Realities and Theories of Work - Case Study Example

The reality of work and how this is similar to or differs from the conventional image portrayed in management texts Industrialization necessitated amore scientific organization of work, which encouraged productivity. Frederick Taylor has particularly developed the scientific management theory which practices “careful specification and measurement of all organizational tasks. Tasks were standardized as much as possible. Workers were rewarded and punished. This approach appeared to work well for organizations with assembly lines and other mechanistic, routinized activities” (McNamara). The field of management became an interest to most of the thinkers. Theories on bureaucratic management and human relations were also developed. Specifically, the latter is a reaction to the first two theories developed by Taylor and Weber. Some popular names like Michel Foucault also surfaced in that era. His emphasis on surveillance and power made the employees “knowable, calculable and administrable object” (Findlay, 1996). This paper particularly tackles the subject of work: how it is portrayed in the management theories and how it is done in real life. With learnings from various seminars, it is our goal to come up with a comparison of theoretical and realistic notion of work. The topic will be dealt with balance on different perspectives. What the Management Theories suggest? The concept of economies of scale gave rise to large organizations. During the Ford era, there was a transformation from “craft production to mass production” (http://www.willamette.edu). Two important economic theories became the foundation of efficiency: specialization and division of labor. We can trace these concepts to Adam Smith, known as the Father of modern economics. In reality, these concepts were applied through “combining specialized functional units” so that it would be “less costly to produce several products than a single specialized one” (http://www.willamette.edu). Frederick Taylor believed that scientific method can greatly increase productivity (Internet Center for Management and Business Administration). Anchored on the economic principle of achieving the optimum, jobs are simplified so that workers can perform them at the best way (Internet Center for Management and Business Administration). Taylor believed that workers should be taught the scientific way of performing the tasks rather than just motivating them and giving them incentives. He believes that the most basic tasks can even be planned out so as to achieve greater productivity (Internet Center for Management and Business Administration). Taylor’s idea of productivity necessitates extracting the best out of the employees. Using a scientific way, particularly “time studies”, one can know the optimal way of performing a job. The work of Frederick Taylor was improved by Max Weber through his introduction of “dividing organizations into hierarchies, establishing strong lines of authority and control” (McNamara). It came to be known as the bureaucratic management. Individuals are assigned occupations and responsibilities. “Each lower office was accountable to the next higher one following a systematic division of labor which pursued organizational goals and objectives. People working in each office were chosen for their position based on their qualifications. Their sole responsibilities were the primary occupations or classifications assigned to them when they were hired. Promotions were designed to reward seniority, achievement or both” (Piano, 2003). Chris Grey, in his A Vey Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Studying Organizations distinguished between a positivist and interpretivists. The former is likely to be a manager while the latter likely to be a critic. He posited that positivists, “believe that organisational theory is, or will become, a science not unlike the natural sciences”, “believe it is possible to find the one truth”, “are concerned with objective facts”, “are numerically inclined” and “prefer quantitative methods to ‘measure’ behavior” (Grey, 2009). They are on contrast to the interpretivists “believe that organisational reality is ‘constructed by people in orgs and by org theory itself” and “stress that there are no facts only interpretations” (Grey, 2009). A stark contrast between the two is seen in the issue of motivation. While the positivists believe that increasing remuneration motivates the employees, the ineterpretivists believe that it is not necessarily so. This issue has a very relevant application to the reality of work. Is money a sufficient motivation to work and increase productivity? This we will touch when we come to the section of reality of work. The question of what is the most productive and beneficial to society was also discussed by Bertrand Russell in his essay, “In Praise of Idleness” (Nordquist cited in Russel 1932 ). Taking the example of wealthy land-owners in Europe, he analyzed that this third class of men who are more respected than the working class are idle and that “their idleness is only rendered possible by the industry of others” (Nordquist cited in Russel 1932). He also cited the case during the war, wherein “men and women are engaged in the production of munitions”, “in spying” and “in war propaganda”, therefore are not productive “the general level of well-being among