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

The Reality of Work Cultures in the Modern Economy Introduction Work culture and perception of the role of employees at work has been changing for quite a long period of time. Many researchers and sociologists have been trying to investigate these issues and evaluate its overall impact on the society. Thus, for example, Richard Sennett has offered quite an interesting critique of the evolution of the work culture during the last decades. The research below aims to analyze Sennetts’s views in relation to work ethics and its impact on the lives and attitudes of employees to work in past, modern work practice of teamwork, and impact of flexibility upon new ways of working and modern employee’s relationship to their work. Protestant work ethic and its impact upon the lives and attitudes to work of employees Sennett refers in his book to the Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism as to an important illustration of two contrary ethical standards: self-fashioning and self-discipline (1998, 102). Based on this book, the Protestant work ethic implies that employees should not harry with their desire for self-fulfillment and gratification, rather, they should delay this desire to the end. According to the Protestant concept which is based on the religious pillars, people should have practiced self-denial in the present and sacrifice themselves every day thus proving their worthiness in the sight of God (Sennett 1998, 103). This ideology has been transformed into the “worldly asceticism” and in the workplaces people were focused on saving instead of spending, pursuing the long-term result and achievements (Sennett 1998, 103). Discipline as an act of self-punishment also was an integral element of the Protestant’s work ethic. The Protestant employee was taking fully a responsibility for his/her lived time and judged morally based on this key criterion. Based on this concept every individual was morally responsible for the time and quality of work he/she performed during the working hours as well as for time he/she spent out of work: at home, with family and children, sleeping, having a rest, etc. It necessary to stress that at work, Protestant individual would relentlessly work hard being oriented to the future and pursued by the religious setting that “Whatever is, is not good enough” (Sennett 1998, 104). The so called “driven man” would be willing to prove his morality through his commitment to hard work (Sennet 1998). Sennett criticizes this approach of a driven man saying that it is not a simple and straightforward virtue as it may seem for many readers. However, the author believes that it is important to weaken the approach of a driven man to work hard like a Trojan in order to make it possible to adjust this concept to the work ethic in future. It is possible to suggest that such a “moral setting” of a driven man was a great instrument for the government and businesses to drive the economy forward without a necessity to develop motivation and remuneration schemes to encourage employees to hard work. Religion proved to be the best tool in this case. However, the time is changing, and perception of employees toward work ethic is changing as well. Further, are discussed some important views that Sennett has about the modern work practice of teamwork. Sennett’s views on the modern work practice of teamwork Sennett devotes the whole chapter (“The work ethic”) of his book to the modern ideas and practice of teamwork, where he claims that it is the fiction, not more. Author’s position towards the teamwork is extremely critical especially when he compares the old work ethic with the new work ethic of teams. The old work ethic emphasizes self-imposed, voluntary practice (Sennett 1998, 99), while the modern work ethic emphasizes team work. Sennett (1998, 99) views the modern work practice of teamwork as “the work ethic which suits a flexible political economy…It is the group practice of demeaning superficiality”. For the teamwork employees are required to possess such soft skills, as: good listening skills, adaptability to circumstances, and cooperative attitude. If the old model of work ethic implies a responsibility for outcomes tied together with the authority, the new model of work ethic imposes no responsibility for outcomes on a team leader who acts as mediator and facilitator (Sennet 1998). Decisions made in a team are aligned with the absence of a responsibility, as it is dissolved in the team. He believes that not only managers but also team members fail to perform their functions at full responsibility in the teamwork, and therefore, to contribute to effective outcomes. A chance to make decisions within a team enables people to avoid responsibility for the power and authority they have. Lack of authority on behalf of a team leader has a disorienting effect on the employees. Sennett is generous in his critic of the teamwork: “the art of feigning in teamwork is to behave as though one were addressing only other employees, as though the boss weren’t really watching” (1998, 112). Thus, he claims that team players behave in a manner they are expected to behave and act, and this practice is false in its nature and therefore, is viewed as negative aspect. Flexibility of time in teamwork also plays a crucial negative role in Sennett’s point of view. Teams tend to work on specific short term projects and tasks, and this leads to the character corrosion (more detailed discussion of flexibility is presented further in the text). Flexibility and project work do not allow for mutual recrimination and justification of decisions made because of lack of time and other related issues. Moreover, Sennett believes that flexibility in teamwork working environment enables employees to “make up the rules as they go along” (Sennett 1998, 110). This approach is not serious and definitely lacks the responsibility. If the manager or other person with relevant authority doesn’t take this responsibility, nobody will. Moreover, Sennett claims that teamwork is oppressing individual efforts