Labour Process Theory: Impact of Information and Communication Technologies - Coursework Example

Analysis of Labour Process Theory for Understanding the Impact of Information and Communication Technologies in the Workplace (Essay) Introduction Change is the only constant and the same is true for the world of business. The modern business firms and their workforce are constantly under the influence of myriad changes occurring within and around their own organizations. In such a scenario, a peek into the traditional theories and the modern trends in this arena can offer useful insights in the sphere of labour processes. Labour Process Theory refers to the concept that involves the practices adopted by the management to control the working of the labour within an organization, with the aim to maximize organizational productivity. This theory is now a part of modern management ideologies and has contributed significantly to the analysis of work processes going on inside various organizations. This paper seeks to analyze the Labour Process Theory from a managerial perspective and then explore how the use of Information and Communication Technologies at workplace can influence the workforce. Insights offered by Labour Process Theory The subject of LPT, which has gained popularity in the last few decades, was originally developed in the year 1970 by Harry Braverman based on the ideas put forth by Karl Marx. Marx had suggested that the primary basis for understanding a work organization should not be human psychology but the configuration of the community within which the organization is operating. The theory has provided a useful insight into the methods that help in achieving the desired level of productivity in an organization. As far as the theoretical framework of LPT is concerned, control over labour is considered as the chief element of increasing the productivity level at workplace. (Knights, 1990) The chief idea behind the Labour Process Theory is the acknowledgement of the inherent conflict of interests between the labour and the management. This school of thought has been initiated by Karl Marx and is based on the belief that the society is divided into categories- the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The former is the owner of the means of production while the latter is the class which relies on their labour power. These two classes are forever involved in an eminent win-lose battle against each other. The winning of any one group involves the loss of the other group. For instance, increasing the wages of labour will lead to a decline in profits of the management. Hence it is a zero-sum conflict between the two groups. (Willmott, 1990) Trade unionism is the apparatus used by employees to offset the power of the employers and to check the power of the management. The two parties are characterised by not only this basic conflict of interests, but also by a larger share of power on the side of the bourgeoisie. The management, which represents the capitalist class, enjoys an upper hand in deciding the consequence of negotiations. The degree of requirement of an employee to get employed far exceeds the requirement of hiring a labourer by a typical employer. The propagators of labour process theory argue that the state ultimately favours the interests of the employers and the capitalist class over those of the workers. (Littler, 1990) The major distinction between bourgeoisie and proletariat is based on a basic division of labour between the two groups. The bourgeoisie are the owners of the means of production such as land, capital, raw materials and technology. But these means of production have no value and can make no profits without the contribution of labour. Labour is required to convert this capital into production and create profits. The proletariat, on the other hand, possess labour power or the ability of labour force to work. There is one central issue involved in the hiring of employees by the management. The management hiring decisions are based on the workers’ potential to do work, and not on the actual amount of work done. As per the tenets of the labour process theory, the prime challenge for the management is to figure out a scheme for capturing a maximum portion of this potential labour. (Parkin, 1979) But the management will not be able to extract the entire potential labour, due to the fact that in the long term, the goals of the management and the labour class are opposed to each other. Due to the profit making motive, the management always seeks to extract extra efforts from the labour. But the labour seems reluctant to do so considering the fact that their increased efforts do no extra good to them but only increase the profits of their employer. Owing to this open ended nature of relationship between the employer and the employees, the management is set up with the aim of constantly regulating and maintaining this relationship and for devising a mechanism for enhancing and controlling the efforts put in by labour. (Neilson, 2007) Braverman was one of the pioneers in the field of labour process theory. He observed that deskilling of labour was the first main instrument used by the management to control labour. He argued that the scientific management strategies suggested by Taylor aim at simplifying the method of working and reducing employee’s freedom of choice by putting forward one best way of working. This ensured the maximum translation of potential labour into actual labour. The overall work process becomes simpler and subsequently the work performance is enhanced in the event of removal of the working skills and discretionary abilities of workers. Since the individual skills are gradually removed and immersed into the work process itself, the skilled workers also get less control over the process of production. (Taylor, 1911; Burawoy, 1978) Many researchers however claimed that Braverman’s theory is based on an oversimplification of the management’s strategies which are in reality very complicated. For instance, Friedman suggested that the management could use more refined and commitment-based strategies, rather than sticking to the easier way of direct control over labour which has been specified by Braverman. The management can set up a responsible autonomy scheme wherein it may initiate