Copyright © 1999 MCB. All rights reserved
Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol 23 Issue 6 Date 1999 ISSN 0309-0590
Effects of world class manufacturing on shop floor workers
Amanda Haynes
Researcher, University of Limerick, Ireland
Keywords: World-class manufacturing, Flexible specialisation, Ireland, Labour, Theory
Type of Article: Survey, Theoretical with application in practice
Concerns the effects of world class manufacturing on the quality of working life of shop floor
workers. Theoretically, it is grounded in the conflict between two opposing paradigms – the
flexible specialisation thesis and labour process theory. Methodologically, it is based on
qualitative data gathered in 1996 during in-depth interviews with employees of a West of Ireland
factory established in the use of world class manufacturing methods (fieldwork for a Masters
degree minor dissertation). The results of the research indicate that the majority of world class
manufacturing methods increase the intensity of work, without yielding proportionate
compensation for workers. Based on these findings, the interpretation of world class
manufacturing supported by labour process theory was found to be far more accurate a rendering
than that promoted by the flexible specialisation thesis.
Content Indicators: Readability***, Practice Implications**, Originality**, Research
Implications**
Acknowledgements
Received September 1998 Revised March 1999
Introduction
Interest among those in industry in flexible production is not a new phenomenon. Since the
1960s management have worked towards making technology and labour more adaptable to the
needs of production. (Pollert, 1987, p. 1). However, within the context of ever heightening
competition, flexibility (i.e. the ability to rapidly modify the circumstances of production) has
apparently graduated from being a secondary outcome of other means of maximising profits, to
the top of the priority list. World class manufacturing is a managerial strategy designed to
achieve that goal. It is, in essence, a collective term for a number of production processes and
organisational strategies which all have flexibility as their primary concern.
Irish firms first began to assimilate world class manufacturing practices in the 1980s. Initially
American owned firms such as Apple, Power Conversion Europe, Abbott Ireland, Northern
Telecom and Thermo King, led the field. However, as the successful assimilation of many world
class manufacturing processes such as just-in-time manufacturing (JIT) is dependent on the
ability of subsidiaries, suppliers and subcontractors to be equally as flexible as the originating
firm, many satellite firms soon followed[1]. This characteristic of world class manufacturing, in
addition to the enthusiasm of agencies like Forbairt for flexible manufacturing methods, has led
to progressive numbers of indigenous firms embracing the strategy.
Irish unions have thus far been accepting of the transition to world class manufacturing among
firms in this country (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions, 1996). As in many other European nations, it has been welcomed because of the
alleged secondary effects its proponents publicise. They claim that world class manufacturing
methods increase profitability because the strategy requires workers to provide greater input into
both production and management. As a result, workers’ control over their activities is increased;
and the quality of the tasks they perform is improved. In addition it is asserted that world class
manufacturing methods necessitate increased communication flows between management and
workers; heightened worker responsibility; broader job specifications; more skilled labour; and
greater collaboration among workers (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and
Working Conditions, 1996). Opponents of the strategy make the counter-claim that the benefits
to workers alleged by advocates of world class manufacturing often do not arise. Indeed, it is
contended that the introduction of world class manufacturing may be the cause of new problems
for the workforce. This perspective asserts that it is not heightened commitment but stress,
resulting from the impact of world class manufacturing on the organisation of work, which leads
to increased productivity and increased profitability (Slaughter, 1988).
Papers which are critical of world class manufacturing have previously, with a few notable
exceptions, tended to be highly theoretical and largely unappealing to a non-academic audience.
Conversely, because advocates of world class manufacturing often emanate from a business
rather than a scientific background, their writings have generally been more palatable to the
wider public, but often lack the validity of more academic undertakings[2]. A general lack of
empirical research on the issue of world class manufacturing is evident. Direct inquiry into the
experiences of workers under world class manufacturing is particularly sparse. Moreover, little
research has been conducted on the actual manner in which world class manufacturing has been
applied in factories, thus even a clear understanding of what world class manufacturing really
entails may be lacking. In the cases where sound empirical research has been conducted, the
division between advocates and opponents of the strategy is so great that such studies are often
partisan in their analysis. Parties looking for an objective analysis of world class manufacturing
may find their search laborious.
It is considered that the continued spread of world class manufacturing through Irish industry,
combined with the blanket advocacy of world class manufacturing by employers, government
and unions alike, makes the need for an accessible, balanced assessment of the effects of world
class manufacturing on workers’ quality of life urgent. The primary aim of the research on which
this article is based was to contribute to bridging that gap.
