Sociology of work

1

Factory Work

Readings:

Vallas, Steven. “Why Teamwork Fails: Obstacles to Workplace Change.”

Graham, Laurie. “Inside a Japanese Transplant.”

Pfeffer, Richard. “Being Broken In: The First Two Weeks.”

This week we turn our attention to factory work. The topic of factory work has been with us

since the first week of the semester, when we looked at the transition from cottage industry to

assembly line mass production. The assembly line dominates factory work today, but the ways

in which workers are organized around the assembly line continue to evolve. More factories are

moving away from a pure top-down supervisory model to a team model of worker. In some

cases, teams of workers are given some degree of autonomy to determine how they organize and

direct their work. The readings for this week provide accounts of workers experiences in

factories using teams-structures and other practices derived from Japanese manufacturing.

Vallas, Steven. “Why Teamwork Fails: Obstacles to Workplace Change.”

In the first reading, Steven Vallas examines teams in three American factories. His findings

suggest that teams are complex and dynamic systems. Specifically, he found that teams in the

paper mills were rife with tensions and contradictions as both managers and employees struggled

to reconcile formal organization policies, managerial practices and employee expectations. First,

there was a disconnect between policies adopted at the level of the organization and the

implementation of those policies by managers in the day-to-day work. In other words, policies

adopted at the top did not translate well in practice. For example, teams were conceived as a

means of enhancing worker autonomy and decision-making, but in reality, workers had limited

say in how their work was done. Vallas contends that the difference between what workers

expected based on what the policies stated and what they actually experienced led to tension

between managers and workers.

From the neoinstitutionalist theoretical standpoint that Vallas takes, teams were mostly

ceremonial – the policy looked good for the organization from the outside, but they lacked real

substance when it came to improving working conditions. In fact, Vallas’ research provide some

evidence that managers used team norms to get workers to “buy-into” the managers’ view of

work, which resulted in the intensification of work for employees. In other words, employees

worked harder when they thought they were a part of a team, but they did not get the benefits

that the team structure was supposed to deliver. However, workers resisted managerial control

when they felt that they were not realizing the full degree of autonomy and benefits that formal

policies suggested they would. Vallas suggests that these inherent contradictions served to

weaken managerial control and increase worker solidarity which, he claims, has the potential to

bolster workers’ bargaining power.

Graham, Laurie. “Inside a Japanese Transplant.”

In the second reading, Laurie Graham goes inside a Japanese plant in the U.S.A to determine

whether the Japanese style of management resulted in greater worker autonomy. The

Introduction to this chapter identified eight (8) principles of Japanese management used by

companies such as Toyota, Honda, Sony and others. As we have seen earlier, many of these

principles are now commonly used by American companies as well.

2

The eight principles of Japanese management:

1. The use of work teams 2. Emphasis on quality 3. Kaizen – always searching for a better way to get things done 4. Efficiency – speed, consistency and waste elimination 5. Flexible work 6. Job security 7. Enthusiastic involvement in workplace – decision-making and work design 8. Open communication between management and workers

Many admire the Japanese management style as a model for management – worker cooperation.

Japanese have been known to show loyalty to their employers, and the workers are thought to

enjoy substantial benefits as well. However, Graham’s participant observation study found that

these principles did not translate well into the Japanese plant in the U.S.A, and the workers did

not enjoy any more control over their work. Instead, her findings suggest that U.S. workers

resisted the Japanese management style. Graham’s findings are consistent with Vallas’ research

findings that the team structure was not successful in enhancing workers experience on the job.

Pfeffer, Richard. “Being Broken In: The First Two Weeks.”

The last reading for this week details a new workers experience on the job during the first two

weeks of employment. These two weeks served as the period of on-the-job socialization where

the employee learned, not the technical skills for the job, but the social expectations. The major

point that emerged was that the worker was simply a pair of hands performing a set of tasks.

Less concern was given to the workers thoughts and opinions.

Discussion Question

Graham’s study found that the Japanese management style was not successful when used in the

Japanese plant in the U.S.A. Review the eight principles of the Japanese management style.

Why do you think the Japanese style did not work well in the American plant? Which of the

eight principles do you think Americans would be most likely to embrace? Which do you think

they would resist most? Why?