a system within the organization in which the workers will be keen to accept responsibilities. Under such a model, the employees will enthusiastically strive to fulfill the organizational goals, thus relieving the management of much of its usual humongous tasks. (Meyer, 2011) This theory extended great help to the capitalist class in attaining their desired goals by enabling them to create additional value and also to solve their other labour-related issues. On the whole, the Labour Process Theory contributed significantly in guiding the process of management control and shaping the labour practices in the modern organizations. Strengths of the Labour Process Theory The prime strength of the Labour Process Theory is that it helps in restructuring of the organization through the use of effective management practices. This enables the management to exert better control over the working of employees in an organization and also to achieve reduction in costs. This also creates flexibility and adaptability in the workers enabling them to adapt to the changing business scenarios. As a result, the organization is strengthened and its growth is enhanced in terms of profitability and performance. This phenomenon is also supported by the modern HR concept of change management that states that employees must learn, unlearn and relearn in order to adapt to the changes in the organization. Besides it has served as a mark of technological advancement in organizations by using division of labour to shape up organizational processes and to configure work structures for employees. (Hyman, 1987) As opposed to the scientific management theory which offered strategies that could be used by organizations for managing labour at any given point of time, the Labour Process Theory offered more focused, critical and future oriented strategies for the same. The theory suggested a more systematic and organized method of exercising managerial control over the labour. This factor was an added advantage of this approach as it worked in the direction of continuous development of labour force meant for improving the individual productivity levels of both unskilled and skilled workers. The theory suggested that the vital decisions of the organization must be handled by experts and managers who have the qualification and the expertise required for making decisions. This would make the decision making process more swift and methodical resulting in improved organizational growth. (Littler, 1982) Moreover, the LPT also aims at the resolution of labour related issues and conflicts. This proves effective in the short term by helping to attain organizational objectives through mitigation of labour associated problems, discouragement of labour unions and resolution of labour conflicts. The idea of deskilling which is usually seen as a disadvantage of the theory can also be interpreted as one of its not so obvious strengths. Deskilling has been treated by LPT as a modern management technique to control labour processes. It has been seen as a mode of inducing the much needed flexibility amidst the workers of an organization, which in turn raises their capacity to adapt to the changes in the business environment. Hence this strategy has been used by numerous firms in the last few years to enhance their overall sustainability in a business world that is ever changing. (Walton, 1991) Weaknesses of the Labour Process Theory The LPT has, no doubt, introduced a radical approach of labour management in the modern organizational structure. However this theory suffers from a number of shortcomings, especially in the context of the 21st century. The prime flaw of LPT, as pointed out by critics, is that it is based on the view of capitalism which puts its sole emphasis on an organization’s performance and productivity and does not take the interests of the employees into consideration. In the early 19th century, the capitalists were intent on maximizing their profits by burdening the workers with tremendous work load. The health and well-being of the workers received no priority as the managers following the LPT harped on increasing production by using their authority to coerce workers to overexert themselves. There was a popular belief that increasing profits and enhanced productivity could alone ensure the long-term sustainability of any organization. Such indifference to the interests of the working class and the subsequent harm caused to their health and welfare soon resulted in political upheavals in the labour market. Thus the theory is blamed for its failure to draw a much needed concern of the management towards the interests of the workers and hence for its deficiency in meeting the ideal standards of organizational sustainability. (Thompson, 1990) Moreover the adoption of LPT within an organization is associated with a range of difficulties owing to the fragmentation of jobs and reduction of workers’ skills in a given job role. The rise in management control has also curbed the independence of employees at work, made them more dependent on the management and increased their work pressure. All these factors have eventually led to huge conflicts between the workers and the management. A major fallacy in this regard is that Braverman’s theory completely overlooks the political aspects of the labour processes. The issue of deskilling that is so prominent in his theory can be easily resolved if we take into account the political facets, such as the labour unions and the government interventions. But the LPT somehow seems to have missed out the political factors which are as important as the economic and social aspects governing the labour market. (Wray-Bliss, 2002) The literature on labour process theory has met with extensive criticism on a variety of grounds. Firstly, the theory is overtly preoccupied with the notion of conflict. It is based on the assumption that there is negligible similarity in interests between the management and labour class. Usually such conflicts are not apparent in most organisations and they are marked by relatively longer phases of concord and harmony. Secondly, the theory is based on the idea of class struggle which is not as relevant in the modern world of labour market as it was in the nineteenth century when Marx suggested this theory. There is no such