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

Reality of Work Cultures in the Modern Economy Introduction Christians will be familiar with the phrase in Genesis 3:19: “By the sweat of your browyou will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are to dust you will return.” Although the biblical account intended for work to be Adam’s punishment, in time the value of work was not limited to the means by which food was put on the table, but as a redemptive, even sanctifying, human act which earned for the individual the sense of his own self-worth, the development of his character, and the affirmation of his value to society. Work was not so much as burden as it was a privilege, and a person established his identity among others and gained social status by the kind and quality of the work he did. He was recognized and remunerated according to the benefit he has This was the case for modern man, across generations that spanned thousands of years. A person without self-defining work had no life’s direction nor self-fulfilling goal. There had been a time when a man worked for himself, ploughing his own land or tending his own cattle. It was not long before workers banded into guilds and cooperatives, then organized themselves into the corporations that created the goods and services needed by people. Workers became employees and occupied positions in an organization whereby they could do meaningful work. Of late, the paradigms have again shifted towards a redefinition of organization and, consequently, a deconstruction of the worker. No longer are organizations channels of human endeavour; on the contrary, organizations have taken over as the controlling entities, and “human resources” have been relegated to expendable cogs in the machinery of big business. Corrosion of Character: The book by Richard Sennett The book examines how the individual worker is influenced by the modern corporate environment. In it, Sennett asserts that the organisations have evolved into entities that undergo continuous change in its pursuit for short-term gains. As a result, these corporations develop no profound and lasting commitment to anything other than quick profits. In such an atmosphere, the worker loses his identity, dignity and integrity which he should have acquired through meaningful work. The nature of work had changed in the modern corporation, such that “the actions he needs to take and the way he has to live in order to survive in the modern economy have set his emotional, inner life adrift” (Sennet, 1998, p.20). Through the eyes of the book’s protagonist Rico, Sennett portrays the workers’ dilemma in the era of flexible capitalism. Used to describe the modern economy, ‘flexible capitalism’ alludes to corporations’ compulsion to constantly change to adapt to the fast-changing market. This is an era where long-term contracts and fixed job descriptions have become anathema to the realities of the progressive organization. The worker’s identity and character are thus corroded; he is relegated to anonymity, insecure in his job and undifferentiated from the rest of the work force (Kallenberg, 2009). Organizational structure: mechanisms in the era of flexible capitalism According to Sennett, there are three interrelated and fundamental mechanisms needed to create and sustain more flexible corporations. These are: (1) discontinuous reinvention of institutions; (2) flexible specialization, and (3) concentration without centralization (Leana, 2000). The first, discontinuous reinvention, is known by the more popular term re-engineering. Organizations which are organized in the form of ‘networks’ are constituted of parts more loosely connected, and therefore more prone to change and adaptation. Such techniques include delayering, downsizing, vertical disaggregation, and going more with less. The concept of re-engineering or reinvention has garnered popular acceptance despite the lack of evidence of increased productivity (Balfour & Grubbs, 2000, p.574). The second concept, flexible specialization, refers to the ability of organizations to adapt to continual change by varying and diversifying its products to more quickly capture the market. Lastly, concentration without centralization is the desired alternative to the tall, hierarchical structure that has proven to be too slow, specialized and unresponsive for the new economy. Elimination of centralization while maintaining the concentration of power is achieved through vertical disaggregation and delayering. With the present information capabilities brought about by digital information systems, it has become possible to access disaggregated components of the organization without relinquishing control and power. Balfour and Grubbs (2000) call it a ‘hollowing out’ of the organization, so that in the end the organization, though apparently formless and without structure, remains just as strong and dominating (p. 575). These fundamental changes in the structure of the modern organization have impacted upon the nature and character of employment. Workers in an organization thrive in an environment of stability and consistency. This is because skills and work knowledge accumulate over time with familiarity and confirmation, while