New Forms of Work Organization

8/14/2019 New Forms of Work Organization

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/new-forms-of-work-organization 1/26

New Forms of Work OrganizationAuthor(s): Vicki SmithSource: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 23 (1997), pp. 315-339Published by: Annual ReviewsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2952554 .Accessed: 04/05/2011 10:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs . .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2952554?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2952554?origin=JSTOR-pdf




316 SMITH

knowledge o mprove heway hey roduce oods r erve eople Heydebrand1989,Kanter 989). Thisrevolutionn work nd organizational ractice, t sargued, hould lignworkers' nterests ith hose f their managers, nhanceproductivity, nnovativeness,nd quality, nd thereby nableAmerican irmsto regain he ompetitivenessndprofitability hat hey ook or ranted n thepostwar ra Dep. of LaborFactFinding eport 994,Nadler Lawler1983).

Critics f flexible ystems, n contrast, ee them s littlemore han newpermutation f work hat isadvantages orkers ut ffers mployers ignif-icant dividends. Flexibility, n this view,may call for newproduction ech-niquesor novelwork roup ormations utdoesn't ntail substantive reakwith raditional ierarchical odes f control ndauthority elations; ather, tembodies nd ven deepens hem y obscuring ower ehind articipatoryan-guage Pollert 988).Somehavefeared s well hat lexible ork ystems, ndthe collaborative ork elations n which uch ystems re based,will erodethepower f the rganized abormovementFantasia t al 1988),while therssimply oubt hat he corporate hetoric bout flexibility as materialized nrealchanges n the American orkplace Gordon 996).

This essaystrives ounpack nd movebeyond hepolarized onceptionsof flexibility y reviewing esearch n new forms f work rganization ndspecifying heir utcomes ordifferent roups f workers. first ummarizethe globalcontext hat as led many mployers nd managers o endorse heflexiblemodelof work, ormativelyf not lways n practice AppelbaumBatt 994), nd hen map ut wo nterrelated, requentlyverlappinglementsof flexibility oundn a variety f occupationalnd ndustrial ettings.

The first lement orresponds o what has beentermed functional lexi-bility Wood1989)and ncludes rganizational echanismsndwork low n-novations hat build n employee nvolvement: ew echnologies,nventorymethods, ob enlargement chemes, elf-managed eams, nd quality ircles.Thissetof nnovations spremised n securing hedeeper ngagement f coreworkers, n continually raining hem, nd on exploiting heir ccumulatedknowledge ndexperience.While hese nnovations irectly eshape heworkof blue- nd white-collar onmanagerial orkers, hey ndirectly eshape hefunction f supervision ndmanagements well.

The second corresponds o what has been termed numerical lexibility(Wood1989)andrefers othe scent f contingentobsandworkers ndto thedecline f the permanent mployment odel,with he atter irectly ffectingprofessionals nd managers. Research n these wo sets of changes ointsto a model of combined nd uneven lexibility,haracterized y the openingof opportunities hat re differentially istributed crossdifferent roups fAmericanworkers, merging nder onditions n which ffort s intensified,control sdecentered, nd mployments destabilized. heessay oncludes y



NEW FORMSOF WORK ORGANIZATION 317

suggesting esearch irections or dvancing he ociological nderstandingfchanges n the ontemporary orkplace.

THE GLOBAL CONTEXT:WHAT'S CHANGED?The debate bout lexible ork ystems as tsorigin na series f deep-seatedchanges n manufacturing nd production ndustries. n the postwar ears,American ass-production-basedndustries ominated lobal roduct arkets.Labor ndmanagementncore-sector irms orged n accord n this eriod hatgaveemployers he ight omake ll decisions bout roduction rocesses utin turn ntitled lue-and white-collar orkers, early ll male, to a livingwageand ecure mployment. entral othe ostwar ccordwas a productioninfrastructure remised n hierarchy, tandardization,nd routinization hatexcludedworkers rom ecision-making nd uthority ut nabled roductivitytorise nd profits o oar Womack t l 1990).This Fordist ass-productionsystem Harvey 989),well-suitedo n economic rameworkeared or table,continuous utput f huge product uns,was an engine f growth f thepostwar eriod Piore& Sabel1984:183), nd, n conjunction ith avorableinternational onditions, nabled heUnited tates oremain irmly nthe eadfor everal ecades.

Although nsuring inancialuccessfor American ompanies, his roduc-tion ystem, equiring orkers' abor ower ut ormally idelining heir rainpower nd their nitiative, ncurred ignificant sychological nd emotionalcosts to both blue- nd white-collar orkers: ighdissatisfaction, oredom,alienation, nd ow elf-esteemAronowitz 973,WorknAmerica 973).Fur-thermore, he ccord xcluded significant umber f Americans ho ackedaccessto the ecure, good obs of the ostwar ra. nstability, npredictabil-ity, nd ow compensation ere he hallmarks f mployment orwhitewomenwho worked n the abor force nd for women nd men of nonwhite acialand ethnic roups,who were onfined argely othe econdary abormarket(Gordon t al 1982)or who were therwise nderutilizedSullivan 978).

In the 1970s,American orporate rofitability aced erious hallenges, ndthe US economy egan o ose its premier osition n the nternational con-omy Bluestone Harrison 982,Bowles t al 1984,Obey& Sarbanes 986).Developingountries ained he apacity omassproduce oodsmore ompeti-tively. hus, inding ays f hanging roduct ines wiftly ecame mperativefor US firms. Japan's conomic uccess nspiredwidespread ebate boutthe feasibility f and imitations o mporting, nto he American ontext, heJapanese eanproduction echniquesAbo1994,Cole1989,Kenney Florida1993,Milkman 991,Wood1989).Asother conomies egan ocompete ithandovertake heUnited tates n numerous arkets, nd as the United tates



318 SMITH

struggled omaintain ndustrial ompetitiveness,esearchersndmanagementpractitioners egan o scapegoat he very usiness ractices nce consideredto be the ngine f growth, dentifying

hem nstead s accelerating merica'sdecline.In response o such national nd nternational ransformations,ocial sci-

entists urned heir ttention o newforms f work hat might ndo heworsteffects f the massproduction rientation. arly n, theorists f flexible pe-cialization Piore& Sabel 1984) argued hatwork ystems hat apped raftknowledge,ncreased articipation,ndprovided ontinual raining ould n-able workers n the hopfloor o specialize lexiblynd to vary heir roductlinesrapidly nd with igh

uality. thers ocused n new manufacturingys-tems Hirschhorn 984) powered y advances n cybernetic echnology hatwere driving, f not requiring, mployers oadoptmore flexible aysof or-ganizingworkers. Manufacturing ork ettings efined y standardization,hierarchy, onstraint, ndthe urtailment f workers' nput, ould iveway onew ociotechnical ystems nwhichworkers ould e empowered obecomepattern-findersnd problem-solvers,olearn rom heir rrors, nd to deployand redeploymachines or multiplicity f purposes.Fluidity, climate orongoing earning, ndmeaningful

articipationouldbe

mportednto he or-

porate,white-collar orld f work s well,providing foundation or moreintegrated, onhierarchical,nd nnovative ork nvironmentKanter 989).

The new mphasis nparticipationndflexibility as notwithout tsdetrac-tors: Although merican ompanies, hroughouthe1980s, xperimented x-tensively ith mall-group ctivities, ork umanization,nd ob enrichmentprograms, ritics f the quality nd participative ovement erided hese sfaddish, redicted arly eath, nddoubted hat he well of nterest nworker

participationouldbe matched

ya

deep-seated ommitment ogenuinelyempowering orkers seeCole1989,Cole1995).Much of the research eviewed n this ssayhas explored nd tested he

expectations f his irst ave f iterature. core xpectation as that lexiblework ystems ouldbedevised hat ot nlywould raw nworkers' nowledgeand udgment, utwouldprivilege heir nowledge bovethat f supervisorsandmanagers y ngaging hemndesign, lanning, nd dentifyingnd olvingproblems. ombating he tultifying, lienating ffects fmassproduction ndscientific anagement,his nnovation ould reate basisfor

ncreasinghe

commitments f workers nd eadto the onvergence f their rganizationalinterests ith hose f management.

To achieve his, lexible ork rrangements oulddecentralize tructurally,leaving roduction nd erviceworkersn omparativelyutonomous ositions.Flexible ystems ould nstitutionalizenvolvement,reating pportunitiesnwhichworkers ould nterpret nformation, ct on their xperiential nowl-edge,makedecisions n a timelyway, pontaneouslynnovate n accordance



NEW FORMS OF WORKORGANIZATION 319

with hifting roduct nd service emands, ndmaximize heir fforts ycol-laborating ith thers n offices nd on shop floors. Specific rganizationalinnovations ost ikely o enable workers o carry ut these goals includedquality ircles, mployee nvolvement rograms, ob enlargement nd rota-tion, elf-managing eams, ontinuous mprovement rocesses, rganizationaldecentralization,nd he romulgationf new thos f participation. ust-in-time nventory rocedures, utsourcing,nd echniques or ine-tuning he izeof the work orcewould nstitutionalizelexibility ore irmly, nabling irmsto move wiftly, ocut hrough xcess ndminimize aste.

