ED 219 604

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTION

REPORT NOPUB DATENOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

EDRS PRICE

DOCUMENT RESUME

4-033 328

Levitan, Sar A.; Johnson, Clifford M.Second Thoughts on Work.Upjohn (W.E.) Inst. for Employment Research,Kalamazoo, Mich.ISBN-0-88099-001-582

248p.; Revised edition of Work is.Here to Stay, Alas(ED 128 595).W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 300South Westnedge Avenue, Kalamazoo, MI 49007($13.95--hardcover (ISBN-0-88099-000-7);,$9.95-7paper (ISBN-0-88099-001-5); quantity discountsavailable), ailable).

MF01 Plus Pwstage. PC Not Available from EDRS.DESCRIPTORS Career Education; *Change; Employee Attitudes;

Employer Employee Relationship; *Employment;*Employment Patte s; *Futures (of Society); *JobDevelopment; Job atisfaction; Labor Market; LaborRelations; Survey ocational Education; *WorkAttitudes

IDENTIFIERS *Work Ethic

ABSTRACTThis.book examines the forces which,are changing work

in the 1980s and offers a concise analysis of the challenges forsocial policy which lie ahead. The first of nine chapters looks atchanges affecting Americans' concept of work, including expectations,commitment to woxk; satisfaction, and work reform. Discussion inchapter 2 focuses on develoPment of historical views toward work.Chapter 3 looks at these topiCS affecting the survival andstrengthening of the work ethic: women in.the labor force, men'searlier retirement, black unemployment, work motivation amidstpoverty and unemployment, and expansion of leisure and nonwork time.Chapter 4 reviews job satisfaction surveys and examines theweaknesses of evidence of'discontent. Changes in the nature of workare discussed in .chapter 5, including shifts toward service andwhite-collar employment, technological innovation, robotics,microprocessors, and automation. Chapter 6 describes the worker oftomorrow, while chapter 7 considers refor from a historical.perspective. Obstacles to long-term and wid spread change (jobredesign and'participative management). are èxftiined in chapter 8.Chapter 9 concludes-the book'with a loolliat the future of work thattakes into consideration negitive and positive aspects. (YLB)

*********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

,

from the Original document. *

i**********************************************************************

Second Thoughtson Work

Sar A. Levitanand

Clifford M. JohnsonCenter for Social Policy Studies

The George Washington University

US. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONIThED CATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)

rs document has been reproduced asrecerved from the person or organizationoriginating rt.

0 Minor changes have-been made to improve 'reproduction quality.

Points of vivo or opinions stated in thrs docu-

ment do not necessanly repreSent official MEposition or poky.

"PERMISSION TQ REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL IN MICROFICHE ONLYHAS BEEN GRANTED'BY

13. kgecE"TO THE EDUCATION*. RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

The W. E. Upjohn' Institut& for Employment Research

2

Library of Congress Ca ogingln Publication DataLevitan, Sar A.

Second thOughts on ork.

Rev. ed of: ,Work is /ere tO stay, alas. 0973. Bibliography: p.Includes index. .

. 1. Labor and labbring classesUnited States-1970- . 2. Work. I. Johnson, Clifford M.H. Title.HD8072.5.L48 1942 331.11'0973 '82-13532ISBN 0-88099-000-7ISBN 0-88099-001-5 (pbk.)

Copyright © 1982by the

W. E. UPJOHN INSTITUTE. FOR EMPLOYMENT RESEkRCH

300 South Westnedge Ave.Kalamazoo,"Michigan 49001

Graphics by Al Lediard, Bailey Montague & Associates

3 I

Foreword

The nature of work and the composition and expectationsof the workforce have undergone considgrable change in re-cent years,. Numerous observers of emerging trends in-oc-cupational structiirs.rand labor force participation havepredicted crises such as the mass displacement of workers byteehnology or the deterioration of the wor.k ethic inAmerican society. Levitan and Johnson challenge such viewswith an analysis based heavily on statistical evidence of labormarket trends and conditions.

Tracing the broader evolution of work ,in America, theauthors note the positive and gradual nature of many of thechanges which are reshaping the nature of work today.However, they also acknowledge labor market problemswhich stem from uneven distribution of societal gains.SECOND THOUGHTS ON WORK provides a perspectivefor better understanding the history and contemporary reali-ty of work, and for identifying issues and problems whichwill require public policy attention in the years ahead.

Facts and obseivations presented in this study are the soleresponsibility of the authors. Their viewpoints do dotnecessarily represent the po§itions of The W. E. Upjohn In-stitute for Employment Research..

Labor Day,. 1982

III

(

E. Earl WrightDirector.

The Adiiiors

SAR A. LEVITAN is Research Professor of Economics anddirector of the Center foroSocial Policy Studies at The'George Washington University. He has, been a consultant tovarious governmental agencies and has served on laborpanels for the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

.and the American Arbitration Association. Included amongthe many books he has authored or coauthored are FederalAid to Depressed Areas; Programs in Aid of the Poor for the4980s; The Great Society's Poor Law; Human Resourcesand Labor Markets; The Promise of Greatness; ShorterHours, Shorter Weeks: Spreading the Work to ReduceUnemployment; Warriors at Wolk; The Volunteer ArmedForce; More Than Subsistence: Minimum Wages for theWorking Poor; and Evaluating Federal Social Programs: AnUncertain Art.

CLIFFORD M. JOHNSON is a research assbciate at theCenter for \Social Policy Studies at The George WashingtonUniversity and, a former Congressional Aide. He is agraduate of Princeton University.

0

iv

5

Preface

Every generation selects new problems, real or imagined,on which to focus its energies. Whether influenced by chang-ing perceptions of reality or impatience with the slow pace ofchange, society's agenda is forever being revised. Old- prob-lems quickly give way to new issues "discovered" byreporters in search of a story, by academics, in search of areputation, or by politicians in search of a platform. Evenwhen basic social and economic conditions evolve slowly andpredictably, the spotlight of public concern seldom rests forlong on a single subject. .

Our perceptions of the nature of work offer no exceptionto this pattern. Since Adam was banished from the Gardenof Eden, the debate over work has persisted:but with ever-changing emphases. In the 1960s, national attention focusedon poverty and labor market analysts worried . about theability of a changingeconomy to provide jobs for all personsseeking employment: At the end of that decade, even thoughthe evils of poverty aid unemployment had not disappeared,the attention of many policymakers and social scientistsmoved on to the design of jobs and the plight of blue-collarworkers. As the'1970s continued, this concern for the qualityof work broadened to include a diversearray of work reformexperiments, culminating in the current interest in workerparticipation and innovative management techniques. Thereis little reason to believe that the socioeconomic forces shap-ing the- nature of work .have flugtuated dramatically duringthe last -twenty years, and yet students of thelabor market

have always managed to highlight something new and dif-ferent.

SECOND THOUGHTS ON 'WORK is an attempt totranscend the narrow scppe of such periodic shifts in focusand to trace the broadei evolution of work in America. Inex4mining what is happening at today's workplace and whatwork will be like in the future, the analysis relies heavilyupon statistical evidence of labor market trends and condi-tions. The wealth of data collected by governments .andresearchers is not without limitations, but these sources canbe used 14 gauge the relative strength -of contemporaryclaims regarding the future of work. Contrary to predictionsof imminent crisis, the evidence reminds us that work's manyfunctions and roles, ensure a more gradual pace of evolu-tionary change.

-

In writing about the future of work, it is impossible toavoid the question of semantics: What is "w,ork"? In com-mon usage, the word refers to a myriad of activitiesartistswork on paintings, piensioners work in their gardens,volunteers work- without pay. Usually, the term "work" isused as shorthand for activities through which we earn alivelihood, but this definition is necessarily arbitrary. Theprofessional athlete who earns his living by playing tennisworks, but the amateur who relaxes after work with a set oftennis is playing. The housewife who tends to her own fami-ly's needs is not working, but if she is paid to labor in some-one else's home she is working. A "workaholic" may toilmore for pleasure than for money, but the financial compen-,sation makes it work nonetheless.

Yet work has always conjured up other feelings and im-plications as well. For most of us, the term refers to activitieswhich we feel compelled to do rather than those which wewould fre61y choose if left to our own devices. Historically,work has also been closely associated with society's collective

vi

,

survival, although in an era in which a minority of theworkforce produces more than enough for our sustenancethis connotation is becoming antiquated. As an alternative,much of our "work" is best described as sustained and pur-poseful activity to accomplish goals, the continuing struggleto bend the world to our will and imagination. In this form,work provides us with a sense of community, purpose andidentity, and plays an integral part in shaping life's meaning.

Despite this ambivalence toward work, Americans showno sign of abandoning the labor market. To the contrary, theevidence suggests that many of the changes which are reshap-ing the nature of work today are positivegenerating in-creased options with regard to work and broadening oppor-tunities for leisure. Disturbing trends in the ikorkplace re-main, but they stem more from the uneven distribution ofsocietal gains than from any deterioration of work quality orjob satisfaction. Hopefully, this book will serve as areminder of our many blessings, while at the same time iden-tifying those probleMs which truly warrant our greatestenergies in the years ahead.

,As a revision to Work Is Here To Stay, Alas, prepared

with William Johnston, this book offered an opportunitynot only to revise the data but also to test earlier judgments. -

Even .as many trends identified in the 1973 version of thebook continued throughout the decade, other developmentsrequired more detailed consideration in this revision. Thedramatic gains achieved in the use of computerizedtechnologies and the surge of interest in participkivemanagement techniques in the late 1970s have receivedspeciTic attention in this regard. The revision also provided achance to refine arguments presented in the earlier edition,so that more careful distinctions have been made betweenwork motivation and participation in the labor force, andmore detailed analyses are offered in discussing the tensionsinherent in work reform efforts. Finally, this sequel includes

, some brief remarks on the challenges for public policy im-. plicit in current trends in work.

Although William Johnston has gone on to otherendeavors and consequently did not participate in the revi-sion, many of his insights into the nature of work and hiscontributions to the earlier book have, withstood the test oftime and are retained in the present work. In addition, thepublication of this revision was greatly facilitated by the con-tributions to an earlier draft of Steve Silberman, for whichwe are most grateful. We are also indebted to Jack Barbashand Rick Belous for helpful critical comments. The art workenlivening the prose was prepared by Al Lediard of BaileyMontague & Associates, while Nancy, Kiefer went throughthe various drafts preparing the book for publication.

SECOND THOUGHTS ON WORK was prepared under agrant from the Ford Foundation to the George WashingtonUniversity's Center for Social Policy Studies. In accordancewith the Foundation's practice, responsibility for the contentwas left completely to the authors. -

Sar A. LevitanClifford M. Johnson

Labor Day, 1982

Contents

Prefacev,

1 Changes at Work1Modern Fears and Hopes2

Chasing Expectations5

The Commitment to Work9

Satisfaction at the Workplace11

The Attempt to Reform Work12The Future15

2 The Meaning of Work17

Early Concepts: The Curse of Adam 18'Birth of the Work Ethic20

Industrialization and the Lossof Meaning in Work

23Whose Work Ethic?

26Theories of Work Motivation

28A Worker's Identity Crisis?

32Who Really "Wants" to Work? 35

3 The $arvival of Work37

The Growing Labor Force37

The Atrival of Women at Work 40Men7Working but Retiring 45

Ate Exodus of Black Men50

Work Motivation AmidstPoverty and Unemployment

53Expansion of Leisure and Nonwoit Time 56

4 Talespf Work Dissatisfaction63Soukes of Alienation65

Expectations and Human Nature 68Examining Trends at Work 72Are Workers Miserably Content? 75A Look at Methodology

79A Realistic View of Work Satisfaction

83

ix

1 0

5 The Changing Nature of WorkThe Growth of the Serfice SectorBetter Or Just Cleaner?Tebhnology: Threat or Panacea?-'Silicon Chips and RobotsWill Robots Make Us Obsolete?Work Quality Amidst AutomationThe Challenge of Adjustment

89919599

101

106113117

6 A Portrait of Tomortow's Worker 121

\The Educated Workforce 122

Having More and Expecting More 130

Attitude Changes Magnified by Youth 1'32

Discrimination and Broktn Promises 135

The \Impetus for Change Efl 138

7 Work keform in Perspecfive 141

Union Role in the De:sign of Work 142

Management and.the Redesign of Work 149

Modern Concepts of Work Design 154

Enlarging and Enriching Jobs ,157

Participative Management and Quality Circles 160

Work Reform in Europe 166

The Importance of Reform Experiments 170

8 The Limits to Change 173

Permanence and Replicability 174-

Technology and Job Redesign 178

Common Interests and Participation 183

The Fallaciei of Radita1 Work Reform 18_8

Union Response to Work Reform 194

Means for Lasiing Success 199

9 The Future ()Mork 201

Familiar Prophecies ' 202Sources of Optimism.. 205

Clouds on the Horizon 215

Public Policy and Work's Future 218

Notes 221

x

<

1 Clianges at yirotk

Life grants nothing to usmortals without hard work.

.---Horace, Satires

As the cornerstone of civilized society, there was littlereason in centuries:past to question either the nature or thefuture of work. From Biblical dines well into the 20th cen-tury, work Was intimately linked to both individual and col-lective survival, a necessity of life which required no explana-lion. Occasionally in author paused to examine the hard-'ships of common laborers, but neVer with the expectationthat their lot could be changed. Even if a handful were for-tunate enough to "enjoy a life 9f leisure, the Prospect of asociety in which many individuas were, freed from work wasbeyond imagination for 'all but th most recent generations.

Wheilearlier writers did turn their attention to the institu-:tion of work, it was. usually in fear of some dwindling corn-milment to wo.,-k which mighlthreaten national;surrival andptogress. As Sigmund Freud suggested, "After primal manhad discovered that it lay in his own, hands, literally, to im-piOve his lot on earth by working, it cannot have been a mat:ter of indifference whether another man worked."4 Thus; in'goth religious andsecular literature the virtues of dedicatiqnand bard woik were repeatedly extdlledAn early.Americanhiitdi,r, these themes are easily tracedBenjamin Franklin-_lamented that working days were being waked,,` expensively

,.

,ok

2

at the ale house," and nearly a centnry later Abraham Lin-lvtill viewed the desire to work as "so rare a want that it

s d e encduiaged." These comments reflected popularviews of prior generations, in which the nation was por-trayed as teetering on the brink of economic and moraldecline due to a widespread aversion to work.

The unprecedented economic growth and affluence duringthe three decades following World War n has begun to alterthe way we view work in modern sopieties. In many ways,work no longer has the obvious role or significance which itcarried for our predecessors, if only because eachindividual's labor is no longer essential for societal or evenpersonal sustenance. All but a tiny part of the workforce in1900 was working to produce the goods necessary for com-mon survival, but now more than sbrof every ten workershave no hand in these activities. We now have morecosmetologists than plumbers, more social wohers thanbrickmasons, and niore professors fhan coal miners. Ourrange of work options is broader than ever before, and atleast collectively we have been freed from the constant strug-gle for survival. In this sense, work increasingly representsour will rather than our curse.

Modern Fears and HopesAs we move ever further away from the direct production

of goods, the option of changing workor abandoning itcompletelybecomes more significant. Inevitably, it seemsJess clear why we work, and so the traditional fears of a deca-dent society that values leisure more thart work persist. Yetin a more optimistic v'ein, this new freedom makes us wonderhow our jobs might be reshaped in response to more loftygoals and needs. Thus, for perhaps the first time, we have '-become concerned not only with our motivation or will-ingneis to 'work but also with our satisfaction at theworkplace.

)

,

3

Those who percei've work as integrally related to socialstability continue to view the weakening ties between workand survival with alarm.) For example, David Riesmanargued that the expansioplof leisure "threatens to push workitself closer to the fringes of consciousness andsignificance."z Daniel Bell views current trends in leisure andaffluence as undermining the Protestant work ethic,' andChristopher Lasch also contends that Americans identify"not with the work ethic but with the ethic of leisure,hedonisrn, and self-fulfillment." Such predictions of work'sdentise are seldom dispassionatemore typical is ArthurSchles*er's warning that "the most dangerous threat hang-ing over American society is the threat of leisure!" The fearof a decaying"dork ethic is so pervasive that the federalDepartment of Commerde initiated in the 1970s an advertis-ing campaign to bolster an allegedly weakening commitmentto work.

Of course, even if one accepts the premise that the will towork is eroding, the vision of the future which followsdepends largely on one's view of human nature. Utopianforecasters rely on the same presumed trend toward aworkless society which prophets of doom project, but thesemore optimistic observers view leisee as a stimulus ratherthan a threat to societal advancemen!.. For those who seeleisure as enhancing human developinent, technologybecomes a panacea which frees individuals from the necessi-ty of work without sacrificing gains in economic well-being.One may question the underlying view of a world withoutwork, but such an eventuality would no doubt offer oppor-tunities as well as dangers.

Analysts of work quality and worker satisfaction usuallydo not stretch recent gains in leisure into projections of a,workless society, but they are often guilty of other excesses.In contrast to the image of technology as the great liberatorfrom work, technological change is frequently portrayed asnecessarify eliminating skilled work roles and reducing pros-pects for personal satisfaction at the workplace. Claims ofwidespread discontent among workers are forcefully advanc-ed, along with sweeping promises of newly designed jobswhjch would heighten satisfaction within the workforce. Inthe eyes of work reform advocates, modern workers seek awide array of challenges and rewards in their jobs, andemployers have considerable latitude in redesigning jobs tomeet these emerging needs. It is an appealingly optimistic vi-sion, but one that may overestimate both our character andour capabilities.

When viewed collectively, contemporary discussions ofwork motivation and satisfaction present widely divergentvisions of work's future, ranging from the catastrophic tothe utopian. These disparate accounts reflect the ample roomfor confusion created by rapid changes in labor force par-ticipation, occupational structure, and technology during the

5

5

past few decades. Particularly when based on isolatedtrends, most sketches depicting the future of work shed morelight on the hopes and fears of their authors than on thenature of tonlorrow'S workplace. Yet when labor marketdata are carefully examined in the context of broader socialchanges and market forces, a more coherent view of work inthe 1990s and beyond emerges.

Chasing ExpectationsThe broad outlines of work's future will be shaped by the

level of our expectations at the workplace and by our relativeability to respond to them. Although their influence reachesfar beyond the labor market, current trends in wealth,education, and technology provide the driving forces behindthe gradual evolution of work, raising expectations and set-ting the limits within which we can hope to fulfill them.Because of their scope, these sweeping changes in American-society are frequently overlooked or given scant attention intopical studies of the workplace. Yet it is this set of forceswhich will have the greatest role in defining the goals oftomorrow's worker, affecting both the motivatiorr to workand the prospectslor job satisfaction.

The most pervasive force behind rising evectations is theincreasing wealth of American society. The trend toward af-fluence is unmistakable:- in the last three decades; the averageAmerican's spendable income has risen 87 percent, afterallowing for inflation and higher federal income and payrolltaxes. Thirty-five percent of all families had an income of$25,000 or better in 1979, compared to only 8 percent withreal incomes that high a quarter of a century earlier. Cast inmore vivid terms, Americans spent more on liquor alone in1981 than their grandparents and great-grandparents did onall goods and services a century ago, This unprecedentedgrowth in real incomes has radically revised our lifestyles,

6

but more irfportant1y it has lowered our tolerancelor hard-ship and led us to expect even further gains.

To the extest that economic necessity provides a primemotivation to work, increasing affluence has weakened theties between workers and their jobs. In addition to swellingthe ranks of the indiependently wealthy, rising incomes havemade possible a host of transfer payments wliiich give manyothers the option not to work. During the 1970s, a decadecommonly associated with conservative climates, thesetransfer payments increased 77 percent in real, termsan ex-pansion of the welfare state without parallel. Most of thesepayments went to the retired, disabled anworkers, and veterans, with less than one-fidevoted to "public assistance" provided oneed. While the great m&rity of Americanecessary to work, the evolution of the wesoftened the consequences of not working anchoices (such as early retirement) .to those w

unemployedth of the total

the basis ofs still find itfare state hasprovided newo do work.

The rising Incomes and expectations of ecent decadeshave had a mixed impact on work mOtivation. As burgeon-ing transfer payments approach one-sixth oif the nation'sdisposable income, and assuming real earnin s resume theirdominant upward course, Americans increable to change jobs or reject work in responpectations. At the samefrtime, however, relatipears to be much more relevant to work motiv

ingly will bee to rising ex-e income ap-tion than any

absolute gains, so that individuals have strong incentives tokeep working' no matter wliat release from work they couldhave collectively reaped from productivity gains. Like themechanical rabbit leading the greyhounds around theracetrack, goals have consistently stayed ahead of produc-tivity. This alone will keep most of us tied to work in thedecades ahead.

In the same manner that rising affluence has'led us to. ex-pect steadily growing incomes, rising levels of edli4tidnal at-

7

tainment have caused us to expect greater &challenges andskill requirements in our jobs. Again, the data reflect un- .questionable gains in education: In the three decades follow-ing 1950, the proportion of the adult population that com-pleted four years of high school almost doubled, jumpingfrom 34.3 percent to 67 percent. Half of American workershad at least a whiff of college education (12.7 years ofschoolini) by 1980, four more years than attained by theaverage worker in 1940 when half the labor force had barelycompleted elementary School. In virtually all occupational

- categories, Americans are entering the labor force later andwith more educational background than ever before,creating both opportunities and strains at the modernworkplace.

If a few added years of history and -algebra represented thefull scope of educational expansion, the impact on worker .exPectations might be rather limited. Yet these extensions offormal education have been accentuated by a veritable "in-formation explosion" which has raised the gazes of even themost isolated Americans far beyond their immediate sur-roundings. Unlike the closed world of our grand-parentswithout radio, television, and often evennewspapersin which values and aspirations changed slow-

-,

si

ly, we are now more awaie of the lives which others enjoy.With this greater awareness, "overeducated" workers aremore likely to be unhappy in their jobs or even to reject thework which society requires fgr its Maintenance. The educa-tional gains do create the possibility of more demandingwork roles, but the fillure of skill requirements to keep pacewith educational improvements is likely to leave workersless, rather than more, satisfied with their jobs.

.Finally, as changes in relative wealth anct access -to infor-ation raise expectations, changes in technology will dictate

the extent- to whi we c n respond to new demands at theworkplace. Tech oloii6 advances have broadened occupair

1 r-%4

/0

,

4-

8

tional choices for some, freeing women from housekeepingchores and transforming the world into a much smaller placethrough innovations in transportation and communications.For other segments of the workforce, technological change isa more ominous force, eliminating skilled jobs and displac-ing workers in declining manufacturing industries. Thedevelopment of new technologies does not lead in a singledirection in the formation of tomorrow's workplace, but it-does present a set of real constraints too often overlooked bythose who would reshape work to meet rising expectations.

Any one of these broad social changes, when viewed inisolation, can be used as the basis for extreme predictionsregarding the future of work. Increasing wealth has beenlinked to both the demise of work and as the' key to expand-ing occupational choice and worker satisfaction. Addededucation and greater awareness lead some to project revolu-tions at the workplace while causing others to hone for anera of increasingly skilled and challenging work roles.Technology may 'render workers obsolete, or simplyeliminate the most harsh and unrewardihg jobs while open-ing nets, work opportunities. In all areas, the changes are sobroad as to create endless possibilities for their selective ap-plication, but such prophecies are _myopic and misleading.Only when viewed together and assessed with the guidance of

. .