loyalties and esprit de corps are developed where associations with other human beings are close and constant. In a shifting, formless, constantly changing environment, workers are unable to take root, to control their working lives, and are subject to the control of the ‘unseen’ powers within the organization. There is a general sense of dissociation, the leadership becomes impersonal, and power while controlling is disembodied. Impact of the paradigm shift upon the small workers Sennett’s views on the new order are not entirely disparaging. In one sense, ‘he applauds the fast-changing nature of work because it emphasized employee freedom, flexibility and empowerment” (Boardman, 1999). What Boardman was referring to here, of course, was the freedom from bondage to one status or work, flexibility to choose the job one wished to do, and empowerment to not be confined or beholden to a single master, to be able to contract with his employer on equal terms. In this sense the greater flexibility of the organization was an advantage to the individual worker. What is not so laudable, however, is the fact that flexibility is attendant with a degree of instability, and for some workers a stable, secure, and permanent job is much desirable when compared to the former. When the book was written in 1998, the constant change and shifting structure that Sennett alluded to was a trend incipient but not yet fully apparent. The full extent and implications of Sennett’s reasoning seem to have eluded the early critics who have reviewed the book at the time it was first published. Boardman felt that Sennett had sold out on his progressive, leftist leanings by arguing that “the flexibilities and uncertainties of current working life are eroding the integrity of the self” (Kovalainen, 2000, p. 175). However, as if by some degree of prescience or clairvoyance, Sennett’s scenario of displaced and drifting workers has gained full validation during the digital information age. The hollow organization became a reality in the realm of cyberspace, where power is maintained and controlled by an invisible organization commanding hundreds or thousands of workers around the globe through a multinational network of franchises and online jobs. The difficulty with attaining flexibility in the work arrangement is that it not only frees the worker from bondage to one employer, but it also liberates the employer from committing to provide employment to the worker. In Japan, for instance, the traditional model of lifetime employment meant that the worker had a stable job for life; however, it also meant that such worker owed the company his loyalty and unstinting service, and may not so easily transfer jobs. More recently, even the Japanese have begun to reconsider their decades-old model of long-term employment security which has been enjoyed by many as the ‘cornerstone of Japanese corporate culture and a symbol of its cohesion as a society’ (Wartzman, 2009). The idea of lifetime employment, the eminent Peter Drucker observed, was a great deal less rigid and constricting as assumed by many. This was because the mandatory retirement age for the Japanese was 55, which is much sooner than the similar standard in the West, and did not truly last for one’s ‘lifetime’ (Wartzman, 2009). Furthermore, when companies went bad, the firm was not expected to make good on the ‘lifetime employment’ commitment as people were also laid off during business downturns, but in a manner that ensures that the employees who needed income the most are those who are most fully protected. The greater adjustment is made by those with dual incomes, or those who can afford the loss of their job (Wartzman, 2009). In tandem then with Sennett’s argument, the Japanese model shows that either extreme – too much or too little stability – may be unsettling for the worker’s peace of mind that he may exercise his options while remaining secure in his employment, save the direst of circumstances. One important point that Sennett raises, however, is the necessity for organizations to undertaking the new dynamics at all, if such cannot be proven to increase profitability or productivity anyway. According to him, ‘Will flexibility, with all the risks and uncertainties it entails in fact remedy the human evil it sets out to attack?’ (Sennett, 1998, p. 45). Here, the ‘evil’ referred to by Sennett is the rigidity and regimentation of employment which unnecessarily reins in the exercise of human freedoms. On the other hand, other evils attend extreme flexibility, in the form of ‘drift’, ‘risk’ and ‘failure’. Sennett points out that these new set of evils may be as dehumanizing as the rigidity that the move to flexibility set out to correct. Leana (2000) observes that Sennett employs an exceptionally effective approach in his essay – that is, to define the original meaning of these words (drift, risk, failure) which comprised the subtopics, and then dissect their metamorphosis into their use in current practice which is so far removed from the original intent. An example is the original fifteenth century meaning of ‘flexibility’ as the manner tree branches can be bent, but not broken, with the intention of having them return to their original