As we near he nd of the wentiethentury, reoccupation ith he ossiblebenefits f flexibility asdiffused hroughoutheAmerican ork nd occupa-tional ystem. Although heprecise xtent f the mplementationf flexiblepractices s difficult omeasure, here s little oubt hat he newmodel s per-vasive, ven f unevenly eveloped crossoccupational, rganizational, ndindustrial ettings. rawing n a survey f a random ample f US manufac-turing stablishments, sterman 1994) estimated hat bout 35% of privatesector irms ith 0 or more mployees admade substantial se of flexiblework rganizationthat s, firms ad mplementedwoor more lexible orkinnovations). ther tudies Appelbaum Batt 1994:60) uggest hat he ro-portion fFortune 000 firms ith t east ne employee-involvementracticestood t about 5% in 1990.

Unionizedworkers, lthough ften eluctant articipants, avehelped raftcooperative, igh-trustndustrial elations rameworko nableAmerican irmsto dapt nd hangemore apidlyBluestone Bluestone 992,Cornfield 987,Dep. ofLaborFactFinding eport 994, Heckscher 988,Kochan t al 1986,Kochan& Osterman 994). Assumptions bout he benefits f participationhaveextended ntononunionmanufacturing orkplacesGraham 995) andservice ettings Appelbaum Batt 1994:Ch. 7, Smith 990,Smith 994),although esearch n flexibility n servicework ags far behind esearch nmanufacturing nd production ettings. And thosewriting opular manage-ment ndorganizationaliterature ave irculated he aith nthenewmodel fwork y riticizing ureaucracyndbypraising ndividual lexibility,mpower-ment, nd rganizationalhange Davidow& Malone1992, eters Waterman1982).In otherwords, n response o the ompetitive urmoil f recent ears,a newmodel f flexible ork asseeped nto orporate hetoric ndemployerstrategy. hesocial cience iterature nthis eepage lluminates arious, ftencontradictory, imensions ndconsequencesf the lexiblemodel.

INVOLVEDWORKERS,FLEXIBLE PRODUCTIONUnder he roader ubric f ngaging roduction nd erviceworkers, rganiz-ing hem obring heir ands-on nowledge nd xperientially-basedudgment



320 SMITH

to bear on the waythey o their work, nabling hem o act n unpredictableand changing ircumstances ithout aving o seek formal uthorization rommanagers, ndgiving hem stake n the utcomes f heir ctions,manyworkorganizations ave built n a number f nterrelated rganizationalnnova-tions.Researchers rom he ields f management,rganizationalehavior, ndeconomics ave rgued hat hese tructural ndprocessualnnovationsan eadto ncreased rganizationalroductivityCooke 1989,Margulies Black 1987,Rosenberg Rosenstein 980) andreduction f bsenteeism, inor ccidents,grievances,nd uits Havlovic 991), ut thers aution gainst simple ausalrelation etween articipation chemes nd productivity ncreases LevitanWerneke 985).TheUS Department f Labor's DunlapCommission eportsthat fforts oestablish ositive orrelations etween articipative nnovations,on the nehand, ndproductivity, fficiency, ndorganizationalffectiveness,on the ther, ave hown mixed esults t best Dep. ofLabor Fact FindingReport 994:45).

The studies eviewed n this ection o not ttempt o measure hese par-ticular dministrative utcomes; hey ocus nstead n issues uch as controlandconsent, utonomy, ierarchy, nd skills hat re more entral o the oci-ology f work, ccupations, ndorganizations. his ection eviews iteratureon two mportant spects f organizational edesign: tructural/labor rocessinnovations ndsocialrelational hange.Combined, hey re constitutive f anew sociotechnical ystem redicated n limited lexibility ndparticipation.Findings bout rganizational edesign o not upport he laim or enuine e-centralization ndempowermenthat asbeen o pervasiventhe all for newways f working, or o they upport he laim hat here snothing ew boutthe flexible model. Flexible practices an amplify orkers' esponsibilitiesanddegree f nvolvement,nd n many asesprovide penings o earnnewskills ndcompetencies. ut hese igher evels fparticipationre tructured,constrained, ndcontrolledn ess visible lthough o esspowerful ays, ndworkers anbeheld esponsibleor utcomes hatwere nce henear-exclusiveresponsibility f upervisors ndmanagers.

Structural, rganizational, nd TechnologicalReorganizationJUST-IN-TIMENVENTORYPRACTICES Thegoalof ust-in-time nventoryJIT)systems nmanufacturings to achieve lexibilityyminimizing arts,materi-als,andresources n hand, utting ack ndeliminating aste, nd mprovingproduct uality. n the work-in-progress Adler1992:135)or just-in-case(Kenney Florida 993:168) pproacheso nventory ccumulationypical fmass-productionettings, ompaniesmaintain arge tores f supplies, ept naccordancewith redictions or ong, table roduct uns.JIT,modeled n the



NEWFORMS OFWORK ORGANIZATION 321

Japanese anban ystem, elies n outside uppliers oprovide arts nly ndexactlywhenneeded, nresponse o shifts nproduct emand rproduct pec-ification Piore& Sabel1984). Production deally s pared down o its barebonesso as to permit orkers oshift uickly nto new, pecialized roductbatches nd to identify efective arts r products efore oo many f themreach heend of the production ine. JIT ncorporates participative odelbecause trequires reater orker ttentivenesso the iming f the roductioncycle, o planning nd matching nventory o manufacturing eed, nd to thequality f their roducts. actory orkers ften elpdevelopnewproductionlay-outs ofacilitate heJIT ystem, earn he tatistical ontrol ools hey eedto track roduction, nd become xperts n problem- nd defect-identification(Dawson& Webb1989),potentially ransferablekill ets of some value n apostindustrial conomy.

Just-in-timeystems lsocreate new et f pressures orworkers, ncludingintensified nvolvement, eightened ccountability, nd the need for vigilantwatchfulness. ITspeedsup production rocesses, liminates ny dle time,yetmakes he oordination fproduction ore enuous, ith he um ffect fadding oworkers' tress evels Gottfried Graham 993,Kenney Florida1993, ayer & Walker 992).In the ourse f working n the ine na Subaru-Isuzuassembly lant n themidwest, raham 1995)found hatworkers ereoften eft waiting ntil he ast minute or rucial nventory o be deliveredby outside uppliers, n observation onfirmedn Adler's 1992:136)study fthe NUMMI autoplant. Workers oth ell behindwhilewaiting or riticalcomponents ndran okeepupwhen hey adto nstall arts hat ither rrivedlate or required ltering ecause heywereof nferior uality r did not meetprecise roduct pecificationsGraham 995:114).

JIT heightens orkers' esponsibility hileheightening heir isibility omanagement urveillance Sewell& Wilkinson 992, Shaiken t al 1986,Skorstad 991). The system educes nd eveneliminates emporal nd spa-tial buffers hatwereonce crucial or workers n maintaining omedegree fautonomy rommanagement. orkers ave ittle pportunity o tep ack; heyare also more ightly oupled o ndividuals n stations n either ide of them,usually hrough andatory ollaboration.

TheJIT ystem dditionallyan ead o reduction f otal abor equirementsin the firm Dawson& Webb 1989), reduction f production orkers' kills(Milkman Pullman 991),and ncreased ifficulty nd complexityn workschedulingBrown Mitchell 991).Even rdent roponents f JIT cknowl-edgethat t entails new, aster-paced, ore ntensive aborprocess whichfundamentally pumpswork ut of workers Kenney& Florida1993:264).Importantly, xtra nd ntensified orkmaynot e matched y dditional om-pensation. n a service-deliveryrganization ith just-in-time roduction



322 SMITH

process,workers ho were n the ole of team eaders ndwere ssigned hetask of overseeing roduction n an organizationally ecentralized ork ite,received o extra ay ndwerenot onsidered obe formal upervisorsSmith1994), finding choed n other tudies.

JOB EXPANSION AND ROTATION At heheart f he lexible odel s a criticismof traditional ivision f abor haracterized ynumerousob classifications,narrowly efined nd demarcated y rule, nd highly ragmented. arrowlyclassifiedobs constrain anagers' bility o redeploy abor n step with luc-tuations n demand ycles nd have been blamed orwork rganizations' n-efficiency nd for heir nability o promote ontinual earning rocesses, oinnovate nd to adapt. The new modelof work alls for he expansion ndenrichment f obs, for he blurring f occupational istinctions, nd for obrotation. llustrating he extent o which ompanies o to ettison umber-some ob pyramids n their earch or lexibility, dler 1992) found hat nautomanufacturing lant n northern alifornia educed henumber f skilledtrades lassifications rom 8 to 2 andhad only ne classification or nothercategory f personnel here reviously here ad been80.