9

current labor market 'data is it possible to construct acoherent picture of the future of work in a rapidly changingsociety.

The Commitment to WorkThe dangers of extraporating disparate trends are most

clearly demonstrated by predictions that work will disap-pear. Although the vision of a society in which many arefreed from work is not illogical, current work patterns donot support such claims, but reflect great continuity with thework habits of our predecessors. The length of the full-timeworkweek, which steadily decreased during the first fourdecades of this century, has stabilized, at a nearly universal40-hour week since World War II. More surprisingly, theproportion of the population that works has actually increas-ed during this century, bolstered by growing labor force par-ticipation among women. Even recent survey results confirma continuing attachment to workA Roper Organizationsurvey found that only one in five people place ,more em-phasis on their personal satisfaction and pleasure than onworking hard and doing a good j ob,6 and 85 percent of thoseinterviewed by the American Council of Life Insurancebelieve that success in life is dependent on their workinghard.7 If we are really about to abandon work, somebodyhad better tell the workers.

Rising levels of affluence among American workers havehad an effect on work trendstoday's jobholders are in-creasingly opting for greater leisure through paid vacationsand holidays, and they are also spending fewer years of theirlives working than ever before, retiring earlier in spite of-growing life spans. Yet any expectations of freedom fromwork have been matched by expectations of higher incomes,limiting the scope of movements away from work. Ratherthan shunning their johs, Americans have responded to ris-ing productivity, and affluence partially by seeking higher in-.

20 ;

10

comes and partially by enjoying more "free time" whileemployed. These choices reflect somewhat predictablemarket decisions regarding the marginal utility of additionalincome and leisure, and such work-leisure tradeoffs can beexpected to continue in the years ahead.

The economic incentives to work will not dissipate for thegreat majority of workers in the foreseeable future, and eventhis unlikely event would not lead to a workless societ.Work fulfills a variety of needs in modern societies, pro-viding not only an income but a sense of identity, of com-munity and of purpose. Already we call many activities free-ly 6hosen by individuals "work," and as wemove furtheraway from the effort to clothe and feed ourselves, 6urunderstanding of the nature of work will continue to 'change.Feudal lords would probably not have yiewed many of ourcontemporary pursuits as work, but according to a moderndefinition we will continue to work nonetheless.

work (work), n. (ME. werk; AS. were, weorc akin to G.werk; IE. base *wed-, to 4o, act, seen also in Gr. ergan

instrument cf. oRcAN)), 1. bodily or mental effort(for *wergott, action, work (cf. 'ERG), organott, tool,

exerted to do or make something; purposeful activity;labor; toil. 2. employment: as, out of' work. S. occupa-tion; business; .trade; craft; profession: as, his worle isselling. 4. a) something one is making, doing, or actingupon, estsecially as one's occupation or duty; task;undertaking: as, he laid out his work. b) the amount ofthis: as, a dars work. 5. something that has been madeor- done; result of effort or activity; specifically, a)usually pl. .an act;deed: as, a person of good works.b) pl. collected writings: a's, the works of Whitman.c) pl. engineering structures, as bridges, dame, docks;

1

11

Satisfaction al the WorkplaceThe continuin llingness of Americans to work is no

guarantee of th satisfaction at the Workplace. Workersmay reluctantly conclude that unrewarding jobs arepreferable to no jobs at all, but the potential for workerdiscontent remains a legitimate source of concern. At thesame time, if claims of widespread dissatisfaction at theworkplace are to become mandates fdr public or privateremedies, the burden of proof must.lie with the critics ofwork. Thus far, their case has not been convincing. °

Efforts to gauge worker dissatisfaction and identify thiftsin such attitudes over time pose numerous.research probllems. Surveys which attempt to assess worker discontent areplagued by methodological shortcomings, with resifts vary-ing widely' depending on how survey questions are phrasedand responses collected and interpreted. Because work is soclosely associated with one's identity and self-esteem,measures of work satisfaction inyariably provoke defensivereactions which preserve one's self-image and dignity.'-'Hence, workers are found to be generally satisfied with theirjobs, but also to feel underutilized and inadequatelychallenged by their work roles. Without admitting that theyhave "settled" for unsatisfying jobs, respondents react tospeoific questions of work quality by criticizing the con-straints inherent in their roles and thereby preserving theirsense of self-esteem.

As difficult as it is to develop meaningful measur.es 4:of_worker satisfaction, it is even harder to construct defensibleclaims of long term changei in worker attitudes. Whilesizable portions of the workforce are no doubt *-(andjustifiably) unhappy with their jobs, we have litfle basi's forcomparing this level of dissatisfaction *with that of priorgenerations. The few available longitudinal studies on worksatisfaction have encountered difficulties in distinguishing

4.1

4:=1T

12

attitude changes of workers as they grow older from broadersocietal shifts over time. Por this reason, we may believe thatworker discontent is sufficiently prevalent to warrant publicattention and concern, but calls for remedial action based onthe claims that dissatisfaction is spreading and work qualitydeteriorating are sorely lacking empirical support.

Looking at the occupational shifts already upderway inthe labor market, it seems impossible to predict whether theprospects for satisfaction at the workplace will improve ordiminM in the foreseeable future. The well-woru generaliza-tions concerning shifts frpm blue-collar to white-collar andfrom manufacturing to s'ervice roles identify the broad direc-tions of occupational dhange, but these observations revealsurprisingly little about the future quality of work. White-collar or =vice jobs will not necessarily be better or morerewarding than those which ,they replace, and much will de-pend on the expectations whkh tomorrow's workers bring tothese new jobs. The _most cerfain and significant variables inthe satisfaction of future generations are the continuinggains in education and awareness among workers, whichcmay lead to deeper concerns-f6r work quality within theranks of both labor and management. Revolution at theworkplace still seems most unlikely, but a gradual evolutionOf priorities at work could have an important effect on thenature of jobs in decades to-come. ,

The Attempt to Reform Worli

Most discusSions of work reform stem from a belief thatmuch of today's° work i8 unacceptably bleak and unreward-ing. Such judgments are inherently subjective, and rtm therisk of underestimating the full diversity of worker interestsand needs which shape expectations and attitudes on the job. 'Neveytheless, there remains a humanitarian quality to workreform effOrts which justifies their pursuit even in theabsence of impending crises. Where the potential for im.

t

13

proving the orga zation and design of work exists within thebounds of technological and economic constraints, no threatof uprising should be necessary to ensure work reform in-itiatives.

The accnmulating literature on wOrk reformfirst focus-ing on costly job redesign schemes and more recsntly onbroad issues of participati've managementhas served auseful purpose. Advocates ofwork reform have succeeded incalling the attention of managers to the costs of excessivespecialization and to the potential for tapping the knowledgeof workeis: Another byproduct of the work reform debatehas been the occasional readiness of managers to reconsiderthe importance of worker commitment and morale as a"human variable" : in analyses of production efficiency.Although' the wholesale 'revision of work organizations has

,!rarely been attempted, the critics of work have at leasttemporarily alerted some, management and labor represen7tatives to unattended problems in the workplace. The extentto which reform advocates can sustain that interest andactually change established practices remains to be seen.

Because they have tended to overstate their case, pro-ponents of work reform are likely to encounter considerableskepticism in the years ahead. Concentrating on visions ofmeaningful work and rhetoric about the elimination of"dehumanizing" jobs, advocates of "work, enrichment"and job redesign have failed to heed the technologicaLcon-straintstiand economic considerations which establish thelimits of potential work reform. They paid scant attention toQuestions of who will btar the costs of reforming work andwhat incentives, Managements will 'have to do o. Further-more,- specialized . functions in work organizations weretreated as though they were develoPed on a wholly irrationalbasis; Adam Smith's famous observations on the effect of adivision of labor in the manufacture of pins are somehow

14,

1/oriotten. Assuming that reforhi initiatives are designed tobe implementea voluntarily in a manner consistent withmarket forces, their prospects, for adoption seem far morelimited than advocates suggest.

It is appealing to imagine a world in which there are nolosers, in which both labor and management benefit by newapproaches to work design and management. Under thisscenario, workers would enjoy new challenges and acceptgreater responsibility in their jobs, heightening prospects forself-fulfillment at the workeace. Similarly, managers wouldbe compensated for the time and effort they devoted tO work,reform by the increased productivity of a more satisfiedworkforce. Yet such anticipations assume an overridingcommunity of interest between labor and management fardifferent from the adversarial roles which have 'CharacterizedAmerican labor-management relations. While hard timesmay spur brief periods of reconciliation and cooperation be-tween,employers and their workers, such spells are not likelyto be long-lived.

A

4

15

, Redesigned jobs or participative management efforts may,serve as good public relations props, 6ut private firms cgn-not be expected to spend money for ffie sole purpose of.enhancing worker satisfaction. While cooperation may bepossible on narrowly-defined projects of limited duration,the commitment of 'management to work reform ex-periments will last only as long as they generate tangibleretrns in improved product quality and higirer profits. Andif workers perceiv reform initiatives ap giving managementigther profits while they get far less tangible rewards, even

or support for such experiments May be shorffived.

Dramatic improvements in work qualitywith workersatisfaction given priority over productivity and pro-fitswill be achieved only ffirough the traflional adver-sarial inechanisnis of labor-management relations, won asworkers' rights in the satne manner as higher pay, saferworking conditions, and restriétive work rules. To date,organized labor has not been willing to push work qualityissues in 'collective bargaining, at leasC in parebecausg therank and file are not prepared t9 trade pay' and benefits forless /angible or known rewards. As the education and expec-tations of workers continue to rise, however, unions may e))t:-tend their agenda to include these.issues, thereby ensur,ing amore lasting and determined Move toward satisfying work inthe years Thead.

The FutureIn rejecting snore diamatic claims of a disintegrating workethic or of workplaces redesigned along utopian lines, lite..

Picture of the future which remdinsois more one of gradualchange than of radical deplutures from work as we know ittoday. Americans will continue to work, although more andmore will enjoy the benefits of leisure through longer vaca-tions, added paid holidays, and more part-time employment. ,

4 Menial and unreWarding jobs will persist, although the in-

a

cumbents will increasingly wear a white c011ar or performtheir work in service roles as opposed to the classicstereotypes of harsh factory work. Consultants will envisionbetter worlds using values and priorities we all might em-brace, but in the absence of sharp political and economicupheavals the technological and economic forces of themarketplace will continue to dictate the organization anddesign of work.

There are a number of encouraging trends to be found incurrent work patterns. Growing segments of the workforcewill enjoy freedorti of choice in work, selecting their prefer-red occupations and switching jobs with relative ease.Leistire gains will allow individuals unprecedented controlover their lives, enabling them to pursue their interests out-side of work as well as selecting the Work thex will do on thejob. There is even some hope that the needs and motivationof workers will be given additional attention in the comingdecades, as human resources are reassessed for their poten-tial contributions to economic growth.

This relatively bright outlook of the future of work is .clouded by the awareness that not all segments of the laborforce will share its fruits. Amidst disturbing iigns of a widen-ing gap between the most and least fortunate workers, thedanger to Ametican society is that increasing numbers ofworkers will be excluded from productive work or confinedto menial and unrewarding jobs. The pace of technologicalchange threatens to displace growing numbers of workers in'declining manufacturing sectors, and the expansion of skill-ed employment will be of little consolation to the uneducatedwith limited or narrow skills. The,challenge for public policyin the labor market will be to minimize these disparities inwork 'experience, and to ensure that opporttinities are of-fered for those left behind to partake in a society of growing.affluence, freedom and leisure at work.

I 0'1

2 The Meaning of Work

Let us be grateful to Adam,our benefactor. He cut us

out of the 'blessing' of idlenessand won us the `curse' of labor.

Mark Twain

Any attempt to discern future patterns of woric must beginwith a clear sense of why people work. The motivation towork is hardly self-evidentsome people enjoy their jobs,while others relish only the paycheck. The diversity of reac-tions toward -work is, partly attributable to objective dif-ferences in the tasks which various jobs require, but moreimportantly it stems from the broad range of expectationswhich are brought to_the workplace. In a world with manyhappy auto mechanics and disgruntled corporate executives,tiere.can be no hierarchy of jobs or set of personal needs andinterests which is applicable to all. The forces which axewoven into work motivation are much more complex and,difficult to piedict,

PopUlar wisdom usiially ties work motivation to somevague nótion of the "work -ethic," which in the extremedescribes only a willingness to'work while revealing nothingabout one§ reasons for working. Thus; -even though a poet,a preadher and a plumber would likely offer very differenteXplanations for why they "Woric," we count them all_ asstaunch suppOrteis' of the "work ethic." Conversely, when

04.

17

18

we decry the disintegration of the "wprk ethic," we envisiona world in which everyone refuses to work and civilizationscrumble. It is a useful form of shorthand at tinies, but offersno guidance for 41 sessments of work's future.

Discussions work motivation are complicated byhistorical overtones, for our perceptions of the "work ethic"ancC of the desirability of work are influenced by ideasshaped over many centuries. The extent to which imagesfrom the past accurately reflect the realities of work in prioreras is not easily determined, for the writing of philosophersand theologians tell us more about intellectual and religiousmovements than what the- Greek helots or medieval serfsthought about work motivation. Yet there are links betweenthe evolution of ideas about work and changes in the natureof work itself, and both the perception and substance ofwork in earlier times still exert powerful influences on work

. . patterns today. An understanding of the development ofhistorical views toward work thus provides an impoFtantbasis for examining contemporary sources of wofk motiva-tion and satisfaction.

Early Concepts: The Curse of Adam ,

The earliest commentaries on the nature of work were farfrom positive. From the ancient philosophers into the six-teenth century, two, basic concepts dominated intellectualand philogophical views on the role of work in society.' First,work was equated with the effort (usually physical) requiredto satisfy survival needg. Second, this effort' was acceptednot as-an end in itself, but as a means by which others mightbe freed to pursue higher goals. Work, 'conceived as anunPleasant reality, could only impede the search for ultimate

.ends, and was to be avoided, whenever possible.

The writings of the early Greek philosophers were firmlyrooted in this view, of work. Aristotle declared that just asthe ultimate goal of war was peace, so the object of work was

,1

41

leisure. As an end in itself, leisure meant activity pursuedfree of compulsion or desire for gainfor example, music orcontemplation. Aristotle saw work as a burden which he hadno duty- to bear, accepting slavery because it freed him forleisure and higher pursuits. The slavet left no written recordof their feelints about such arrangements, and their plightseldom captured the recorded attention of those who pfited by their labors. .

Biblical and later Christian views of work were similar tothese early Greek concepts. There was no work in the Gardenof Eden. In the book of Genesis, toil was a curse imposedupon Adam and Eve as a symbol of their banishment fromGod. In later Christian writings, work became a necessaryactivity of this earthly world; yet the work of this life wassupposed to be of little consequence compared to thespiritual work of preparing to face God. By itself, work hadno meaning. Only the contemplation of God could redeemlife.

20

All of these views of work had in common a hierarchicalimage of the world in which work and workers were low onthe scale. Even the language reflected this perspectivetheHebrew word for "work," avodah, is derived from the sameroot as eyed, meaning "slave." Work by definition includedservitude and compulsion (the thought of freely choosing towork was inconceivable), and work effort engenderedneither distinction nor respect. Rather than a laudable orjoyful activity, work was an often unpleasant means to otherends, at best stones on the path to a better reality. Laborpurified, but only in that the soul might turn itself more fullytoward higher ends. Aquinas thought that the simplest, mostroutine tasks were best because they held no danger ofdistracting the mind from its higher purposes.

These early views of work and leiSure were rationalresponses to a workl of work which encompassed, virtuallynothing but physical labor, and which rendered the idea of"meaningful" or "challenging" work inconceivable: IfAristotle were living in the 1980s, we would almost certainlyconsider him to be workingas an author, a tutor, orwhateverbut in his time such intelledual pursuits were an-

,tithetical to the concept of woik. Leisure and work were asdistinct as mind and body, with each the joy or the curse of aseparate social class. Few were so fortunate as to escapework entirely; for the vast majority, there was no avoiding er

< harsh worldOf StitiTUOUS "ancriThending

Birth of the Work EthicIt remained for the developments of the Renaissance and

Reformation to relieve work of,its temporary, means-to-an-end, bottom-of-the-hierarchy status. The ideas which alteredthis curse-of-work perspective evolved along many fronts.For example, the emergence .of democratic ideas challengedthe hierarchical image of the world. The long-accepted rightof a few to a life of leisure was questioned, and utopian

models were developed in which all shared equally in bothleisure and labor. Similarly, some challenged the notion thatthis world was simpb\a dreary way station on the path toparadise. The blossoming of science and craft began toglorify and explore efforts to transform the world. Rgtherthan waiting patiently foriniiracles, the Renaissancephilosophers discarded the thesis that they conld notpresume to alter God's universe. Labor, no longer only anevil to be avoided, became an activity in which many tookpride and enjoyment. .

This transformation of wOrk's image was to a large extenta secular outgrowth of technological ,. demographic andeconomic change, With the birth of modern science duringthe Renaissance, engineers and craftsmen began to replaceabstract theorists and feudal lords as dominant actors shap-ing societoyes future. The merchant class also gained increas-ing influence aS,populations grew and cities expanded. Whilethe privileged retained their rank, the men who sought tochange existing social and economic institutions were doingso through work, and the interests of these emerging classeswere dependent upon the existence of a stable and malleablelabor force. Thus, work becaine not only a respected activityfor the fortunate; but also a moral imperative for thoselaboring beneath them.

I)

,

22 %

a

This emerging work ethic, spawned by seculFlorces, wasreinforced .with religious doctrine. By advancing the beliefthat worIc was good, that all men should work, and that even _menial jobs were worth doing well, the Protestant churchplAced the imprimatur of God himself on work. Reformerssuch as Luther and Wesley declared that work was the in-dividual's missionary contribution to God and the path tosalvation. By proclamation, if ndt in fact, work wai trans-formed from the accursed to the blessed, and labor (in thislife at least) became an end in itself. Work became therightful duty of all, and leisure (defined now as idleness) wasdeclared to be the worst sin. 1

This 'complete reversal of recorded atdudes toward workpreceded the industrial revolution and the universal educa-tion systems which are sometimes credited with spawning thework ethic. -Still, the work ethic was eagerly adopted bysociety as a response to the needs of mass production.Because the efficiency of developing industries relied uponwilling and diligent labor, every agent of authority andeducation proclaimed the virtues of work throughout theseveral hundred years following the Reformation. FromLuther to Ben Franklin and Horatio Alger, workers receiveda steady diet of exhortation and incantation from press,pulpit, and Primer. All work was laudable, work well donewould inevitably bring reward, work shirked led to degrada-tion and ruin. The idea, of course, thlures both as an of-ficial caveat and as a popular idea.

The new emphasis oh humanl_capabilities amongRenaissance scholars and the force of teachings stemmingfrom religious reformers combined to, grant strength andlegitimacy to the idealization of work. 1p some extent, theserevised perceptions were reinforced by c anges in the natureof work itself. As the age of industriali tion approached,local economits and the range of work ac vities became in-creasingly diVerse, and tasks requiring c psiderable skills

\1 \

....f s 9k.) ....)

23

and intellectual abilities were subsumed under the definitionof work. For a minority of skilled craftsmen, the infimateties between work, physical labor and dreary exertion beganto unravel, and a more equitatile distribution of work gainedacceptance. Yet for the masses of unskilled laborers, lktlechanged except the setting of their servitude, and the forcesof industrialization quickly made a mockery of the ideal ofdignified work, although religious doctrine and secular con-ceptualization about the noble functions of work remainedunchanged.

Industrialization and the Lossof Meaning in Work

From the -first flowering of the work ethic, the religiousand secular trends which gave it meaning began todisintegrate as the nature of work continued to change.While the model of the skilled craftsmair did not disappear,the factory worker came to symbolize work in andustrialized societY and to overshadow the cons,iderable con-tinuity of work in other occupational sectors. Industrializa-tion and urbanization, the dinfinished authority of thechurch, and a gradyal recognition that much of the work re-quired by society was indeed tedious and unrewarding, allcontributed to -the eroding of the notion that work was agood in itself. Even if lauded in the sanctuary, work ap-peared once again to be the accursed obstacle standing be-tween men and the realization of a freer, leisured paradise.

The analyses of Marx andFreud often have served as thebases for indictments of work in industrialized societies, and_ortheir writings reflected a new emphasis on sociological orpsychological aspects of work. Both men argued that workplays a major role in providing individuals with a sense ofpurpose and significance. Marx analyzed manufacturingwork in the early years of industrialization and concludedthat factory labor had alienated workers from some rightful

/

tt,

24

integral relation of work and meaning. Similarly, Freud heldthaf work was the single mog important factor in thepsychology of self-esteem, and the central activity by whichindividuals gave meaning to their lives. Even though imagesof work in a preindustrial agecharacterized by life on thefarm and the craft method of manufacturesuffered fromidealization, the contrasts drawn by Marx, Freud and theirsuccessors highlighted very real and important changes in theway people viewed work, and in the nature of work itself.

Prior to the machine age, the farmer and the craftsmanhad a close identification with their work. They owned their

and controlled the pace of their work. The gratificationderived from work efforts was immediate, rendering workrather than leisure the Qentral focus of their lives. In this con-text, sharp, distinctions between work and leisure were in-comprehensiblework was an integral part of biith survivaland satisfaction. With the move from the countryside to thecities and from the, workshop to the factory, however, mostof this sense of intimacy with ancl control oyer work was lostforever.

Critics of the modern workplace suggest that industrializa-tion conflicted severely with the harmony between work andthe individual in several ways. Many people were removedfrom the production of the Objects by which they lived, los-ing the knowledge of how the goods on which they dependedwere made. The symbolic link between work and fulfillmentof basic needs was further weakened by the introduction' ofcurrencies and other standardized terms of trade whichreplaced the.direct exchange of goods and services. The toolsand prdcesses of production became mcire complex, removedsnd imfamiliarthe industrial worker not only die not ownthe tools of the trade, but also understood them imperfectly,could not repair them, and usually did not control their pace.In an unfamiliar environment, the factory worker wasalienated and left with none of the feelings of competency

25

and, security common to the farmer and the village crafts-, man.

In this bleak view of industrialization, the content of workalso underwent major revision. The development of methodsand scales of production which required the coordinated ef-forts of tens t hundreds or thousands meant that indMdualdesires and rhythms had to be subordinated to imposedschedules. Labor began to be defined and measured by timeon the clock, arid huge organizations removed most in-dividuals many layers from the center of responsibility andcontrol. Most importantly, the industrial process, in itssearch for efficiency, compressed the scope of individualjobs to the point that almost no production-line job requiredmore than a tiny fraction of an individual's capabilities.Workers lost the clearly recognizable stake in prqduction

'which they previously enjoyed, and the outlet for creativeenergy was all but destroyed in many occupations.

,))

To the extent that work in an industrial area narrowed thepotehtial for fulfillment through one's job, peoplepresumably made sharper distinctions between work .andleisure. Fewer could find reason to adhere to the "work

ij

-s,

,.