unskilled wage-earners on the side of the Allies was higher than before or since” (Nordquist cited in Russel 1932). For Russell, this reveals that people can afford to work less hours. The essay specifically mentions why people can do so: it is the modern techniques that made the amount of labor required to provide for the necessaries of life diminish (Nordquist cited in Russel 1932). For Russel, men should only work for four hours and then spend another four hours in things that they really want to do. The Marxist and Braverman Theories There are some who did not appreciate the rise of mechanization and automation. They believe that increasing use of capital in production robbed much from the working class while enriched the owners of capitals. Harry Braverman wrote a book, Labour and Monopoly Capitalism: the Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century (D.S. Pugh, 1989). His main tenets are: in a capitalist economy, the application of modern technology to work act to de-skill the workers and to remove more and more power away from workers and into the hands of owners and managers” (D.S. Pugh, 1989). Together with this power is the greater percentage of profit so that those who benefit much are not those who directly toil, but those are were able to invest in capital. His argument was built this way: prior to Fordism, workers when involved in the whole work cycle, had their own tools and reap full rewards including money and pride. But when Fordism came to place, efforts to achieve economies of scale brought forth mass production of homogenous products, inflexible technologies, de-skilling, intensification and creation of huge firms which exerted dominance over the market. Knowing that the working class will oppose the power gathered by the capitalists they employed higher-paid individuals to administer and control workers. This Braverman identifies as the scientists, engineers and managers (Braverman, 1998). The Reality Of Work The different theories discussed above reveals that people see work in myriad of perspectives. There are those who espouse the economics concepts of optimization of resources such as labor and adopt scientific ways in achieving them, there are those who see the advent of technology as a relief from work so that idleness is an option, there are also those that distinguish different personalities in how they view work and compensation and there are those who strongly oppose capitalism as it is de-humanistic. A series of blogs from workers reveal the reality of work, especially how important mechanization and motivation affect works. Two web diaries reveal that employees in a highly mechanized and automaed industry suffer the same, but they can have different responses. A customer service representative for a well-known clothing company starts her diary with the complaint of how difficult to make sales among those who call the office, especially when people call because of mistakes done by the company . She mentions of the difficulty to control the call when customers start to narrate their own stories. Since the company strives for efficiency, these long calls are not allowed. Ideally, calls should be kept within the time limit, but the reality is it is hard to shove off customers when they start ranting or telling stories (The WorkingStiff Diaries, 2004). The company’s primary goal is efficieny and this means no lates, no over-breaks, no long phone calls, and pretty erratic schedule to meet the demands of the customer. These things can take much from the employees, especially their social life. The companies desire for efficiency and highest profit comes at a great cost to the employee, sometimes even higher than their pay checks. Another web blog tells of someone who finally resigned from the monotonic and routinary work. Although highly paid, this employee opted to work in a school where he is just paid half of what he earns in exchange for peace of mind and joy. This is what Chris Grey mentions as the interpretivist perspective. Not all people necessairly derive happiness from salary. If a man loves his job, he cannot be enticed to leave it for a higher paycheck. On the other hand, if he despises his job, increased salary will not puch him to work extra hours. What the diaries reveal are important aspects of reality which are important in the consideration of motivation. There are non-monetary aspects which people value more such as the personal fulfillment from the job, the relationships inside the office and the relationship with the boss. These things are not necessarily provided by scientific management theories but they can certainly increase the happiness of the workers, which in turn will result to productivity. Braverman mentions that pre-Fordism provided workers with both money and pride (Braverman, 1998). This pride that one gets out of his own achievements is a motivation itself. People are not machines, they are actually more complicated beings. They need to rest and relax, to feel fulfillment, to feel challenged and to create more importantly they need to grow and improve. These things cannot be provided by scientific management theories if they only focus on efficiency and profit. The Comparison of Theories and Reality of Work Where the theories have helped Management theories discuss of effective way in achieving productivity. This is inevitable, especially in the field of