The Reality of Work Cultures in the Modern Economy - Literature review Example

The reality of work cultures in the modern economy The technological advances that have appeared in the modern market during the last decades were initially considered as an ideal way for improving the conditions in the workplace in all industries. However, the current form of employment relations worldwide has been quite different: stress and anxiety for workers have been radically increased, job safety has been significantly limited and employees have become disposable. In fact, modern workers could be characterized as precarious, having to serve a system that injures them despite their extensive efforts to develop their skills and competencies. These issues are explored in this paper. The study of Sennett (1999) is used as the core source for explaining the various aspects of the above problems. It is proved that in modern organizational employees are under severe pressures no matter their position in the organizational hierarchy. In the modern workplace the employment relationship has been highly transformed. Emphasis is given not on the respect of routine of work but rather on the high exposure to risk and on the potential to follow “orders on short notice” (Sennett 1999, p.9). The new status of work is therefore characterized by extensive flexibility (Sennett 1999), a trend that threatens traditional work values, such as commitment and trust. Indeed, an employee who has to face continuous changes in his work schedule is likely to feel less committed to his organization. The need to follow a highly flexible mode of employment has led employees to become more anxious (Sennett 1999). In the long term, this practice can lead to irreversible problems in employees’ performance, harming, at the next level, employees’ health (Sennett 1999). In other words, the modern ways of working can injure employees, even if it may takes a bit of time for the relevant injuries to appear clearly. For Smil (2013) the expansion of IT systems in the workplace has led to the limitation of organizations’ needs in terms of workforce, a phenomenon which is clearer in the manufacturing industry. In this context, IT technology has injured employees by limiting their value in the workplace. At the same time, the modern employment relations framework has also influenced employees’ character. This issue is made clear through the following fact: character, as a critical characteristic of humans, includes a range of elements, such as: the personal values and commitment, the goals set in regard to personal and professional life and the hierarchy of personal needs and desires (Sennett 1999). When having to respond to a continuous changing routine of work employees have, necessarily, to change their hierarchy of values and needs, as these elements are parts of their character. According to Sennett (1999) in the modern workplace the character of employees is threatened, either because “of the confusion of sentiments or of the need for taking immediate actions” (Sennett 1999, p.10), as these conditions can lead employees to violate ‘their personal traits, i.e. values’ (Sennett 1999, p.10). For example, if an employee who highly appreciates work routines is asked to ignore the relevant rules and to take risks then the following phenomenon would occur: the specific employee would have to change his character in order to support this practice. The same problem occurs every time employees are asked to disregard their values in favour of the organization’s interests or of specific persons’ goals. In the context of the workplace, the corrosion of character can have another form: this of the rejection of the past. This trend is made clear through the following example, included in the study of Sennett: Rico has given by his father all necessary support for achieving a promising career, meaning a career different from that of his father who has been a blue collar worker for his entire life. However, it seems that Rico has rejected not just the type of work of his father but also his origins: when waiting for Sennett in the airport Rico wore, a “crested signet ring” (Sennett 1999, p.18), aiming to denote his family’s high social and financial status. This action could be only regarded as “a betrayal of his father” (Sennett 1999, p.18). In other words, high education and white collar career have led to the corrosion of the character of Rico leading him to reject his family background. Under these terms, modern ways of work can be responsible for the corrosion of character of employees. Moreover, even if workers are fully committed to their organization, even with the cost of the corrosion of their character, the response of the organization to employees’ sacrifices for work is often inappropriate. In fact, modern companies tend to make their employees disposable, a term that refers to the following facts: a) employees who reach the middle-age and who cannot respond to a quite demanding schedule of work, as the younger workers, are considered by their firms as of having no more value, even if their work experience is significant (Sennett 1999, p.91). Jacoby (1998) refers to the example of the workers of steel mills of the 19th century, in US. In these businesses employees who were over 40 were considered as not capable for working in the particular sector since “they were slower than younger employees” (Jacoby 1998, p.33); b) on the other hand, work safety for young employees is quite low; these employees are usually hired for covering emergent organizational needs and at compensation quite low, or non-existent if working in the context of a training scheme (Sennett 1999, p.96); when being in the workplace, these employees often provide solutions and ideas that have been developed after years of studies and as a result of their personal competencies (Sennett 1999, p.96). However, organizations feel these employees as disposable units; this means that after taking from them the knowledge and ideas that are critical for specific business problems organizations fire them usually with no compensation or no support in securing another job; c) the term disposable, when referring to employees, can also denote the following fact: organizations make schedules of work based on the continuous change of roles, and of salaries, without taking into consideration the views of employees (Sennett 1999, p.47). By their side, employees consider this practice as a sign that employers believe on employees’ competencies and willingness to support change (Sennett 1999). However, it seems that employer do not have such belief; they just rely on the need of employees to work (Sennett 1999). This means that employees are considered by employers as obliged to follow changes and to meet increased job demands. In other words, in the workplace there is no option for confronting change; employees need to support change so that their position is secured, an expectation though that it is proved false (Hassard et al. 2009). For example, Wal-Mart tends “to continuously press its Chinese suppliers for reducing their production prices” (Holmes 2008, p.208). As a result Chinese suppliers are likely to decrease, periodically, the wages