26

ethic," at least if defined as a "conviction that work is aworthwhile activity in its own right, and not merely as ameans to some important end such as material comfort orwealth."2 Unsatisfying jobs gave rise to the goal of escapingwork for leisure, and reinforced the idea _that work encom-passed everything that was unpleasant but necessary andcontinuing. Self-realization was sought increasingly duringleisure time, and worker demands for paid leisure and forconsumer goods and services increased. As a product of theforces of industrialization which transformed the nature ofwork, this sharp division of life into work and leisure hasbeen viewed as a distinctly modern phenomenon and asignificant departure from the 'experience of prior genera-tions.

While this description of work "dehumanized" by the in-dustrial transition may be shopworn, it does reflect thechanged status and working conditions ofsome_occupationsduring the machine age. Those involved in the industrialmass manufacture of goods certainly faced new problems., a's

the size of organizations grew and the scope of jobs narrow-'ed in pursuit of greater efficiency. Similar shifts were felsoutsi45the factory as wellconcepts of specialization wereadapted to service industries, and the emergence of large cor-porations deprived many white-cojlar workers of a sense ofcontrol and meaning at work. These developments may nothave touched the lives of even a majority of workers in thenineteenth century, but they did generate the concepts ofalienating work which most of society pine to accept.

Whose Work ,Ethic?

The more difficult issue in the history of work is notwhether its nature changed, but rather whether it wasperceived differently by successive 'generations of workers.

_

The writings of scholars and theologians portray a series ofreversals, in which work is transformed from a curse to a

t

, r-

7, 27

bless* and religious duty, and then to a dreary and-alienating necessity. Yet this process of abstracting a conceptof the work ethic and then plotting its rise and fall over-simplifies complex developments and masks underlying con-tinuities. It fails to explain why men worked, or workedhard, or what they thought of their jobs. The philosopNcalconnotations of work did change, but their relationship toactual work patterns and worker attitudes is at best uncer-tain.

Clearly the Reformation, the rise of crafts and theemergence of democratic ideals gave new dignity to work.No longer just the inevitable toil by which one survived,work gained recognition among the learned and privileged asthe activity by which individuals and societies progress. It isless clear whether the elitists' praise of work was ever ac-cepted by workers, or how much it actually fueled theirmotivation to work. Surely many artisans had always takenpride in their crafts and had no need of a church-sanctionedmorality or self-serving employers' exhortations to shore up

,-,the self-esteem they derived from their work. Tor those inless skilled labor, necessity no doubt played a stronger role intheir journeys to work than any attempts at moral indoc-trination. Andrew Carnegie may have dedicated his empireto the glory of God, but pte men in his employ more likelyworked Mr gold rather than grace.

A, closer look at work habits' during the early stages ofmass production illustrates the weakness &Pr-moral im-peratives concerning work. Turnover rates before WorldWar I were greater than in 1980, with textile and steel IFills,clothing shops, machine works and early automobile plantsreporting turnover as high as 100 percent. Absenteeism wasalso a source of serious concernas much as 10 percent ofthe workforce was absent on ant given day.3 In response toturnover rates reaching 370 percent, Henry Ford hiredsociologists in 1914, hoping that they woull strengthen

,

p;

.,

I

.1

*

,

,

28

workers' commitment to sustained work. A devotion towork certainly seemed absent from typical work patterns';,even as philosophical discussions of the work ethic flourish-ed. The work ethic has always existed more in the world ofscholars than of laborers, "more as a concept thanas a power-ful motivating force keeping people at work. r

Much of the anxiety concerning_ Ihe strength of tilt workethicin contemporary society mins to stem from an exag-gerated sense of its importance to work motivation ingenerations past. There has never been much evidence tosupport Max Weber's description of man as `:driving hardagainst the environment because of his need to prove hiniselfbefore God." The Protestant ethic may have fieightened thesocial stigma associated with not working, but the strugglefor survival offered ample motivation to work for even themost irreverent of characters. With greater affluence,workers have more opportunities to voice and act upon theirdiscontent. Now ai then; the survival of work does uot de-pend on the motivational force of an abstract work ethic.

/04401 ries of Work Motivation.

Recognizing that the rise and fall of the work ethic is link-ed only tenuopsly to w6rk behavjor and inotivation, mostanalysts of this century have sought other explanations forour attachment to work. A variety of possibilities,have beenraised, most focusing on some concept of need fulfillment.Given the diversity of both work and individuals, no singleconcept can fully account for why people work, but the constributions of various disciplines form the basis for a relative:.ly comprehensive portrait of work motivation in a" modernera:--- 1 : ..

w

Perhaps the most basic theory of work motivationdescribes te desire to work as part of human nature. Titissimple vie of work motivation posits the existence ea fun-damental human urge to exert oneself, a drive to learn, to '

i .

- i

_

z29#

achieve, and to shape one's surroundings. The presence of a"work instinct" is impossible to prove, and its strength can-not be measured. Yet this perspective on wOrk motivationdoes derive legitiMacy ftorn traits we commonly associat9with human nature: a sense of curiosity, a-responsiveness tochallenge, a capacity for pursuing *hopes and aspirations.Even as the debate over whether these qualities are acquiredor whether they are innate continues, the desire of Most toexert and achieve is diffisult to dispute.

V Theegonomic explanations for work are famil. ones.Subsistence needs create-pressures--focwork- in.al civiliza-tions, and5continue to fuel work motivalloikeven in affluentwelfare states.. While the aggregate yveaith of society may besufficient to free substantial portions of the population fromthe necessity of work, distribution syStems within theeconomy generally ensure that people work if they wish toenjoy anything more than the motst meager of incomes andlifestyles. As the Industrial Workers of the World oncechanted, "Wye go tp wdrIc to get the dough to get the food tOget the strength to go to work . . . ." A paycheck -is noguarantee of.an escape from povertymillions of Americansearn,too little for them'to avoid this fate-Tbut the-economicadvantages of working are almost always sufficient to giveinditvidUals powerful incentives to remain employed.

In WealtW industrialized nations, the concern for relativeincome ga&s is a far more powerful sOuice of work motiva-tion than any basic survival 'needs. Most of the "nedessities

. of life" in America already are a reflection of cultural normsand expect#tions rather than of provisions for food, shelter.and clothing. This process of 'revising bcpectations upwardleaves she majority., working for nicer homes, cars ,and

' stereos, while only an impoVerishedminority still struggles to _

place dinner on their tabls. The point is not to legitimize thisdistribution of income, bUt simply to stress that even amidst,considerable wealth, the lUre of ielativz ificOme gains pro-vides meaningful economic incentives toNkork.

4

30

/

or-7.711; kt I / I .111

-

.

X

In themselves, these instinctual and economic views mightbe sufficient to explain why most people work. Still, themost intriguing (and in affluent societies perhaps the mostpowerful). accounts, of-work niotivation have emerged, fromsociological and psychological perspectives. Arguing thatwork in modern societies is more than a means of subsistenceok an avenue for fulfilling economic needs, sociologists havesuggested that work is also essential in providing .a sense ofmeaning, of community and self-esteem to the individual.Through work, we seek to justify our own existence, -to-develop, a feeling of participation in a design which isgrander than our personal lives. Through work, we join acommunity of individuals with common,experiences, skillsor goals, Through work, we derive feelings of competenceand achievement, Making cjznributions which enable us tobelieve in our own'worth. v

ThuswhiIe people máj not want to labor, they usually,*ant a job. The dislincti is not merely.seinanticfew are

41

31

compelled by the sheer excitement or challenge of theirwork, but by having a job they can earn social accePtance.Work is "a membership card that entitles the holder to allthe privilege's of bountiful culture.' For this teason,Americans work even when it is not imperative: millionshold jobs in spite of their eligibility for welfare at com-parable income levels, and labor market studies have shownrepeatedly that three of four workers would continue work-ing even if they inherited enough money to live comfortablyin leisure.' One person who enjoyed the good fortune of in-herited wealth told journalist Studs Terke.l, "I have come tosome conclusions after having been free economically fromthe necessity of work. To be occupied is essential."6

The impact of unemployment pn the human psyche pro-vides a dramatic illustration of the social and psychologicalneeds yihich work fulfills. For those without jobs, thepsychiescars can be great. The reflections of John Coleman.,a labor economiSt who took a sabbatical from a collegepresidency to try his hand at manUal work, are\instructive;after only day of unemployment, he wrote:

This day hit me hard. I havea secure, or reasonablysecure, job to go back to. My family's bills are be-ing paid while I'm away. I can still use my name toopen doors here and there. But none of that mat-tered today. I felt unwanted and out of work. Iwondered why people couldn't see what a valuedemployee I would be . . . .7

Deprived of a community of co-workers and unable to con-tribute to the support of family or society, the jobless quick-ly feel alienated and unproductive. The causes of this forcedidleness are Of secondary iniportanceeven when whollybeyond the individual's control, the sense of dependency, ofuselessness and isolation Can be devastating.

Not surprisingly, research data suggest that unemploy-ment and mental health are inversely related', with the strains

f

32

of joblessness so severe as to be potentially life-threatening.M. Harvey Brenner of Johns Hopkins University hasestimated that a 1 percent increase in the U.S. unemploy-ment rate results in some 37,000 additional deaths, withmore than half of those fatalities caused by increased in-cidences of heart attacks and other cardiovascular diseases.'Obviously most people denied work do not die. Butunemployment has robbed themif not of life, then ofsomething else. "The bewilderment they often express is likethat of the homeowner who returns to find rooms ransacked,valuable and beloved objects missing," Harry Maurer con-cludes in his oral ,history of the unemployed:

The sense of vidlence and invasion, the feelings offear and loss and- helplessness descend with thesame stunning force when a worker is deptived ofwork. And the loss is much greatex, because work,if the longing of the unemployed is any indication,remains a fundamental human needeven in thecrushing form it has increasingly assumed in themodern world. It provides not simply a livelihood,but an essential passage into the human communi-ty. It makes us less alone.'

Thus, the forces which lead us to the workplace are muchsubtler than any proscriptions and religious moralisms of thework ethic. We work because it defines our place in theworld, and creates a *odd in which we can feel both neededand useful.

A Worker's Identity Crisis?"Who am I? . . . I'm a ." Almost regardless of how the

response is completedwhether eledtrician, banke,r orteacherthe reply will conclUde with a description of the in-dividual's job. The sociological importance of work isepitomized by the widespread practice of defining people bytheir work roles, and often of characterizing ourselves in the

,

33

same manner. A quick glance at the 'obituary page of thenewspaper illustrates the point: the headlines do not an-nounce the passing of a beloved husband, mother orneighbor, but rather of a former city councilman or socialstudies teacher. Terkel explored this theme repeatedly in in-terviews with a cross section of workers: "Your work is youridentity;" it "tells you who you are;" "your occupationmolds your personality," and "my work and my life havebecome one" were typical replies. Even when people hatedtheir work, Terkel concluded, it remained the reference pointfor identity.

Again, the attitudes of the unemployed demonstrate vivid-ly the role of work in shaping self-image. Many jobless per-sons feel stripped of their identity, lost in a sea of statisticsand without a role to assert in a community of workers. Anunemployed forty-five year old construction worker express-ed his frustration:

Right now I can't really describe myself be-cause . . . I'm unemployed. . . . So, you see, I ,

can't say who I am right now. . . . I guess a man'ssomething else besides his woil, isn't he? Butwhat? I just don't know.'°

This link between work and, identity has been perceived to beso strong as to sustain work effort even in the absence ofsignificant economic incentives to work. A 1972 federalgovernment report concluded:

. . . to be denied Work is to be denied faimore thanthe things that paid work buys; it is, to ba4d theability to define and respect one's ielf.

It is illusory to believe jhat if people were given suf-ficient funds most of them wOuld stop working andbecome useless idlers."

Supported by considerable research on work attachmentamong the poor, it seems clear that Americans of all income

J4

34.

levels gauge their self-esteem and identity in relation to theirjobs, and that these personal needs provide compellingmotivations to work.

"I just introduced Mr. Indemnity Bondsto Ms. Paralegal Services."-

It is important to note that the close connection -betweenwork and identity or self-esteem has had special meaning forwomen in American society. With dominant values still fail-ing to acknowledge housekeeping activities as work, millionsof women haye been denied the recognition or status whichvirtually any other "job" would confer. Betty Friedanpresented -oneof many -examples othow This lack Of recogni=tion has affected women who remain at home:

A young mother with a beautiful family, charm,talent and brains is apt to dismiss her roleapologetically. 'What do I do?' you hear her say.'Why nothing, I'm just a houseikife.' A goodeducation it seems "has given this paragon amongwomen an understanding of the value of everythingexcept her own worth.12

15

35

Not surprisingly, women increasingly are working for wagesoutside the home, with dramatic implications for the com-position of the labor force and the nature of work. Therecord number of women who are working may not, be assingle-minded in theirettachment to jobs as their male-counterparts, but they are clearly expressihg a desiie todefine themselves in terms other than John Smith's wife orBill Jones's mother.

Thus, among all of the groups which might be presumedto have the weakest attachment to the labor markettheunemployed, the poor, and women who previously have notentered the labor forcework continues to play a powerful,:role. Some of the pressures to work indeed may stem fromthe remnants of the Protestant ethic, placing a stigma onthose choosing not' to work. Yet these negative forces couldnot fully account for the continuing strength of workmotivation in modern society. The desire to work reaches farbeyond pious exhortations, and even beyond the pressures ofeconomic necessity. We work because it offers one certainway-of participating in the world around us, of developing ashared sense of community and of building a sense of identi-ty and self-esteem which adds meaning to our lives.

Who Really "Wants" to Work?The list-of reasons why we may "need",to workwhether

psychological, economic or sociologicalprovides ampleways, of understanding the motivation to work. Yet thisdiscussion should not evoke images of workers springingcheerfully from their beds each morning, eager to reach theirjobs. Just as work satisfaction is distinct from work motiva-tion, wanting to work is quite different from needing towork. A fortunate few manage to hold jobs which they findchallengink and exciting, but they are _truly blessed._ Thestruggle to cope with tedious and unpleasant work- is farmore common. Even if Americans do not shirk work in thecoming decades, they may not rush to embrace it either.

36

It is perhaps most accurate to view people as of two minds,fundamentally ambivalent in their, attitudes toward work."The desire to work . . . is a powerful human need, an egodrive related to self-expression, power, cieativity," conclud-ed historiarl John Garraty, and yet "so . . . is the desire tobe idle and free of responsibility." Freud articulated thesame paradox fifty years miner, suggesting that people de-pend on work and yet neither prize it as a path to happinessnor pursue it as a source of satisfaction, often working onlyunder the stress of necessity.'' In the words of Eli Gigzberg,this "natural aveysion to work" stems from the desire ofworkers to be "master& of their souls for as much of the dayas possible."15

Of course, these competing desires for freedom and socialrecognition, for pleasure and achievement, are not pew addi-tions to human nature. Yet the fundamental human am-bivalence toward work niay take on increasing importance inlabor markets of the future as workers gain the ability tomake more personalized choices between work and leisure.In pragmatic terms, work will remain an economic necessityfor all but the very rich, and the noneconomic functions ofwork will ensure some attachment to work throughout soci-ety. Yet workers already are gaining the option to balancework and leisure time amidst growing affluence, and thesework-leisure tradeoffs reflect tlieir ambilAence towardwork. The continuing motivatim to work may not disap-pear, but workers are increasingly able to act on their ownmixed emotions toward their labors.-

3 The Survival of Work

I don't like workno Mandoesbut I like what ii inwoykthe chance to find

your elf. Your own reality--for yourself, not for

otherswhat no otherman can ever know.

Joseph Cbnrad-Heart of Darkness

If the demise of the work ethic is a threat to civilization,one Vvould never susPect it from ctirrent labor market trends.Whatever their ambivalence, Americans are working morethan ever. Productivity gains and growing affluence have, nottriggered a mass exodus from work and our society has notdecayed from idleness and sloth. Instead, bog' greaternumbers and larger proportions of the population. have,entered the labor force in recent yeari, and the tenacioushold of work ,upon the daily activities of most' Americans-shows few signs of weakening.

The Growing Labor ForceRather than abandoning work, Americans have sought it

in unprecedented numbers. The U.S. lab6r force has morethan tripled in size since the ttirn of the century, and even therelative percentage of the population which works has creptup since World War II (Figure 3.1). The growing ratio of

37

1 .

38

Figure 3.1 Labor Force Participation HasIncreased.During the Twentieth Century

Percent ofpopulationin laborforce

I

"Current pcipsilation survey

64.3

59.9 59.7; 61.3 ;51.1

60

50

Percent ofPopulationin laborForel ,

"55.3

1940 1950 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980

I59 0

Decennia census'56,1

54.1.52.9

50.2

in50

6 2.0

1900-1920-1930 1940'1950 '1940 1970-'1480

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Co-lonlal Times to 1970 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975), p. 127;and U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Provisional Estimate of Social Economic andHousing Charactpristics,"1982.

. 39

workers to the working age population is particularly signifi-cant when viewed in light of gains in productivity. Despite anenormous decrease in the amount of human labor requiredto produce given quantities of goods, no correspondingdecrease in the number or relative portion of workers hastaken place. Driven by rising .expectations and an interest inrelative income gains, individuals have continued their workeffort and sought to maintain their share of society's increas-ing wealth.

..aThe improvements in standards of living made possible by

rising productivity are simply astounding. At the turnsof thecentury, electric lighting and indoor plumbing were luxuriesin private homes reserved for the affluent. Today, housingwhich lacks these "basics" is considered unfit for habita-tion. In 1900, food which was not locally in season couldrarely be obtained, even by pie wealthy.. Now,- even the poorroutinely consume meats, fruits,_ and vegetables shippedfrom.acroSs a continent and beyond. This dramatic shift incontemporary expectations reflects the affluence ofAmerican societyin 1981, the average net worth per personwas nearly $40,000, representing a collection of cars, TVsets, bank accounts, and real estate undreamed ofeven a fewdecades ago.

Workers have responded to the potential freedoms of ris-ing productivity and affluence, but not in the manner fearedby some. Instead of abandoning work, workers have optedfor greater amounts 9f paid leisUre to complement their ris-ing incomes in 'traditional 40-hour per week jobs. Factorieshave not stood idle, but emPloyers have been faced withdemands for more paid holidays and longer vacations as partof the "fringe benefits" of employment. The process is oneof gradual evolution, in which individuals continually adjustto rising standards of living and balance .further incomegains against the utilitST of additional "free time" away fromthe workplace. .

4

40

UnforAmately, all segments of the population, have notshared equally in, either the growing affluence or the gablelabor force participation which aggregate data reflect. Theoverall trends in labor force participation disguise significantchanges in the demographic characteristics of the work force,failing to indicate who is entering the labor force and why. Areview of the participation rates of various subgroups withinthe labor forte highlights these more detailed aspects ofwork motivation, and provides a firmer basis for conclusionsabout the future of work in contemporary America..

The Arrival of Women at WorkThe increasing number of people who work each day are a

new breed, or at least a distinctly more feminine one. At thiTturn of the century, the vast majority of workers were men.In the social order of that day, the man was the breadwinner,and the woman was the homemaker. Eighty years later, thedistribution of labor between the sexes 'has changedradicallywomen have joined men at the workplace inrecord numbers, more than doubling their share in the laborfOrce since 1900 (Figure 3.2). In more than 60 percent of allmarriages today, the husbapd is not the sole provider for hisfamily. For the first time in history, working wives out-number housewives.

The movement of wonien into the labor force was not asudden revolution, but rather a "subtle revolution" Whichbegan before World War II. The workplace had long beenthe natural habitat for many minority and unmarried -

womenaccording to the 1900 census, 41 percent of all non-white women and 17 percent of white women (many ofwhom were immigrants) worked. Seventy-five percent of thefemale factory workers were of immigrant stock and close to70 percent of the working women were unmarried at the ,turnof the century.' Nearly one in diery five workers was female,

41

rendering the concept of the working woman at least familiarto industrial America.

Figure 3.2 gin 1981, Women CoMprise More ThanTwice as Large a Share of the LaborForce as in 1900

70 Million

60 Million

50 Million

57%

82%20 Million

1900 1947 .

Source U S. bureau of tabor Statistics

1981

World War II was A watershed: the social fetters whichbarred married, middle-class women from working wereshattered by the need to replace some 12 million men wholeft the labor force for battle. By V-E day, 36 percent of thewomen of working. age were employed, compared to 25 per-

7

42

cent before the war. Within 2 years after the war, somewomen left the workfo9e, reducing labor force participationto 32 .percent. Stn 'ce,ie ale Jabot fpxce participationzesum,ed an uninterrupted up rd climb. Unlike the young, single,and Ooor women who w rked in the first four decades of thetwentieth century, the w men who replaced the male com-batants during the war vere frequently thrried and overthirty-five years of age. 1ependent uponjnale labor, thewartime economy legitimized the empl yment of married,middle-Class women analtriggered a pattern of increasingparticipation which contihues to this day.

Having-discovered the vorkplace, increasing numbers ofwomen found that full-time homemaking had lost its attrac-tion, despite the jump in the birth rate during the postwarperiod. Throughout the 1950s, new women entrants into thelabor force exceeded .the ruimber of additional males, so thatby 1960 nearly twice as may women were working than hadbeen in-1940. Initially, the rush into the labor market wasamong mature women: 80 percent of the women entering thelabor force from 1945 to 1965 were over 35 Years old. Sincethen, the reverse has been the casealmost the same percen-tage of new entrants have been less than thirty-five years ofage. Yet regardless of age variations, the surge of women in-to the work force has been unmistakable. In 1081, slightlyMore than 50 percent of all wives held Raying jobs outsidethe home, compared to only 23 percent in 1947.

Why have women rushed With such vigor into the laborforce in the course of just a few decades? Some social scien-tists turn to changing technologyin the bedroom as well asthe kitchenin their attempts tb explain the labor marketbehavior of women. Housekeeping consumes less time todaythan a few decades ago and the number of children in thehome has also deClined, leaving moretjme for work. In addi-ion, a woman now can virtually determine the number ofchildren she will have and when she will have them. As a

43

result of this ine*Yeasiiig control, the average nilmber ofchildren per ftmil3r -dropped from 2.3 to 1.9 -during the1970s, with thel'ertility rate reaching a historic low of 15.3births`per thousand peofIle by 1980.

Undoubtedly these technological advance§ have enhanced'the ability of women to 'shape their own lifestyles,eliminating some of the burdens and uncertainties whichcomplicated their labor force participation in previous eras.Yet changes in technology were as much a response to emerg-ing values and demands as they were a cause of these newwork patterns. Technological innovations inty harfacilitated female labor foree participation but the oppor-tunity to work is not synonymous with the desire to work,and a more complete explanation is needea.