Economics, where firms are assume to aim for nothing but maximum profit. Developments in the field of management such as specialization, division of labor and assembly lines during the Ford era are welcome scientific developments. They have indeed improve the way things are done, not just in private for-profit organizations, but also in the government. Management theories such as popularized by Frederick Taylor and Max Weber have in some ways improved the field. Scientific management is never an evil nor an enemy of the workers, they may have pitfalls which we are going to discuss a little later, but they have contributions in the way work is done. An example of this contribution is the achievement of efficiency in a large-scale production. Max Weber’s theory of hierarchy have definitely helped provide ease in management. Imagine an organization without a hierarchy, no levels of authority and responsibility. That would definitely lead to organizational chaos. Work should indeed be divided among people with different qualifications and responsibility and there should be a line of command, wherein one has to report to a higher officer which in turn has a responsibility of overseeing his needs and helping him improve his quality of work. How great is that kind of management! Chris Grey’s theory that deals with differentiating people’s personalities and values and assigning them work and responsibilities commensurate to their qualifications and characters help what one aspect of management a lot: the staffing part. This theory helps higher management team and entrepreneurs scout the best people and assign them to jobs that fit them well. This in turn decreases the employee turn-over rate by providing at most fulfillment to the employees. Being able to do the work that fits their personality is already a good return for someone’s labor. Bertrand Russell’s In Praise of Idleness, is a deviation to all this theories. But how did it help improvement of work. Well, it basically gives freedom workers by allotting a time for them to do the things that they really want to do, so that their work becomes play. Russell’s idea is a liberation from the usual norm of working for earnings and money. According to him, people can be required to work for four hours and then allow then to do the things that they want to do after that – this may mean, engaging in music and other arts, maybe carpentry or anything that they find worthwhile. How awesome indeed is this theory, liberating the people from the bondage of just working for money. Lastly, a hero among the workers emerged with Harry Braverman. Braverman deemed the recent innovation in work as disadvantageous on the part of the workers. This has helped people especially the poor be awakened of the possible exploitation done by the capitalists. This is a very much welcome addition in the theory of work as it safeguards the rights of the workers. These theories have indeed improved work and the workers. Where Theories have Failed The theories are indeed excellent but there are some aspects of work that they certainly miss. First is the people’s desire for relationship and interaction, so that they cannot be confined to being robots who automatically work without much interaction from people. This is the criticism of Taylor and Weber, where people are seen to be stiff, which is in contrast to the reality. People wants warmth and they certainly have emotions that must be accounted for. They cannot be confined to the work area and divest them of their true nature. People need money, but it is not all there is. In the diary that we have just discussed, one may opt to do something with lower pay in return for fulfillment and joy. There are just some priceless gifts that must be associated with work, and some people value this more than the pay. The truth is workers are human beings, they would go for excellence and productivity, but they must be divested of the things that are inherent to them – and one of those is fulfillment that comes from having a noble job. References (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.willamette.edu: http://www.willamette.edu/~fthompso/MgmtCon/Fordism_&_Postfordism.html Braverman, H. (1998). Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century (. New York: Monthly Review Press. D.S. Pugh, D. H. (1989). Harry Braverman and the ‘Labour Process’ Debate. Writers on Organizations , 94-97. Findlay, P. (1996). Playing God? The performance of appraisal. Human Resource Management Journal; , 47. Grey, C. (n.d.). Retrieved April 14, 2010, from http://books.google.com.ph: http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=x5jcNac8rgUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Grey:+Studying+organizations&source=bl&ots=2S8J16s1l6&sig=1gZMPkuSLjpkZ6wcQBW5CKICmWY&hl=tl&ei=z4fES-S6KNCzrAf5-M2RDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage& Internet Center for Management and Business Administration, I. (n.d.). Retrieved from NetMBA.com: http://www.netmba.com/mgmt/scientific/ McNamara, C. (n.d.). Retrieved April 14, 2010, from Free Management Library: http://managementhelp.org/mgmnt/history.htm Nordquist, R. (n.d.). Retrieved April 14, 2010, from About.com: http://grammar.about.com/od/classicessays/a/praiseidleness_5.htm The WorkingStiff Diaries. (2004, September 12). Retrieved April 14, 2010, from www.Weblab.org: http://www.weblab.org/workingstiff/ Read More