clear demarcation between the capitalist class and labour class in today’s world of employment. Thirdly, this model is based on the assumption that the capitalist class is homogenous, organised and uniformly opposed to the labour class. But the assumption that capital will always act as a unified group is fallacious. In reality there is fragmentation even within the capitalist class in the form of the different groups like manufacturing, agricultural, export-oriented etc. Even inside a given industry, the different employers are also adversaries to each other. Another shortcoming is that this approach tends to be based on the belief that the state always stands for the will of the capitalist class and is somewhat inclined towards the interests of capital. But this idea is not usually observed in practice. In practice, the state often imposes new rules and regulations on the capitalist class, often against their will. So the assumption that the interests of capital are always transformed into state priorities is based on irrational grounds. (Bray, 2005) Yet another shortcoming of the theory is that is somewhat obsolete in today’s scenario of changing business trends. It has failed to keep pace with the new patterns emerging in the modern organizations. Today’s organizations regard their workforce as an invaluable asset, and not just a factor of production, in their business function. But LPT, on the other hand, is more inclined towards the idea of profitability in business, which seriously endangers the sustainability of today’s organizations in the long run. Hence the theory which held a vital meaning in the 19th century has become significantly misaligned from the perspective of the 21st century. (Thompson, 2004) Impact of Information and Communication Technologies in the Workplace The business processes in the modern day organizations have undergone a radical transformation with the advent of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). ICTs have not only changed the work structure and the process of production but also improved the working conditions in organizations. They have redefined the employee-employer relationships by identifying the appropriate rights of workers and specifying the extents of managerial control. It has also changed the skills required by workers and led to a rise in demand for skilled workers. Most notable impacts of ICTs can be seen in the service sector wherein numerous job opportunities have been created leading to a huge growth in the size of the workforce. It has empowered the white-collar workers and helped to increase their skill levels by getting them involved in technological processes that are coherent with the changing business conditions of the 21st century. The development of ICTs has, however, created a deeply negative impact on the unskilled and low-skilled workers. Most of the organizations today have a tendency to hire technologically skilled workers, which drastically reduces the scope of employment for the unskilled workers. (Matteucci, 2005) Increased intervention of the government in the form of limitations on the number of working day and hours has made it more challenging for the organisations to fulfil their profit motives and deadlines. Under such circumstances, the introduction of ICTs and advanced machines at the workplace can help to accelerate the labour processes and thus offset the impact of the governmental restrictions. Besides, it also results in a reduction of the overall costs incurred on production because most of the work is done by machines operated by men which remarkably decreases the requirement of labour. This cost effective stance towards work processes has been accompanied by a trend amidst organizations to adopt capital intensive, rather than labour intensive, working methods. (Goh, 2005) According to Braverman, the introduction of ICTs in the working environment eventually led to the separation of the related elements of conception and execution in the work process. As a result, the management took over the element of conception and assumed the responsibility of directing the work process. This was followed by the advent of the new technologies which simplified the job operations and turned the tasks into mere physical actions that could be handled easily by unskilled and semi-skilled workers. This brought in the concept of deskilling of workers which led to a decline in the performance of the entire workforce in the 20th century. There was a drastic dip in the regular level of skills of the workers as compared to that noted in the 19th century. Another major cause of concern was that most of the workers had lost their expertise over the conceptual aspect of their work due to the use of technology at work. Prior to the industrial revolution the twin aspects of conception and execution of work were considered as part of the workers’ skills. But after the industrial revolution, the skills of a worker became tied to only the execution part and became synonymous to certain predetermined and dictated physical activities. (Renner, 1995) This argument, however, has been countered by many theorists who believe that ICTs have further enhanced organizational performance by enabling a better alignment of the conception and execution wings at work. It is true that ICTs have brought about a distinction between the allied concepts of conception and execution. But by doing so the management of work and workers has become more systematic and methodical. We may take for instance the separation of the “brain” and the “hands” made possible by the ICTs in the various computer-programming jobs. It has not only facilitated the reorganisation of work processes and the division of tasks amongst the workers, but also made it easier for the top managers to perform their supervisory and control functions. (Carey, 2007) Some scholars, however, feel that the use of ICTs at the workplace has helped in re-skilling the workers, instead of de-skilling them. It has imparted a new set of skills to them and made them proficient in using technology at work. This has not only improved their performance and increased their income, but also made them more competent to face and adapt themselves to the continuous changes influencing their work environment. This view is further supported by a school