What is world class manufacturing?
World class manufacturing is, according to Jacobsen (1995-1996, p. 1), an umbrella term for a
variety of forms of work organisation; managerial and manufacturing techniques; processes; and
systems, each of which has as its underlying raison d’être a capacity for increasing the flexibility
of an enterprise. World class manufacturing is generally considered to be existent where a
number of such elements are combined to address an enterprise’s need for flexibility, including
considerations of technology, process and personnel. It is not possible to comprehensively
discuss all the elements of world class manufacturing in a single article, therefore the three
themes which are considered most central to the division between the flexible specialisation
thesis and labour process have been selected for discussion. The themes are just-in-time
production, teamworking and multiskilling. Significantly, it was also on these three issues that
the manager’s depiction of consequences of world class manufacturing for shop floor workers
and the experiences and perceptions of the workers themselves were most divergent.
Just-in-time (JIT)
This designation is itself an umbrella term for methods which enable enterprises to reduce and
maintain their inventory at minimum levels. This allows enterprises to minimalise costs
associated with storage and depreciation, and to swiftly alter product lines with the least possible
wastage. Consequently, meeting fluctuating customer demands is made more cost effective.
Because the protective “buffer” of stock piled material is eliminated, a side-effect of JIT is to
increase the significance of faults. Where one cannot fall back on inventory, problems occurring
during production must be identified and responded to immediately. Workers on the floor are the
enterprise’s first defence against faults. Thus, JIT can only operate effectively where workers are
flexible and interested. To facilitate workers in dealing with production problems the enterprise
should introduce complimentary practices such as teamworking, which is explained hereafter
(Beale, 1994, p. 3)
Teamworking
Teamworking involves establishing teams of between ten and 20 workers, which operate with
relative autonomy within the normal working environment. The teams may organise their own
work; solve their own production problems; deal with their own personnel issues etc.
Teamworking may be supported by providing workers with additional controls over production,
for instance the right of the worker to interrupt production in the occurrence that a fault or defect
is identified and the right of workers to spontaneously combine efforts to solve problems (Forza,
1996, p. 46). The purpose of establishing teamworking may be to increase functional flexibility
among team members, to pursue quality assurance, to establish the self-management of workers
through the team, or simply to aid the smooth running of JIT (Beale, 1994, p. 4).
Functional flexibility
Advocates of world class manufacturing generally refer to functional flexibility as multiskilling,
whereby workers have been trained to perform a number of skilled jobs. However it is also
possible for the term to refer to multitasking among the unskilled or semi-skilled workforce.
Functional flexibility allows the enterprise to redeploy workers quickly wherever required
(Atkinson, 1985, p. 11) reducing financial and temporal costs associated, for instance, with
switching between product lines and absenteeism.
Ramifications of world class manufacturing for workers
As aforementioned, the effects of these practices on the quality of working life of shop floor
workers is highly contested by either side in the debate on world class manufacturing – the
flexible specialisation thesis and labour process theory. A more detailed examination of their
positions will highlight some of the major issues involved.
The flexible specialisation thesis
Advocates of the flexible specialisation thesis (Piore and Sabel, 1987) see world class
manufacturing and other flexibility-oriented systems, as having developed as a solution to the
rigidities of Fordist mass production. Fordism was characterised by the use of:
… special purpose (product-specific) machines and of semi-skilled workers to produce
standardised goods (Piore and Sabel, 1987, p. 4).
Consequently, the stability of Fordism was dependent on the existence of reliable mass markets.
When these markets fragmented and fluctuations in demand increased, Fordism was
overwhelmed by its own rigidities (Tomaney, 1990, p. 30). Enterprises were required to switch
to more flexible production methods, in order to remain viable in this new and uncertain
environment (Tomaney, 1990, p. 30). The methods to which they resorted are collectively
termed flexible specialisation, because they share the basic goal of facilitating flexible
production, i.e. small batch manufacture; customer-orientation; speedy product-line switches;
and lean production (Meyer, 1986, p. 74). This they claim has combined with the use of high
technology, to make the flexible skilled worker essential once more to the production process.