of their employees so that they are able to meet the demands of Wal-Mart (Holmes 2008). Employees in these firms have to accept this practice if they want to keep their job (Holmes 2008). In the above case, no provision exists for employees’ daily needs; rather, employees are treated as disposable units, meaning that new employees could be easily retrieved for covering the gaps caused by those who will not accept changes in their employment status. According to Gospel (1992) employers have always considered employees as disposable units. Even in the case of ‘great northern mill owners in US’ (Gospel 1992, p.25) such trend has appeared. The above businesses were highly developed in the 19th century and were characterized by extensive support to their workers; villages were built around the relevant manufacturing units while employment terms, such as working hours and wages, were highly stabilized (Gospel 1992). However, it was proved that the owners of these businesses aimed to create a loyal workforce so that they can keep their competitiveness high (Gospel 1992). At this point, particular reference should be made to the notion of Sennett (1999) that ‘indifference which radiates out of flexible capitalism is more personal’ (Sennett 1999, p.146). For Sennett this indifference should be primarily related to the fact that the system’s rules are not clear and concise (Sennett 1999). In this way, it is easy for employers to intervene in the structure/ content of employment relations within their organization. The potential opposition of the relevant suggestions to employees’ rights is often not checked (Gumbrell-McCormick and Hyman 2013). For example, people who wish to work as shop floor assistants in a bakery should be competent in the use of computer, even if they may not have to use computer in the specific position (Sennett 1999, p.70). This trend also affects the employment status of people who currently work in these positions. In the above case, indifference appears in regard to the individuals who will apply only for the specific position and not for jobs of different characteristics. Indifference, in the particular case, involves in the lack of provision/ care for the living needs of individuals who work or for those who wish to work in such position. In addition to the above, workers today can be considered as precarious workers. This view is based on the following fact: in the past employment relations were highly based on bureaucracy. The variations in working hours or in the tasks assigned to each worker were quite limited. Also, salary has been standardized (Fisk 2009). In this way employees were able to set a programme for their life, making savings and arranging their future. This fact is verified through the story of Enrico and his son, Rico, as described in the study of Sennett (1999). According to Sennett (1999) the standard salary and the routine in the working hours had allowed Enrico to make a plan for saving money necessary for covering his family’s housing needs and the studies of his son, Rico (Sennett 1999, p.16). In other words, for Enrico bureaucracy has led to the feeling of safety in regard to the needs of the daily life. This feeling cannot exist today as work has become so flexible that no plan for life can be made by employees (Sennett 1999, p.9). Towards the same direction, Holland (2006) highlights the differentiation of demands in regard to job positions worldwide. More specifically, the vacancies related to highly skilled employees are continuously increased, meaning that low skills employees will soon become of no value for businesses in most industries (Holland 2006, p.48). Under certain terms, employees become precarious because of their inability to cover the expenses related to their contributions in the national insurance scheme related to their position or because of their emergent need for job. For example, in Korean businesses employees come to agreement with their employer so that their hiring is not made known to the local authorities (Gray 2008, p.145). In this way, neither the employer nor the employees pay contributions for a national insurance scheme (Gray 2008). Also, in Japan most women tend to work in part-time schemes since the compensation in the relevant roles is less and since the vacancies for such jobs are significantly more compared to full-time jobs (Tipton 2008). In most countries worldwide part-time jobs are also used by employers for keeping employment costs low (Nienhuser 2005). According to the issues discussed above modern workers have to face a series of critical challenges. Of course, most of these challenges, such as insecurity in regard to be hired or to be paid regularly, have been always related to the workplace. Still, today the position of employees in the workplace has been deteriorated, even if the access of businesses to funding has become easy, compared to the past. For Sennett (1999) the above trend seems to be resulted by people’s effort to delete their background and to adopt an identity that it is foreign to their origins. In other words, making excessive sacrifices, even betraying family background and values, has been proved the key reason for a critical problem that employees currently face worldwide: despite their efforts and their skills, employees in most industries have become precarious. This trend could be eliminated not only through the intervention of state but rather through the change of people’s perceptions on job’s value, as part of daily life. This means that job should be considered as critical but not at just point that personal values are ignored. References Fisk, C. (2009) Working Knowledge: Employee Innovation and the Rise of Corporate Intellectual Property, 1800-1930: Employee Innovation and the Rise of Corporate Intellectual Property, 1800-1930. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Gospel, H. (1992) Markets, Firms and the Management of Labour in Modern Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gray, K. (2008) Korean Workers and Neoliberal Globalization. London: Routledge. Gumbrell-McCormick, R. and Hyman, R. (2013) Trade Unions in Western Europe: Hard Times, Hard Choices. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hassard, H., McCann, L. and Morris, J. (2009) Managing in the Modern Corporation: The Intensification of Managerial Work in the USA, UK and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holland, W. (2006) Are There Any Good Jobs Left?: Career Management in the Age of the Disposable Worker. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group. Holmes, A. (2008) Commoditization and the Strategic Response. London: Gower Publishing, Ltd. Jacoby, S. (1998) Modern Manors: Welfare Capitalism since the New Deal. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Nienhuser, W. (2005) Flexible Work - Atypical Work - Precarious Work? Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag. Sennett, R. (1999) The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. London: W. W. Norton & Company Smil, V. (2013) Made in the USA: The Rise and Retreat of American Manufacturing. Cambridge: MIT Press. Tipton, E. (2008) Modern Japan: A Social and Political History. London: Routledge Read More