-Traditional economic incentives can also account only-partially for the growing labor forevprticipation of women.For some women, economic needs do play a significant rolein stimulating work effortin the aggregate, white wives ac-count for one-quarter of their family income and black wivesprovide one-tWittl of famiiy 'income. Without this work ef-fort, many Americans families could _not maintain theirmiddle-class status. Net the strong inverse relationship be-tween a husband's income and the labor force activity of hiswife which once dominated women's work roles has weaken-ed cEmsiderably amidst growing affluence. The Bureatuef theCensus reported Ithat almost 60 percent of the women infamilies with annual income of $25,000 or more worked in1980. According to the 1 80 Virginia Slims AmericanWomen's Opinion Poll, less than 50 percent of workingwomen took ,their jo4ii to support themselves or theirfamilies.' For most wdMn, 'only the/pursuit of relative in-.come gains' provides an economic incentive for Arking.Many:families simply are unwilling to settle for the standardof living their parents enjoyed in the 1950s, and §o womencontinue to enter the labor market.

44

The rapid movement of women into the workforce hasachieved its strength and permaneuce due to the samesociological needs for a sense of community, identity andself-esteem which drive the work efforts of men in an af-fluent society. Some women no doubt always envied thework roles and related social status of their male counter-parts, but until the past few decades they have had littlechance to express such yearnings. The precedent of wartimelabor provided the first crack in social mores which had keptwomen at home, and tile more recent women's movement ofthe 1970s his ensured the steady disintegration of these rigidstereotypes. Once unleashed byjAGiabasid economic change,the latent desires of women for recognition outside the homehave fueled their rapid rise in labor forée participation. Inthis sense, their motives for working remain quite similar tothose of menthey just have been prevented from acting on*thein in earlier times.

Finally, It is important to note iht this masgive surge inthe labor force participation of women would have been im-possible in the absence of favorikle labor market conditions.

45

Structural changes in the economy which increased the de-'nand for female labor had enticed women into the laborforce even-before-the women's movement flourished, andthe ever-increasing participation of women, has beenfacilitated by the growing labor requirements of an expand-ing economy. The rapid growth of the service sector has beenparticularly significant in this regard, since women tradi-tionally performed much of the work now founcrin serviceindustries. Without this demand for female labor, the"emancipation" of women from the home would have pro-ceeded at a much slower pace. Now, given our dependenceon female labor to meet current labor needs, any wholesalereturn to the home is inconceivable.

MenWorking but RetiringThe dramatic influx of women into the labor force has

hidden a divergent trendmen are leaving the workforcewith greater frequency than ever before. Since 1951; thelabor force participation rate of then dropped almost con-tinuously from 87.3 percent of the working age populationto 77.5 percent-three decades later. In that same period, threeof every five added workers were female, and the averagenumber of years worked in a man's lifetime steadily dtclin-ed. The aggregate data are deceiving, for the expanding workeffort of women has totally offset the drop in male laborforce participation to produce ilightly increasing Overallrates. Even among men, the 11 percent decline in participa-tion since1951 fails to reveal ;harper retreats from the laborforce by older men.

While the data on male labor force participation might beused superficially to argue that work motivation indeed isdisappearing, a closer examination suggests otherwise. Thevast majority of able-bodied men are working as much astheir fathers and grandfathers did. Even young males, whohave little attachment to the workplace, have not shunned

td,)

46

f-work. Only two distinct groups within the male labor forcehave left the workplace with increasing frequency: white menover acks. As with women's rising labor force

articipation, both these trends have been driving forcesunique to these segments of the population.

Most predictions of the disintegration of work stress theabsence of traditional workforce attachments among theyoung, and yet the labor force participation rates ofAmerican youth certainly reflect no crisis at the workplace.Although more males aged 14-24 are enrolled in school thanwere a generation ago, they are also working more thanstudents disl in 1955in part because more children from-;less affluent families are attending college, which theyfinance by working. This is not to suggest that participationrates among young males have not fluctuated over timeinthe mid-1960s, the rates for males aged 16-19 dipped sharply,only to rebound ,to approximately their 1950 levels by 1981.Coupled with the steady sise of teenage female participationover the course of the past three decades, the evidencereflects no abandonment of work at the lower end of the agespeckm.

Rather than rebellious youth, it is their older counterpartswho are working less. Males forty Srears their junior are notpostponing their entrance into the labor force, but older menare hastening the age at which they leave work. In the 1950s,nearly nine of ten men aged 55 to 64 worked. Thirty yearslater, less than three in four did. The drop is even moreprecipitous for men 65 years of age and overfrom 48 per-cent in 1947 to 18 percent in 1981, a 61 percent decline. Thisweakened attachment to the labor force in later years isunique to men as well. From 1947 to 1980, the proportion ofwomen aged 55 to 64 in the labor force jumped from 24 per-cent to 42 percent, While the labor force participation rate ofwomen over 65 years of age remained unchanged. Clearly,older men are no longer viewing work in later years as an

t.)

47

unavoidable necessity. Working until At least age 65, once asocial prescriptioh, is turning into a social suggestion.

The length of retirement for men is growing on two fronts:men are retiring earlier at the same time their life expectancyis increasing. Today, the average male at age 65 can be ex-pected to live another 15 years. Combined with decisions toretire at earlier ages, this greater life expectancy had led to atripling since 1900 of the number of years the average manspends *outside the labor force. Even over the past twodecades, the lifetime leisure gains have been consider-ablein 1960, an average of 25.7 yeas were spent outsidethe labor force, but this figure for men had jumped to 31.0years by 1977. After age 14, the number of years men spentoutstde the workforce rose from 10.8 years to 14.0 years(Figure 3.3). While women's work effort has lengthened withgains in life expectancy to produce a relatively constant levelof lifetime leisure throughout this century, the appetite ofmen for greater leisure in their later years has not yet beensated.

The movement toward earlier retirement among men ispartially a reflection of changing social attitudes. Once car-rying the stigma of forced idleness, retirement now has takenon a more positive aura of welcomed leisure. More impor-tantly, however, the shift toward earlier retirement is also aresponse to heightened private and public "subsidizaiion ofleisure" which allows more men to afford early retirementthan ever before. A recent study of determinants of plannedretirement age, based on data from the longitudinal historyretirement study of the Social Security Administration,found that being eligible for social security benefits increasesthe probability of early retirement by 11.1 percent for atypical married man and 12.4 percent for a typical singlewoman.' Eligibility for a private pension was found to pro-vide even stronger incentives for retirement between age 62and 65. For this reason, social security data also reveal thatmen'who had worked in low income jobsthose least likely

t-t.;

48

Figure 3.3 .Lifetime Leisure For Men After AgeFourteen Has Tripled

70

50

Workyears

Leisure

P9 Men

Women

411.0-4".

years

50 1

46 0

44 0 5 11

4.740 ..

3035 11 37.5

3 O.

20

10

10 2 6

.0 /

1900 1920

52.3

43 2

56 21r

^

40.5

15 7

1940 1950

-S4.6111INI.

9.2

45 4

55 44111111

10

%,41.2

4 .6

:fp

39 11

55.4.11.11

12

37 3

:9F25

56 9

14 0

: 36 7

1960 1969 1977

YearSource Derived from U.S. Bureau of the Census and U.S. Bureau of LaborStatistics data.

49

to have pension coveragewere also the most likely to keepworking to supplement social security benefits.'

The expansion of coverage and benefits under both privateand public retirement systems accounts for the greater finan-cial security which has fueleddecisions to retire early. Forexample, the percentage of 'workers with private pensionsmore than doubled in the course of 25 years, rising from 22percent of the labor force in 1950 to 46 percent in 1975.Similarly, the Social Security Act covered 64.5 percent of allworkers thirty years ago, while in 1980 the figure was 90 per-cent. During the 1970s, the average monthly benefit forretired workers rose 26 percent (after adjusting forinflation), while real average weekly earnings declined by 2percent. Finally, most pension planspublic as well asprivatehave lowered the age at which people may retire.More than 70 percent of all new social security recipients in1978 were less than 65 years of age, and similar trends can befound in private retirement systems.

In essence, because "retirement" is a socially accepteddeparture from the labor force, older men have been able toseize the leisure gains of an affluent society,at a manner im-possible in earlier generations or for most workers in lessproductive economies. While sociological forces tie younierworkers to the labor force even in the absence of economicneed, older men have an "easy out" in early retirement, andthus they are one of the few groups which have responded toincreasing wealth by ceasing to work. Most older men havealready established their sense of identity and self-esteemthrough their work history, and their psychological needs forwork are less pressing. For this reason, even as work con-tinues to provide physical and mental sustenance for some,men in their later years are increasingly choosing the optionof expanded leisure.

The limits to this growth tf lisure through early retire-ment will depend on the willingness of society to subsidize

50

the abandonment of work by older men. High inflation ratesduring the 1970s have severely taxed retirement systems, andbenefits for retirees have grown much faster than their con-tributions to such systems. The problem is becoming par-ticularly acute for public systems, including federal social'security, where political pressures for expanded benefits anda "pay as you go" financing structure have combined toplace the system in seiious financial trouble.

In response to these concerns, shifts in government policydesigned to stem the tide of early retirement are already oc-curring. The 1977 amendments to the Age Discrimipation inEmployment Act of 1967, passed ostensibly to ensure fairertreatment of older workers under age 70, may induce them toremain iR the workforce longer. The ongoing debate onsocial security has raised the prospect of more direct effortsto discourage early retirement, including proposals advancedby the Reagan administration in 1981 to penalize personstaking advantage of early retirement (prior to age 65), toprovide additional incentives for continued work efforts bybeneficiaries, and to raise gradually the age of eligibility forfull retirement benefits from 65 to 68. The intensity ofpolitical opposition to such changes in social securityhighlights the growing appeal of early retirement. Yet thewillingness of the rest of society to finance ever-increasingleisure in later years still may dictate the upper limit of thispowerful trend.

The Exodus of Biack MenIn addition to older men, the other segment of society ex-

iting the labor force in increasing numbers are black men. Ifthe earlier retirement of older men is a 'testament to thebenefits of an affluent society, the abandonment of work byblack men is a sign of the failure of that same labor marketto provide employment for all groups. There is some elementof social progress in the declining labor force participationof blacksyounger blacks are delaying entry into the labor

51

market in order to obtain more education, and older blacksare increasingly able to retire under expanded disability andpension coverage. Yet the overall drop in labor force par-ticipation among blacks is so precipitous that It cannot be at-tributed to social advance. Many black men are not leavingthe labor force to embrace the joys of greater leisure; rather,their departure reflects bleak job prospects, an expression ofdiscouragement and despair.

Disparities between the labor force participation rates ofwhite and black men have arisen only over the past twodecades. As late as 1960, the labor force participation ratesof white atnd black men were identicalin fact, from the endof keconstiuction until the Great Depression, proportion-ately more blacks than whites were in the labor force. Sincethat time, participation rates for both whites and blacks haveplummeted, but not in a similar manner. The decline amongwhite males correlates positively with age, but for blackmales there is no such relationship. In all age groups, fewerblacks are now in the labor force. Falling from 85 percent in1954 to 71 percent in-1981, this new pattern of falling workeffort among black men is a source of deep concern.

The deviation of black labor force participation from thatof other groups can be most consistently explained not by theresumption of structures of work motivation 'unique to

blacks, but rather by the failure of the labor market to fulfillthe needs of blacks to the extent enjoyed by other groups.Notwithstanding the progress made under the Great Society,most blacks have remained confined' to demeaning, low7status jobs which promise little and deliVer even less. In thescwork roles, black men have had little opportunity to derive fisense of identity or community through participation in thejabor force, and their self-esteem often has.been underminedinstead of Strengthened by poor job opportunities. As ElliotLiebow observes, "The streetcorner man wants to be a per-son in his own right, to be noticed, to be taken account of,but in this respect, as well as in meeting his money needs, his

/1t.)

52

job fails him."5 Now "the job and the man are even"afterhaving the job fail him, more black men are failing the job.

Even in strict economic terms, the labor market seldommeets the black man's needs. More than 16.3 percent ofblack workers had incomes below the poverty level in 1980 inspite of their employment. In this context, the witladrawal ofblack men from the labor force is often a sign of rationalityrather than a symptom of pathology. With transferpayments frequently at least as remunerative as work, thepossibility of not working becomes both a real and predic-table option. Even though men are not eligible for publicassistance in half the states, almost 10 percent of black maleswho were heads of households, as well as 25 percent of thosewho were not, earned no income through work. The lack ofpecuniary rewards from work which fosters this welfaredependency is at best a sad commentary on the distributionof earnings and employment in America. It is not thatwelfare ceilings are too highwage floors simply are too lowto lift many black workers and their dependents out ofpoverty. Cast in this light, the willingness and motivation ofblacks to work seems stronger than one might expect.

The labor market experience of black men can be explain-ed in various ways, but the dual labor market hypothesisprovides one of the most persuasive illustrations of theirplight. In its most simplified form, the basic hypothesis con-tends that the labor market is divided into two distinctsegments, one offering relatively high wages, good workingconditions and job security while the other prOvides low pay-ing jobs with pool. workhig Conditions and little chance foradvancement. Workers trapped in secondary markets areforced to accept unstable employment, have little assuranceof due process in their treatment on the job, and often workonly intermittently due to lack of steady employment. Thedual labor market approach contains no special theory ofracial discrimination, but it deals with discrimination as one

C 3

IF;

53

factor which influences labor market segmentation and con-fines many blacks to low-paying, dead-end jobs.

It is difficult to imagine a reversal of the declines in laborforce participation among black men in the near future, ascurrent developments in the labor market seem likely only toexacerbate their current plight. Labor f9rce data stronglysuggest that the incidence of unemployment is falling in-creasingly on already disadvantaged groups within Agericansociety, including blacks.6 Until theiabor market, most like-ly in response to government policies, becomes more suc-cessful in meOng the needs of black men, it should come asno surprise if growing numbers find preferable alternativesto working in legal labor markets.

Work Motivation AmidstPoverty and Unemployment

The failure of the labor market to provide steady emplby-ment and adequate incomes has had the greatest impact onbiack men, but such hardshiP is felt throughout the popula-tion. Nearly one-half of all poor family heads and over one-third of all single poor persbns in 1986 worked but wereunable to earn enough to escape poverty. About one7fifth ofthose poor families actually had two or more persons work-ing at some time during the year but remained poor. As of1979, one million family heads with about four milliondependents, and another 233,000 unrelated individuals, werecontinuously employed full time but found it impossible towork their way out of poverty.,.diy,en *that workfAr:these,,,-hbuseholds'dbes not offer the prothise Of an adequate In-'come, their continuing attachment to the labor force seemssurprisingly strong.

The continuing efforts Of millions of Americans to findjobs in slack labor markets also reflects a deep and lastingcommitment to work. Even the manner in which we countthe unemployed ensures that they are among the greatest

u4

54

devotees of workby definition the unemployment statisticsinclude only those who continue to .search actively foremployment, applying this test without regard for theirspecific job prospects. Those who decide the odds of findingwork are too slim and give up on job searchthe"discouraged workers"are not counted as among theunemployed, even though they may have been forced intoidleness. This willingness of the jobless to remain in the laborforce in spite of prolonged unemployment testifies to thestrength of work motivation on the fringes of the labor

,t market. .. _

"I'm not listed as unemployed,,icause I've stopped looking,"

It is curious that fears of a disintegrating work ethic con-tinue to surface in aq era of almost chronic labor surpluses.-Over the past two decades, national unemployment rateshave crept graduajly upward, and the estimate of "fullemployment" hi the American economy has risen from 4percent unemployment under the Kennedy administration to

go

55

at least 6 percent in the Reagaadministration. These ,of-ficial targets do not count millions of Americans wtio are toodiscouraged to look for work or who 'are forced to acceptpart-time jobs, and yet the nation still has not approachedfull employment in any sense for nearly a decade. This per-sistent joblessness runs directly counter to claims of the im-minent demise of work: it is difficult to argue thatAmericans are abandoning work in droves when the labormarket is consistently unable to provide jobs for millionswho desire work.

-

The surplus of labor in the national economy is not a newphenomenonduring most of the post-World War IIperiod, the demand for labor has failed to keep pace with theSupply of job seekers. No doubt, smite portion of thisunemployment is inevitable in a democratic society, as bothemployers and workers freely choose to accept or reject worksituations. Yet the great bulk of unemployment is neitherfrictional nor volunta Due to whatever combination ofstructural barriers and governmental policies, the economy,though it has continued to expand, has failed to generate suf-ficient numbers of jobs in the aggregate or to produce areasonable match between the skills of unemployed workersand emerging demands for labor.

In strict economic terms, unemiiloyment tqday may not bethe disaster it was in earlier periods. As part of a growingsystem of income Supports, our affluent society has weaken-ed the links between unemployment and poverty. Thesecushionsincluding old age and disability benefits,unemploypent jnsurance, food stamps, medicaid aid tofamilies with dependent children and subsidized hous-ingprovide assistance to the unemployed which enablesthem* least toAgep body and soul together. Perhaps moreimporiantly, the'rise in female labor force participation andin the number of two-worker households softens the conse-quences of joblessness for many families--6 in 10 familiahave two or more wage earners. Just as employment does not

56

guarantee an adequate income, unemployment is no longersynonymous with abject poverty.

Even when income losses are manageable, however,joblessness leaves the unemployed with few opportunities to

ological needs which workare st e may fulfill basic physical

teem and cannot piovideith gainful employment.to work seem strong

in work attachmentin omes via transfer

ort emonstration pro-hour of work dropad

e declining by roughly 20ile these experiments were of

thus mightonot trigger more permanentits, current research is consistent with

satisfy the social and ptypically fulfills. The welneeds, but it does little fothe sense of dignity associatThese noneconomic motivationsenough to prevent precipitous dreven when workers are'guaranteepayments. In four major income supjects conducted in the United Statesby 1 to 8 percent among men wpercent among wornlimited duration anchanges in work hathe idea that work provides much more than a means ofeconomic support.'

Expansion of Leisure and Iklonwork TimeThe only pervasive indications of a movement away from

work is a slow but growing tendency for workers to foregofurther income gains in preference for greater amounts ofpaid leisure. Predictably, with greater affluence the highermarginal utility of leisure has caused many workers to tradewage and salary hikes for paid holidays and vacations. Tak-ing more time away from the workplace to enjoy the fruits oftheir labor, Americans spend fewer hours per day, fewerdays per year, and fewer years of their lives working thanthey did in the,past. It is this trend, stemming not from anyweakening commitment to work but from rational economicjudgments of the relative value of income and leisure, whichis reshaping .the nature of work in the 1980s.

The shift toward greater leisure in itself is not a newphenomenon. In fact, the most spectacular shrinkage in

I )",-1U I

II,

c

57If

,

worktime came in the early part of this century from declinesin hours wbrked per week (Table 3-1); in 1900, the averagenonagricultural worker put in 53 hours of work per week.1940, tliat number had fallen below 44. Since World War II,.when the work ethic was supposed to have been on thedecline, average hours worked per week in manufacturingwith relatively few part-time workers,have stabilized and the40-hour workweek has become a surprisingly strong anduniversally recolknized social norm. Clearly, while therecorded statistid of hours worked do not take into con-sideration the coffee breaks and other interruptions in workthat are taken for granted inmost American workplaces to-day, leisure gains are now secured in a manner differentfrom the first half of this century.

\Table 3-1

Decline in Average Week li Hoursof Work Has Sloived Since 1950

Weekly Hours of Work,

1981 1975 1970:

Hours 38.1 38.7 39.6

Weekly Hours of Work

1945 1940. 1930

Hours 46.1 43.9 47.7

*

1955 1960 1955' 1950

40.5 40.5 41.6 41.7

r

1920 1910 1900

49.8 (52.1 53.2

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. .

,all

,:

tr

58

The recent decline in average hours worked can be tracedpartly to the growing numbers of workers who voluntarilyspend only part of the customary workday or workweek onthe job. From 1963 to 1981, such part-time workers grew innumbers from 8.8 million to 14.7 million, rising from 12 tonearly 14 percent of the workforce. This jump in part-timeemployment primarily reflects the influx of women into thelabor force (they are three times as likely as men to seek part-time work), although increases in the nurhbers of youngworkers attending school and older workers seeking fewerhourl have reinforced this trend (Figure 3.4). Full-timework7rs taken separately have gained only slightly more thanone-half ,hour of weekly leisure in the past 13 years, averag-ing 42.4 hours of work per week in 1981.

This recent plateau in the worki,veek, however, has nothalted the growth of leisure time for full-time workers. Since

_ 1940, much-of the gain in free time hastome from decreasesin the workyear achieved through both paid vacations and "paid holidays. Before 1940, few nonmanagerial workersreceived paid vacations. By 1970, virtually all plant workersand office workers , in metropolitan areas worked inestablishments that provided paid vacations, with theaverage full-time worker recedying two full weeks. Similarly,the number of paid holidays has more than quadrupled inthat time span, growing from an average of 2 days in 1940 to9 days four decades later. Perhaps the most telling sign ofworkers' continuing appetite for leisure 'is that full-week_vacations taken without pay rose between 1968 and 1979from 14 to 20 percent of all vacations for men and from 34 to39 percent for women. It is this push for vacations andholidays plus the increase in part-time workers rather thanshorter Workweeks of full-time workers, which has reducedthe average annual hoUrs at work dUring the past fourdecades (Figure.3.4).

The rise in the number of families with two or more-wagerners may add tO the pressure for more time away from the

59

Figure 3.4 .Average Annual Hours Spent at WorkHas Declined By One-Third Duringthe Century

, Hours

3,

2,500

z000l

1,000 1

2,761

2,252

1,9291,836

1900 1940 ,1970 1980

Source: Peter Hen le, "Recent Growth of Paid Leisure for U.S. Workers," MonthlyLabor Review (March 1962), pp. 249-257; Geoffrey H. Moore and Janice NelpertHedges, "Trends in Labor and Leisure," Monthly Labor Review (February 1971),pp. 3-11; and Economic Report to the President, 1981, p. 274.

60

1'workplace. This push for greater leisure%ill be partially anoutgrowth of the relative affluence of multiple incomehouseholds, but it may also reflect an increasing pattern ofhusbands and wives sharing family responsibilities. Thismutual acceptance of both provider and parenting roleswould require an added measure of flexibility in work hours,and these emerging needs in the modern family may well betranslated into future demands for paid leisure and shorteror more personalized work schedules.

There are few groups within the workforce who have notresponded to the opportunity for greater leisure. Even theupward trend in total hours worked by women can be at-tributed entirely to new entrants and part-time workers in thelabor forcethe interest in paid leisure among full-timefemale workers as incomes ri,se parallels that of their malecounterparts. Only dual job holders and overtime workershave continued to resist the appeal of greater leisure. Since1956, when statistics on moonlighters were first compiled,between 4.5 and 5.5 percent of all workers hav held twojObs, and in recent years the figure has re ound 5.0percent with no evident downward trend. Similarly, theaverage hours of overtime worked per week in manufactur-infbas ranged between 2.4 and 3.9 in the last quarter cen-tury, hovering near 3.0.9 Both these exceptions are easily ex-plainedovertime effort often reflects employer steps tocope with variations in demand as much as worker desiresfor additional hours, and those workers who seek extrahours or second jobs tend to have low earnings and place ahigh value on marginal income gains. Balanced againstevidence of shrinking workweeks and workyears, theselimited cases only qualify slightly the broad trend towardmore time free from the job.

