The Division of Labor in Society - Essay Example

The Division of Labour in Society Introduction Change is a fact of life. It is inherent in human nature, culture and in nature. It is the only constant thing that organisations have to deal with in a day-to-day basis. There are many factors in the internal and external environment of the organisation that influence change such as political, economic, social and technological factors. As such, organisations have to be flexible enough to respond and adapt quickly to these changes in a timely manner. This accounts for the change from bureaucratic organisations of Ford’s time which were not capable of adapting to changes easily to the flat modern organisations. There is no argument that change is sometimes good although often it disrupts people’s lives and may be traumatic. The bone of contention with sociologist Richard Sennett is that change and especially technological advances is the root cause of worker’s woes and the source of injuries to and corrosion of character. It has transformed the capitalist economy into a new form of “flexible capitalism” or what Sennett calls “New Economy” which is less concerned about interpersonal relationships. In Sennetts words it is “a regime which provides human beings no deep reasons to care about one another” (1999, 148). It has brought about new ways or working such as flexibility whereby jobs are replaced with projects and also involves reengineering, de-layering, downsizing; teamwork, decentralization and control; flextime; illegible work; disposablw workers and new work ethic not based on hard work like the earlier protestant ethic promoted by Max Weber. This in turn according to Sennett has brought injuries to employees as well as corroded their character as now they are unable to make a coherent narrative of their lives or build their identity around work. This essay will explore Sennett’s work The Corrosion of Character: The personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism to gain an insight as to how new ways of working injures and corrodes character and, whether it has made employees disposable and precarious workers and causes and consequences of such work in the modern corporation. The world of work is characterised by change. Sociologists like Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke give detailed accounts of how modern states and institutions emerged from state of nature to civilisation. In the state of nature, men hunted and gathered fruits for their sustenance. They then developed crude tools to skin animals and also for farming. With bountiful harvest and domestication of animals, war became common and the need to safeguard property emerged leading to forming governments based on social contract (Hobbes, Leviathan). From domestication of plants and animals Karl Marx gives account of emergence of mercantilism, feudalism and eventually capitalism (result of industrialisation) with each epoch having more advanced forces of production (tools and equipments) and with new forces production, new modes of production and relations of production (Marx, Early Writings, 1963). Marx was very critical of capitalism as he believed it alienated workers from the product of their labour. Capitalist production or ways of working also evolved with new types of management. During Henry Ford’s time, work was arranged into an assembly line with each worker performing a particular task. As such, work was routine in nature and the organisation was arranged hierarchically; bureaucratic organisation. This type of management was efficient as it allowed workers to develop skills in one task hence become expertise leading to high productivity. However, it was highly routinised leading to boredom. Fordism derives from scientific management by Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915). Taylor came up with the scientific management principles in 1911 based on measurements on tasks to determine how productivity could be increased (Taylor, 1911). Through this process, workers followed a machine like routine and enlarged division of labor and management control. This was followed by the Hawthorne studies by Elton Mayo in the 1927-1932 leading to humanist approach to management. In this case, workers were to be consulted by management and not merely having decisions imposed on them (Mullins, 2004; Perkins & Arvinen-Muondo, 2013). He also advocated job rotation and enlargement to remove boredom associated with routine work. Even though organisations adopted human relations approach, they do still apply scientific management principles hence reengineering, business process reengineering, lean manufacturing techniques, and six sigma. Rosen (1993, 139) argues that while scientific management made jobs unpleasant, these successors made jobs less remunerative, less secure and sometimes nonexistent due to offshoring and elimination of unskilled and even the most skilled labor. This is characteristic of the ‘new economy’ Sennett critizes. Modern ways of working were thus influenced by scientific management. However, today work is not routinised as it also applies human relations approach of job enlargement, job enrichment and job rotation (Mullins, 2004). Work in the new economy is characterised by flexibility, teamwork, flextime, decentralisation of control and downsizing, delayering and reengineering. Sennett