According to the flexible specialisation thesis, workers must be highly skilled in a number of
areas in order to operate the new technology and facilitate the multiskilling which is essential to
maintaining the enterprise’s flexibility (Forza, 1996, p. 44). In the course of becoming
multiskilled workers will become generally familiar with the entirety of the production process,
thus the division of labour is reversed, returning to them a sense of the product they are creating
(Dawson and Webb, 1989, p. 222). Because the enterprise is dependent for the maintenance of
quality on the vigilance and knowledge of their workers, the workforce must be made aware of
the enterprise’s goals, proving a feeling of involvement in the overall activities of the company.
Workers must be given significant autonomy to organise their own time activities if flexibility is
to be feasible. In addition, it is necessary for management to halt efforts at authoritarian forms of
control. Management/worker relations must be based on participation and consultation (Gough,
1986, p. 60), if the “shop floor” expertise, necessary for lean production, is to be accessed.
Workers terms and conditions must be favourable in order to maintain their co-operation in this
undertaking (Atkinson, 1986, p. 8) and as the highly skilled and knowledgeable worker is
difficult to replace, their job security is increased (Gough, 1986, p. 60). Each benefit to the
workers is derived from capital’s efforts to fulfil its own needs. In the opinion of supporters of
the flexible specialisation thesis, the search for profit can, through the introduction of flexible
production systems such as world class manufacturing, prove bountiful for both capital and
labour, fulfilling not only the needs of economics, but also the needs of “total man”.
Labour process theory
The labour process theorists present the argument against world class manufacturing. Labour
process theory originated from Marx’s economic theory. It is, in essence, an analysis of
capitalism, which identifies the very act of creating profit as integrally exploitative. As such,
labour process theory holds that the interests of labour and management are unconditionally
opposed. Thus, for advocates of labour process theory, flexible production and world class
manufacturing cannot signal an end to worker alienation and exploitation. Rather, as forms of
capitalist production, they can only represent a variation on this theme (Grint, 1991, p. 300).
Braverman (1974), a theorist at the forefront of contemporary labour process theory, drew a
number of conclusions from his work in this area. He held that the basic imperative of capitalism
was to gain managerial control, in order to create surplus value through securing the maximum
effort for the minimum remuneration. This challenge, according to Braverman was met by
extending the fragmentation of tasks through the division of labour, removing the cognitive
element from manual work and so deskilling the workforce. Indeed, Taylor himself, the
originator of scientific management, had identified the fact that workers had knowledge which
management did not possess, as an obstacle to both their control and the control of production.
The efficient rationality of the division of labour increases productivity and facilitates the use of
cheaper labour, increasing profit. For management, it also has the beneficial consequence of
creating a more compliant work force – with what can deskilled and thus disposable labour
bargain? (Grint, 1991, p. 185) For workers the consequences are momentous – loss of autonomy,
loss of control, loss of skills and alienation, from the product, from the production process, and
from themselves. For Braverman, like Marx, science and technology fulfil the purposes of
capitalism, eliminating the need for human labour and degrading the skills of workers. The result
of these factors is that the skills and knowledge wrested from the workers are received by
management, who thus increase in their power, knowledge of the production process facilitating
its control and manipulation (Grint, 1991, p. 189). It is also the contention of labour process
theorists that control and manipulation are inherent in the capitalist labour process (Thompson,
1989). The capitalist’s only motivation for employing workers is their ability to produce surplus
value. However, as surplus value is value created beyond what the capitalist has paid for, profit
is the result of unpaid labour. It is arguable that labour may not be the only source of surplus
value, but in a world aiming toward ever leaner production it is unlikely that the capitalist will
retain workers who are not creating a profit. Some form of control is required to make the worker
work faster or longer, in order to create more value than they are paid for. Consequently, for
advocates of the labour process theory, control is inherent to profit making activities and as such
cannot be considered absent in world class manufacturing.
Labour process theorists would argue that managerial control; deskilling and the degradation of
work are at the base of a movement towards monopoly capital (Braverman, 1974). As such, they
would consider the notion that changes in work organisation under flexible production have lead
to an increase in workers’ skills, autonomy, power, or remuneration, a myth.
The evidence
The conclusions drawn in this article are based on a small-scale independent research study
undertaken as part of a Masters dissertation. That study involved in-depth interviews with one
manager and five shop-floor workers[3] (four assembly workers and one store’s man), employed
in a multinational manufacturing plant, hereafter called Multi Corp, in the West of Ireland. The
workers’ perceptions and experiences were the main focus of the study, while the manager’s
interview served to provide an official contrast to their personal views, and was also a valuable
source of information regarding the motivations of management in introducing world class
manufacturing. The manager, an Irish national, was recommended by the company’s personal
division based on his integral involvement in the introduction of world class manufacturing
methods to Multi Corp. The workers were selected by means of snowball sampling. The
manager’s interview was conducted during office hours within Multi Corp, while the workers’
interviews were conducted outside office hours either in their own homes or at borrowed office
space nearby the Multi Corp plant.