In "some sense, it-is surprising that leisure has not madegreater inroads into the world of work. During this centuryallone, productivity has at least quintupledthat increasemeans that a labdr force of 20 million could produce the

61 ,

goods and services sufficient for the lifestyle that -ourancestors enjoyed in "the golden nineties." Put in anotherway, if workers in 1982 were satisfied to live a,t the samestandard of living as their parent did some three decadesearlier, they could have cut the five-day workweek to threedays or taken 20 weeks vacation per year. Needless to say,five-month vacations are not around the co.rner, but onlybecause most workers choose steadily rising incomes overleisure gains. Since 1968, the share of potential pay raisestranslated into leisure growth has averaged roughly 16 per-cent for lull-time employees.'° This pattern of apportioningproductivity gains between pecuniary benefits and leisuretime ensures that, in terms'of hours on the job, work is notsoon to end.

A 20-WeekVacation?

4

The fear that Americans will abandon work has no ra-tional basis, and can be advanced only when the many.

,motivational forces which bring individuals to the workplaceare ignored. People work for many different reasons, andeven when growing affluence enables workers to obtain moreleisure, such gains are taken in gradual increments of paidholidays and vacations. Labor force data suggest thatAmericans-are working more, not less, opting for leisure on-ly when that step is consistent with a continuing identifica,tion with established work roles. Whilethe absoluteeconomic need to work may diminigi- over time, the desire

k

frf .i'..../

;

N.

1

62

for relative income gains and the social and psychologicalfunctions of work persist. Those who anticipate a revolutionagainst work are likely to be disappointedeven as bothjobs and workers change, the great majority of Americansno doubt will continue to find reasons to work.

it

-s 9

1

,.;

9 .".... < to . , 41, , , 4,,, .t 7. . :4: * _1

4 Tales of Work Dissatisfaction

.IMMEM11.

Without work all life goesrotten. But when work is

soulless, life stifles and dies.

Albert Camus

Even /hough most Americans find reasons to remain in thelibor force, their participation in itself _reveals little abouttheir satisfaction at the workplace. The Persistence ofreasonably tight laboit markets and rising productivitylasting into the early 1970s focused new attention on thisquestion of worker satisfaction in America. In many ways,this concern for the quality of work was a logical and ap-propriate outgrowth of increasing affluence. It seemed'natural to expect that work prbvide not only a reliable and

_ adequate income, but also a sense of satisfaction and per-sonal fulfillment. When the realities of work in modern in-dustrial society failed to match these rising expectations, the"problem" of worker alienation emerged.

In retrospect, it is hard to convey the Ifftensity of thedebate over work satisfaction or the fervor of warningsregarding worker discontent 'which surfaced in the early1970s. Critics of the modern workplace not only perceivedwidespread dissatisfaction within the ranks of the employed,but they also feared a trend of rapid disintegration anddecay. For example, some observers argued that "more and

63

4

r64

,

more workersand every day this is more apparent arebecoming disenchanted with the boring, repetitive tasks setby a merciless assembly line.or by bureaucracy." More im-portantly, others feared that the prospect of spreadingdissatisfaction threatened the very foundatiorfs of Americandemocracy.' While few reacted with such total alarm, theissue eventually attracted national attention. The Secretaryof Health, Education, and Welfare in the early 1970sordered a review of the status of work in America, and Presi-deqt Richard Nixon proclaimed that "the most importantpart.of the quality of life is the quality of work, and the newneed for job satisfaction is the key to the quality, of work."3

..

65

The themes of worker alienation and dissatisfaction hadboth intellectual and historical precedentsneither the ideasnor the psychological theories- of human 'nature on whichthey were premised were particulaFly new. Yet fears of ram-pant discontent, based on reports of rising turnover,absenteeism, and disruption at the workplace, gained con-siderable credibility over the past decade. Most of theresearch supporting the presumed rise of work dissatisfac-ton offered scant evidence of any such trend, relying instead

on anecdotes and narrow survey results to bolster visions ofthe alienated worker. However, the seriousness with whichclaims of sweeping discontent have been received suggests aneed for a thorough review of the nature of satisfaction anddiscontent at the American workplace.

Sources.of AlienationThe intellectual debate regarding dissatisfaction at the

workplace has focused primarily on the concept of aliena-tion. Although the use of the term "alienation" has variedconsiderably, the concept is commonly traced back to KarlMarx and to his discussions of the alienation oflabor fromcapital and control over the means of production. Marx'sview of alienation, unlike most contemporary versions, wasdeeply rooted in his critique of capitalism, focusing on issuesof ownership and class strpcture rather than on the contentand nature of work itself. Modern day proclaimers ofworker discontent usually reject Marx's attack on theeconomic system, but they follow his descriptions of the im-pact of work on the alienated worker. Marx contended thatman "does not fulfill himself in his work but denies himself,has a feeling of misery rather than well-being, does iliadevelop freely his spiritual and physical 'powers but isphysically exhausted and spiritually debased."4 Certainly theimage of the oppressive factory was vivid in Marx's mind inthe mid-nineteenth century, and this perception continues to

'6 6

dominate discussions of dissatisfaction at the workplace to-day.

y.Contemporary stereotypes of the alienated worker reflect

little of Marx's class consciousness, emphasizing the moresubjective reactions of workers to the demands of their jobs.Thus, "alienation from work" is variously used to describedissatisfaction with one's job, the experience of work as not'intrinsically rewarding, and its experience as being insuffi-ciently self-directed, meaningful, and self-expressive.' This °view of alienation is intimately linked with the lack of oppor-tunities for personal satisfaction:

Alienation exists when workArs are unable to con-trol their immediate work processes,, to develop asense of purpose and function whjch connects theirjobs to the overall organization laf production, tobelong to integrated industrial communities, andwhen they fail to become involved in the activity ofwork as a mode of personal self-expression.6

While Marx's definition of alienation emphasized the in-herent relationship between labor and capital, more recentobservers imply that a worker is "alienated" only when hefeels detached, powerless, isolated or without purpose in hiswork. This subjective use of the term has rendered it virtual-ly synonymous with generalized themes of work dissatisfac-tiori and discontent.

Studies 'of work atisfaction since the 1930s have beengrounded in this concept of alienation, but they have alsobeen motivated by a more pragmatic belief that adjustmentsin working conditions or managerial structures might bothenhance the contentment of workers and improve the pro-ductivity of industry. Few researchers have been concernedwith abstract issues of work quality. Instead, most studieshave sought to establish clear connections between workorganization, worker attitudes and behavior, and overall

67

labor productivity. The recent enthusiasm for discussions ofwork quality and worker participation stems from this beliefthat both workers and employers will gainthe hope beingthat increases in work satisfaction and labor productivitywill be intimately linked. The potential for cooperation be-tween labor and management is stressed throughout theliterature as an argument for work reform even in theabsence of evidence that work dissatisfaction is a seriousproblem.

The concept of alienation has been employed in one othersense, as a description of the impact of modern technologicalchange on the quality of work. For example, Jacques Elluldescribed today's work as molded by technological advance,rendering it by nature "an aimless, useless, and callousbusinessp tied to a clock, an absurdity profoundly felt andresentedlby the workers."' In the same vein, a popular writerviewed problems of meaningless work and alienation as in-herent in traditional industrial societies and perhaps wholly

68

unresolvable given current production technologies.' Eventhose who do not subscrihe to theories of technologicaldeterminism often acknowledge the "general alienatingtendencies" of modern industrial organizations andtechnologies.' However, this latter group is distinguished bytheir belief that "alienating work" can be eliminated,vigorously contending that the quality of work can be im-proved through reform efforts in spite of the effects oftechnological change.

Expectations and Human NatureIn examining claimstf worker discontent, it is important

to consider more than the nature of work itself. No,jobregardless of its contentis inherently boring orchallenging. Work satisfaction is necessarily a subjectivereaction to the job; reflecting the degree of harmony betweenjob demands, personal expectations and individual needs.Some may indeed seek exciting responsibilities at theworkplace, but others may expect or desire little from the'job. This highly personalized aspect of work satisfaction isseldom, addressed by work reform advocates who rely heavi-ly on speculations regarding human nature to support claimsof dissatisfaction it the workplace.

The view of human nature which has come to dorninaiethe debate on work satisfaction and Work reform was for-mulated by psychologist Abraham Maslow. In 1954, Maslowset forth in Motivation and Personality a theory of humanmotivation and behavior based on a hierarchy of humanneeds. At the lowest and most immediate level, Maslowclaimed that physical or survival needs are operative. If theseneeds are satisfied, higher order needs presumably come intoplaylor example, recog*tion and acceptance by peers andother social needs. Finally, if these needs are also fulfilled,the individual seeks the ultimate goals of self-realization andspiritual development. Maslow argued that, while in-

69

dividuals may reach various levels in the hierarchy, they allfollow a similar progression of needs in their personaldevelopment.

At-any level of the hierarchy of needs, the failure to satisfythe operative need will supposedly generate frustration anddiscontent. More importantly, the satisfaction of each lowerlevel need generates wants of the next highest order.Although low-level needs must always be satisfied first, theircomprete fulfillment cannot sustain individual satisfaction,leading inevitably to new desires. In Maslow's framework,enduring satisfaction can only be achieved through thefulfillment of higher order needs.

HIGHER ORDER NEEDS

Maslow's scale of needs has obvious relevance to those in-terested in finding new ways to motivate workers, and hisideas have gained widt acceptance among industrialpsychologists. Numerous experiments and studies were -con-ducted in the .1950s and 1960s in an attempt to refineMaslow's hypotheses, and to develop specific correlationsbetween work attributes and worker satisfaction which couldbe used as a guide for work 'reforrn efforts. Maslow's work-has provided the theoretical basis for the shift away from an .exclusive emphasis on economic and pthet extrinsic rewards .

orwork as ameans of increasing satisfaction, and work ef-fort within the labor force. .

70

Most contemporary theories of management and worksatisfaction are based to some extent on Maslow's hierarchyof ,needs. The ideas 4)f Frederick Herzberg and DouglasMcGregor have enjoyed the widest acceptance and applica-tion in elle United States. Both Herzberg and McGregorfocused on the implications of Maslow's view of humanneeds for effective labor-management relations, arguing thattraditional attempts to motivate workers failed to meet andcapitalize upon their higher order needs. Their originalresearch dealt with white-collar workers, but subsequentstudies attempted to extend their theories to many otherwork settings. In spite of limitations encountered in develop-ing models of motivation arid behavior applicable to allworkers, Herzberg and McGregor have played an importantrole in broadening the scope of the debate over worker needsand sources of satisfaction.

Herzberg's theory of work satisfaction was based onresearch findings indicating that the variables linked toworker discontent were separate and distinct from those tiedto work satisfaction.'° He suggested that traditional rewardsfor workmoney, good working conditions, and leisuretimecould not truly Motivite workers. True motivators,Herzberg claimed, are those job attributes which stimulateindividual growth and fulfill Maslow's higher order needsfor recognition, achievement, and responsibility. Traditionalrewards, which Herzberg termed hygiene factors, could pro-duce apathetic workers at best, while only, enriched orautonomous work roles could sustain motivated workers.

Douglas McGregor approached the problems of workmotiyation and satisfaction from a slightly differept perspec-tii;e, but reached sithilar conclusions regarding the impor-tance of appeals to higher order needs. McGregor examinedtwo alternative theories of personnel management, which helabeled theory X and theory Y. Theory X, the traditionalmanagement style, held that workers prefer limited respon-

0 ,

71

sibility and greater security, inherently dislike work and canbe motivated only by coercion, control, and punishtnut.Theory Y portrayed workers as natdrally desiring work and

-responsibility, and as being best motivated by challengingwork which used their capabilities fully. McGregor believedthat most jobs did not fully challenge workers, and thattheory N. management styles failed to capitalize op theirnaturarinclinations to work. Redesigned organizations andbroader, mOre autonomods jobs along the lineg-of theory Yiiresumably could evoke greater work efforts.

The relatively optimistic views of human nature underly-ing the work of Maslow, Herzberg and McGregorthe im-age of workers as reaching for ever-higher goalshave ledmany to prejudge reactions to work. For example, a publicopinion analyst has concluded that when jobs do not offeropportunities for self-fulfillment, workers "retaliate byholding back their commitment, if not their latfor."" Frenchsocial philosopher Ellul opined ". . . it is in work that

-human beings develop and affirm their personality. . . .When the human being is no longer responsible for his workand no longer figures in it, he feels spiritually outraged."3In these and many other instances, MaslOw's observationthat many individuals never reach the pursuit of higher orderneeds seems forgotten.

Nevertheless, attacks on the modern workplace have-flourished. Although the evidence may not be persuasive,some critics have found presumed signs of workerwithdrawal, resentment and dissatisfaction, arning ofpotential declines in productivity growth as a result." Othershave cited alleged declines in work discipline, motivation andsatisfaction, claiming that work6rs suffer "a loss of in-dividuality, dignity and self-respect."" The range of prob-lems associated with perceived drops in work satisfaction isoveiwhelming: increases in job turnover, absenteeism,strikes and work-related accidentg; deterioration of product

1

72

quality, production standards, worker mental health anddiscipline; heightened feelings of isolation and political im-potence among workers; and, declines in national -economicgrowth and the quality of life. Yet little serious research hasbeen undertaken to document these trends or' to establishcausal relationships between perceived problems and issuesof work satisfaction. In the absence of such evidence, talesof work dissatiSfaction provide topics of interesting specula-tion but an inadequat, 'yasis for making work reform a higifPriority in labor policy.

Exainining Trends at Work

'The search for "hard" data to support claims ofwidespread or_growing dissatisfaction cannot avoid assump-tions about the causal relationships between worker attitudesand behavior. In the literature on worker dissatisfaction,higher quit rates, absenteeism, accident-frequency rates, andincreased disrupticws through strikes and other work stop-pages are all assumed to be expressions of worker discontent.These, causal connections Are extremely difficult to prove,but strong trends in such areas at least would lend greaterplausibility to assertions of rising dissatisfaction at theworkplace'. If job turnover were on- the upswing, for in-stance, one would have to account for such changes in otherways before disniissing themes of worker discontent.

Unfortunately for critics of the Modern workplace, theme,asurable evidence in support of theories of worker aliena-tion is surprisingly weak and mostly anecdotal. Even withoutquestioning the presumed causal relationships between worksatisfaction and behavior, employment data generally pro-vide little basis for contentions of shifting Work patternsstemming from _worker discontent. Where changes in labormarket/rends are significant more obvious and immediateexplanations abound. Otherv&e, the data demonstrate farrnoie continuity than change.

6 /

,

73

Data on job turnover ii studies of work satisfaction pro-vide a useful example. The frequency with which workersquit peir jobs may seem related to satisfaction at work, buthistoricaltrends suggest that overall employment conditionsare far more important as a factor in fluctuating turnoverrates. Regardless of their relative satisfaction or discontent,workers are more likely to leave their jobs in tight labormarkets, while holding on to their positions during periodsof high unemployment (Figure 4.1). George Strausli under-took an exhaustiVe review of fluctuations in quit rtates be-,tween 1958 and 1972, and concluded that "practically all ofthe variations can be explained by changes in factors such asunemployment\, relative hours and earnings rates, and theage, sex, andracial composition of the workforce." 6 Wheneconometric anhalysis is used to-control for these factors, theremaining variations in turnover rates which could be at-tributed to work dissatisfaction ard not signifiCant.

Labor market trends in other areas also offer meager sup-port for claims of burgeoning discontent among Americanworkers. Ilates of absenteeism for U.S. workers have shownno significant trend in recent years, declining slightly duringthe 1974-75 recession but generally remaining stablethroughout the decade at 3.5 percetof usual full,timehours." Incidence rates for occupational injury and illnesshave -climbed slightly since 1973, but ire lik6TY £6 reflectfederal regulations generating better statistics rather thanmore industrial accidents. Wage-related concerns continueto 'dominate union-management disputesaccounting an-nually since 1969. for 55 to 85 percent of all f e lost instrikesand the percent oSf total working ti lost due to

-work-stoppages in the late 1970s was among ie lowest le els.of the postwar period, With no discernible upward trend. 'Strikes associated with issues most, directly related tO' job*tent (division of work, supervision, workkiad, work rulesand assignments) _have rarely caused moie than 5 perpent of

74

Figure 4.1 Manufacturing Quit Fl!ates RiseWhen Unemployment Falls

Percent

2.5%

20%

15%

7-11119m

6

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

1920 1930 1940 19'50 19160 1970.

Yeer

198101

1981

`'Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Co-lonial Times to 1970 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975), pp.181.182; and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, January1982, pp. 133;138.

75

total days idle in any given year, and also have not percep-tibly increased.

Recognizing that current labor market trends, with theirtenuous causal connection to worker alienation, offerminimal support, critics of the workplace more frequentlyrely on survey results ansi other subjective measures ,ofdissatisfaction to bolster claims of rising worker discontent.The attempt to gaugewcirker feelings and reaCtions is cer-tainly legitimate, but it also raises a morass of questionsregarding the objectivity of survey methodologies and thesignificance of poll results. Only a careful review of surveyapproaches can reconcile conflicting' results and provide a,persuasive assessment of the relative satisfaction ofAmerican workers.

,

Are Workers Miserably Content?At first glance, the scores of surveys on work satisfaction

appear rife with contradictions. Taken in the aggregate, theyseem to portray workers as both satisfied with their jobs andunhappy in their work. The survey resnits and conclusionsdepend tO a great extent on the methodologyemployedhow questions are phrased and what feelings_ orattitudes are viewed as relevant to an individual's satisfac-tion with work. If one fails' to look beyond ,superfi4ial,reports, survey resillts !appear wholly contradictory and con-fusion reigns.

One approach to measuring worker disContent,is simply toask people howasatisfied they are with their jobs. This basicmethodology has been emOoYed for over three,decadesi and

rythe findings of Oa lup polls arid other sueys of this typeprovide the only longitudinal data available on work.satisfaction, The,results of these surveys have been amazing-ly constant over time: between 81 and 9.2 percent of allworkers have consistently reported that they are generally

4

76

satisfied with the ,work they do (Table 4-1). The remainingportion of the labor force expressing, dissatisfaction should,

# not be forgotten, but this relatively high level of reported,,contentment clashes sharply with the assumptions of thosewho have viewed work trends with increasing alarm.

Year

Table 4-1 Most Workers 4re 6enerally"Satisfied" With Their Work

Source1Percentsatisfied

.1958. Sutvey Research Center2 '-''' . 811962 Nati Onal Opinion Research Center _ 831963 Gallup Poll2 891964 Survey Research Center

.

(University of California) ,, 911964 National Opinion Research Center2_ 921965 Gallup Po 112

i 871966 Gallup- Poll2

4' °g2'

1966 Gallup P0112 891969. , ,, Survey Research Center 851969 Gallup Poll2 1 92 _1971 'Survey Research Center 91 -,

1971 Gallup Poll2 88--'1971 -.GallUp Polla .. 86,,, .

1973 -.Gallup"Po112 88,. - 1973 Survey'Research Center 90

-- 1974 National Opinion Research Center 851975 National Opinion Research Center 871976 National Opinion Research Center 86

- 1977 : Survey Research Center 881978 National Opinion Research Center 8719p0 National Opinion Research Center 831981 Los Angeles Times ° 92

I. Wording of guestilms and nature of s4nple vary by source, possibly affectIngresults.2. Sample inclUdes males only; all others include both sexes.

77_

A more complex series of work satisfaction studies hasfocused on correlations between overall job satisfaction andvarious aspects of an individual's employment. In thisframework, researchers have been concerned less with thelevel of overall satisfaction expressed by workers than withthe specific job attributes which seem to enhance satisfac-tion. These studies are of particular importance to advocates

:of "challenging" work, for they directly address .the ques-tionof what matters to workers.

The survey results do not render a clear verdict on theorigins of work sitisfaction. Numerous job attributesbothrelated and irrelevant to the intrinsic nature of workhavebeen shOwn to be of some significance to the overall satisfac-tion of workers. Perhaps the most exhaustive attempt to linkjob attributes and, work satisfaction, conducted by the

-University of ,Michigan's Survey Research Center in 1969,suggested that aspects of supervision and the work environ-ment are it least as important as the nature of the job itselfin fostering work, satisfaction (Table 4-2). Subsequentanalyses conducted in 1973 and 1977 confirmed the conclu-sion that adequate res'ources (including supervision) to do ajob well were 'as closely linked to work satisfaction as thelevel of challenge intrinsic.in any particular type of work.'9

When survey methodologies are changed, however, theapparent retatiofiships between- attribilies. -and oNTeralf jObsatisfaction 'also i'hift. The University of Michigan SurveyResearch Center correlated measures of overall job satisfac-tion with worker statements regarding the most positiveaspects of their jobs. In contrast, the 1971 study by Sheppardand Herrick asked respondents if their jobs included anumber bf presumably desirable qualities (e.g., oppor-tunities for growth interesting work), and if they were

\ bothered by the absence of any such qualities. The- 'methodology of the latter study contained a much greater

imphasis on intrinsic work rewards than the earlier Michigan

CC

78,

study, and solicited negative rather than positive statementsabout work ft= its respondents. Predictably, Sheppard andHerrick's findings indicated a stronger role for the contentof jobs in determining work satisfaction.

Table 4-2 Good Supervision Is At LeastAs Important As the Natureof Work Itself

Supervision

Having a supervisor who takes a personalinterest in those he/she supervises andgoes out of histher way/0 praise-good work(N = 1237)

Correlation withoverall jobsatisfaction

.37

\ Receiving adequate help, assistance,authority, time, information, machinery,tools and equipment to do the job(N r.t 1494) .32

Having is-upeMsor who does not sOper-vise too closely.(N = 1246) .30

Job contentHaving autonomy in deciding matters thataffect one's work (N =1508) .28

Having a job with "enriching" demands.(e.g., a job that demands that one learnnew things, have a high level of skill, becreative, and do a variety of differentthings) (N = 1509) .26

Source. University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Survey of Working Con-ditions, November 1970 (Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971), p.432:

79

It is not that there are "right" and "wrong" Ways togauge satisfaction in worker surveys. One simply mustwonder whether research findings of this nature mirror thestructure of surveys more than they reflect the attitudes ofworkers. The- great majority of workeri indicate they aresatisfied with their work, but when asked if they wouldchoose the same job& again, the percentage of positiveresponses drops sharply." Similarly, while good ,pay con-tinues to correlate highly with job satisfaction, over three-fourths, of all Americans say they would refuse to leave anenjoyable job for one that pays more.2' Does this mean thatworkers are content, miserable, or merely resigned to theircurrent roles? It depends to a great extent on how and whatthey are asked.

Some corelations between job satisfaction anddemographic characteristics seem relatively clearsatisfac-Lion generally increases with age and income, tends to behigher among whites than among blacks, and is less commonamong blue-collar workers above age 30 than among white-

\ collar -employees-in similar age grOups. As George Straussnotes, "there is [alsokconsiderable evidence that, at least forsome workers, dissatisfaction is directly related to short jobcycles, surface-attention work, low autonomy and control ofthe Pace of work, and the lack of challenge."22 Beyorid thesebasic principles, there is. broad room for interpretation; Yetany"Coherent and defensible view of work satisfaction mustattempt tO account for variations in survey results, and mustbe firmly rooted in realistic images of the nature of workersand heir jobs in contempo\rary society.