argues that employees are injured by these ways of working or what he calls ‘flexible capitalism’ (1999, 46-63). This capitalism emphasise on flexibility rather than the bureaucratic system of Ford’s time. Routine work was found to be boring by human reations movement and Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne effects (Mullins, 2004). Moreover, Rosen saw it as taking workers for granted as a cog in the machine (Rosen, 1993, 139). Although the system increased productivity, this was for short time as workers often lost morale and motivation. In this case, flexibility offered the solution to this problem by giving workers personal freedom to choose how they wanted to work without tight supervision like Ford system. However, Sennett discredits this view and argues that this is not freedom; its just freedom in disguise because pursuit of flexibility leads to new structures of power and control and these for him are not conditions which set workers free (Sennett, 1999, 47). It is just concentration of power without centralisation of power. Flexibility is made possible by technological advances especially information technology that allows top managers to sit in their offices and monitor the whole organisation using technological devices. In this case, instead of being in the production floor monitoring workers, their monitoring was made easier. Furthermore, flexibility also means the organisation has to be flexible enough to adapt quickly to changes especially technological changes. The organisation thus keeps reeinventing itself through de-layering (flattening of hierarchies) and re-engineering. This in turn leads to downsizing or workforce and job loss. Workers in this sense are no longer secure in their jobs as they can be laid off any time in the name of pursuit of flexibility. For example, from 1980 to 1995, between 13 million and 39 million workers in America were laidoff through downsizing (Sennett, 1999, 49). Out of these, only a few get replacement labor especially at the same or higher rate. This injures workers as they lose their pride and identity through job loss. Workers also become disoriented since they are uncertain of the future. Most of the jobs in the new economy have been replaced by projects. The difficulty in getting a job in America is presented by Barbara Ehrenreich who disguised in many forms to try getting a job in America and ended up as a cleaner earning meager wage (Ehrenreich, 2011). Although economists through the Solow Growth Model would argue that technology is not a job destroyer but rather job creator too (N. Gregory, 2003, 226), Sennett argues that it creates jobs in the U.S and wealth in the Europe thus is incapable of creating both (1999, 188). He argues that during Fordism, unions protected jobs and workers knew exactly when they would retire but today’s world is different. There is no stable or secure job and gives example of Enrico’s son Rico who had to change jobs more than four times in 14 years as his skills became redundant often due to technological advances (pp. 15-31). Modern organisations have also shifted to teamwork from individual work. Individualism was the main basis of protestant work ethic during Max Weber and Karl Marx’s time. Workers during early capitalism (until 1970s) time were encouraged to work hard and delay their gratification for reward in future in heaven. Today, ways of working have shifted to teamwork which is believed to bring people together, increase chances of learning especially due to diversity of skills and culture and develop problem-solving skills due to solving conflicts that are inherent in teamwork (Mullins, 2004). Despite these advantages, Sennett argues that teamwork does not have capacity to bring people together (1999, 105). He argues that teamwork is superficial or a fiction as it only reamins on the surface of experience. It only serves other management purposes such as completion of a project or as a tool for exercise of domination. Moreover, some individuals do not like teamwork. Due to superficiality, Sennett believes that it weakens character; character in this case meaning connection to the world or being there for others. The work ethics has also changed as today’s worker has become a ‘driven man’ who engages in endless quest for recognition and self-esteem while on the other hand refusing to accept praise rest it would mean accepting himself (Sennett, 1999, 99-105). In this sense, workers no longer believe in hard work especially since they are not valued and job is not stable. Another way of working that injures workers is flextime. Due to entry of women in workforce, many workplaces and labour laws give right to workers to request flexible time to balance work and family. In this case, worker can choose the time and place to work such as home working, compressed hours, part-time, or annualised hours. However, Sennett argues that there is no freedom in working flexibly as employers fear losing control of employees. In this case, they monitor them through regular phone calls and intranet controls (1999, 58). Moreover, it is a privilege for the whites hence encourages racism. Decentralisation and control is another way of working under criticism by Sennett. The orgnisations have become flatter as power and control are delegated to lower rank (Sennett, 1999, 55). Workers have more autonomy as to how they