Just-in-time
As is often the case with firms employing world class manufacturing, Multi Corp used a number
of methods to achieve just-in-time production. A form of Kanban, a method of using the
production line to register how many component parts need to be produced (Beale, 1994, p. 29),
was practised[4]. As all components are sources outside the factory, Multi Corp had become
involved in close supplier/producer relations to support the just-in-time system. Suppliers
delivered, on a just-in-time basis to the point of use, items which had been quality assured in
accordance with a standard approved by Multi Corp. Computer networks maintained close coordination with dealers, enabling their customised orders to be fed directly into the production
system. A computerised bar coding/tracking system facilitated more effective stock control.
Flexible technology, including Computer Aided Design, standardised tools, Automation and
Flexible Manufacturing Systems were in use. Multi Corp, therefore, possessed all the major
production elements of world class manufacturing. It produced in small batches; was customeroriented; was capable of speedy product-line switches; and through JIT and Kanban maintained
lean production (Meyer, 1986, p. 74).
Significantly, the manager and workers advocated opposing views regarding the consequences of
just-in-time for workers. While the manager felt that JIT had had no adverse consequences for
the workers, the workers themselves had many complaints about the system. The manager, for
instance, stated that while JIT did improve productivity, this was not achieved by increasing the
pace of work, but through the prioritisation of parts:
... when you change something productivity will improve and they don’t even know its
improving.
The workers, however, felt that the very fact of the increased efficiency of the system was
forcing them to increase the pace of their work:
… when they introduce stuff it makes your job easier fair enough, but it also means that
you’re expected to work harder. They call it working smarter, you know but physically
you’re doing more work, the cycle becomes quicker...
The workers also felt that JIT had affected the quality of their working lives socially. One worker
commented that introduction of JIT had drastically reduced the amount of interaction possible
between workers. In the past getting parts was an opportunity for a quick chat. Now all the parts
are supplied to assembly stations and workers have no reason to interact:
… you’re confined to one spot all the time, but then that’s what they want.
A number of workers also noted that since JIT was introduced the company won’t allow workers
to “work up” time[5] anymore and have become unaccomodating regarding unplanned leave.
This is presumably because the elimination of buffer stock under JIT necessitates the constant
availability of the worker.
… before if a fellow found out he’d to take tomorrow off ... there’d be enough stock
there, so the supervisor, even though he hadn’t someone to immediately replace this guy,
there’d be enough to cover.
The introduction of new technology has, according to the workers, had both positive and
negative consequences for the quality of working life in Multi Corp. Many agree that some
machines make their jobs easier, in particular those which replace heavy physical labour.
However, automation comes under severe criticism, because it is perceived to result in job
losses[6] and reduced control. One worker states that the only intrinsic reward his job possesses
is the ability to create free time for himself by going faster. Automation precludes this practice.
The worker explains why control is so important to him:
… the job is very menial. If you can control the pace of work, you can possibly get a
certain amount of satisfaction out of it. If you have more control over the job, rather than
the job having the control over you.
This worker considered that automation makes one subservient to the system:
… you’re just a an appendage then to the ... machine.
In summary, the workers considered that they benefit from a more organised working
environment and the reduction of heavy labour through the use of new technology, as a result of
the introduction of JIT. However, the malign effects of the system far outweigh the benefits. JIT
has, in their opinion, resulted in increased work intensity, a consequence recognised by previous
research (Keegan and Lynch, 1995, p. 4). It has also led to an inflexible production system,
wherein workers perceive themselves to be more subservient to the production process (Forza,
1996, p. 42), making it difficult to take holidays, work up time or even take a break. This
inflexibility and the manner in which it monopolises the worker’s time through it’s immediacy,
is a characteristic of JIT previously recorded by Kamata (1983).
Functional flexibility
When questioned about the use of multiskilling at Multi Corp, the manager described some of his
workers as what he termed crosstrained. Analysis of his comments reveals that “crosstraining”
bears a number of similarities to what labour process theorists term multitasking, i.e. where
workers are trained to perform a number of semi/unskilled functions. However, the workers at
Multi Corp are not formally crosstrained, rather extra functions are “picked up” as a side effect
of changes in line balances. The workers mentioned that there are small number of “floaters”
who are trained to operate any station, although this system was in place before world class
manufacturing was introduced. They also mention that a couple of stations developed
multitasking and rotation independent of the company’s influence, in an effort to more equally
distribute unpopular tasks.
