that the information technology might have brought. The information technology has nowadays been totally integrated into the modern working culture. Indeed, the information technology has given more shapeless power to the top management and even lowered the job security, but it has also given the employees more responsibility and additional informal tools of shaping their immediate working environment (Reich, 2002). This has given the working people the opportunities to organising the life narrative to coping with the future that is in accordance to Sennett become uncertain as to disorient the employees. Max Weber’s “The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism” can partly be the reason for the emergence of the Protestant work ethics (Weber, 2002). Unlike the Catholicism that is usually community-based religion, the Protestantism is the theology of the individual. Evidently, the work ethics in the arena are the depth of the experience and is most challenged in the modern working cultures. Therefore, work ethics in the modern working cultures asserts the self-disciplined use of the one’s time and value of delayed gratification. While it is true that teamwork can be put into the practice with little effect and it leads to the substantial improvements in the working conditions, in the modern working culture the teamwork in itself can be counterproductive for the well-being of the employees. Conceding that the concept of the teamwork can be used as the tool for the manipulation of the workers, teamwork can also provide the genuine improvement of the working conditions in the modern working cultures. However, this is only possible if it is properly implemented. According to Sennett, in this world of the change everything, especially the workers and work is purely short-term. There is continued predictability of one’s work life. The work in the modern culture is so fragmented that it has reduced to the “simple, mindless tasks,” and that its as dependent on the machines as to making it incomprehensible (Sennett, 2008). In the modern cultures, the work deprives the jobs of any meaning; in the system that radiates the differences and the question as to who needs me? Remains unanswered. The ambiguous and amorphous character of the careers and organisations in the modern cultures makes the rational calculations of the risk taking impossible (Burton-Jones, 2001). The employees in the modern culture find it very difficult to create the coherent narrative of their past that can allow them to comprehend their failures and to improve their characters. In the past few years, the world has witnessed an epochal shift in the global economy, as the power has shifted from the sellers to the buyers. The forces that are behind the shift include greater productivity that can be attributed to the technological advances and the improved methods of work. However, the classical industrial model in which the employees perform the specialised tasks under the layers of the managerial oversight is totally unsuited to the new economic environment (Fritz, 2010). It is too slow, too inflexible and too costly to satisfy the customers. Sennett’s claim that the modern capitalism leads to the creation of the confusion and detachment among the employees. This is, however, contrary because the modern capitalism demands greater understanding and involvement on the part of the employees. In the modern culture, the employees are starting to feel that the organisational goals and objectives are theirs and not something that they have been just handed over to. Richard Sennett’s argues that the modern work is illegible can be interpreted in different ways. This assertion implies the “detachment and confusion” that characterises the modern work environment. Sennett goes ahead to give a sharp contrast between the workers of the 20th century and those before the mid-twentieth century that were provided with security of work and this guarantee, probably gave them confidence, attachment and motivation in the work environment. Therefore, Sennett’s argument was that the workers of this century are confused and detached from their works due to lack of security of job, which he contrasts to illegibility. In the modern working environment, the precarious work is increasingly becoming the biggest obstacle to the respect of the employees’ rights. Nearly every day, more and more workers find themselves in the precarious works where they lack the right of even joining the union, leave alone the collective bargaining with their employers (Evans, & Gibb, 2009). Other workers have the rights on the paper; they lack the rights because the laws have not been enforced. Even other workers are afraid to exercise their rights for the fear of losing their jobs. Surprisingly, the precarious class of the workers continue to swell with the highly educated and skilled workers. In the modern economies, women are the ones that are particularly affected by the precarious works. Their jobs tend to be particularly more precarious, in general, chacterised by the less security, fewer benefits, lower pay and even weaker social protections as compared to men. The chance for them to find the regular employment decreases if one is a younger or a migrant worker. In general, the women are overrepresented in the precarious works throughout the world. Most surprisingly, there are now even new cases of the precarious work in the world; highly educated, and skilled professionals that are well compensated although they lack the social benefits, security and among others that are associated with their professions (Benach, & Muntaner, 2007). The consequences of the precarious works in the modern economies are multifaceted. This is because precarious work goes even beyond the immediate impact on the material well-being. Several studies have pointed out to the link between the chronic low income and the health effects. Workers that are victims of the precarious works experience declining health outcomes as time goes by. The precarious works can negatively impact on the health of the workers, an effect that can even go beyond the usual counts of the accidents, injuries, and the illness from the exposure of the toxic chemicals (Pomeranz, 2009). The precarious workers have been found to experience the following; job stress, psychosomatic health problems, and the emotional exhaustion. The transformation from old economies to the new ones has been long in the making. Looking at the reality of the modern working cultures, Sennett’s observations of the disruption and disorientation can be found in the domains as diverse as the politics, cultures and sciences. The modern working culture has indirectly disturbed the existing status quo and the equilibrium. The modern culture has changed the ways that the employees are treated and this has unanimously impacted on the productivity (Moore, 2005). There is need to study closely some of the Richard Sennett’s assertions in order to ensure that employees are more productive and efficient. Bibliography Benach, J., & Muntaner, C, 2007. Precarious employment and health: developing a research agenda. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61(4), 276-277. Bradley, H, 2009. Whose Flexibility? British Employees Responses to Flexible Capitalism. Flexible Organisations and the New Working Life: A European Perspective, 79-96. Burton-Jones, A, 2001. Knowledge capitalism: Business, work, and learning in the new economy. OUP Catalogue. Evans, j. Gibb, E, 2009. Moving from precarious employment to decent work, ILO – for the Global Union Research Network. Fritz, M, 2010. Non‐standard employment and economy in the EU. Structures and trends, PhD candidate, Institute for Political Science and Sociology,University of Bonn. Giddens, A., Duneier, M., Appelbaum, R. P., & Carr, D, 2000. Introduction to sociology. New York: WW Norton. Jessop, B., Bonnett, K., Bromley, S., & Ling, T, 1987. Popular capitalism, flexible accumulation and left strategy. New Left Review, 165(8). Moore, G, 2005. Humanizing business: A modern virtue ethics approach. Business ethics quarterly, 237-255. Pomeranz, K, 2009. The great divergence: China, Europe, and the making of the modern world economy. Princeton University Press. Reich, R. B, 2002. The future of success: Working and living in the new economy. Vintage. Scott, A. J, 1988. New industrial spaces: Flexible production organisation and regional development in North America and Western Europe (Vol. 3). Pion Ltd. Sennett, R, 2011. The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. WW Norton & Company. Sennett, Richard, 2008. The craftsman. London: Penguins Books Ltd Weber, M, 2002. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism: and other writings. Penguin. Winter, S. G, 1984. Schumpeterian competition in alternative technological regimes. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organisation, 5(3), 287-320. Read More