A Look at MethodOlogyBy necessity, work' satisfaction surveys assume that the

subjective responses of workers accurately reflect their- -thoughts and feelings regarding work. While there are fewalternatives in exploring job satisfaction, this.self-reporting

80

of attitudes is plagued by methodological shortcomings. Inparticular, there is reason to believe that surveys on worksatisfaction may (I) reflect attempts to maintain self-esteemrather than the actual feelings of workers; (2) fail to measurethe full diversity of worker needs and expectations in gaug-ing job satisfaction; and (3) assume causal relationships be-tween work and personal satisfaction which are subject toquestion. These three general concerns provide a basis forunderstanding the apparent contradictions in recent researchfindings on satisfaction at the workplace.

The importance of work to self-esteem poses the greatestproblem for survey methodologies. The instinct to protect apositive self-image can lead in many directions, dependingon, the structnre and phraseology of suryey questions.Workers may wish to seem generally satisfied at work, 'lestthey offer appearances of failure or resignation; howeTr,when asked about specific work attributes, a concern forself-\esteem could bolster incentives to."blame" the job fornot utilizing their full potential. Thus, many workers can beboth content With their jobs and "bothered" by- the lack ofautonomy, responsibility or challenge at work. There is noreal cdntradictionthe knowledge that jobs are supposed tobe satisfying, interesting, and challenging simply encourae,us to react differently to questions of overall satisfacrionthan to inquiries regarding the adequacy of specific job at-tributes.

The limitations of subjective indices of work satisfactionhave been acknowledged by most analysts, although usuallyin attempts to disarm their critics. A cogent.treatment of theproblems inherent in self-reporting is found in GeorgeStrauss' critique of research on work satisfaction:

There is no reason fo believe that attitude questionsare inswered with complete honesty or that con-sciousor even unconsciousattitydes accuratelyreflect a worker's objective situation. When a

81

worker reports that he is 'satisfied' with his job, itmay mean only ',that his self-respect forces him to .answer this waY; . . . This is not an attempt todeceive the interviewer;, =one's .-neeti fi men'talbalance (to reduce cognitive dissonance) may re-quire one to believe that he is_really satisfied."

Depending on the question posed, the link betwben work andself-esteem can create an exaggerated sense of satisfaction atthe workplace, or an underestimation of worker content-ment with uninteresting or unchallenging tasks. The,observa-tion tliat feelings are "escape routes," ways of coping withand manipulating one's environment, has profound implica-tions for the study of work satisfaction."

In a similar manner, the usefulness of surveys in gaugingwork satisfaction is limifed by the inability to incorporate the

- diversity of personal expectations and needs into a usefulresearch methodoloiY. The discovery that many jobs arerepetitive, unchallenging, or dei/oid of opportunities for per-sonal growth M_itself tells us nothing_ about the satisfactionof workersthey may expect nothing more from their jobs,or actually appreciate the absence of strenuous demands.There are many substitutes for an appreciation of the intrin-sic nature of one's work, ranging- froth social life in a com-munity of workers to economic security and the pursuit ofleisure. The fundamental determinant of work satisfaction isthe degree of harmony between iob attrittes and worker ex-pectatins, with, both perceptions vf the ature of work andthe hopes or needs of workers varying tremendously'.Analyses which portray the workforce as filled with aspiringpsychologists and sociologists project a set .of values whichignores the true richness and diversity of human aspirations.

The temptation to view all workers as seeking fulfillmentor self-actualization stems from a misinterpretation of thework of Maslow, and perhaps even from flaws within the

\i

82

original theory itself. Contrary to the concept of a self-propelling hierarchy of needs, David McClelland and otherssuggest that people differ Considerably in their needs andpriorities. They do not necessarily pursue "higher order" \needs when more immediate ones are reasonably satisfied,and studies reveal that many workers prefer working withtheir hands rather than their heads." Yet the methodologyimplicit in work satisfaction survey data does not respond ef-fectively to this diversity of workers. Everi when research-

\ designs have attempted to assess worker expectations anddisappointments, the survey questions are biasedagain, toask if one is bothered by the limitations of a job or hoped formore.is to touch upon one's self-image and provoke a defen-sive response.

Finally, assumptions of causality also render themethodology of work satisfaction research vulnerable tocriticism. Virtually all surveys assume that work attributesserve as a causal factor in determining levels of satisfactionin varying job roles, but it is equally plausible that an in-

dividual's level of satisfaction influences the choice of jobsor work roles. 2, Thus, the traditional assumption of causali-ty.which posits N\rork satisfaction as the dependent variable is

not self-evident; more importantly, a reversal of this

83

assumption would invalidate most work satisfaction studies.While polling teghniques can contribute to our kinowledge ofworker attitudes, these criticisms of survey methodologiessuglist the i'eed for considerable caution in the use and in-terpretation bf findings regarding work satisfaction.

A Realistic View of Work Satisfaction

The research of crities of the modern workplace hasplayed an important role in updating the historical contextfor understanding worker needs, albeit at the risk ofoverstating the importance of job content and attributes. Inan affluent society with large discretionary incomes and ris-ing expectations, adequate pay and working conditions areno longer the sole factors influencing work satisfaction. Abalanced and realistic view of work satisfaction, one consis-tent with the bulk of current research findings, mustrecognize that there is no single determinant of relative con-tentMent at work. As we might gliess, the evidence suggeststhat most Americans now bring a wide array of needs and ex-pectation to the workplace, and their "satisfaction" is acomposite of reactions and feelings to the many aspects oftheir job. Indeed, similar conditions have prevailed fromtime immemorial. Jacob's working conditions, the Bible tellsus, were harsh and the wagerVere meager, but thenonpecuniary Igrewards of his labor were adequate to keephim on the job.for 14 years.%

This is not to say that the adequacy of salaries and *ageshas lost its importance in the labor market. To the confrary,there are strong indications that most workers continue toplace a major emphasis on traditional work rewards, at leastuntil reaching a level of considerable affluence. The datafrom the University of Michigan Survey Research Centershowed that in every age, occupation, marital, or educa-tional category, thos4 with incomes- under $5,000 (in 1969)were more than twice as likely to be dissatisfied as those with

84

incomes aboNie $10,000. Both the likelihood that men willwork second jobs and that women will-enter the labor forcedecrease as incomes rise, and4w6iters' decisions to retire.arebased heavily on the adequacy of pension or other retirementbenefits. Even industry quit rates reflect the significance of.income as a factor in jot') satisfaction: in 1981, the. threedurable goodS manufacturing industries with the lowestwages had the highest quit rates, preserving a strong inverserelationship ,between 'wage levels .and quit rates which hasheld true-in both dUrable an1 honduiable goods manufaCtur-

..ing for many years:

Perhaps the most significant expressions of priorities from ,

workers themselves suggest that pay has retained a dOrninantposition among job attributes. While labor unións- mayunderemphasize issues of work quality, wages nonethelesscontinue to be the central issue in most labor disputesin re-cent years, almost two of three days lost in strikes were theresult of battles over wages and benefits. In the same vein, a1977 oPinion survey revealed that more than three-fourths ofworkers who res'pOnded would prefer a 10 'perCent raise overmore interesting work." Clearly, many workers have no*

_reachetan income level where they would be willing to tradehigherivages for greater-inttinsic rewards at work, causingunion leaders to conclude, "If you want to enrich the job,enrich the paycheck.""

85

The awareness that Wages are important neither deniesthat many jobs are unrewarding nor asserts that workersholding unpleasant jobs are happy. It 'simply serves fo ques-tion the assumption that workers would sacrifice much oftheir pay for `tbetter quality" work. This attachment ofworkers to what they rierceive as a better standard of livingmust give pause to those who would "improve" work qualityby shifting,resources to work reform experiments.

In light of the truly "dehumanizing" nature of some job ,particularly in machine-dominated industries, it is surprisinthat workers are a6le to derive any satisfaction from theirwork. Yet sociological studies of the most trying work set-tings have shown thatIpeople can find pleasure at work, evenwhen they fail to derive satisfaction.from the content of theirjobs. Workers. frequently respond to the miseries of tediousor distasteful tasks by creating an informal community at theworkplace, fulfilling social needs which may be at least asimportant as occupational goals', Goran Palm vividly por-trays the phenomenon:

It is precisely when work is felt to be joyless and in-human that the need for joy and human contactbecomes so palpable that it breaks out where one

,. .. least expects 'it. In the ,midst of drudgery. As a.i.. s.. ...

powerful counteracting force; as a Means of protestand enduring; as unexpected dandelions on anasphalted road."

N doubt the search for community is a means of adapting,of djusting and surviving. While not an argument fornz.warding work, this solidarity among workers does help

exDin why Americans are not abandoning factories indrov.. Rather than emphasizing the nature of their jobs,Workers will make family and friends the focus of their lives.

The capacity to adapt to repetitive or uninteresting workhas been viewed by critics of the workplace with mixed emo-

4i

86 t

tions. Calling this capacity "remarkable," mit perceptiveanalyst goes on to argue that the demands of work are prob-ably fairly consonant with the values and aspirations of theblue-collar labor force, and that the typical worker with an"alienating" job is probably satisfied with a life organizedaround leisure, family and consumption.'" Others take a farmore pessimistic view of the capacity for adaptation, onewhich emphasizes necessity and oppress"

s,

. . the constant exercise of impersonal labor hasresulted in the total depersonalization of thelaborer. He has been shaped by his work, used byit, mechanized; and assimilated.3'

In this sense, the ability and willingness of workers to adaptto unrewarding work is both their 'salvation and theircursehelping them to survive work which they have nochoice but to accept, while also ensuring the continuedpresence of.such work in the labor mr4t,,by virtue of theirwillingness to accept it. With both the neqls 'and the choicesOf many workers thus limited, harsh wo not soon todisappear.

s

The aggregate level of dissatisfaction in the labor forcestemming from unreWarding work remains difficult tomeasure with any certainty. There are some horrible jobs tobe filled, and no doubt there are !Any workers who aregenerally unhappy with their lot. Yet the case for viewing theAmerican workforce as a teeming mass of discontent is un-cdnvincing. The great majority of American workers prob-ably fall somewhere in the middle, feeling generally"satisfied" with their jobs and yet always finding aspects ofwork they would love to change. More importantly, thesemiddle ranks are not likely to dwindle substantiallythegreat diversity of needs and hopes brdught to the workplacevirtually gUaranteeS reactions' of partial fulfillment, and(basic human ambivalence toward work ensures some degreeof mixed feelings. Just as our imperfect labor market fals to

*

( t--,ti I

__....,

,

,

-

87

provide work for.all members of' the,lab'or force, it also falls'short of a perfect match between worker expectations and

* job demands. And so the love-hate relationship with workcontinues.

Even if we reject images of a workforce burgeoning' withdiscontent, the quality of work in America may still be asource of legitimate ,concern. If there were clear indicationsthat work was becoming harsher or less challenging overtime, that certainly would be cause for alarm. Furthermore,ir the potential for redesigning jobs and reforming theworkplace seemed great, humanitarian concerns alone wouldcompel us to act. The critics of the modern Workplace havemade an important contribution to labor policy by raisingthese implicit questions. The future of their cause will de-pend largely on whether we believe the problem is growingmore serious, and whether we believe we can significantlychange the outcome at costs society would be willing to pay.

f 5 The hangingiNature'of Work

Afteryou've done a thing thesame ways for two years, look

it over carefully. After fiveyears, look at it with suspicion.

An&after ten years, throw itaway and start all over.

Alfrea Edward Perlmanformer president of New

York Central Railroad

One way f examining whether the "problem" of worksatisfaction is growing more serious is by assessing the ever-changing natu of work itself. TOday's jobs are* con-siderably differelit from those of a century ago and even afew decades ago, with some work roles dwindling as newones emerges We have fewer farmers but more computerspecialists than ever before. Even if the "habit" of workinghasn't changed much, the experience of working and thedemands of the labor market may have little in common withthat of prior generations.

The nature of work constitutes only half of fife worksatisfaction 6quatioii, with the hopes and expectations ofworkers cairying at least equal importance. Yet trends in thecontent and structure of workincluding changis in thework enrnonment in skill requirtments, and in the degreeof worker aUtonomy and controldo set limits for.potential

90

satisfactiop ar the-workplace. If growing segments of thelabor force are pushed into jobs characterized by repetitive

- or unrewarding tasks, the threat of growing discontentamong workers must he takeri seiiously. In contrast, if skillrequirements in/the labor mailket are rising and employment

rem in harsh or Onpleasant occupations falling, claims ofburgeoning dis;Atisfaction in the modern workforce becomemuch less plausibl

4

The most visible trends in the nature of work, such as theoverall shift toward white-collar and service employment,tell us surprisingly little about prospects for work satisfac-don among future genera4i,ons of workers. Yet if we lookbeyond these gerieralizations, there are some encouragingsignsthe percentage of unskilled jobs has declined steadily,the most boring and punishing tasks have disappeared andthose that surViye are Increasingly being.done by machinesrather than- men. There also remain some disconcertingtrends, including the lack of uniform gains in skill re-quirenients and the threat of displacement of low-skilledworkers through automation and rapid Jechnological in-novation. These changes do not eliminate possibilities forsatisfaction at the workplace, but they de) threaten to disrupt

91

the lives of many workers during a period of painful read-. justment.

tC

The Growth of the Service Sectortlassic critiques of indlistrial work are increasingly

misdirected, for they focus more on anachronisms than oncurrent labor market conditions. By weight of numbers,secretaries now deserve more- scrutiny than autoworkers.Public schoolteachers outnumber all the production workersin the chemical, oil, rubber, plastic, paper and steel in-dustries' éombined. Just as the industrial revolution reducedthe portion of American workers laboring on farms fromover 40 percent to less than 3 percent, a contemporarytransformation of work is steadily undermining the relativeimportance of manufacturing as a generator of jobs. The of-fice is replacing the factory as the most common workplace,and 'employment is shifting to the' service sector of theeconomy with ever-increasing speed (Figure 5.1).

These broad occupational trends are not newlydiscoveredin fact, references to the burgeoning service sec-tor have become so frequent as to seem trite. Agriculture,manufacturing and mining, which once dictated the basicstructure of the labor market, no longer represent the typicalworkplace. A sizable and growing segment of the populationdoes not have even,a secondary relationship to the produc-tion or distribution of goods, instead providing an array ofservices of unprecedented scope and diversity. In the UnitedStates, growth in the servicesector accounted for 84 percentof all additional jobs created in the three decades following1950, and virtually every major industrial country in theworld now has at least half its labor force in this tertiary sec-tor.' These trends emphasize that, while the problems of iheassembly line remain a source of concern, the nature of workin service industries will have a greater role in shaping futuretrends in job satisfaction.

92

Figure 5.1 Employment Has Shifted SteadilyToward the Service Sector

Percent70

White collor/Servke workers

Blue conorMantrfocturin

20

10

19104 IP '

1920 1930 1940 1950

Agriculturi

.1960 1970 1980

tSource: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, uo-lonial Times to 1970 (Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 197), p 139;and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, January 1981, pp.180-181.

109

93

The shift toward service employment is in many ways adirect result of rising affluence and, technological advance.With machine-supported manufacturing requiring a declin-ing share of the nation's overall work effort, Americans havebeen able to purchase and to provide services which earliergenerations never contemplated. No .doubt, the surge ofwomen into the labor force has strengthened this demand forpersonal services, but increasing affluence alone would havearoused a growing appetite for the many amenities of a ser-vice economy. Aided by technological ,advances in fieldsranging from health care to home entertainment, the growthof the servi2e sector is now altering our most basic conceptsof work and destroying traditional links between work andphysical effort. Increasingly, we engage in "abstract" workwith symbols instead of tools, producing reports rather thanmaking bread. Only an affluent society could afford"the lux-

-1.ify of freeing so many of its workers from the productionprocess.

Along with the shift from the manufacturing to the servicesector, a parallel transfmnation of the labor market can beseen in the movement from blue-collar to white-collaremployment (Table 5-1). Farming was the most common oc-cupation in 1900 and blue-collar workers were mostnumerous in 1940, but by 1981 slightly more than half of theworkforce held white-collar jobs. In 1900, unskilled laborersoutnumbered managers and professionals, household ser-vants were more common than professionals, and unskilled,workers filled one-third of all blue-collar jobs. In contrast,managers and professionals today outnumber unskilledlaborers five to, one, professionals are 10 times moreprevalent than household servants, and craftsmen andsemiskilled workers comprise nearly 90 percent of the blue-collar workforce. The long term trend is clearwhite-collaremployment has grown dramatically at the expense of farmand unskilled blue-collar work. ,

1 1 ,A_ v

&I

94

Table 5-1 Occupational Distributionfrom 1900 to 1981

Occupation 1981 1960 1940 1920 1900

White collar: 52.7% 43.3% 31.1% 24.9% 17.6%Professional andtechnical 16.3 11.8 7.5 5.4 4.3

Managers andadministrators 11.5 8.8 7.3 6.6 5.8

Clerical 18.5 15.1 9.6 8.0 3.0Sales

-.6.4 7.6 6.7 4.9 4.5

Blue collar: 31.1 38.6 39.8 40.2 35.8

Craft 12.6 14.2 12.0 110 10.3Operatives 14.0 19.4 18.4 15.6 12.8Nonfarm laborers 4.5 5.0 9.4 11.6 12.5

Services 13.4 11.6 11.7. 7.8 9.0Private households 1.0 2.8 4.7 3.3 5.4

Farm workerS' 2.8 6.4 17.4 27.0 37.5_

Source. David L. Kaplan. and M. Claire Casey, Occupational Trends in the UnitedStates, 1900 to 1950 (Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1958); U.S.Bureau of the Census, United States Census of the Population, 1960, Occupa-tional Characteristics (Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963); U.S.Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of the Population, Occupation by Industry(Washington,U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), and Employment and Earn-ings, January 1982, p. 164. .....

,Part of this growth in professional and managerial ranks

reflects the- increasing size and complexity of organizations,as well as the *wing importance of research and ,managerial function in the use of advanced technologies.Yet some portion of this surge in white-co4r employmentmust also be viewed as "non-essential"--La host of vicepresident,s, special assistants and consultants once con-sidered unnecessary now thrive in an affluent society. For ex--ample, the ratio of nonproduction to production workers inmanufacturing has doubled in less than four decades, from14 percent in 1943 to 28 percent in 1978, demonstrating thatthe requirement to eobilize for maximum production duringWorld War II rendered substantial managerial layers ex-

1 '' ) 4L1 .i.

t

' 95

pendable. Staffing patterns in the military reflect a similartrend: with armed forces.of 2.1 million, we now have moreadmirals and generals than during the last world war whenour forces totalled 12 million. Of course, judgments regard-ing "necessary" staffing levels are always relative, and thegrowth of professional and managerial ranks may generatequalitative improvements not easily measured throughstatistical data. Even in this context, however, the economyappears "featherDedded" with jobs which could not be sup-ported by a less wealthy society.

Better Or Just Cleaner?Intuitively, these trends toward white:collar jobs and ser-

vice employment seem to reflect improvements in the qualityof work. Yet such quick reactions to the potential for jobsatisfaction stem more froM our biases regarding social classand status than from any realistic assessment of changes inthe nature of work. In particular, the terms, "white-collar"and "blue-collar" offer no relative assessment of requisitejob skills, and are a reflection of /

,........ . a system of social stratification that regards

office work as a higher-status occupation.than fac-tory work, administration as more prestigious thanmanual labor, or, indeed, any occupation related

'directly' to the production of goods.'

A closer look at_ our "white-collar" and `-lblue-collar", -categories reveals a wide range of skill levels, work en-vironments and job attributes in both.groups, telling us verylittle about the likelihood of job satisfaction in white-collarversus blue-collar roles.

k

Ultimately, the simplistk dichotom of "while-collar"and "blue-collar" employment masks as much as it reveals.Neither term provides a meaningful basis for categorizingthe nature of various jobsoften the distinction reflects lit-

.

,

,

1p5 ,

96

-Jtle more than the relative cleanliness of work settings. Manyblue-collar jobs actually..require More skill 6nd 'provide morechallenge than white-collar roles, and the shift toward.white-collar employment may represent more of a lateral, move-ment than an improvement in work quality. While tlericalworkers may enjoy a more pleasant environment, thd tasksof a skilled craftsman in the factory demand more talent andengender more pride. By their nature, classifteations whichlump 'together mailmen and physicists, toor and diemakersand sweepers, are not usefql predictors of work content or ofthe potential for satisfaction ori the lob.

The shift toward the service sector offers even fewer cluesregarding prospects for work, satisfaction, again because ofthe broad range of jobs encompassed by the category. While

, many police detectives and haute cuisine chefs . may be-challenged by their work, the bulk of serviqe jobs are not ofsuch high quality. The legions of janitors, dishwashers andhospital attendants at the bpttom of the wage scale norhiallyperform the most unpleasant and tedious tasks, and the ad-.vantages of their lot compared to that of factory workers arehard to see. Certainly triny service workers enjoy less statusand lower pay than thiir counterparts on the assembly line,fulfilling roles associated with servility and held in lowesteein. While more adequate wages for those in the worstservice jobs wOuld alleviate some of giese concerns, employ-ment in the service sector surely is no guarantee of a fate bet-ter than thatsuffered in segments of blue-collar manufactur-

..ing. ,

-

If increases in white-collar and service employment arepoor indicators of prospeets for job satisfaction, part of thereason may be that structural changes in the labor .marketpoint in many directions. A comparison of recent occupa-tional shifts with past trends in job satisfaction by occupa-tion .prOvides a useful illustration (Figure 5.2). Within ex-panding occupational sectors, professionals and managers'

-

1 13

) .

Figure 5./ Employment Growth Is Occurring In Occupations with Both MO and,L Low Historical Levels of Job Satisfaction

+100 Prof Ach.

+80

+60

PercentChange in +20.

Shareof T6t0,1

Labor 3"--ForceSince -201950

4- 40

- -60

- 80-

'

Clerical

Man /PropService

Above average job'satisfaction

Average jobsatisfaction

Below average-jobsatisfaction

$

MIN 111.1 \i Sales Skilled

.407.

.. A

\Onskilled

Semi-ski ;led

... Forme%

-

_

_

c,

/

,

-100Source: Average job satisfaction bY occupation derived from Robert P. Quino and Graham L. Staines, The 1977 Quality ofEmployment Survey (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Survey Research Center, 1979), p. 306, employment growth data from U.S.

cpBureau of Labor Statistics. ....1

1 *V4."

1 U

, '1

r

It

3

:

98

historically have enjoyed above-average levels of worksatisfaction, while -derical and service workers have beenrelatively dissatisfied with their jobs. Occupations represent-ing a dwipdlin,g share of national employment demonstrate a

e similar ambiguitylabore&and unskilled Avorlers havealways sexpi*sed conSiderable dissatisfaction with theirwo,rk, but farmers have 'consistently registered the highestcontentment of any occupational category. On balance, thegrowth of professional/management roles and the decline inunskilled laborers probably are of greater ,significance thar

if less promising trends, but the implications for overall jobsatisfaction are far from clear.