According to the flexible specialisation thesis, high quality, small batch production is dependent
on skilled, flexible workers, forcing management to invest in the “upskilling” and “multiskilling”
of their workforce (Tomaney, 1990, p. 31). Multi Corp’s crosstraining does not support this
interpretation as only a small minority of workers are polyvalent; there is no organised system of
training and rotation; and even where extra tasks are learned these do no necessitate the
acquisition of new skills.
Neither the manager nor the workers believed that crosstraining has enriched workers’ jobs. Both
parties considered workers’ tasks mundane and boring, financial remuneration being the
workers’ only recompense:
Its just monkey see, monkey do.
These findings totally contradict Piore and Sabel’s belief that under world class manufacturing:
Wages are more the counters in the game of success than the inducements to action
(Piore and Sabel, 1987, p. 274).
The workers interviewed did desire intrinsic rewards from their work:
I’d move somewhere for less if I thought I’d get more job satisfaction. If I thought it was
more interesting …
They feel the boredom of their present tasks deeply:
… asking people to do the same thing every ninety seconds is a mental form of torture …
Crosstraining does not fulfil workers’ desire for more varied labour because of its limited nature.
On the assembly lines, for instance, the only tasks to be performed are soldering and assembly,
neither of which workers consider to present them with any challenge:
You’re just being fired into something that you know you can do, but you’re not just as
fast as the fellow ... usually in the job.
As crosstraining provides neither significant variety nor challenge, the workers felt that, rather
than making their work more satisfying, it merely increased the amount of effort they had to
invest in their labour:
… you’re better off kind of staying in the one position … [because] you get used to
having time to yourself during the day … you make your own time .. when you’re
brought into something new, you’re held back again for a few weeks …
The stores man was the only one who found his work interesting. He stated that his position
allows variety, in that there are many different tasks to be performed. One assembly line worker
stated that people do not want to be crosstrained without receiving some kind of financial reward
for their efforts.
Only one worker saw an advantage to crosstraining. This worker asserted that crosstraining can
help to unite workers when they are faced with changes in their routine. He provided the
example of one area in Multi Corp where rotation was practised by the workers. If management
wanted to make any changes to the work load or tasks allocated to this area, they had to convince
all the workers to accept the changes, as it affected them all. It was asserted that in areas where
rotation is not practised, co-workers do not support individuals being asked to perform extra
tasks for fear of having their own work loads increased. However, it must be acknowledged that
multitasking could lead to the ineligibility of workers for the membership of unions, many of
which continue to enforce demarkation, thus reducing the solidarity of workers on a larger scale.
Workers would appreciate the chance to become truly multiskilled, according to one of the shop
floor employees. Indeed, he felt that the introduction of true multiskilling might improve
workers’ attitudes towards their work as they would appreciate management’s enhancement of
their skill-base, and the resultant increase in their employability. However, this worker did not
believe management would ever introduce true multiskilling, as, in his opinion, they are too
attached to the control afforded them by traditional Taylorist methods.
I think breaking it down into small little pieces ... you’re under more control of the actual
work process, rather than you controlling the job.
In line with the assumptions of labour process theory, the introduction of world class
manufacturing in Multi Corp has not led to workers being better remunerated (Atkinson, 1985,
pp. 15/17). Comparing pay levels in Multi Corp to those of similar workers in Nissan,
Sunderland, one worker stated that:
… the average worker in Nissan is, their yearly wage is eighteen and a half thousand, the
average worker in Multi Corp is on thirteen.
This worker felt that Multi Corp’s low wage levels were being supplemented by the State.
… it’s amazing the amount of people that work up in Multi Corp that are on family
income supplement ... And the amount of people that are getting rent allowances and
different bits and pieces. The amount of guys that have free books for their kids and
medical cards and all these things are aimed at supposedly people on social welfare, but
when you see a person who’s working thirty-nine hours a week getting these benefits it’s
ridiculous. The State is supplementing them, Multi Corp’s low pay.
The worker in question, stated that she herself only remained in employment to provide a good
example for her children. Pay levels are so low, the worker stated, because as much of the work
is semi/unskilled, high local unemployment has provided management with a large pool of
available labour and consequently the upper hand in wage negotiations.