positions once released. The contemporary use of ‘flexibility’ when referring to organizations goes beyond this connotation; the degree of bending is way too much that restoration becomes doubtful; in fact, it is not even contemplated. Organizational change towards greater ‘flexibility’ today, therefore, means that institutions become irretrievably remodelled, creating a discontinuity between the present and the past (Sennett, 1998, p. 48). Together with the lack of structure is the fluidity in the power arrangements in modern organization. No longer are high-profile managers and supervisors the tangible repository of power which, if the worker deems it necessary, makes it easier to confront and challenge. In the modern organization, authority is disperse and power is disembodied, as evident in the now popular team-based work practices. There are certain repercussions to flexible power arrangements: (1) the organization’s original form or processes are no longer preserved, denying the employees the knowledge base provided by a meaningful history; (2) in an environment where organizations compete on the basis of flexible specialization (i.e., the development of more products to meet a faster-paced market), work processes respond to shifting external demand instead of internal rules or structures, rendering work assignments fleeting and ambiguous; and (3) flexible organizations power is concentrated without being centralized (Leana, 2000). Conclusion The arguments and explanations of Sennett in his book are insightful to the point of being almost precognitive. He recognized the adverse effects of excessive and unconstrained organizational flexibility among the workforce, which in many instances are now apparent. The individual worker needs structure not only in his work, but in every aspect of his life; it provides the framework of the social elements that govern the social order. With too much flexibility, there is no structure, consistency or predictability upon which employees may anchor their comprehension of their work. Without structure and history, the is no psychological contract created between the employee and the employer, making employee engagement with their work impossible. The work that was Adam’s punishment in the Book of Genesis does not merely provide the food the worker eats; it defines his/her personality, the meaning of his/her existence, and his/her social stature. Where the organization is itself lacking in this definition, then moreso does that organization deprive its own workers of their right to meaningful work. References: Bagtasos, M R 2011 Quality of Work Life: A Review of Literature. DLSU Business and Economics Review, Vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1-8 Balfour, D L & Grubbs, J W 2000 Character, Corrosion and the Civil Servant: The Human Consequences of Globalization and the New Public Management. Administrative Theory and Praxis. Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 570-84. Boardman, M 1999 The Corrosion of Character. Future Focus: Emerging Issues. HR Magazine, July 1999, p. 224. Dyer, S; McDowell, L; & Batnitzky, A 2011 Migrant work, precarious work-life balance: what the experiences of migrant workers in the service sector in Greater London tell us about the adult worker model. Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, Oct, Vol. 18 Issue 5, p685-700; DOI: 10.1080/0966369X.2011.601808 Hae-Lin Choi; & Mattoni, A 2010 The Contentious Field Of Precarious Work In Italy: Political Actors, Strategies And Coalitions. Working USA, Jun, Vol. 13 Issue 2, p213-243; DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-4580.2010.00284.x Leana, C R 2000 Book Review on The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 252-261 Kalleberg, A L 2009 Precarious Work, Insecure Workers: Employment Relations in Transition. American Sociological Review. Vol. 74, No. 1, pp. 1-22. Kovalainen, A 2000 Book Review on The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. Acta Sociologica, Vol. 43, pp. 175-177. Leana, C R 2000 Book Review on The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism by Richard Sennett. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 252-261 Natarajan, S 2003 Richard Sennett: The Corrosion of Character, The Personal Consequences fo Work in the New Capitalism: A Critical Reading. Accessed 6 April 2012 from http://www.stephanehaefliger.com/campus/biblio/017/17_82.pdf O’Carroll, A 2001 Review: The Corrosion of Character. Workers Solidarity. Accessed 6 April 2012 from http://struggle.ws/ws/2001/63/tech.html Powell, J G 2000 Book Review on The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. Magill Book Reviews. Accessed from EBSCO. Sennett, R 1998 The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. Norton Publishers, New York, NY Underhill, E; & Quinlan, M 2011 How Precarious Employment Affects Health and Safety at Work: The Case of Temporary Agency Workers. Relations Industrielles / Industrial Relations, Summer 2011, Vol. 66 Issue 3, p397-421 Wartzman, R 2009 Japan: Rethinking Lifetime Employment. Bloomberg Businessweek. 4 September. Accessed 5 April 2012 from http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/sep2009/ca2009094_141933.htm Read More