Reducing he umber fjob lassificationsnd xpanding emainingobscanimpart o workers ew kill ets ndnewdomains f responsibility. etmanystudies ndicate hat ncluding greater ariety f tasks has often ntensifiedthe demands n individual orkers, ncreasing he copeof their fforts ndresponsibilities ithout ecessarily iving hem ew skills r upgrading heirposition n the workhierarchy. ob ntensifications often onfused ith obenrichment nd xpansion:workers re sked o domorewith ewer esources,although hey o not necessarily cquire ew kill reas,newdecision-makingpowers, r higher rganizational tatus r pay O'Reilly 1994,Shaiken t al1986).Job nrichment rograms uch s cross-training or ifferent ositionshavebeen mplementednsome ases only nce he obs themselves avebeendeskilled ytechnologicalnnovationTaplin 995:430).

TECHNOLOGY JIT systems eorganize hework low nd nventory ethodwhile ob expansion chemes eorganizehedivision f abor. Employers lsoimplement ewtechnologies hat re designed o do both nd to build n thecapacity or articipationndflexibility. Stop-the-line ssembly roduction,a technologicalnnovation requentlymplementedntandem ith IT, nder-scoresob intensification. heassemblyine ystem fmassproductions wellknown or he waythat t dictates o the worker heprecisemovements e orshewillmake nd pacesthosemovements, hereby emoving ll necessity orindependentudgment r intervention. nder he top-the-line rinciple, ncontrast, orkers setheir iscretion opull cord, ush button, r otherwisehalt heflow f the inewhen n individual pots defective art r evidence



NEWFORMSOF WORKORGANIZATION 323

of shoddy ssembly. The stop-the-line echniques often hought odemoc-ratize work Womack t al 1990)becauseworkers o not have to seek theapproval f managers o halt heproduction low, ut n addition t speeds upthe roduction rocess nd ompelsworkers o work rantically oremedy ro-duction r quality roblems Kenney Florida1993:265; ee also Graham1995:113).

Programmableechnologyoses potential or enuinely ecentralizedhop-floor ontrol orworkers, f hey retrained ndempoweredochange roductdesign nd to retool quipment. Organizational ase study esearchers avefound hat,whileprogrammable echnology an increase lexibility or hework rganization, t may not necessarilyncrease heflexibility f workers'jobs. Although outed s facilitating ecentralization,lanning nddesign anremain n the hands f specialized rogrammers orking nder hedirectionof management ather han oncentrated n workers' ands n the hop floor(Shaiken t al 1986).

Vallas& Beck's 1996)research n programmableontrol ystems ndcon-tinuous rocess echnologiesn manufacturing lants n the pulp and paperindustry einforces hesefindings. hey found hat n the absenceof otherinnovations, echnologyntroduced obring lants nto henew era of flex-ible production id not reconfigure nd did indeed trengthen he raditionalbureaucratic ierarchical elations f the plant. Furthermore, he scendanceof a technological aradigm n this manufacturingetting, hich mphasizedcutting-edge tatistical nowledgendfeedback ut enigratedraft nowledgeacquired ver ime nd hrough ands-on xperience, einforcedhe upremacyofyoung, ducated, osmopolitanngineers ver ong-employed anual per-ators, enerating ewforms f nequality etween he wogroups. Formerlycraft-based anualworkers ere rained ofamiliarize hemselves ith widerange f data generated y computerized rocess ontrols, ut hey ad ittlediscretion n deploying hose ata.

Flexible echnologyuch as computer-aided esign nd numerically on-trolled utting ystemss not nconsistent ith ndmay ven ntensify he truc-ture f rigid obs -characterized y owtrust, tatus, kill, ndpay-typicalof he raditional assproduction ystem Taplin 995).Computerizedystemscandeskillobs;theymore ubtly ontrol heir ork orce, smanagement sesit to monitor he ocation fproducts, rovide etailed nformation boutworkperformance, ndbuild nquality ontrolmechanismsTaplin 995:429).SocialRelational hange: Teams nd Self-ManagedWork roupsIntegral ostructuralnnovations as been he ffort oreorganizenterpersonalinteractions, ostructure ersonal nvolvementndcollaboration etween on-managerial orkers. ntroduced nder he rubric f employee articipation



324 SMITH

and empowerment, hisreorientation f social relations annot e extricatedfrom he tructural hanges dentified n the preceding ection nd ndeed swoven hroughout hem. Workers ome together o identify nd solve prob-lems, mprove uality nd efficiency, nd innovate roduction rocesses nteams r self-managed ork groups nd consultative roups uch as qualitycircles. deally, eightened ngagementn work hrough reater ngagementwith oworkers an also give workers greater take n the profitability ndcompetitivenessf the firm s a whole.

QUALITYCIRCLES Quality ircles QCs)arecreated n an intermittent asisto address mmediate roblems n the work rocess nd to generate deas forreducing osts, aving money, r mproving therwork utcomes. ften niti-atedbymanagers, hey an ncludeworkers rom ifferent unctionalreas ndhierarchical ocations. Researchers ind hat, umerically, Cs are the mostwidespread with ome estimating hat ver 90% of Fortune 00 companiesuse them Lawler & Mohrman 985)],but rganizationallyhey re the mostshallow f the ocial-relationalnnovations. any tudies onclude hat QCsaremanagement-initiatedractices hat oopt r depoliticize orkers Grenier1988), a panacea for variety f organizational roblems Shea 1986),or away to get employeesmore nvolved without onferring eal power Rafaeli1985). Notably, owever, Cs also are documented s increasingob satisfac-tion Lincoln1989).

TEAMS ANDWORKGROUPS The spread f the team tructure ashad morelimited pplication han QCs yethas greater otential or hallenging radi-tional hierarchical odes of control nd authority. elf-managed eamsorwork roups ren't imply rganized d hoc to discuss production rocesses;team rganizations built nto he abor rocess tself s smallgroups roducetogether, ake ecisions, otate heir ositions, aintain achinery,nddirectand pace their rogress. Benefits o workers an include he opportunity obecomemultiskilled, hereduction f managerial upervision, ncreased u-tonomy nd acquisition f new kills, nd the growth f workers' ride n thegoodsandservices hey roduce Aquilano 1977,Safizadeh 991).Theoreti-callythe pread f teams uggests deep-seated eworking f the division flabor, lthough he iterature uggests range f effects hat all hort f thatpotential.

Individual eammembers an be cross-trained operform ifferent askswithin he team's domain, ut the tasks an be repetitive nd standardized(Taplin 1995:427), suggesting hat eam organization erely multiplies henumber f deskilled reas for which ny givenworker s responsible. emu-neration chemes hat re team- r group-based epart rom iercely rotected,



NEW FORMSOF WORKORGANIZATION 325

individualistic erformance orms, eadingworkers o resist ooling heir f-forts ith thers Kanter 990,Taplin 995).Managements' ommitments oteamsmaybe largely eremonial, nodpaidto the normative odelof flex-ibility, hich bscures he eality hat eams ave ittle ower Graham 995)or areorganized op-down ymanagers Vallas& Beck 1996).When team-based,flattened rganizational odel f primary ursing asintroduced n alargehospital, urses xperienced eightenedob autonomy ndreunificationof asks, ut imultaneously hey ound hat heirjobs ecame reatly ntensifiedandthat hey ameunder reater crutiny ymanagersBrannon 994).

Studies f self-managed eams resent ne conclusion onsistently: eam-basedproduction ethods epresent new,moredecentered, nd ess visibletactic f control.Monitoring, valuation, nddisciplinary ctionmovesdownthehierarchy rom hehands f upervisors nddiffuses nto he ands f eam-mates Sewell& Wilkinson 992, Shaiken t al 1986). Team-based ystemsof control ave been ermed tyranny Sinclair 992), concertive Barker1993), devolutionist Sewell& Wilkinson 992), nd unobtrusive Prechel1994)-multiple onceptualizationshat ave everal ommon ngredients.n-dividual articipationsheld n ineby ntensified onitoring f the elf, on-tinual upervision nd disciplining y work eers, hifting f responsibilityfor production oalsand evenfor he ompany's urvival nto he houldersof workers, nd the oncealment f managerial ower rom eam articipants.In these ways, ower otentially esidesn all locations, merging t differenttimes ndbeing xercised ydifferent ctors: upervisors,oworkers,nd vencustomers.