The flexible specialisation thesis holds that flexible production is dependent on the use of skilled
craft workers (Tomaney, 1990, pp. 30/31). This is plainly untrue in the case of Multi Corp.
Workers are generally unskilled or semiskilled. They are certainly not multiskilled. The flexible
specialisation thesis also holds that under world class manufacturing and flexible production the
division of labour is reversed, and workers are returned a sense of the product they are creating,
instilling in them a renewed sense of dignity and pride (Dawson and Webb, 1989, p. 222),
increasing their mental and physical willingness to work. The workers in Multi Corp find no
intrinsic reward in their labour. Even the tasks they may rotate to, are as menial and fragmented
as their own. Furthermore the flexible specialisation thesis states that the experienced flexible
production worker is so valuable to its company that they are ensured good pay. All of the
workers interviewed were employed by Multi Corp for over ten years. None of them is receiving
what they consider to be sufficient remuneration. This interpretation is supported by Taplin
(1995), who also found in his study of the garment industry that:
… flexible production technologies and labor process organization coexist with “rigid”
low skill, low paid workers (p. 413).
Teamworking
The interviews with Multi Corp staff revealed that teamworking was only ostensibly present in
the company. The manager identified three forms of teams operating within the firm. On the
assembly lines, he stated that there were approximately twenty stations, some of which were
manned by two-person teams. In addition, he identified each assembly line as a team in itself.
These teams did not have leaders chosen from among their peers, rather they were led by
supervisors. The third team type, identified by the manager was “objective-specific teams”.
These are established for a single purpose, such as improving a process. When that objective has
been achieved, they may move on to a new problem, but often disband or recombine. Like the
assembly line teams, they were not peer groups, but were lead by a manufacturing engineer.
Theoretically, the term teamworking is understood to indicate a group of 10-20 workers involved
in the same area of production, who have relative autonomy to make decisions relating to their
own work. Most advocates of flexible specialisation would consider that supervisors should be
eliminated (Meyer, 1986, p. 80) because the purpose of teamworking is to decentralise authority
(Forza, 1996, p. 46). Where supervisors and engineers are included, their function should
primarily be facilitating problem solving (Forza, 1996, p. 47) rather than routine work
organisation, in order to preserve the benefits of self-management. The two-person crews are too
small to be considered teams within the limits of the term as usually applied, particularly as one
of the workers testified that they constitute only a small minority of assembly line stations. In
addition, the workers argue that the two man stations were not established as part of the
introduction of world class manufacturing, rather the tasks performed at those stations had
always necessitated two workers. The problem-specific teams are probably the most theoretically
acceptable of the groups which the Multi Corp manager labelled teams. Workers do state,
however, that they also existed prior to the introduction of world class manufacturing.
The manager considered a sense of membership to be the primary benefit of teamworking to
workers. The workers, however, did not by any means consider themselves to be part of a team.
Indeed they did not perceive teamworking to be a palpable reality in Multi Corp. They were
united in their belief that teamworking in Multi Corp was nothing more than rhetoric. For
instance, the workers have not achieved any increase in autonomy – supervisors still dictate what
they do and how they do it. A number of the workers interviewed considered that conflict
between workers and supervisors is now more common than in the past. They felt that this
situation had arisen because supervisors are now under an increased amount of pressure from
management to increase productivity. One worker argued that supervisors have to compel
workers, because they will not increase their pace voluntarily. This is not because workers do not
value productivity, but simply because they do not consider they are being paid enough to make
the additional effort:
… there’d be a different thing I suppose if we were tied into, a bonus scheme where it
was in everyone’s interest to get a lot of work done. Now it’s just seen as we have x
amount to produce during the day, that’s what we produce, we’re not going to produce
any more.
According to the workers, the introduction of “teams” has not enhanced worker co-operation.
This, they consider, is because the strategy in operation is designed to create competition rather
than co-operation:
… their idea of teamworking is to split people into little groups and have them all
working against each other.
They perceive supervisors as bating teams against one another:
… they put one line against the other and saying “Oh well the SMX line can do this”, so
the mixed model line has to do it.
One worker reports that his line was financially rewarded for meeting a productivity target which
they had not even known existed, in order to goad the other lines:
… they were kind of holding that against the rest of the factory, … expecting everyone to
follow suit.
