WORK & INDUSTRY
Lecture 6 - Flexibility Theory
1. Order versus Flexibility? Course to date has focussed on the workplace as a site of socially
constructed order re Labour Process Theory, monopolistic market dominance requires and produces
predictability, through control of the workforce, hence 'de-skilling'. Note the similar argument
within the McDonaldisation thesis (Ritzer) that contemporary work organisation incorporates
consumers, as well as workers, into ever more rationalised systems. This extends even to the
rational organisation of the emotions and of interaction re call centres. Hence, the relevance at this
point of the distinctive and contrary arguments of 'Flexibility' theory (Atkinson et al.). This asserts
that market uncertainty persists, there are limits, that have been breached, to the possibilities of
order. Therefore the goal of rational management in this new age of uncertainty is to 'shift the risks'
that follow from competition. Therefore let us consider a) what risks are acknowledged, b) how and
to whom they are shifted, c) with what consequences for the organisation of labour and of capital.
2. Risk-Shifting Significant risks and related strategies are:
i) Fluctuations in product demand create the risk of having too much or too little labour to meet
demand. 'Numerical Flexibility', the capacity to adjust rapidly the size of the labour, force shifts
this risk through use of sub-contracted, part-time or temporary labour which are cheaply
disposable.
ii) Technological changes can make current production methods inefficient and/or expensive. Risk
is shifted through 'Functional Flexibility', that is by requiring (some) workers to be adaptable
(multi-skilled), and some formerly specialised jobs to be widely accessible (non-demarcated).
iii) Competitive markets place downward pressure on costs. The risk of being priced out of the
market is shifted through 'Pay/Cost Flexibility', i.e. utilising numerous sources of materials and
labour from outside the organisation and in competition with each other (out-sourcing).
3. Effects of Flexibility i) Re-structuring the labour market. Flexibility generates status distinctions
among the workforce (contra Braverman); a) 'core' of permanent, highly skilled, usually male,
workers: b) 'primary periphery' of specialist contract workers c) 'secondary periphery' of hireable
and fireable, often sub-contract, part-time or temporary, female and/or ethnic minority workers.
Re-structuring organisations: a) creation of 'internal markets'/'cost centres' and competition between
departments; b) creation of dependency relations between capital rich dominant organisations that
distribute contracts and 'client' organisations that compete for them. That is, flexibility theory
would seem to argue that the uncontrollable nature of the economy results in a worsening of the
conditions of already disadvantaged social groups and economic units in order to protect those who
are economically, politically and culturally privileged.
ii) Re-structuring the organisation. Consider claims that, in a drastic reversal of the ‘vertical
integration’ of Fordism, flexible organisations develop ‘flattened’ hierarchies, the elimination of
formal, job-related titles, shorter lines of communication. Re claims concerning the emergence of
‘postmodern’ organisation.
4. The Flexibility Debate Recurring themes in the debate between flexibility theorists and their
critics: are flexibility strategies a) new; b) actual strategies or ad hoc responses to changing
situations; c) widespread (and effective) or relatively unusual; d) applicable to all or only a few
industries; e) a (mis)application of Japanese practices (now undermined by the economic downturn
in Japan).
docsity.com