Decentered ontrol f this ort s reinforced y other trategies, ff-center,off-site, nd ll pervasive. n sales and ervice ettings nwhich mployers ndmanagers trive omaximize lexibilityndcompetitiveness,rchitectural ndspatial rrangements llow ustomers owatch very spect f workers'move-ments nd behavior,eaving othingnvisibleWalsh 993).Customer urveysevaluate,monitor, nd discipline orkers, hus xtending henexus f controlinto ll sets f nteractions n heworkplace;nd shoppers, ndividuals aid ouse the irm's ervices nonymously,valuate he erformancefworkers ith-out he knowledge f the atter Fuller& Smith 991,Leidner 993).Culturalstrategies f control n professional, hite-collar ettings imilarly ecenterpower y ocating t n the fabric f everyday ife. Cultural rograms re de-ployed trategicallyo mplify ormativeommitmentsoconstant hange ndpressure, oencourage elf-monitoringnd heightened nvolvementn shap-ing howcorporate oalsare achieved, nd to positionworkers ocontinuallyself-reflect,mprove, nd nnovateKunda1992, mith 990).

Research n the tructural nd social-relational hanges nitiated ith hegoal of securingworkers' nvolvement, o make workers, nd thereby ork



326 SMITH

organizations, ore lexible ndcompetitive,uggests hat uch hanges nsti-tutionalize basis both or he cquisition f new kills nd competenciesndfor ecuring ntensified ffort ithin context f decentered uthierarchicalcontrol. hese outcomes reobviously mbiguous or US workers. he deeperpersonal nd nterpersonal ngagementn the lanning ndexecution f work,evenwhen mposed rom bove, an afford umerous pportunities or ndi-vidual nd collective rotection f nterests ndfor reater elf-determinationon the hop nd office loor.

NONINVOLVED WORKERS, FLEXIBLE FIRMSEmployers ave lso achieved rganizational lexibilityy xpanding ndcon-tracting he ize of heir ork orces o ccommodate luctuationsnproductionand service ycles. One of the most mportant mployment rends n recentyearshas been he eplacementf permanent ytemporary ndpart-timeobsinAmerican irms ndan ncrease n thenumbers f peoplewho re hired ndlet go on a contingent Callaghan& Hartmann 991, Doeringer t al 1991)or externalizedLozano 1989,Pfeffer Baron 1988) basis. This side of theflexibility oin runs ounter o the organizational edesign iscussed n theprevious ection; ndeed, articipation nd nvolvement s targeted or ore,permanent orkers, ho re n turn uffered rommarket luctuations ynewhiring ractices hat dispose f Geary 992, Thomas 994)or throw way(Graham 995) marginalized orkers. he peripheral r ontingent ork orceconsists f temporary, art-time, easonal, ndsubcontracted orkers Belous1989,Gottfried 991,Henson 996,Parker 994, Uzzi & Barsness 995). Pre-cisemeasurement f ts ize s difficult ecause f definitionalmbiguities ndbecauseresearchers ay ount he number f obs rather han he number fjob holders n various ategories Tilly 1991),but esearchersstimate hat tincludes rom nequarter o one third f theAmerican ork orce.

Theresearch n flexible taffing ractices evealswheremen ndwomen fdiverse ace nd thnic roups ndwhitewomen all nthe lexibilityquation.A little ver nequarter f women incontrast oa little ver netenth f men)whowork or aywork art-timeWilliams 995), ndtwo f hree emporaryworkers re women;blacks re also overrepresentedn the temporary orkforce t 20%of the otal Belous 1989,Callaghan Hartmann 991).

Researchersdentify number f factors overning hedecision o use con-tingent orkers o fine-tune taffingevels.Employers ble to draw n a forceof contingent orkers voidhavingworkers n their ayrolls hen emand sslack;they educe heirwageand benefits ostswhen hey avetemporary rpart-time orkers n board nd save by externalizinghe dministrative ostsentailedwith ecruitment, iring, ndcontrol f temporary orkers Pfeffer



NEW FORMS OF WORK ORGANIZATION 327

Baron1988, mith 994; ee also Harrison Kelley 1993) on different imen-sions f flexibilityhat orporationsttempt ogain y utsourcing, avis-Blake& Uzzi (1993)onorganization-level,ndCassirer1995) on occupational- ndindustrial-level ariables hat ave positive ffects n the use of temporary ndpart-time orkers nd ndependent ontractors, nd Hossfeld 1995) on em-ployers' se of temporaries o forestall heir ermanent orkers rom oiningunions].

Thegrowth f he ontingentabor orce sassociated ith ncreased down-sizing nAmerican irms. ompanies educe he verall ize of their erma-nentwork orces nd takeon temporaries nly s needed; nd companies utfunctional ask reasfrom heir usiness nd subcontract he ervices f otherfirms o fill n this gap (Harrison 994, Smith 994). Of companies hat e-ported obcuts etween 990 nd 1995 includedntheAmerican anagementAssociation1995:7) survey n downsizing,ob elimination, nd ob creation],59% reported he ubsequent ncreased se of temporary orkers o replacethose erminated.

Employer ationale or sing emporary orkers aschanged ualitatively nrecent ears.Whereas emporary orkers ave ongbeenused ofill nfor ickor vacationing orkers, nly ecently ave mployers eenhiring emporariesin massive umbers ofill ormerly ermanent ositions. emporary ork owconstitutes ne of the fastest rowing egments f the abor orce PlunkertHayghe1995). The temporary elp services ndustry as been a significantsource fjob growth nthe 990s Gardner t l 1994)andwill ontinue o eadjob growth nto he wenty-first entury Franklin 995).

It is tempting ut misleading ogroup ogether emporary, ubcontracted,and part-time ork nto homogeneous ategory f contingent orkers. orexample, art-timers re not xternalized orkers, s aretemporaries nd ub-contracted orkers Reskin1996). Further, here s onlyweak evidence orthe claim that hestaffing lexibilitychieved y using part-time orkers snew. Employers ave ongstructured any art-time ositions rimarily sa solution o meeting luctuating emand.Usingpart-timers llowed mploy-ers n retail ales firms nd food ervice stablishments, or xample, obringon extra taff, rimarily omenwith hildren hodesired lexible chedules,during eak periods f business. Whatdoesappear obe new s the degreeto which mployers re using art-timers xplicitly o hold down r cut wagecosts, eflectedn the fact hat he part-time ork orce as grown radually,but hat lmost ll of that rowth astaken lace n the anks f nvoluntarilyemployed art-timers Jacobs Qian 1996, n press;Tilly 1991,Tilly 1992).Employers ow create art-timeobs andconvert ull-timeobs to part-time,primarily s a strategy ocut abor ndbenefits osts. Theyusepart-timers njobs that ren't ecessarily overned y daily bbs and flows n theworkload,



328 SMITH

such as data entry nd claims processing ositions n the nsurance ndustry(Tilly1991:16).

This trend as had implications or he gender omposition f part-timework s well: As employers ave tructured oreobs on a part-time asis ndfewer s full-time, he roportion fpeopleworking art-timenvoluntarily asrisen, nd thenumber f menworking nvoluntarilyn part-time ositions asrisen s well because they ave been unable o obtain ull-time mployment(Tilly1991).In arge art ecause emporary ork as held clearer ositionasastrategic illar fflexible taffing ractices, esearchers avedisproportion-ately ocused ntemporaryobsand he emporary elp ervice ndustry. orespecifically, hey ave focused isproportionatelyn lower-paid, ess-skilledtemporary orkers ather han ighly aid ndependent ontractors.

Early ccounts, argely escriptive, f the growth f the contingent aborforce nd ts ole ncreating lexibilityorwork rganizationsonveyed sensethat sing ontingent orkers as a seamless rocess; workers ere implybrought n whenneeded nd et go when not. Employers enefited, n thispicture, ndpermanent orkers pparently ere ndifferent o, f not solatedfrom, he presence f new, enuously ositioned oworkers. he contingentwork orcewasalsoportrayed nbroad erms hat idn't apture he ange ndcomplexity f emporaryndpart-time ositions. heprevailing iewwas thatthe abor market ascharacterized y two-tiered ystem f employment, i-vided nto ore workers eceiving ood pay, enefits, pportunities or raining(and n factweremuchmore ikely o encounter heflexible roduction rac-ticesdiscussed n the previous ection), nd somedegree f ob security, ndperipheral, ontingent orkers hotypically arned owerwages, eceived obenefits, orked n ow kill obswith ew raining pportunities,ndfaced ig-nificantob instability nd nsecurity Callaghan Hartmann 991,Colclough& Tolbert 992,Smith 993). Core and peripheral orkers lso appeared obe hired or ifferent obs and n different ocations.Recent tudies avede-veloped more ine-grainednalysis f the onsequences f this mploymenttrend: ifurcation f skill nd status, nd resistance nd conflict hat evelopon shopfloors nd noffices etween ermanent ndcontingent mployees.