.,-----

A more sophisticated way of evaluating changes in thenature of work is to look directly at shifts in aggregate jobskill requirenients over time. To avoid the vague assump-tions implicit in the use of broad occupational categories, itis necessary'to assess the combined effect of shifts in overalloccupational .distribution and in skill fervels of specific oc-,cupations on aggregate job skill requirements. Following thisapproach, one study suggests that the distribution of skill re-quirements narrowed between 1960 and 1976both low-skilled and high-skilled j bs dwindled in this period, whilethose with moderate skill çquirements iltreased. Some un-1skilled positions tiave disa eared, enhancing the potentialfor satisfying' ork, but wor roles have not uniformly im-

Ai

V.

-

proved and the loss of high-skilled positions may clashsharp witW rising expectations and education levels in thewo force.

The evidence of occupatiOnal shifts or fluctuations in skilllevels fail!...t,gestIcport claims of uniform improvements or

_ deterioration in work quality. The economy pas continued togenerate stifling and menial work: in the four largesyxpand-ing occupational groups (secretaries, of whom there are '5.0milliion; food service, 4.4 million;'retail clerks, 3.1 million;drivers and deliygry, 2.9 million), there are neither signs of

t dz

,

1

99

rapid change nor hopes of immediate advances in workquality. Some jobs are now cleaner, safer or more in-teresting, but others offer less freedom and require ,fewerskills. In this sense, accounts of the detnise of blue-collarwork or . the emergence of a service economy aremisleadingthey usually imply improVements in the qualityof work or the potential for job satisfaction. A more realisticview recognizes that there is more continuity than change inthe labor ma'rket, and that white-collar or service jobs arenot necessarily "better" in offering hope for work satisfac-tion.

Technology: Threat or Panacea?If there is a driving force behind, occupational -change, it

lies in the continuing process of 'technological innovation.From the invention of the wheel to the introduction of thecomputer, technological change has shaped the structure andcontent of work, moving the labor force from farm to fac-tory to office. Invariably, the prospect of rapid teanologicaladvOte has generated both hopes and fearsranging fromut9p4n ',ions of a workless society to modern-day Lud-difei.WhoThemoan the potential loss of skills and displace-mebt of workers. Even as the process of technological in-novation generates steadily-rising levels of societal affluence,the debate over the impact of new technologies on workquality and the potential for job satisfaction persists.

During the 1960s and early 1970s, the prophecies ofii",technological pptimists" abounded. Technology, many"believed, would iree workers in fully automated plants fromtheir former bondage to machines. Fewer workers- wouldomonitor the operations, ahd their.direct control of the pro-cesses would relieve the burden of rigid, repetitive operationsand close supervision typical in machine-paced, mass-production industries. More responsible, highly trained in-dividuals would be employed at broader, more rewardingtasks, and automation would make the factory cleaner, saf9r

,

,

i.

and more thallenging. In this view, blue-collar work wouldtend to become "white-coated" if not white-collared, andimplicitly more varied and creative as well.

No doubt, pail Of this rose-colored visibn has indeed beenrealized. Present-day workplaces are better designed forsafety and comfort, and automated technologiesespeciallyin .the steel, construction and mining industrieshas sharplyred,uced requirements for physical labor. Yet the promise of,a new day for blue-collar work in terms of skill, challengeand interest is far from having been realized. As previouslydiscussed, skill levels in the labor market have not uniformlyimproved, and the automation of industrial processes haseven decreased opportunities for creative work in some set-tings. While challenges in the design stages of new processesor products have expanded, required skills are usuallymechanized at the manufacturing stage for maximum effi-ciency and production jobs rarely emerge improved. The ef-ficientztanufacture of standardized products simply has notlent itself to jobs which are variable, creative, or demandingof high- gkill levels.

In the meantime, however, the terms of the debate havealso changed. As recently as in the early 1970s, the prospectsof a dramatically new type of technology were not as ap-

1 a

101

parent as -they are a mere decade later. Rather than an-ticipating incremental advances, futurists are increasinglydiscussing the onset of a sweeping technological revolution,one which would rival or surpass the Industrial Revolutionof the 19th century in importance. Although the new socialorder which is envisioned has been given manynames"postindustrial," "technetrpnic" or "informa-tion" societythe sense of impending transformation as aresult of technological chanEe has come to dominate discus-sions of the future of work. Any view of approachingchanges in work quality or...job satisfaction rests (consciouslyor otherwise) on judgments of the strength of this claim thata technological revolution is in the offing.

Silicon Chips and RobotsAt the center of this flurry of interest in technological

change is the microprocessor. While computer technologyhas made widespread automation theoretically feasible formore than a decade, barriers of size and cost have blockedthe econoinical application of computer capabilities in mostwork settings. Large and expensive corhputer systems couldproduce cost savings only in the most massive industrial set-tings, and automated machinery could not be easily adaptedto.serve various production functions.Aret, with'the develop=ment of the microprocessor, these obstacles have been over-come and the potential uses of computerized machinery atthe workplace-have dramatically 'increased.

Microprocessor technology is best symbolized by thesilicon chip, a miniaturized system of integrated circuitswhich can direct electrical current and thereby generate vastcomputational power. With current technology, a siliconchip the size of one square centimeter can perfn:m millionsof multiplications per second, and has the capacity to storethe complete texts of the Declaration of Independence, theConstitution, and a few chapters of the Federalist Papers.Technological advances ate expected to result in at least a

c 1 2

fo rfold expansion of these capabilities within a decade, soth t the microprocessors of the future will be extremelypo efful computers on a single silicon chip or combinationof hips. The reduction is ,size is astoundingtoday's hand-hel programmable calculators have more .computationalpo er than the first full-scale computers built during WorldWa4 II,. coMputers which could have been "hand held" only

1, by j ggling 18,000 different vacuum tubes.

T 's unprecedented miniaturization of computertech logy is particularly important because it has been ac-comj3anied by dramatic cost reductions, makingmicro rocessors econoMically competitive in a wide range ofindust ial apPlications. Once designed, silicon chips can bemas oduced at a very low cost, and even further pricedecline' are anticipated as Niolumes rise. As a result, a

.calculat on which cost 80 cents to perform in the early 1950snow co s less than one cent, after adjusting for inflation.The cpn4bined reductions in size and cost of microprocessortechnblo y haye triggered renewed interest in prospects,forautomati n And in the broader possibility of a wholesaletransformation of modern society driven by these newtechnological capabilities.

The silicon chip is particularly important to economicalautomation-because it provides the basis for fully integratingcoMputer and machine. In indbstrial settings, themicroprocessor makes possible the development of manufac-turing machinery with unique adaptability. One authorobserved:

This flexibility is of fundamental importance. Untilnow, automation has been largely restricted to fac-tories that turn out thousands of identical pro-ducts, because it has been too costly to retoolmachines at frequent intervals to perform- newtasks. But the development of reprogrammablemachinery makes, it economically feasible toautomate production probesses that involveshort

103

pro uction-runs and,

#frequent changes in machine

setti gs.4

The great majorityat least 75 percentof al1 manufac-tured goodslall into the category of shorter, lower-volumeproduction runs, with only the most basic industries continu-ing to fit the Inass-production stereotype. Technological ad-vances in microelectronics, therefore, were an essentialprecondition to widespread automation, and the expandinguse of reprogrammable machinery has' triggered,today's in-tense debate regarding the future of industrialized societ,ies.

The potential impact of microprocessors is heightened bytheir seemingly endless number of applications. This newtechnology promises to alter not only the factory, but the of-fice as well. Sophisticated word processors and computerizedinformation storage and retrieval systems are becorning in-creasingly cost-effective, and because this iiew technologydoes not require knowledge of specialized computerlanguages, their growing use may raise traditionally low pro-ductivity among 'office workers. As in the case of factorytechnologies, these office innovations are seen by many asqualitatively different from previous office equipment which"mechanized" ore" automated" routine tasksfor example,an ArpOcan association of office workers viewsinicropiOcessor technology as a dramatic .new force".`because the new technology is being developed to com-puterize the very flow of work in the office." Whilememory typewriters made an office worker's tasks easier,emerging comPuter technologies may change the means bywhich information is transcribed and made available tOothers. Again, only with the silicon chip has this decentraliz-ed use of computer technology at affordable cost becomepossible.

The use of the microprocessor to automate productionfunctions is epitomized by the development of the robot.Prior to the last decade, robbts were confined to the domain.of children's stories and science fictiontheir practical and

104

efficient application in work settings was virtually in-conceivable given the state of computer technology. Yet thesilicon chip has thrust robots from fantasy to reality, and thetechnology is being pursued with remarkable speed andvigor. A number of top computer companies are now con-sidering entry into the robot market, and several large U.S.corporations have made major commitments to purchaserobots which are already available. The use of robots inmanufacturing has nearly quadrupled in a mere two yearsbetween, 1979 and 1981, and most analysts expect the saltscurve to shoot even higher during the next few years.' Mostimportantly;microprocessOrs seem to be in a prime positionfor the implementation of "learning curve pricing"strategies in which firms lower prices in anticipation of risingvolumes and declining unit costs. The entry of large com-puter companies into the robot market could ensure this ag-gressive marketing stance and trigger a sharp rise in robotsales by 1990.

Today's robots bear little resemblance to the creations ofscreenplay writers and science fiction authors. Rather thanbeing a form of mechanical humanoid, industrial robots arecharacterized by. mechanical arms linked to reprogrammablecomputers. An exact definition of a robott as distinct fromother automated machinery, eludes even industry represen-tatives; the Robot Institute _of America, an industrial tradegroup, stresses that it is the "reprogrammable and .multifunctional" character of robots which js unique, allow-ing them to perform a varrety of tasks.' And the emergingversions of robots certainly are variedthe more ex-travagant include a `bureaucratic robot" which stampssignatures on letters, a robot "nurse" to assist people inwheelchairs, a robot "janitor and guard dog" for the home,and "talking robots" which would advertise products or givejob training to illiterates. In other fields of endeavor,microproces,6i revolutionizing design methods for thedevelopmeritof ne manufactured gbods, and have becomean integral part of nearly all modern research equipment so

"./.0

105

as to expedite lengthy data analysis.. Innovationi such asvoice-sensitive computers which can directly transcribe dicta-tion into- written text may be marketable within just a fewyears.

myiAso

ValgUIPOPAII"

"I think we've taken thisrobot business too far!"

It is this overwhelming diversity of applications formicroprocessor technology which distinguishes it from lesssignificant innovations and which has led futurists to predicta societal transformation "comparable with the agricultural

' revolution that began about 10,000 years ago and with theindustrial revolution."9 Yet many of these same authors pro-vide no sense of the nature of work in such a"postindustrial" society. Will microprocessors, bring a waveof automation so sweeping as to leave millions withoutmeaningful work roles? If new jobs are created -to replacethose lost through automtion; will they provide more or lesssatisfaction toworkers? And finally, if we are in the midst ofa broad transformation of the workplace, 'how will we copewith the displacement of workers caught in the transition?

1

106

These fundamental questions cannot be ignored amidst rapidtechnological advance.

Will Robots Make Us Obsolete?There is little consensus as to where the "robot

revolution" is heading and how far it will go. The,technology itself may be refined to such an extent that mostfactory work could be carried out by robots and automatedmachineryfor example, a study conducted at Carnegie-Mellon Liniversity asserts that the current generation ofrobots has the technical capability to perform 'nearly 7million eXisting factory jobsone-third. of all manufacturingemploymentand that sometime after 1990 it will becomefechnically possible to replace all manufacturing operativesin the automotive, electrical equipment, machinery andfabricated metals industries." Yet these theoretical estimatesOf the*potential for automation, which reach as high as 65 to-75 percent of the factory workforce, do not reflect the rate atwhich the new technology will actually be introduced to theworkplace. The pace of innovatioktwill depend on therelative costs of labor and computerizeastechnologies, as wellas on broader levels of iiply and demand for goods andservices.?Predictions of this nature are infinitely more dif-fictfit than abstract assessments ot future technorogicalcapabilities.

The automobile industry offers an interesting case study,because it is probably the first 'manufacturing industry to ag-gressively pursue the use of robots in automated processes.The push toward automation in the auto is aresponse to both rising labor costs and growing corai ns forquality Control and competitiveness in internationaliparkets.As Senator Lloyd Bentsen recently noted, auto manufac-turers already find it possible to operate robots for $6 perhour, well below,the $20 per hour required Pol. the pay andbenefits" of a skilled worker." With an awareness 'of thegrowing use 'of robots by Japanese auto malkers, General

107

Motors now predicts that by 1987, 90 percent of all its new,capital investments will be in computer-controlledmachines.'2 A 1980 survey conducted by the American Soci-ety of Manufacturing Engineers predicted that robots willreplace 20 percent of existing jobs in, the auto industry by1985, and that 50 percent of automobile assembly will bedone by automated machines (including robots) by 1995.'3Even the United Auto Workers anticipates a 20 percentdecline in membership by 1990 and has successfully obtainedadvance notice and retraining rights from auto manufac-turers in a growing effort to gain protection from sweepingautomation. Yet few of these estimates include any con-sideration of the extent to which capital shortages confront-ing robot manufacturers and purchasers may limit the speedwith which the new technology is adopted.

Projections of the impact of microprocessors on officeemployment are even more problematic, with analysts morefrequently predicting the number of office jobs "affected"rather than eliminated by automation. The Carnegie-Mellonstudy argued that 38 million of 50 million existing white-collar jobs, would eventually be affebted ,by automation,while a vice president for strategic planning for Xerox Cor-poration offered the more conser+ative guess 'of 20-30million jobs affected by 1990 (T.Ole 5-2).'4There is ateneral.recognition that office technologies will be changing rapidly,but little sense of whether the reshlt will be reduced officeemployment, shifts in future employment grbwth, br simplyhigher leVels of productivity in white-collar settings.

A 1981 study prepared for the International Labour Officefound that microelectronic technology has not causedwidespread displacement of office workers, but perhdps only.because 6f the impact of poor economic conditions on therate of diffusion of the hew technology in office settings.Selected case studies of thetanking and insurance industriessuggested that new job opportunities were being created, butthat the skills made redundant by new technologies were

Li 4

t.

108

Table 5-2 Robots alhd Computers Will Affectrkers in Both Factories and Offices

_ In factoriesNumber ofeinployees

Assemblers,

1,289,000, Checkers, examiners, inspectors, testers -746,000

.Production painters . i 185,000Welders and flame-cutters 713,000Packagers - 626,000Machiner operativek 2,38,000Other skilled workers )1,043,000

*Total 6,987,000

Number o fin offices employees

Managers 9,000,000Other professionals 14,000,000Secretaries and support workers 5,000,000Clerks 10,000,000

Total 38,000,000

C.

Source; The Impacts on the Workforce & Workplace, Carnegie-Melion University;Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc.

113

4 .

4;

109

generally inappropriate for those emerging opportunities., The ILO report stressed that this trend poses special threatsto future employment prospects for women, and called foraddjtional education and training efforts to close the "skillgap" caused by the use of microprocessors in office jobs."

Perhaps the greatest fears that automation will lead to, widespread unemployment have been voiced,1 not in theUnited States, but in Western Europe. For exaMple, twoBritish authors have predicted nothing short of the collapseof woxk as a social institution in an era of micxoprocessors,writing: / /

It is impossible to, over-dramatize ihe forthcomingcrisis as it potentially strikes a blow at the very core .of industrialized societiesthe work ethic. We

-. have based our social structures on this ethic andnow it would appear that it is to becomg redundantalong with millions of other people.'6

IIn West Germany, studies of the impact of automation onfuture employment levels commissioned by the Bonn govern-ment projected that the number of jobs in 1990 will at best bemarginally above 1977 levelsa pessimistic view in light ofanticipaled population growth. The issue of technologicallyinduced unemployment increasingly is capturing, the atten-lion of West European leaders, and unions in It0y,, Ger-Many and elsewhere are responding with deminds forshorter workweeks to protect employment letls.,Perennialfears that machines would replace men ha 'never beenfulfilled, but European futurists insist thit it will be differentthis time. .

The distincta between the "robotic sevolUtion" andearlier waves of technological innovation is not devoid of ra-tionality. While the impact of automation in the past hasbeen offset by the emergence of new indistries and bygrowth in the service sector of the economy, these avenuesfor employment growth may indeed be less open in an era of

11 ,9

110

microprocessors. The electronics industry which supportsthis computerized technology certainly will experience_rapidgrowth in the coming decade, but a 1979 surverof the worldelectronics industry prepared for Ate Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development revealed that theinternal use of its own technolbgy will keep emp1oYmentgto.wth in this sector to a minimum.'' It is this "reproduc-tive" potential of computerized technologythe prospect ofrobots building robotswhich challenges traditional pat-terns of employment growth through new industrieg. And tothe extent that the microprocessor will affect service ai wellas manufacturing industries, even the recent trend of- ex-panding service employment May fail to proyide jobs for allwho seek them.

Lh spite 'of these relatively unique characteristics ofmicroprocessor applications, predictibns of immediate andmassive job losses tend to ignore the market forces whichslow the pace of technological. change. As stressed in resentresearch by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, many factorslimit the speed of diffusion of technological change andthereby mitigate possible employment implicatibns., The sizeof required investment, the rate of capacity utilization andthe institutional arrangements within industries all can act as"economic governors" which slow the adoption' ofautomated technologies."

Virtually all capital-intensive industries have a massive in-_ vestment in existing plant _facilities, and they cannot afford

to squander these resources through the whole& rePlace-ment of working machinery. More importantly, the financialconstraints on capital formation necessarily limit the rate atwhich new technologies are introduced. In this context,Joseph Engleberger, president of Unimation, Inc. (the na-tion's largest robot manufacturer), has dismissed predictionsof galloping automation, noting that even the replacement of5 percent of all blue-collar workers in Western industrializednations would requirt investments tcitalling $3 billion in each

111

of the next 40 years.'9 While microprocessor tethnology maybe pr6mising hi its flexibility and potpntial efficiency, in-dustries must be ahje to afford the new acquisitions in orderto use them.

A less tingible bat perhapi equally important force,limiting the expansion of computer"technology lies in the at-titudes of bbth-workers and consumers. While a comp termai be able to diagnose medical problems, its bedside an-ner may be less than comforting. Similarly, word pr_cessorsand telephone answering systems may alter clerical roles, butmost executives will not want to .forego the convenience of-fered by their personal secretaries. Even .on the assemblyline, where robots may be perfectly suited for productionprocesses, the aversion of. managers and workers to such nipfamiliar companions may hamper their smoOth and rapidassiniilatiOn ati.the workplace. These psychological barriers

. cannot be factored inicb equations of eeonomic efficiency,but they are likely to slow the pace of technological changenonetheless. ,

The picture which emerges when the functioning of capitalmarkets and works organizations are considered is one ofevolutionary rather than revolutionary change. With annualSales of robots well below even a figure as modest as 10,000in an ecory&lny supporting a labor force of more thari,100million, it will be ` some time before computerizedtechnologies make a major dent in aggregate employmentlevels. This perspective is empliasized by Robotics Interna-tio,nal, a Professional group which polled 100 users andmanufacturers of robots. Based on the responses, the group

. concluded that robots are likely to replace 440,000 rather,. i

than a million workers by 1990, and that all but5 percent of/ those would be retrained rather than dismissed.2° The..._ ,

relative lack of union concern in the United States Over ag-) gregate job losses through autoMation also stems from this

belief that the pace of innovation has been exaggerated.William Winpisinger, president of the International Associa-

.. -

112

----t 4,

e "tion of Machinists, has argued that the replacement ofhuman skills with computerized machinery will occur slowlyand that a shortage of ski workers will remain our mostpressing manpower prob m." No doubt guarantees of jobsecurity will continue t4 be sought in some industries and

\ collective bargaining may gradually extend to include\ L.-management investment decisions, but the workplace will,

not be transformed overnight. c.

In the more distant future, no one can be sure where neweitployment growth will occur. Expectations of a worklesssociety still linger; as describtfd in One forecast:, . ,

. Earning a living may no longer be a necessity but a..firivilege; services may have tO be protected ftL9mautomation, and given certain social status; leisuretime activities maffiave to be invented in' order togive new meaning to a mode of life that may havebecome edonomically tiseless for a majority of thepopulace."

-

,..

s.,

The literature in recent decades has been replete withspeculations on how people would' cope with the loss of.

. meaningful work roles, or how society would allocateanddistribute wealth in the absence of strong ties between Workand income." Even for those who reject such forebodings,the belief in continued employment growth admittedly con-taiIhs as much faith as foresight.

Still, there seems little likelihood that the workerltilbecome obsolete in the foreseeable future: In one sense, past'waves of automation have created dislocations, but thesehave been distributed throughout the labor force in the formof benefits and social progressshorter workweeks, morevacation time, longer training and education, earlier retire-ment, child labor laws, and welfare and unemployment.payments. We can expect this trend to continue, particularly,as labor seeks assurances of job security. Assumin§ a healthy,rate of economic growth during a period of innovation and

i

41

113

increasing automation,' it is also likely that levels of ag-gregate demand will support the emergence of new goodsand services, including some presently beyond imagination.Rising expectations alone will cause Americans to translateproductivity gains into higher standards of living instead ofless work, a pattern which has held for centuries. The periodof adjustment which lies ahead may not be painless, but itseems thamork is here to stay. And we might add hurrah tothat prediction.

Work Quality Amidst AutomationIf people'continue to spend a substantial portion of their

waking hours at work, will they find work amidst robots andcomputers significantly different.,and less satisfying? Theanswer depends largely on the -extept to which specifictechnologies leave room for challenging human tasks. It doesnot appear that aUtomation will have a unifoi-M impact onthe quality of work. The worst jobs may disappear as robotsmarch into factories, but,workers may find as much to com-,plain about in their new computerized world.

The promising aspects of microprocessor technology arecertainly significant. Robots usually assume the mostdegerous and unpleasant work tasks, including those in-volving hazardous substances, heavy materials and repetitivefunctions. Computerized technology can create the potentialfor significant job upgrading as well, freeing workers from

° mundane responsibilities and allowing them to take on morechallenging roles. In industrial settings, automation can pro-vide workers with greater freedom at the workplace, par-ticularly allowing a kind of physical mobility seldom possiblein more traditional assembly-line factories. Finally, newtechndlogieswhether word processors or sophisticatedmanufacturing tools=can enhance workers' sense of power,allowing them to master .more complex machinery and feelmore,productive or effective in their jobs.

AallOota

12 j

114

These. gains in potential satisfaction will not occurautomatically. Many of the improvements in work qualityare as much a function, of management decisions as of thenew technologies, and automation can as easily *ducework. situations which are worse instead of better. Buttonpushing,and machine watching, like bolt tightening, ,hardlylift the spirit or challenge the intellect. Automated systemscan decrease the importance of human talents, placing the"skill" in the machine as part of efforts to control and stan-dardize quality. Computerized technologies alsç givemanagers and supervisors greater ability to monitor wOrkerperformance, thereby increasing job pressures and thepotential for work dissatisfaction. While improving workersafety, automation can create totally new health hazards(e.g., eye strain and nerve disorders caused by computer ter-minals). Finally, the basic insecurities aroused by change, bythe lack of familiarity with new and coMplex equipment,provide a source of psychological discomfort fof workers,

115

especially in their later years. To the extent that stability andknowledge engender feelings of control and satisfaction,even generally positive innovations can undermine subjectiveperceptions of work quality.