Overall, the workers believe that management simply use the notion of teamworking as a cover
for the introduction of any method that increases productivity:
… sometimes they’ll tell us that we were already using teamwork and then other times
they’ll tell us that we’re not, that we haven’t bought into the package … the bottom line
is that we produce a unit in seventy hours, they want it in sixty-five, as far as I can see it
doesn’t matter a shit how they get it down to sixty-five, they’ll accept that we’re a team if
we do it in sixty-five hours … that’s the bottom line.
Some workers believed that management was reluctant to institute proper teamworking, because
they fear for their jobs:
I think they’re afraid of it because … another concept of it is to get rid of the layers of
management, like the middle management there’d be no use for them because the teams
would be doing that work.
Others felt that management was averse to the “employee involvement” aspect of teamworking
whereby workers may be asked to participate in meetings with higher level personnel ranging
from supervisors to the Board of Management:
… they’re just afraid of the issues that may arise you see in the consultation process ...
issues of change that’d be constantly reared at meetings like that.
Significantly, the workers themselves would fully co-operate with the introduction of
collaborative teamworking:
… I’d like to have more input into the way my job is done, and I’d like them to listen to
me...
Indeed, they mentioned that their union had, in previous years, tried to persuade the company to
institute problem-solving teams. However, the managing director refused to co-operate. He
would not allocate time for team meetings, rather, he wanted them to meet in their free time,
during the workers’ breaks. His justification for this condition was that teamworking should not
be allowed to effect productivity. Plainly, the managing director rejects the theoretical concept of
teamwork, as a consultative and co-operative process which enhances productivity. This supports
the workers’ beliefs that the company uses the notion of teamworking to euphemise other less
attractive objectives, namely increases in competitiveness and speed.
The workers’ experiences of teamworking are very much relevant to the labour process theory’s
perception of world class manufacturing. They have not gained autonomy; hierarchy and
management by stress still dominates the shop floor; control remains exclusive to management
(Grint, 1991, p. 185). This interpretation is supported by studies written from a labour process
perspective which found that teams were primarily introduced to institute competitiveness
between groups in order to raise productivity levels and divide the workers, reducing their ability
to agree on a sub-optimum pace of work (CAITS, 1986, p. 39).
Conclusions
The evidence presented in this study suggests that the flexible specialisation thesis, which claims
flexible production ensures autonomy; participation; intrinsic satisfaction; a reversal of the
division of labour; and good terms and conditions for workers, advances an ideal type production
system, rather than a reliable analysis of the reality of flexible production. On the other hand, the
labour process theory’s interpretation of world class manufacturing complies with all the major
findings cited herein and therefore appears to facilitate a more accurate understanding of what
world class manufacturing implies for the quality of working life of shop floor workers.
Just-in-time, by speeding up the production cycle was found to lead to an intensification of the
pace of work. As a lean and immediate system, it was found to be more dependent on the
constant presence of the worker, increasing his subservience to the production process.
Teamworking was found to instil competitiveness not competition, in an effort to increase
productivity. There was no evidence of a reduction in hierarchical control. Indeed, direct and
even despotic control of the labour process continues to be used by management as one of their
most potent tools in the struggle to raise productivity. It was found that the upskilling and
multiskilling of workers is not an integral element of world class manufacturing. Rather
multitasking replaces multiskilling as the optimal means of increasing a company’s efficiency –
workers become more profitable to the company, being capable of filling in for absent workers
and speedily adapting to new product lines, without the expense of retraining. There was no
evidence of a retraction of the division of labour, it continues to be a source of managerial
control over the labour process, e.g. through the timing of jobs and the use of unskilled labour. In
essence, the worker may experience an increased work load; added pressure; extra
responsibilities and the addition of new and more subtle means of control to existing methods,
but experience no more job satisfaction, be no better paid, nor be any more secure in their jobs.
An explanation for the discrepancy between the assumptions of the flexible specialisation thesis
and the reality in evidence in Multi Corp may be found in the fact that world class manufacturing
in Multi Corp is based not on a drive towards flexibility, but on a desire for augmented
productivity and efficiency, as predicted by labour process theory. Worker’s stated that:
… productivity is the God over there, hours per unit to be used.
