THEORIES ABOUT WORK

The theories about work described in this section consist of labour process theory, agency theory and exchange theory. The concept of the pluralist and unitarist frame of reference is also considered.

Labour process theory 

Labour process theory was originally formulated by Karl Marx (translated in 1976). His thesis was that surplus is appropriated from labour by paying it less than the value it adds to the labour process. Capitalists therefore design the labour process to secure the extraction of surplus value. The human capacity to produce is subordinated to the exploitative demands of the capitalist, which is an alien power confronting the worker who becomes a ‘crippled monstrosity by furthering his skill as if in a forcing house through the suppression of a whole world of productive drives and inclinations’. 

Considerably later, a version of labour process theory was set out by Braverman (1974). His view was that the application of modern management techniques, in combination with mechanization and automation, secures the real subordination of labour and de-skilling of work in the office as well as the shop-floor. He stated that the removal of all forms of control from the worker is ‘the ideal towards which management tends, and in pursuit of which it uses every productive innovation shaped by science’. He saw this as essentially the application of ‘Taylorism’ (ie F. W Taylor’s concept of scientific management, meaning the use of systematic observation and measurement, task specialism and, in effect, the reduction of workers to the level of efficiently functioning machines). 

Braverman’s notion of labour process theory has been criticized as being simplistic by subsequent commentators such as Littler and Salaman (1982) who argue that there are numerous determinants in the control of the labour process. And Friedman (1977) believes that Braverman’s version neglects the diverse and sophisticated character of management control as it responds not only to technological advances but also to changes in the degree and intensity of worker resistance and new product and labour market conditions. Storey (1995) has commented that ‘the labour process bandwagon... is now holed and patched beyond repair’. 

But more recent commentators such as Newton and Findlay (1996) believe that labour process theory explains how managements have at their disposal a range of mechanisms through which control is exercised: ‘Job performance and its assessment is at the heart of the labour process.’ Managements, according to Newton and Findlay, are constantly seeking ways to improve the effectiveness of control

mechanisms to achieve compliance. They ‘try to squeeze the last drop of surplus value’ out of their labour.

Agency theory 

Agency or principal agent theory indicates that principals (owners and managers) have to develop ways of monitoring and controlling the activities of their agents (staff). Agency theory suggests that principals may have problems in ensuring that agents do what they are told. It is necessary to clear up ambiguities by setting objectives and monitoring performance to ensure that objectives are achieved. 

Agency theory has been criticized by Gomez-Mejia and Balkin (1992) as ‘managerialist’. As Armstrong (1996) wrote: ‘It looks at the employment relationship purely from management’s point of view and regards employees as objects to be motivated by the carrot and stick. It is a dismal theory, which suggests that people cannot be trusted.’