do their tasks unlike during Fordism where control was tight and personal. This sounds good but for Sennett, it is not. He argues that it is just the form of control that has changed as top managers now use technology to monitor workers. As such, the power of management has become shapeless. This for Sennett disorients people since they cannot shape their work environment. Besides injuring employees, these new ways of working are also corroding employees’ character. Character in this case is expressed in terms of loyalty and mutual commitment, pursuit of long-term goals and delayed gratification for the sake of future end (Sennett, 1999, 9). These work practices makes worker’s job insecure and unpredictable as employers re-engineer and downsize to cope with changes. Moreover, technological advances mean workers have to keep up to date with skills or risk losing their jobs. According to Rico’s story, skills are not useful for long, they are needed for certain period of time and this puts a scar on person’s character (Sennett, 1999, 15-31). The community ahs also become a ‘short-term’ society like organisation. In this new economy, long-term relationships are a thing of the past. This has consequently eroded the virtues that define character such as commitment, loyalty, and trust (p. 9). Employees are no longer loyal to employee as they are not valued and besides, their job is short-term. They can neither be committed to hard work as their future is uncertain nor develop trust. They instead compete to see who will get to the top first and get the prize instead of working their way up the ladder. This work ethic instilled discipline in workers which means todays workers lack discipline.Since they keep changing jobs, they do not have a definite career to identify with or form identity. As such, they are “unable to create or build a coherent narrative of their lives” (p.117). It is not possible to shape their work and life through work hence they focus on short-term goals. In time, inetrpersonal skills are also eroded as employees weaken their commitment to families and to others, each person only cares for himself (no mutual helpfulness that defines character). Modern ways of working also make employees disposable. Employers no longer value employees in this short-term flexible economy. Instead, employees are only useful as long as their skills are of value to the company as evidence by Rico’s continous movement from job to job (Sennett, 9). There are also no long-term relationships as employees work part-time or temporary work or employers shift jobs to other countries. In other words, employees are wholly diposable as they do not have job security or steady job. As such, they do not have careers but jobs and this makes it a risky task in choosing a career or job. This means they cannot form an identity through their career as they do not have career in the first place. For Schultz (2010, 14), employees have to develop ways to keep their footing in the shifting sands of modernity as their ability to transfer status from one place to another is eroded. Modern work has also become illegible. This is because of many forms of flexible working that make it hard to understand or comprehend work thus prompting new ways of victimisation (Sennett, 1999, 64-75). Moreover, instead of routinised tasks, employees work in projects and teams comprising members from different departments. Once the team finishes a project, it dissolves and a new team is formed (Mullins, 2004). This is not surprising as the system itself is flexible hence less legible in form. According to Sennett “the indifference which radiates out of flexible capitalism is more personal because the system itself is less starkly etched, less legible in form” (146). This system is based on Adam Smiths, invisible hand whereby self-interested individuals pursue own goals and in the process fulfill the needs of others (Smith, 1776). Each person therefore has no concern for the other as competition is left to run the market. The same case applies to workers who are forced to compete to get a promotion or climb the ladder hence concern for others is least of their worries. References Durkheim E. (2014), The Division of labor in society. New York, NY: The Free Press Ehrenreich, B, (2011), Nickel and dimed: on (Not) getting by in America, USA: Picador Hobbes, T (2013[1651], Leviathan. Gutenberg ebook. Marx, Karl (1963), Economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844. Trans. T.B Bottomore, in: Karl Marx. Early writings. London. Mullins, L.J (2004), Management and organizational behavior, 7ed, USA: Prentice-Hall. N. Gregory Mankiw, (2003), Macroeconomics, 5ed, New York, Perkins, S & Arvinen-Muondo, R (2013), Organisational behaviour: people, process, work and human resource management, UK: Kogan. Rosen, E (1993), Improving public sector productivity: concepts and practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schultz, A (2010), Social class, social action, and education: the failure of progressive democracy, New York: Plagrave Mcmillan. Sennett, R (1999), The corrosion of character: the personal consequences of work in the new capitalism, New York: W.W.Norton. Smith Adam (1776), An inquiry in to the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Taylor, F.W (1911) The principles of scientific management, New York: Harper & Bros. Read More