Research indings n the Contingent ork orceBIFURCATION AND VARIATION Temporary ositions raverse ccupationalndlabormarket oundaries Mangum t al 1985). Mosttemporary orkers reconcentratedn the owest evelsof the occupational ierarchy, re typicallyhired or he east killed obs, and arn, n average, nly percentage f whattheir ermanent age and salary ounterparts arn Callaghan& Hartmann1991,Henson 996,Thomas 994).A smaller ndgrowing umber f ndivid-uals work n comparatively ell-paid rofessional, echnical, nd managerial



330 SMITH

the ppropriate tandards or roducing uality ocuments. he iterature on-tainsnumerous xamples f permanent orkers' nimosity oward emporaryworkers hen hey work ide by side, s they ften o. Permanent ssemblyworkers ore deep ll will oward emporary mployees hom hey onsideredto be unsuitable o carry ut he ob (Geary 1992); andpermanent roductionworkers elt hat emps just watched he clock and gnored he quality ftheirwork Thomas1994:123). Assembly orkers n auto manufacturing eltthat emporaryssemblers erformed shoddy ork, et heir isapproval ascomplicated y heir ealizationhat heir omparativelyermanent, ore riv-ileged tatuswasmadepossible y the xploitation f the emporary orkers(Graham 995:131-35).

Management nd workers may have to dedicate dditional, nanticipatedtime o managing hework fforts f empsGeary 992, Gottfried 991, mith1994,Uzzi &Barsness 995). n part,management olicy oward emporariesoften ndercuts heir wn cost-cutting oals: Typically, emporary orkersare not rained n the ame fashion hat ermanent orkers re Geary1992,Milkman 992,Thomas1994). Furthermore, emporaries ypically re notinvited oparticipatencompany unctionsikepicnics nd holiday arties. ngeneral,mixing ermanent orkers ndtemporaries etnot ntegrating empsinto the culture f the shop or office loor an lead to tension nd conflict,particularlyfpermanent orkers iew emporariess a reserve rmy f abor,ready ndwilling ostep nto heir ull-time, ermanentobs (Geary 992).

Dynamics urrounding he se of emporariesook omewhat ifferent henexamined rom heir erspective: emporaries ay overcompensateor heirtenuous tatus n the workplace y triving o become super mployees hodo high-quality ork Henson1996), nd theymay ngage nmultiple, lbeitindividualized,veryday cts of resistance gainst hedegraded onditions ftheir obs: restricting utput nd walking ff he ob before heir ontract x-pires nder articularly tressful ircumstancesGottfried 994,Parker 994),and looking usy r cruising hen hey've een ssigned ery ittlework(Henson1996:131,Rogers 995). Temporaries lso strive o control he on-ditions f their ssignments yturning own obs that hey iew s emotion-intensive, norder o avoidbeing rawn oo deeply nto he olitics nd ocialrelations f the irm Rogers 995).

Destabilized nd ntensified mploymentforManagers nd ProfessionalsInstability nd nsecurity ncethought o be confined o workers n the owestlevels f he abormarket ave pread hrough he anks fAmerican anagerialandprofessional orkers. esearchers ecently ave ocused n a broad, esta-bilizing etof hanges ouching he areers f alaried mployees, rofessional



NEWFORMS OFWORK ORGANIZATION 331

andmanagerial like.There s a growing ody f iterature n the boundary-less career,marked ycontinualmobility cross ndup through number f

work rganizations Baker& Aldrich 996, Defillippi Arthur 994,HirschShanley 996), lthough he vidence or he rgument hat eople re chang-ingcareers ndoccupations t a greater ate s tentative. winnerton Wial's(1995) data which he uthors ote re not onclusive vidence f a trend(p. 303)] arecitedwidely:Theyfound slight ut ignificant ecrease n obstability or he years 987-1991.

Despite he bsence f definitive vidence, here s a widespread erceptionin the iterature hat areer tability sonthe ecline Brown 995). Managerial

andprofessional isplacementndunemployment,ndwhite-collar nemploy-ment ngeneral, asbeenunprecedentednd he ecreation fwhite-collarobsslow Mishel& Bernstein 994). In-depth nterview ndobservationaltudiesof corporate estructuringnd downsizingGlassner 994,Gouldet al 1996,Heckscher 995,Newman 988,Smith 990)and overviews f the rosion finternal abormarkets nd the ubsequent ransformation f managerial ndprofessional mploymentBrodsky 994, Doeringer t al 1991, Hirsch 993,Osterman 988)havegenerated picture f tremendous pheavaln the anksof the middle-rankingmployees f America's orporations. eports bound,in both cholarly ndpopular iterature, f thewidespread limination f man-agerial anks, f he difficulty f finding omparably aidand ecure ositions,andof the downward obility f professionals ndmanagers. heAmericanManagement ssociation urvey 1995)ondownsizing nddisplacedworkersbolsters hispicture. Of the evel-identified obs that ad been cut between1988 and 1995, 18% wereheldby middlemanagers, ho make up between5%and8% of heAmerican ork orce. trategic r tructural uts ispropor-tionately ffectmanagement anks AMA1995:4), uggesting hat he middleranks f arge orporations re targets f cost-cutting trategies nd that heirwork ubsequentlysbeing ushed nto he ower evels f the irm.

Adding o the mpression hat ntensification f work s permeating ndre-shapingmanagerial nd professional mployment, aralleling he ntensifica-tion fnonmanagerialobs,DiTomaso1996)finds hat ven orporate orkersemployed n a permanent, ecure asis re ncreasinglyxpected o ct ike ub-contracted orkers. mployers xpectmanagers ndprofessionals o think fthemselves s entrepreneurs r as self-employed,ocontinually sk how theycan add more valueto their work rganization, nd to self-monitor, odeeplyinternalize heviewpoint hat hey are ikely obe retained y he rganizationonly s long s their xpertise erves heneeds f he rganization DiTomaso1996:11).The strength f this normative ystem, n which everyone s sub-contracted, epends reatly n decentered rganizational ystems n whichself-monitorings essential 1996:10).Even those whodispute he rgument



332 SMITH

that middlemanagement as been decimated cknowledge he ea-change nthe norms nd expectations or rofessional areers Gordon 996).

CONCLUSION: INTENSIFIED, DECENTERED,ANDDESTABILIZEDWORKSocialscience esearch uggests hat he ransformationf production nd thetransformation f employment re reconfiguringheAmerican orkplace, nboth ractice nd n rhetoric. lthough pecific utcomes f he lexible modelare shaped y occupation ndhierarchical osition, tscentral eatures f em-ployment nstability, ecenteredontrol, ndwork ntensification un cross heoccupationalpectrum. have uggested hat he model an be characterized scombined nd uneven, ontradictory, ndevenflatly onfusing. his ambigu-ity highlights he imitations o viewing he flexiblemodel n polarized erms,as being ither rogressive, nabling, r a high-performancepproach, r co-ercive, estrictive, r a low-performance pproach Appelbaum Batt 1994,Gordon 996).Thenewmodel ombines lements f the wobut n differentconfigurations, laying ifferent roups f workers ff ne another, licitingparticipation rom ome bydenying articipative pportunitiesoothers. husthe two sets of changes iscussed n this ssayare ntegrally oundup withoneanother, lthough hey aradoxically ontinually ndermine neanother swell.

A newparticipative asis for roduction as been nstitutionalizedn manywork ettings, ostly roduction ndmanufacturing, ostly or core group femployees. ndividualsn he ore re xposed o context f pportunities: p-portunities o earn ew kills ntechnology, atagathering ndprocessing, ndself-management. ewproduction ethods aise responsibilityevels nd n-crease ecision-makingpportunitiesnmany ases, lbeitwithin constrainedand decentered ystem f control. hus,whilegenuine utonomy ndcontrolremain eyond he rasp f mostworkers, orkers reencountering enuinelynewwaysof producing ndserving. mportantly, heir ains n organizationalresponsibilitynd nvolvement re ncurred t he xpense f orporate orkersin upervisorialndmanagement ositions, ith he ew ulture fparticipationresting n the imultaneous ownward ransfer f managerial esponsibilitiesand the limination f ayers f managers Smith 990:ch. ).

Thestudies eviewed ere trongly uggest hat ore workers enefit rom henew pproach ecause hey rebuffered y peripheral ork orce rought ntoabsorb luctuationsn work ycles ut pecificallyxcluded rom articipatingin these rganizationalnnovations. ontingent orkers re not rainedn newproduction ethods, or are they uthorized oparticipate n self-managedgroups r quality ircles. In contrast, y and arge hey re assigned othe



NEW FORMSOF WORK ORGANIZATION 333

least killed, most asily illedobs, and hey re monitored y heir ermanentcounterparts. hey re typically xcluded rom he ompany vents ndritualsthat re organized ocially o gluetogether henewparticipative genda.