Indeed, the manager never once referred to flexibility in his discussion of world class
manufacturing, rather each strategy was lauded for the reduction in costs or increase in
productivity which it produced. In its quest for improved productivity and efficiency, Multi Corp
has indulged in what the ICTU term “cherry picking”. They have emphasised the elements of
world class manufacturing practices which increase productivity and reduce costs. Aspects of
world class manufacturing which might detract from these achievements, or reduce their ability
to attain these goals through control of the labour process, even in the short term, are neglected. I
propose that these findings are not limited in their relevance to Multi Corp, but are likely to be
applicable to many firms using flexible production systems. World class manufacturing emerged
as a response to an increasingly competitive global market, in which managers are under
pressure to deliver increased productivity and efficiency[7]. Therefore, it is unlikely that those
who adopt world class manufacturing will wish to invest their profits in workers, where they can
simply cut their costs instead. As a result, world class manufacturing has the potential to reduce
the quality of working life of shop floor workers. Workers may find that they are asked to give
more – more effort; more ideas; more time, more tolerance – without getting more – no more job
satisfaction; financial compensation; job security; respect; or power. The popularity of world
class manufacturing in industry results not from its ability to increase flexibility, but from the
fact that it is the ultimately profitable form of work organisation – a high return for no
investment.
Notes
1. For instance, Higgins Engineering, a subcontractor of Thermo King was required to
convert to JIT in order to remain an approved supplier (Jacobson, 1995-1996, p. 3).
2. For instance, statements regarding the consequences of world class manufacturing for
workers are often made, without any evidence being provided that the author has ever
consulted with workers on the subject.
3. Shop floor workers were considered to be those workers involved in production related
activities, who were below the level of supervisor.
4. In Multi Corp is was based on the controlled supply of parts to the workers, allowing the
company to organize the availability of parts to meet production sequencing requirements
and encouraging employees to only take the minimum amount of parts required for their
tasks.
5. Working overtime to allow for time off at a later date.
6. The stores man felt that the integration of suppliers into the production system was
eliminating the need for his position.
7. Taplin (1995, p. 434) adds that a focus on productivity rather than flexibility may also be
explained by the fact that it is in relation to productivity that managerial performance can
most readily be measured.
References
Atkinson, J. (1985), Flexibility, Uncertainty and Manpower ManagementThe Institute for
Employment Studies, Report 89, Brighton.
Atkinson, J. (1986), “Employment flexibility in internal and external labour markets”,New
Forms of Work and Activity,European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions, Dublin, pp. 1-37.
Beale, D. (1994), Driven by Nissan? – A Critical Guide to New Management Techniques,
Lawrence and Wishart, London.
Braverman, H. (1974), Labor and Monopoly CapitalMonthly Review Press, New York, NY.
CAITS (1986), Flexibility: Who Needs It? CAITS, London.
Dawson, P. and Webb, J. (1989), “New production arrangements: the totally flexible cage”,
Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 3 No. 2, June, pp. 221-38.
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (1996), Direct
Participation and Organisational Change: Fashionable But Misunderstood?, European
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Loughlinstown.
Forza, C. (1996) “Work organization in lean production and traditional plants: what are the
differences?”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp.42-62.
Gough, J. (1986), ‘Industrial policy and socialist strategy: restructuring the unity of the working
class”, Capital and Class No.29, Summer, pp. 58-82.
Grint, K. (1991) The Sociology of Work: An Introduction, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Jacobson, D. (1995-1996), New Forms of Work Organisation in Ireland: An Annotated
BibliographyDublin City University Business School, Research Paper No. 9.
Kamata, S. (1983), Japan in the Passing LaneGeorge Allen and Unwin, London.
Keegan, R. and Lynch, P. (1995), World Class Manufacturing in an Irish Context Oak Tree
Press, Dublin.
Meyer, P. (1986), “General Motors’ saturn plant: a quantum leap in technology and its
implications for labour and community organising”, Capital and ClassNo. 30, Winter, pp. 73-96.
Piore, M.J. and Sabel, C.F. (1987), The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity
Basic Books, New York, NY.
Pollert, A. (1987),The Flexible Firm: A Model in Search of Reality (or a Policy in Search of a
Practice?)Warwick Papers in Industrial Relations, No. 19, December, University of Warwick,
Coventry, Industrial Relations Research Unit, School of Industrial and Business Studies.
Slaughter, J.(1988), Teaming Up – Against the Union International Labour Reports, No. 27-28,
Summer.
Taplin, I.M. (1995), “Flexible production, rigid jobs: lessons from the clothing industry”, Work
and Occupations Vol. 22 No. 4, November.
Thompson, P. (1989), The Nature of WorkMacmillian, London.
Tomaney, J. (1990), “The Reality of workplace flexibility”, Capital and Class No. 40.Spring, pp.
29-60.