which can be hardly recognized in the team. Either the efforts of the whole team are appreciated or none. Individual employees and their contribution are not recognized properly and this is an extremely de-motivating factor. Another significant problem that the author is highlighting referring to the sociologist Harley Shaiken that people in a team are usually very different and perform different functions and roles. Because of these differences and lack of communication skills or underdevelopment of these skills there is a big gap in communication and therefore cooperation. Sennet views teamwork as an injury to employees because leaders of a team tend to dominate the team members denying legitimacy to their needs and desires (Sennet 1998, 115). While for a leader it is an opportunity to develop and exercise their domination skills, the interest of other employees are neglected and oppressed. Impact of flexibility upon new ways of working and the effects of flexibility upon modern employee’s relationship to their work In his book Sennett emphasizes greatly the concept of flexibility and its relation to the New economy and impact on the modern employees. While on the one hand, flexibility is viewed as an instrument used to find a balance between work and life, on the other hand Sennett believes that flexibility in the working environment is the cause of erosion of temporal and spatial anchors (Down 2001). Sennett (1998) strongly argues that flexibility is one of the main factors that cause growing disorientation of modern employees and fragmentation of their coherent objectives. Flexibility the same as teamwork is the modern tendency, which is increasingly spread among modern businesses. Flexibility at workplace has erosive effect on the character of employees as it automatically suggests project work, temporal work, etc. Employees are not devoted to the particular job as a long story of their life but instead they view it as a short-term project that will come to an end soon and they will need to find another project to work on. By this argument, author implies that people lose the opportunity to understand what their “history” is in the long-term perspective because flexible workplace conditions do not allow employees to focus on their long-term plans and visualization of their “story”. When there was no flexibility in the workplace people were not much worried about alternatives and opportunities, they just did what was necessary to do and worked as long as it was required within a given timeframe. Nowadays, people have freedom to build their schedule and life as they want, but there is a risk that they don’t really know what they really need. According to Sennett lack of commitment to the long-term work or plan results in corrosion of trust, mutual commitment and loyalty (Sennet 1998). Moreover, according to author’s point of view, instead of freedom, flexibility as a tool has enabled interested parties to create new structures of power and control (Sennet 1998, 47). Based on the Sennet’s logic, with the emergence of IT (information technology), work and risk have changed over time as businesses and other institutions became more powerful and all-seeing. Nowadays, “very large corporations can see what all the cells in its institutional honeycomb are producing by using SIMS software, and so cut out duplication of ineffectual units quickly” (Sennet 1998, 48). Thus, corporations detect a weak link and reduce it, downsizing thus the number of workers in the organization. In its turn, downsizing is highly correlated with the inequality growth (“as only a minority of the middle-aged workers squeezed out have found replacement labour at the same or higher wages”, (Sennet 1998, 49)); declining morale and motivation, and declining productivity of the workers. Sennett sees that all these things are interrelated and have significant impact on the way people build themselves, establish friendship and other social commitments (Down 2001). Flexibility raises uncertainty which is inevitably reflected in the employee’s perception and behavior. Indifference and insularity are defined to be the common features of new flexible capitalism – “a regime which provides human beings no deep reasons to care about one another” (Sennett 1998, 148). Thus, people lose the feeling of being needed by others and all sense of social anchorage (Tivey 1999). Despite the categorical claims of Sennett, flexibility at workplace can be viewed as a positive trend in the modern economy. While flexibility is definitely positively correlated with a high level of uncertainty, it also serves as a good stimulus for self-development and self-organization. For example, flexibility of working hours imposes on the person huge responsibility to organize himself or herself and to be capable to deliver result. For some people it may be very challenging. However, flexibility can also offer many opportunities for employees. Sennett position and illustration of the problem through real-life stories can be applicable in the society where the values (or character of ideal employee) are clearly defined. Conclusion Sennett provides a very critical overview of the modern work ethics and flexibility factor in the work environment. He argues that modern tendencies cause the corrosion of character as they disable an individual to build long-term plans and see the whole story of their lives. Flexibility results in instability and uncertainty in the employees minds and that is reflected in their behavior. Also the author explains the pitfalls of the teamwork, stressing lack of responsibility and authority on behalf of decision makers. References: Down, S 2001, The return of popular social science?, Human Relations, 12, p. 1639, Academic OneFile, EBSCOhost, viewed 25 June 2014. Sennett, R 1998, The corrosion of character: the personal consequences of work in the new capitalism, OAIster, EBSCOhost, viewed 25 June 2014. Tivey, L 1999, The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism, Political Quarterly, 1, p. 115, Academic OneFile, EBSCOhost, viewed 25 June 2014. Read More