It appears hat he corporate gendato secure workers' nvolvement ndquality ffort s bolstered y the presence f a large nd growing ontingentwork orce hat ignals opermanent orkers hat an happen f one shouldrefuse r imit ne's efforts. hat ignificant umbers fpeoplewant ull-time,permanent ork ut an't find t, nd that the haracter f unemployment asdecidedly hifted: much arger roportion f the work orce s either nder-employed, veremployed,ow paid, or trapped n unfavorableob situations(Mishel& Bernstein 994),are important ngredients n understanding er-manentworkers' onsent o new participative rrangements. n other words,the ontrol mbedded norganizational echanismsntersects ith he ontrolexerted hrough mployment ractices. ognizant f their ispensability, ndawareof scores f contingent orkers eeking ull-time nd permanent obs,permanent orkers ay emore isposed o earning ow owork, nd workingintensively, ithin hedemands f theparticipativendflexiblemodel.

An additional iece of evidence ndirectly upports his. In a survey fcompanies hat ad downsized hroughouthe1990s,43% reported hat heyextended heworking ours f remaining mployees ather hanhiring ewones AMASurvey 995:7).Thequestion fwhether S workers reworkinglonger ours as beenmuch ebated Schor1991,Robinson Bostrum 994),yet heAMAfigures, s well as dataof economists Gordon 996,Mishel&Bernstein 994),reinforces he laim hatAmerican orkers re doing more,prompted y context f downsizing, utbacks, eclining ages, ndemploy-ment ransformation.

Asidefrom he uneasymix of permanent nd temporary orkers, nothertension nderlies he two approaches oachieving reater lexibility. hencompanies ownsize hey an erode he ommitments f remaining mployeesto principles f quality, articipation, nd adaptability. s Cameron 1995)notes, ownsizings antithetical o mproving he uality f ndividual ffortsand of the work rganization; nd in the United tates mployers ontinueto deployboth trategies, ftenwithout egard o the way they un t cross-purposes Appelbaum Batt 1994).

Thus, unease and destabilization ermeates ork nd employment n thelate twentieth entury. nvolvement nd empowerment re at the ore of thenewmodel f work, etworkers recompelled oengage nthe rganizationalmechanisms ywhich hey re chieved, y means f multifaceted nddecen-tered ystem f ontrol. ecentered ontrol ystems ncorporatendreproduceparticular ierarchical eatures f traditional ontrol ystems, ut heir eatureshavetaken ewforms. hey nsertmechanisms ormonitoring ndevaluating



334 SMITH

into ll the ores f he rganizational ierarchy:nnew echnologicalystemsthat eep rack f workers' erformances, n new ways f organizing heworkflow hat ring workers o the foreground f the ttention f coworkers ndsupervisors,nwork roups hat eighten he egree owhich ndividuals on-itor hemselves ndeach other, r n measures or ncorporatinghe ubjectiveinterpretations f customers s a source f data for valuating orkers. Yettraditional ontrol s coupledwith heightened ob requirement o be moreinvolved ndresponsible, ften ithout dded ompensation r resources.

The current mphasis n involvementnd ntensification n the ontext fdestabilized mployment uggests great rony, herein ociologists f workandworkers hemselves aybegin oromanticize arlier roduction rrange-ments n which ecure nonmanagerial orkers ad the privilege f leavingtheir rains t he oor f heir ierarchical,entrally dministered orkplaces.While uch nostalgia ould implify he istorical ecord, he ull nddoubtlessnumerous mplications fhaving ocontinually own nd manage ne's obto the maximum xtent ossible or he oodof the irm, eed o beconsideredin greater epth.

Finally, he hanges ocumented n literature n new forms f work rga-nization re most ertainly edrawing he ines of gender nd race hierarchyin the United tates. Increased mployment estabilization nd contingenthiring ractices ikelywill erode he table, malecareermodel haracterizinglarge orporate ureaucraciesf the ostwar ra Acker 990, mith 993). Intandem, hese rendsmay ncrease ome whitemen's nonstandard mploy-ment xperiences, eading heir mployment atterns oconverge ith hosemarginalized nd uncertain atterns f manywhitewomen nd women ndmenof diverse acial nd ethnic roups Reskin 996).

Theterrain fwork nd mployment nthe raofflexibilitys a relatively n-charted reaof ocialscience esearch. ecent tudies ave begun o llustratethe omplexities ndnuances f work rganization, ork elations, ndhiringpractices, utmuch emains obeunderstood. our opics reofparticular on-cern.First,more esearchs needed nservicework ettings ndnonunionizedworkplaces. ervice ectorwork ar xceedsmanufacturing ork, n whichthebulk f research n flexiblemodels asbeendone.Whenworkers roduceservices nd venwork npeople,wewould nticipate inding ifferent rgani-zational efinitions f flexibility, s wellas different utcomes elated o teamwork, ecision-making,kill, nd utonomy han hose oundnproduction et-tings. econd, his ieldwouldbenefit rom aving ataonmobility rocessesandoutcomes s they re haped ythe ontradictory orces f production ndstaffing lexibility. third esearch oal shouldbe to analyzeaspirationsand dentity t the rossroads f production nd employment ransformation,andcorporate estructuring ore roadly.We need deeper nderstanding f



NEW FORMS OF WORK ORGANIZATION 335

personal xperience, ubjectiventerests, nd of howaspirations re sustainedor crushed s the opportunity tructure ndergoes hanges hat ppear o bepermanent ndradical.Thesewillbeessential n our understandingf consentto new production rrangements nd of corporate mployees' articipation nturmoil nd nstability. inally, ross-cutting ll these opics with focus nthe gendered ndracialized imensions f opportunity ndoutcomewill nte-grally ink he ociology f work nd corporate ransformation ith hefieldsof stratification nd nequality.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would iketo thank icole Bennett or n outstandingob coordinating hereference ection f his aper. couldn't ave finishedtwithout er rganiza-tion, atience, nd ye for etail. 'd also ike o hank am Forman, llenScott,SuzanneCole,andRaquel Kennedy ergen or ollecting any f the rticlesreviewed n this ssay, ndSteven allas nd n anonymous eviewer or om-mentsmadeon an earlier ersion f the paper. Finally,many hanks oHeidiGottfried, ithwhom have collaborated n the opic f flexible roductionandstaffing ractices ndfrom hosework have earned great eal.

Visit he AnnualReviews ome age athttp://www.annurev.org.

Literature ited

Abo T. 1994. Hybrid actory: The JapaneseProduction ystem n the United tates.NewYork/Oxford: xford niv. ress

AckerJ. 1990.Hierarchies,obs,bodies: a the-ory of gendered rganizations. ender oc.4(2): 139-58

Adler PS. 1992. The 'learning ureaucracy':New UnitedMotorManufacturing,nc.Res.Org.Behav.15:111-94

American Management Association. 1995.AMASurvey n Downsizing nd Assistanceto Displaced Workers. ew York: Am.Mgmt.Assoc.

Appelbaum , Batt R. 1994.TheNewAmeri-can Workplace: ransforming ork ystemsin the United tates. thaca, NY:ILR

AquilanoNJ. 1977. Multiskilled ork eams:productivity enefits. Calif Mgmt. Rev.19(4):17-22

Aronowitz . 1973.False Promises: he hap-ing of AmericanWorking lass Conscious-ness.New York: McGraw-Hill

Aronowitz , DiFazioW. 1994.TheJobless u-ture: ci-Tech nd the ogmaofWork. in-neapolis,MN:Univ.Minn. ress

Baker T, Aldrich HE. 1996. Prometheusstretches: building dentity nd cumula-tive nowledge n multi-employer areers. nBoundaryless areers: Employmentn theNew Organizational ra, ed. M Arthur,Rousseau,pp. 132-49. New York: OxfordUniv. ress.

Barker . 1993. Tightening he ron age: con-certive ontrol n self managing eams.Ad-min. ci. Q. 38(3):408-37

BelousR. 1989.TheContingent conomy: heGrowth f the Temporary, art-time, ndSubcontracted orkforce. ashington, C:Natl.Planning ssoc.

BlockFL. 1990.Postindustrial ossibilities:Critique f EconomicDiscourse.Berkeley,CA:Univ.Calif.PressBluestone , Bluestone. 1992.Negotiating heFuture: A Labor Perspective n AmericanBusiness.New York: BasicBooks

Bluestone , Harrison . 1982.TheDeindustri-alization fAmerica:Plant Closings, om-munity bandonment, nd the DismantlingofBasic ndustiy. ew York:Basic Books

BowlesS, Gordon M, Weisskopf E. 1984.