of thinkers who believe that for a worker to be successful in today’s fiercely competitive business world, it is essential to be multi-skilled or to possess skills from a multi-disciplinary perspective. Some researchers have even gone to the extent of integrating the ideas of reskilling and deskilling with the concept of learning, unlearning and relearning. They have asserted that in order to impart new skills to workers, it is very important to first deskill them or make them unlearn the things they already know. This practice, when followed by the learning of new skills and their reinforcement through regular use and repetition, leads to the reskilling and relearning of new things. Thus ICTs help in the proper channelization of the learning and adaptation patterns of the workers in an organization. This has eventually led the firms towards a more knowledge centric approach in which the knowledge about a given work receives preference over the mechanical execution of that work with the help of machines. (Johnston, 2003) Conclusion A thorough study of the Labour Process Theory and the Information and Communication Technologies gives us an idea about the growth and evolution of businesses and their workforce from the pre-industrial era through the Industrial Revolution to the modern times. The firms in the pre-industrial era used to follow a capital intensive technique wherein the profit- making interests of the owners were placed above the interests and welfare of the working class. The workplace was dominated by control of the owners and the managers who coerced the workers beyond their limits to meet their stipulated profits and ensure a substantial surplus. The independence and discretion of the workers were replaced by the managerial directives which offered little or no scope for the workers to experiment, innovate or learn. The following advent of the Industrial Revolution was marked by the invasion of machines and large scale unemployment. On one hand, the machines expanded the scope of production by offering better, cost-effective and less time consuming methods of production. On the other hand it led to loss of jobs by the unskilled workers due to the fact that not all workers were required or had the necessary expertise to operate the sophisticated machines. Workers were replaced with machines and the former’s knowledge and concepts on work were replaced by the ability to execute mundane physical activities. Conception became the task of the managers, while the workers had to take care of the execution of work processes leading to their de-skilling. But again with the introduction of ICTs at the workplace, things changed. The workers gained new skills and knowledge in the technological dimension. They underwent an extensive reskilling process that equipped them with the qualities required to improve their performance at work and also ensure a better income. In addition, the use of and command over ICTs helped both workers and he firms to stay abreast of all the changes going on in their surrounding business environment. Not only the workers but the organizations also reaped the benefits of the use of ICTs in the form of more competent workforce, better productivity, enhance adaptability and increased sustenance. Thus the balanced combination of the LPT and the ICTs, when devised and directed by the judicious guidance of able managers, can work wonders for any organization by supporting its present performance and strengthening its future prospective. References Bray, M. (2005). Industrial relations: A contemporary approach. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Burawoy, M. (1978). Toward a Marxist theory of the labor process: Braverman and beyond. Politics & Society, 8(3-4), 247-312. Carey, M. (2007). “White-Collar Proletariat: Braverman, the Deskilling/Upskilling of Social Work and the Paradoxical Life of the Agency Care Manager”. Journal of Social Work, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 93-114. Goh, A. L. (2005). Harnessing knowledge for innovation: an integrated management framework. Journal of Knowledge management, 9(4), 6-18. Hyman, R. (1987). Strategy or structure? Capital, labour and control. Work, Employment & Society, 1(1), 25-55. Johnston, P., & Economy, W. I. A. K. (2003). Perspectives for Employment in the Transition to a Knowledge Society. The European Information Society: A Reality Check, 1, 165. Knights, D. (1990). Subjectivity, power and the labour process. Labour process theory, 297-335. Littler, C. R. (1990). The labour process debate: a theoretical review 1974-1988.Labour process theory, 46-94. Littler, C. R., & Salaman, G. (1982). Bravermania and beyond: recent theories of the labour process. Sociology, 16(2), 251-269. Matteucci, N., OMahony, M., Robinson, C., & Zwick, T. (2005). Productivity, Workplace Performance and ICT: Industry and Firm‐Level Evidence for Europe and the US. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 52(3), 359-386. Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human resource management review, 11(3), 299-326. Neilson, D. (2007). Formal and real subordination and the contemporary proletariat: re-coupling Marxist class theory and labour-process analysis.Capital & Class, 31(1), 89-123. Parkin, F. (1979). Marxism and class theory: A bourgeois critique (pp. 25-27). London: Tavistock. Renner, W. (1995). Post‐Fordist visions and technological solutions: Educational technology and the labour process. Distance Education, 16(2), 284-301. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York, 202. Thompson, P. (1990). Crawling from the wreckage: The labour process and the politics of production. Labour process theory, 95-124. Thompson, P., & Newsome, K. (2004). Labour process theory, work and the employment relation. Theoretical perspectives on work and the employment relationship, 133-162. Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (Eds.). (1991). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system. Cornell University Press. Willmott, H. (1990). Subjectivity and the dialectics of praxis: Opening up the core of labour process analysis. Labour process theory, 336-378. Wray-Bliss, E. (2002). Abstract ethics, embodied ethics: the strange marriage of Foucault and positivism in labour process theory. Organization, 9(1), 5-39. Read More