336 SMITH

Beyond he Waste and: A Democratic l-ternative oEconomic ecline. Garden ity,NY:Anchor ooks

Brannon RL. 1994. Professionalization ndwork ntensification: ursingn the ost on-tainment ra. Work ccup. 21(2):157-78

BrodskyM. 1994. Labor market lexibility:changing nternational erspective. onthlyLabor Rev. 117(11):53-60

BrownKA, Mitchell R. 1991. A comparisonof ust-in-time ndbatchmanufacturing:herole of performance bstacles. cad. Mgmt.J. 34(4):906-17

BrownP. 1995. Cultural apital nd social ex-clusion: ome observations n recent rendsin education, mployment nd the labourmarket.Work, mploy. oc. 9(1):29-51CallaghanP, Hartmann . 1991. ContingentWork:A Chart ookon Part-time nd Tem-porary mployment. ashington, C: Inst.Women's olicyRes./Econ. olicy nst.

CameronK. 1995. Downsizing, uality, ndperformance. n The Death and Life ofthe AmericanQuality Movement, d. RECole, pp. 93-114. New York: Oxford niv.Press

CassirerN. 1995.Therestructuring f work nthe United tates: occupational nd indus-trial eterminants f ontingent mployment.Presented nn. Meet. Am. Sociol. Assoc.,Washington, C

Christensen . 1989. Flexible Staffing ndScheduling n U.S. Corporations. esearchBulletinNo. 240. New York: The Confer-ence Board

CohenY, Haberfeld 1993. Temporary elpservice workers: employment haracteris-tics and wage determination.ndust.Relat.32(2):272-87

ColcloughG, Tolbert M. 1992. Work n theFast Lane: Flexibility, ivisionsof Labor,and Inequality n High-Techndustries. l-bany,NY: StateUniv.NewYork ress

Cole RE. 1989. trategies orLearning: mall-GroupActivitiesnAmerican, apanese, ndSwedishndustry. erkeley, A:Univ. alif.Press

Cole RE, ed. 1995. The Death and Life oftheAmerican ualityMovement. ew York:Oxford niv. ress

Cooke WN. 1989. mproving roductivity ndquality hrough ollaboration.ndust. elat.28(2):299-319Cornfield . 1987.Labor/managementooper-ation or managerial ontrol: merging at-terns f abor elations n heU.S. InWorkers,Managers, nd Technological hange, d.DCornfield, p. 331-53. New York/London:Plenum

DavidowWH,Malone MS. 1992. The VirtualCorporation: Structuring nd Revitalizing

the Corporation or he 21st Century. ewYork:Harper usiness

Davis-BlakeA, Uzzi B. 1993.Determinants femployment xternalization: study f em-porary orkers nd ndependent ontractors.Admin. ci. Q. 38(2):195-223

DawsonP, WebbJ. 1989. New production r-rangements: he otally lexible age? Work,Employ. oc. 3(2):221-38

Defillippi , Arthur . 1994. The boundary-less career: competency-based erspective.J. Org.Behavior 5(4):307-24

Department f Labor,US Department f Com-merce. 994. FactFinding eport: Commis-sion on the Future f Worker-ManagementRelations.Washington, C: US Dep. Labor,USDep.CommerceDiTomasoN. 1996.The oosecoupling fjobs:the ubcontracting f everyone. PresentedAnn.Meet.Am.Sociol.Assoc.,New York

Doeringer B, Christensen , Flynn M, HallDT, Katz HC, et al. 1991. Turbulence ntheAmericanWorkplace. ewYork:OxfordUniv. ress

Fantasia ,Clawson , Graham . 1988.Acrit-icalview f worker articipationnAmericanindustry. ork ccup. 15(4):468-88

Franklin C. 1995. ndustry utput nd mploy-ment rojectionso2005.Monthly aborRev.118(11):45-59

FullerL, Smith V. 1991. Consumers' eports:management y customers n a changingeconomy.Work, mploy. oc. 5(1):1-16

Gardner ,Hipple , Nardone . 1994.The a-bormarket mprovesn 1993.Monthly aborRev.117(2):3-13

Geary F. 992.Employment lexibilityndhu-man esourcemanagement: he ase of hreeAmerican lectronics lants.Work, mploy.Soc.6(2):251-70

GlassnerB. 1994. Career Crash: America'sNewCrisis nd Who urvives. ewYork: i-mon& Schuster

Gordon DM. 1996. Fat and Mean: TheCorporate queeze of Working mericansand the Myth f Managerial Downsizing'.NewYork: Martin esslerBooks/The reePress

Gordon M, EdwardsR, ReichM. 1982.Seg-mentedWork, ividedWorkers: heHistor-ical Transformation f Labor in the UnitedStates.New York: Cambridge niv. ress

Gottfried . 1991. Mechanisms f control nthe emporary elp ervice ndustry. ociol.Forum (4):699-713

Gottfried . 1994.Learning he core: the du-ality f control nd everyday esistance nthe temporary-helpervice ndustry. n Re-sistance nd Power n Organizations,d.JMJermier, Knights, WR Nord, p. 102-27.New York: Routledge



NEWFORMS OFWORKORGANIZATION 337

Gottfried , Graham . 1993.Constructing if-ference: he making f gendered ubculturesin a Japanese utomobile ssembly lant. o-ciology 7(4):611-28

GouldM, Heckscher , Domurad . 1996. oy-alty, rofessionalism nd rationality n cor-porate downsizing. Presented nn. Meet.Am.Sociol.Assoc.,New York

Graham L. 1995. On the Line at Subaru-Isuzu: The Japanese Model and the Amer-ican Worker. thaca,NY: Cornell niv. ress

Grenier J. 1988. nhuman elations: QualityCircles nd Anti-Unionism n American n-dustry. hiladelphia, A: TempleUniv. ress

Harrison . 1994. Lean and Mean: TheChang-ing andscape f Corporate ower n he AgeofFlexibility. ew York: Basic BooksHarrison , KelleyMR. 1993.Outsourcingndthe search for flexibility'. Work, mploy.Soc. 7(2):213-35

Harvey . 1989.TheCondition f Postmoder-nity:AnEnquiry nto he Origins f CulturalChange.Cambridge, A: Basil Blackwell

Havlovic SJ. 1991. Quality f work ife andhuman resource outcomes. ndust. Relat.30(3):469-79

Heckscher C. 1988. TheNewUnionism: m-ployee nvolvementn the Changing orpo-ration.NewYork:Basic BooksHeckscher CC. 1995. White-Collar lues:Management oyalties n an Age of Corpo-rateRestructuring. ew York: Basic Books

HensonKD. 1996.Just Temp. hiladelphia,PA: TempleUniv. ress

HeydebrandWV. 1989. New organizationalforms.Work ccup. 16(3):323-57.

Hirsch M. 1993. Undoing hemanagerial ev-olution?:Neededresearch n the decline fmiddlemanagement nd nternal abormar-kets. nExplorationsnEconomic ociology,ed.RSwedberg, p.145-57.NewYork:Rus-sellSageFound.

Hirsch M, ShanleyM. 1996. The rhetoric f'boundaryless:' owthe newly mpoweredandfully etworked anagerial lassofpro-fessionals ought nto nd self-managedtsown marginalization.n Boundaryless a-reers: Employmentn the New Organiza-tional Era, ed. M Arthur, Rousseau, pp.218-33. NewYork:Oxford niv. ress.

Hirschhorn . 1984.BeyondMechanization:Work nd Technologyn Postindustrial ge.Cambridge, A:MITPressHossfeldK. 1995.Why ren't igh-tech ork-ers organized?: essons n gender, ace andnationality rom ilicon Valley. n WorkingPeople of California, d. D Cornford, p.405-32.Berkeley, A: Univ.Calif.Press

Jacobs A, ian Z. 1996.Thecareermobility fpart-time orkers. es. Soc. Strat.Mob. 15:Inpress

Kanter RM. 1989. When Giants Learn toDance: Mastering he Challenge f Strat-egy,Management,nd Careers n the 990's.New York: imon & Schuster

KanterRM. 990.Thenewwork orcemeets hechanging orkplace. n The Nature f Work,ed. K Erikson, P Vallas, pp. 279-303. NewHaven,CT: Am. Sociol. Assoc. PresidentialSer./Yale niv. ress

KenneyM, FloridaR. 1993.BeyondMass Pro-duction: heJapanese ystem nd ts Trans-fer to the U.S. New York: Oxford Univ.Press

Kochan A,KatzHC, McKersieRB. 1986.TheTransformationfAmericanndustrial ela-tions.New York: BasicBooks

KochanTA, Osterman . 1994. The MutualGainsEnterprise: orging Winning art-nership Among Labor, Management ndGovernment. oston: Harvard Bus. Sch.Press

KundaG. 1992.Engineering ulture: Controland Commitmentn a High-Tech orpora-tion. hiladelphia, A:TempleUniv.Press

Lawler E, Mohrman . 1985. Quality irclesafter he fad. Harvard Bus. Rev.63(1):64-71

Leidner . 1993. FastFood,Fast Talk: ServiceWork nd theRoutinizationfEveryday ife.Berkeley, A: Univ. Calif.Press

Levitan , Werneke . 1985. Worker articipa-tion ndproductivity hange.Monthly aborRev.107(9):28-33

LincolnJR. 989. Employee ork ttitudes ndmanagement ractice n the U.S.andJapan:evidence rom large comparative urvey.Calif Mgmt. ev. 2(1):89-106

Lozano B. 1989. The InvisibleWork orce:Transforming merican usiness withOut-side and Home-Based Workers. ew York:The Free PressMangumG, Mayall D, NelsonK. 1985.Thetemporary elp ndustry: response othedual nternal abormarket. ndust. aborRe-lat.Rev. 8(4):599-611

Margulies , BlackS. 1987.Perspectivesntheimplementationf participative pproaches.Hum.Res. Mgmt. 6(3):385-412

Meiksins ,Whalley . 1995.Technicalwork-ers and reduced work: imits nd possibili-ties. Presented nn.Meet.Am.Sociol. As-soc.,Washington, C

MilkmanR. 1991.Japan's California acto-ries: Labor Relations nd Economic Glob-alization. os Angeles: nst. ndust. elat.,UCLA

Milkman . 1992.The mpact fforeign nvest-ment nU.S. industrial elations: he ase ofCalif.'sJapanese-ownedlants. con. ndust.Dem.13(2):151-82

MilkmanR, Pullman C. 1991.Technological



338 SMITH

change n an auto assembly lant: the m-pact on workers' asks nd skills. Work c-cup. 18(2):123-47

Mishel , Bernstein . 1994.The tate f Work-ingAmerica 994-1995. Armonk, Y: MESharpe

Nadler , Lawler . 1983. Quality f work ife:perspectives nd directions. rg. Dynamics11(3):20-30

NewmanKS. 1988. FallingFromGrace: TheExperience f DownwardMobility n theAmericanMiddleClass. New York: Vintage

ObeyDR, Sarbanes , ds. 1986.TheChangingAmerican conomy. ewYork:Basil Black-well

O'Reilly J. 1994. Banking n Flexibility: AComparison f Flexible mployment n Re-tail Banking n Britain nd France. Brook-field, T: Avebury

Osterman . 1988. Employment utures: Re-organization, islocation nd Public Policy.NewYork/Oxford: xford niv. ress

Osterman . 1994. How common s workplacetransformation nd who adopts t? Indust.LaborRelat.Rev. 7(2):173-88

Parker RE. 1994. Flesh Peddlers nd WarmBodies:TheTemporary elp ndustry nd tsWorkers. ewBrunswick, J: Rutgers niv.PressPeters J, Waterman H.1982. n Search f x-cellence: Lessonsfrom merica's est-RunCompanies. ew York: Warner ooks

Pfeffer ,Baron J. 1988. Taking he workersback out: recent rends n the tructuring femployment. es. Org.Behav. 10:257-303

Piore MJ, Sabel CF. 1984. The Second In-dustrial ivide: Possibilities or Prosperity.NewYork:Basic Books

Plunkert M, Hayghe HV. 1995. Strong m-ployment ains continue n 1994.MonthlyLabor Rev. 118(2):3-17Pollert . 1988. The flexible irm': ixation rfact? Work, mploy. oc.2(3):281-316

PrechelH. 1994.Economic risis nd the en-tralization f control ver the managerialprocess: corporate estructuring nd neo-Fordist decision-making. m. Sociol. Rev.59(5):723-45

Project on Disney. 1995. Inside the Mouse:Work nd Play at DisneyWorld. urham:Duke Univ. ress

RafaeliA. 1985.Quality ircles nd employeeattitudes. ersonnel Psychol. 38(3):603-15

ReichRB. 1991.TheWork fNations:Prepar-ing Ourselves or 21st-Century apitalism.NewYork:Knopf

Report f a SpecialTask Force to the Secre-tary fHealth, ducation, ndWelfare. 973.Work nAmerica: Report f a SpecialTaskForce o the ecretary fHealth, ducation,

and' Welfare. Cambridge, MA: The MITPress

Reskin . 1996. A queueing erspective nnon-standard mployee/employer elationships.Presented nn. Meet. Am. Sociol. Assoc.,NewYork

Robinson JP, Bostrom A. 1994. The over-estimated workweek?: What time di-ary measures uggest.Monthly abor Rev.117(8):11-23

RogersJK. 1994. Lawyers or rent: the gen-dering f emporary mploymentor awyers.Presented nn. Meet. Am. Sociol. Assoc.,Los Angeles

RogersJK. 1995. Just temp: xperience ndstructure f alienation n temporary lericalemployment. ork ccup.22(2):137-66Rosenberg ,Rosenstein . 1980.Participationandproductivity: n empirical tudy. ndust.LaborRelat.Rev. 3(3):355-67

Sabel CF. 1991. Moebius-strip rganizationsandopen abormarkets: ome onsequencesof the reintegration f conception nd exe-cution n a volatile conomy. n SocialThe-oryfor Changing ociety, d.PBourdieu,Coleman, p.23-54. Boulder, O: Westview

Safizadeh H. 1991.Thecase ofworkgroupsnmanufacturingperations. alif. Mgmt. ev.33(4):61-82SayerA,Walker . 1992.TheNew ocial Econ-omy:Reworkinghe ivision f abor.Cam-bridge,MA: Blackwell

Schor JB. 1991. The Overworked merican:The Unexpected ecline of Leisure. NewYork:Basic Books

Sewell G, Wilkinson . 1992. 'Someone towatch verme': surveillance, iscipline ndthe ust-in-time abour process. Sociology26(2):271-89

ShaikenH, Herzenberg , KuhnS. 1986.Thework rocess ndermore lexible roduction.Indust. elat. 25(2):167-83

Shea G. 1986. Quality ircles: the danger fbottled hange. loanMgmt. ev. 7(3):33-46

SinclairA. 1992.Thetyranny f a team deol-ogy.Org. tud. 13(4):611-26

Skorstad . 1991. Mass production, lexiblespecializationnd ust-in-time: uture evel-opment rends f industrial roduction ndconsequencesn conditions fwork. utures23(10):1075-84

Smith . 1990. Managing n the Corporate n-terest: Control nd Resistance n an Ameri-canBank.Berkeley, A: Univ.Calif.Press

Smith . 1993.Flexibilityn work nd mploy-ment: he mpact n women. es. Soc.Orgs.11:195-216

Smith . 1994. nstitutionalizinglexibilitynaservice irm: multiple ontingenciesndhid-denhierarchies. ork ccup.21(3):284-307



NEWFORMS OF WORKORGANIZATION 339

Smith V. 1996. Employee nvolvement, n-volved employees: participative ork ar-rangements n a white-collar ervice ccu-pation. oc. Prob. 3(2):166-79

Sullivan A. 1978.MarginalWorkers, arginalJobs: The Underutilization f AmericanWorkers. ustin, X: Univ.TexasPress

Swinnerton A, WialH. 1995. s ob stabilitydeclining n the U.S. economy? ndust. a-bor Relat.Rev. 8(2):293-304

Taplin IM. 1995. Flexible production, igidjobs: lessons from he clothing ndustry.Work ccup.22(4):412-38

Thomas RJ. 1994. What Machines Can'tDo: Politics nd Technology n the ndus-trial Enterprise. erkeley, A: Univ. Calif.Press

Tilly C. 1991. Reasons for the continuinggrowth f part-time mployment. onthlyLabor Rev. 114(3):10-18

Tilly C. 1992. Dualism n part-time mploy-ment. ndust. elat. 31(2):330-47

Uzzi B, Barsness . 1995. Moebius trip m-ployment rrangements: he eterminants f

the se of xternalized orkers. resented tAnnu.Meet. Am. Sociol. Assoc., Washing-ton, C

Vallas S, Beck J. 1996. The transformationof work revisited: the limits of flexibil-ity n American manufacturing. oc. Prob.43(3):339-61

WalshJ. 993. upermarkets ransformed: n-derstanding rganizational nd Technolog-ical Innovations. ewBrunswick, J: Rut-gersUniv. ress

WilliamsDR. 1995.Women'spart-time m-ployment: gross flows nalysis. MonthlyLaborRev.118(4):36-44

Womack P, ones T, Roos D. 1990.TheMa-chineThatChanged he World: he Story

fLean Production. ew York: Harper eren-nial

Wood SJ, ed. 1989. The Transformation fWork?: kill, lexibilitynd the abour Pro-cess. Boston,MA: UnwinHyman

Zuboff . 1988. n the Age of the SmartMa-chine: The Future f Work nd Power NewYork:Basic Books

New Forms of Work Organization

Documents

Transcript of New Forms of Work Organization