Without question, the most serious ,threat to worksatisfaction posed by the age of robots and microprocessorsis the prospect of growing disparities between worker skillsand labor market demands. The total number of jobs maynot diminish, but it seems increasingly likely that the skills ofworkers in declining industries will be poorly suited to themanpower requirements of new growth sectors. Thosedisplaced workers who are fortunate enough to find work ingrowth industries may discover that their interests andtalents are not easily adapted to their new work roles, leavingthem feeling overwhelmed and incompetent. And the lessfortunate may become litttmore than relics of a past era',accepting jobs which represent the dregs of the labor marketor falling victim to the plight of the structurally unemployed.Virtually all contemporary reviewi of robotics and automa-tion make at least passing reference to the problem of workerdisplacement, and call for innovative training efforts tocushion the impact of technological change.

The severity of the worker displacement problem will de-pend partially on future trends in,productivity and employ-ment growth. Thus far, labor unions have sought guaranteesof retraining and placement in new jobs for workers displac-ed by automated technologies, and the numbers have beensmall enough 'that companies such as General Electric havebeen able to observe a no-layoff policy Without incurringunacceptable costs. However, as the pace of innovation ac-celerates and in the absence of significant jumps in produc-tivity, this appeasement of union concerns may become con-siderably less palatable; management typically justifies thecapital costs-of automation by citing reduced labor costs,and labor demands for job security are fundamentally atodds with that result. As iobots move into more attractive

I

116

"jobs, the potential for conflict over automation can onlyescalate. .

Organized labor may fitd that it has more at stake thanmerely the job security of its members. Automatedtechnolfgies can eventually undermine the leverage andpower of unions, permitting aspects of production to pro-ceed during labor disputes with minimal supervision bymanagement personnel. More importantly, union participa-tion in decisions concerning the use of new tecJiologies may,be the only way to ensure that automation s protectionto displaced workers and to prevent increasing hierarchicalcontrol and supervision over workers. Geographic shifts ofhigh technology to the Sunbelt region where unions areweakest will further aggravate the problems of displaced ,workers as they cope with technological change. These issuessurely will test the stength of organized labor in sectors ofrapid innovation and declining employment.

Perhaps ost discouraging is the realization that, evpn ifunion effor s to ensure worker retraining are succeesful,automation may spell troll* for new; unskilled entrants tothe labor market. By seeking to avoid layoffs, prospects forjob creation and the traini7g of inexperienced workers inautomating industries are diminishedsimply stated,"Young people with limited skills are likely to find it harderto get w6rk in an automated society if new jobs are preferen-tially given to those who have become redundant."" Again,there is reason to, believe that new areas of employmentgrowth will emerge to dispel fears of widespread unemploy-ment. Yet the problems of teenagers and other unskilledlabor force participants, already growing serious in theUnited States, may suffer from relative neglect aspolicymakers focus attention 'on the needs of workersdisplaced by new technologies.

In summary, robots do not portend disaster for labormarket operations. Their introduction will be relatively slow,and most Of their early tasks will be cheerfully forsaken by

fort

117

labor. Much of the subsequent impact of automation on thequality of work will depend on the success of workers in ob-taining a voice in the introduction and control of newtechnologiesrobots and computers will not necessarilydiminish job satisfaction, but they increasingly will providethe context for labor-management battles over the quality ofwork. Adjusting to the age of robots and computertechnology in a way which meets the needs ot displacedwbrkers must be a first priority.as this debate continues.

The Challenge of Adjustment----Even assuming that changes in the nature of work do notnegate the prospects for job satisfaction among tomorrow'sworkers, they do threaten to wreak havoc upon today's laborforce participants who may be caught in their path. Bothcurrent occupatiorial shifts and the technological changes bywhich they are driven necessarily eliminate the work roles ofthousands of Americans, many of whom are ill prepared forthe transition to new jobs. The ordeal of change, to borrowEric Hoffer's phrase, is inherent in-the continiling evolutionof work, and yet the adjustments to current changes in theworkplw may be especially difficult due to the scope oftechnolOgical change. While the quality and availability ofwork may not suffer in the transition, a sizable portion ofthe modern labor force certainly will.

Some of the reasons why the challenge of adjuktmentlooms so large have alreadk been discussed. In our "infor-.mation society:" knowledge of innovations spreadsthroughout the labor market with unprecedented speed, sothat shifts in both the demand for labor and the technologyof the Woriplace have acceleraied. In addition, the nature oftechnological change now is distinctly different from prioreras as the microprocessor is altering work processes in awide range of manufacturing and service industries. Workerswith few intellectual and technical skills necessary for suc-cessful adaptdtion are particularly vulnerable; the changes

118

threaten their very livelihood and tend to diminish their pros-pects for satisfaction at the workplace.

Yet the transitional problems facing the contemporarylabor fo4e are also exacerbated by the growing size and in-terdependence of todayormarkets. With dramatic advancesin transportation and communication technologies duringthe past few decades, the world has become a much smallerplace and individual communities or even nations have lostsome measure of conqol over their own destinies. The ero-sidn of blue-collar viork in declining manufacturing in-dustries is a refledtion not only of technological innovationand shifts in aggregate-demand, but also of the inability ofAmerican industries to compete in international markets forthe production of durable goods. Interinational trade has .

become an increasingly important part of the Americaneconomy, growing dramatically as a share of onr GNP in.re-cent years. This movement toward a world economy willcontinue to reshape the structure of domestic industries, andwill restrict the ability of national publtc policy to control orlimit change in the domestic labor mafket.

Examples of work trends driven by forces of internationalcompetition are plentiful. Employment in the Americanautomobile and steel industries has fallen steadily becausedomestic manufacturers have been increasingly unable tocompete with foreign producers. Similarly, even if we wereto conclude as a.nation that the use of robots would diminishunacceptably the quality of work, it would prove virtuallyimpossible to ban them from American workplaces and stillprotect employTent levels in the face of foreign competition.Our rising levels of wages and societal affluence have givenus a comparative advantage in the production of hightechnology goods and the delivery- of sophisticated services,while at the same time leaving us less'and less able to producelabor-intensive durable goods at favorable 'prices. In all ofthese areas, any attempt to halt patterns of occupational andtechnological change not only would impose costs through a

119,

reduced standard of living but would also jeopardize the veryemployment it was intended to preserve by undermining ourinternational competitiveness.

-Thus, our options for responding to the problems of

displaced workers have become narrower, at least in terms ofthe ability of unions or government to maintain artificiallyhigh employment levels within given industries. The only ra-tional and appropriate course for public policy in respondingto the challenges of adjustment is to attempt to facilitate andaccelerate the transition for workers themselvesthrough -retraining and placement efforts rather than through tradebarriers and protections for declining industries. This ap-proach certainly has not yet been embraced by the Reaganadministration, which continues to hope that economicgrowth will somehow relieve the strains of adjustment facingdisplaced workert. Unfortunately, if more direct assistanceis not provided to those,-affected by oCcupational shifts andtechnological change, the price of progress in terms of workopportunity and satisfaction will remain frightfully high.

1

-:I

,

-a'

,

...

to,

. 6 A Portrait of ,

Tomorrow's Worker

Every man's work, whether it beliterature or music or pictures

or architecture or anything else,is always a portrait of himself.'

Samuel ButlerThe Way of All Flesh

AS the content of work changes, the characteristics ofthose whO hold jobs and the hopes and expectations whichthey bring to the workplace also undergo constant revision.We often refeeto "rewarding jobs" as"though every task of-,fered some predetermined revel of fulfillment, and yet worksatisfaction is inherently subjective in nature. For this

'reason, the evolution of the laboi torce cannot be ignored ingauging the likelihood of future contentment at work.

Past trends demonstrate that job satisfaction is neither ob-jective nor absolute. In any objective sense, the quality of

w rk has improved considerably in recent decadesreig-ssyã.eave risen dramatically, considerable gains in worker

th and iafety have been achieved, and the proportion ofthe jiabor force in skilled or professional roles has steadily in-\cre ged. Nopetheless, by all available measures, overall jobkti faction \piong workers has remained constant, withwok er expedtations rising at least as fast as tangible work

1

. 1 121

\3 0

122

4

gains. What constitutes "good pay" or "dignifying work"changes over time, and the yardstick by which wc measurework quality gradually lengthens. Today's job may havebeen yesterday's wildest dream, but there is no guaranteethat tomorrow's worker will be satisfied with it.

^

The composition.of the workforce serves as an importantvariable in the job satisfaction equation. The educational at-tainment and affluence of labor force participants, as well astheir age, sex and raceall affect thqir expectations at theworkplace and their aspirations for future jots. Thesecharacteristics of the American workforce have changedsignificantly in recent decades, with workers becoming in-creasingly educated, affluent, young and female. When com-pared to. changes in the' nature of work itself, the implica-tions of these trends for potential job satisfactiOn seem morepredictable and at least as important.

The Educated Workforce

While today's workers may not be brighter than theirpredecessors, they certainly bring longer schooling to the

'o

123

workplace. Through major 'public investments in a com-prehensive educational system spanning from kindergartento postgraduate programs, the United States has achievedimpressive advances toward the goal of a universallyeducated population. The meclian educational attainment of8.7 years that a worker 'brought to the job in 1940 , rose infour decadet to 12.7 years (Figure 6.1). The greatest gains ineducation have accrued to those who formerly had the leastschooling, and the segment of the labor force with less thanthree years of high school is expected to continue its sharpdecline throughout the 1980s.

Typically, we view education as an unqualified good, andfrom a sdcietal viewpoint these rising education levels mayindeed bode well for our cultural development and for thevitality of our democratic systemat least that's the hope.Yet in a narrower sense, more schooling does not necessarilyfoster greater contentment among workers. As Americans inall occupitions enter the labor market with more educationthan ever before, the prospect of educational gains outpac-ing skill requirements becomes more threatening. If the ris-ing educational attainment of workers was accompanied by,an increase in the number of demanding and challengingjobs, there would be cause for optimism. UnfOrtunately, theevidence suggests that the extra certificate's and diplomasmay produce little more for modern workers than highergoals and more frequent disappointments:

Before World War II, employers had few formal entry re--quireTentsemployeds needed only some basic reading andwriting skills and elementary mastery of ciphers to qualifyfor most jobs. Wartime 'production did increase the demandfor technical and craft skills, and the subsequent eras ofcomputerg and microprocessors hive maintained re-quirements for specialized training in fields of rapidtechnological advance. However, Most of the increise ineducation levels has occurred independently of the technical

124

Figure 6.1 Educational Attainments of theLabor Force Have Grown Steadily

Percent

1957 1966 1974 1981

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Educational Attainment of Workers,

March 1979, Special Labor Force Report 240 (Washington: U.S. Government Print-

ing Office, 1981), p. A-9.,

,

.,

133

v

125

re,puirements of the labor market, with more highly educatedworkers performing essentially the same functions as theirless schooled predecessors. During the 1970s, the portion ofprofessional and technical workers who were collegegraduates rose from 61 to 71 percent among men and from'54 to 63 percent among women. The share of sales andclerical workers with college degrees' nearly doubled in thecourse of that decade, as did the percentage of blue-collarand service workers with one or more years of college.' Withone of every five salespersons college-educated, it is difficultto interpret further gains in formal education as a responseto skill requirements in the labor market.

There are rational explanations for the continuing rise ineducational attainment. For the individual worker., educa-tion continues to pay off. Estimates prepared by the Bureauof the Census (adjusted for 1981 dollars) indicate that aworker with only 8 years of education could anticipatelifetime earnings of $850,000; in contrast, workers with 12years of educatipn can hope for $1.2 million, those with 16years can anticipate $1.8 million, arid those with 17 or moreyears of schooling will earn an estimated $2.1 million duringtheir lifetimes. 'The income advantage enjoyed by collegegraduates is not as great as it used' to beas colleges anduniversities award increasing numbers, of degrees, therelative pecuniary worth of a sheepskin declines. Yet it stillmakes sense from an individual's perspective to seek a col-lege education, for it broadens employment optionS andenhances personal earning potential.

-The uncertaintiesf the hiring process add toi the incen-

tives for furthering one's education. Employers Ifrequentlyrely upon formal education as a screening device, using these"!credentials to rationalize the allocation of jobs even when thework itself does not require the added training. Thus, if acollege and a high school graduate compete for the same

Osition, an employer usually will hire the former because

1 0 4

126

I

that person is "better qualified"a strength not necessarilyrelated to the ability to perform required job tasks in asatisfactory manner. This screening activity becomes par-ticularly. pronounced ddring periods of high unemploylnent,when college-educatd workers are)more likely to acceptpositions for which they are "overedubated" as a preferablealternative to joblessness. The rise in educational'attainmenteventually creates a spiral wlxial betilds on itself. The grow-ing number of college graduates forces others to seek highereducation in order to compete for scarce jobs, and theaverage education level among workers creeps upward, evenif the labor market does not require the added investment ineducation.

NO EXPERIENCE NEEDED0

,...

"---....

..

-I 1Li .1?

4

127

More educationiis a r&ponse to the threat of unernplOy-,ment in another sense---!as previously mentioned, extendededucation is one of.the ways in which society "allocates" or"distributes" joblessness. By absorbing large nubers, ofyoung people, institutions of higher education delay theif en:try into the labia'. force and provide an "aging vat" *hichprevents further strains in the labor market. Along with thearmed forces, colleges and universities offer a socially ac-cepte4 alternative to unemployrhent, one which pu licactively encourages and financially supports. T riptura-

.tion of the "baby-booM" gen on and the r se rn collegeenrollments during the late 1960s aieay 1970s, werely coincidental, but rather a prOctable resPonse to 'a lal/orstrplus. While tightef labor Markets in the futUre would in-' :crease the atpfactiveness of work as opposed tp _longerschooling, the recent inability of the, econdmy to generate ahadequate supply of jobs fcr yputhful workers'suggests thathigher education will continue to provide a uieful "holding,tank" for both the individual and society.. ;

Were it not for the expectations engendered by highereducation, the increasing diversiog of our youth to collegesand universities might offer an ideal way,coping with in-sufficient aggregate employment. Yet oje schooling in-variably raises hopes of higher, earnings and greater -careeradvancement, setting the stage for worker disillusionment.and discoptent should labor market opportunities lag behindsuch expectationS. Job satisfaction surveys have identifiedthe cdmbination of longer schooling and low piy a one ofthe most potent formulas for dissati 'on at theworkplace, reflecting the belief educat'O ntials im-plicitly promise or gu rantee future succ ding themto school for longer stints, we prepare a veritable "powderkeg" of expectations among'new entrants to tlie labor fowho by virtue of youth and inexperience are the most liketo suffer from the inadequacies of +he labor mark t

128

Signs that labor market requirements have not kept pacewith the expectations of an educated workforce abound. In alandmark study, Ivar Berg estimated that in 1970, one-fifthof all college graduates held jobs whicleitl not require their

'level of educational attainment.' Workers' own assessmentsof the match between their academic credentials and actualjob requirements have reinforced that finding; the Universityof Michigan's 1970 Survey of Working Conditions foundthat more than one in three workers believed they had moreeducation than their jobs required.' Finally, theodata on in-itial job plabements of college graduates in more recent yearssuggest that the correlation between educational attainmentand jobs has not improvedalmost 90 percent of collegegraduates entering the labor force between 1962 and 1969assumed professional, technical, managerial or ad-ministrative roles, while less than two-thirds of those enter-ing between 1969 and 1976 succeeded in obtaining similarpositions (Table 6-1).

The potential for a growing mismatch between skill re-quirements and workers' educationaLattainment is a sourceof increasing concern among labor market analysts. Accord-ing to one estimate, college graduates entering the labor

, force are likely to exceed job openings in professional andmanagerial categories by some 2.7 million over the nestdecade, leaving 2.5 graduates to compete for every choicejob.' A detailed study of changes in general skillre-quirements and educational attainment among workers dur-ing the period from 1960 to 1976 confirmed that the in-cidence of overeducation in the labor market had increased.'With employment growth likely to oecur primarily in, low-skilled clerical,, retail trade and service jobs, this pattern ofwidening disparities between job Opportunities', educationalattainment arid worker,expectations seems certain to persist.

..

i

Table 6-1 .Between 1962 and 1969, Four Million

f7College Graduates Entered the LaborForce Compared with Eight MillionGraduites During the Succeeding Seven Years

129

.,-

Professional and technicalManagement and administration

1962-1969

72.6%17.1

1969.1976

46.1%18.4

tSales 2:9 8.4Clerical 3.0 10.5Craft 2.5 3.1Operatives 0.5 2.0'Vonf arm laborers 0.1 1.0Service 0.5 4.6Farsovorkers 0.2 1.2Uneriployed 0.1 4.7

Source' "Entry Jobs for College Graduates. The Occupational Mix is Changing,Monthly Labor Review, June 1978, P. 52.

The problems arising from the overeducation of theworkforce are not easily catalogued, bufthe pOssibilifies arev

disturbing. Worker 'dissatisfaction .with jobs wIlicli fail toutilize this education is the most obvious of possible results.Yet the consequences of a mismatch between education andjobs m4,' reach much farther td include deteriorating mentaland-phyaical health, tailing productivity, and rising frequen-.-cy of disruptive behavior among workers. The current trendsin turfiover, absenteegism, and other outward manifestationsof wotker attitudes are as yet unconvincing in this regard,but our apparent inability to provide suitable opportunitiesfor more educathd workers musf be a source of serious con-cern. Collectively at least, we may not be doing our childrenany favors by sending them off to college and graduateschool unlesslabor niarket-catrditions improve in the yearsahead. ,

1 -v

130

How much we as a society should invest in education re-mains a normative decisionone based more on the valuewe place on an educated populace than on narrow measuresof the economic returns reaped from more schooling. In thissense, it is possible that we can never have an"overeducated" workforce, that the concept by definitionignores the presumed societal benefits of universal educa-tion. Yet we must still address the possibility of tisingdissatisfaction at the workplace which has led a major unionleader to conclude, "America has tb start worrying aboutturning out Ph.D.s who end up as cab drivers and start train-ing for.the kind of jobs that are really needed in society."6lf, as critics charge, higher education is becoming nothingmore than longer education providing few skills and openingfew occupational doors, it should not be surprising to findour more educated workers less satisfied with the jobs inwhich they are eventually placed.

Having More and Expecting More

Along with the educational upgrading of the nation'sworkforce, growing affluence has had an equally pervasiveinfluence on work attitudes. By impressive margins,American workers have more money than ever before, anduntil the mid-1970s, this relative' personal wealth continuedits steady upward climb. For nearly thrge decades followingWorld War II, average reakwages moved upward in an un-broken record of annual gains. Even the disastrous setbacksof the 1930s only arrested temporarily the growth of real per-sonal income, but failed to alter the long term pattern of im-proved economic status of employed workers (Figtire 6.2).While these average real wage increases have not solved theproblems of relative poverty and unequal distribution ofwealth, they have represented great gains for the majority ofworkers.

:19

Figure 6.2 Average AnnuaLCompensation PerFull Time Equivalent Employee RoseSteadily 'Until the Mid-1970s:

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000-

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000,

$2,000

REAL EARNINGSPER EMPLOYEE(1977 DOLLARS) ;/

AVERAGE EARNINGSKR EMPLOYEE

(CURRENT DOLLARS1

131 --;.

1929 1935 1940 1945 1950 195,5 1960 1965 1970 1975 19801

1981

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce.

1 10

132

These income gains alter the nature of worker expectationsand demands fon the job. At least some workers begin toclimb Maslow's needs hierarchy (assuming _that it exists),satisfying to a large extent the more^ basic needs that goodpay can fulfill and moving on to seek "higher-order" socialand psychological rewards at the workplace. While financialcompensation remains important to most workers, it is moreeasily taken for granted in an affluent era. Real incomeswhich would have seemed like a king's ransom fifty yearsago now are accepted as' a 'natter or course, and inthemselves are sometimes insufficient inducements forlasting job attachment.

Attitude Changes Magnified by YouthIn addition to bringing higher expectations to the

workplace, more ^affluent workers have a greater number ofoptions with regard to work. They are better able to assumethe risks of rejecting their current jobs; particularly as thenumber of two-income households swells, it becomes easierfor workers to bear the costs of job transitions. Workerswith higher real incomes are also able to trade income gainsfor leisure, taking longer weekends and vacations to escapefrom unpleasant. jobs. Thus, even if level's of workerdissatisfaction have not increased in recent years, it is morelikely that today's workers will act upon their feelings ofdiscontent.

By the early 1970s, the prolonged rise of real incomes hadvisibly altered worker attitudes. Young workers were part ofa generation untempered by the fire of mass unerhploymentand falling wages, and they were more likely to risk thedispleasure of their employers because they assumed otherwork would be available at the same or better wages. Whenthe automobile industry was booming, the story was told ofa young autoworker Vic), although usually a modelemployee, never appeared for work on Fridays. He was

1 41

133

rag 1 1y ac'costed by his supervisor, and 'explained his habit of /-working only four days a week with the reply, "I don't makeenough,to live on three day's wages." Although this defiantattitude would take.ymore courage amidst the layoffs andconcessions of the Warly 1980s, the pattern of valuing jobsecurity less while demanding greater rewards or freedomfrom work stems directly from the nation's uninterruptedrise toward-affluence.

It is not yet clear what impact the stagnant economy and'declining real incomes beginning in othe mid-1970s will haveon worker attitudes. Workers hav'e not become blind toharsh ecOnomic realities in spite of rising expectations, andthe importance of job security in hard times is already ap-parent in union concessions in 1982 collective bargainingagreements. Yet these union "give-backs" may prove to betemporary and hinited in scope, reflecting short term ad-justments rather than long term shifts in worker attitudes.The permanence of changes in the outlook of workers ac-customed to prosperity will depend largely on the severity of,economic conditions which lie ahead. ,

Even if rising expectations are dampened by periods ofeconomic hardship, the Potential for restlessness anddissatisfaction among young workers seems particularlyhigh. Concentrated in the lowest paid, lowest skilled jobs,youngv workers are also the most educated in terms of yearsin school and exposure to news media ideas artd information.The young are the least satisfied with the status quo, the leastlikely to be financially burdened, the least tempered by theknowledge of economi,c depression and the least impressedby value of job security. Unfamiliar with the nagging suspi-cion that all boom times must end, the younger worker hasless inclination to buckle down or to provide for the future.While restrained by periodic recessions, today's youngerwotker still tends to assume that there will be a way to "getby no matter what."

134

The emergence of new work attitudes has been more vis-ible in recent years because young workers represent an in-creaqing percentage of the labor force. In 1960, only 16 per-cent of all workers were under age 24, compared with 24 per-cent two decades later.. Of course, the proportion of youthfulworkers in the labor market will dwindle as the centurydraws to a close. In the meantime, however, youngerworkers will exert a major influence on work attitudes, ex-hibiting the .rising expectations and growing impatiencecharacteristic of the "new worker." Their actions and at-titudes are wisely viewed as a barometer of broader changesworking their way through society, changes which will even-tually touch all segments of a rich and democratically'educated society.-

COMPUTER GAME ROOM]

"Don't worry! They'll grow upto be great computer programmers!"

In the 1970s, the portrait of the "new workers" often serv-ed as the focal point for discussions of the "decaying workethic." A decade later, it seems far less likely that younger

If 1)1 ../

r

.-

,,

135

workers will becoMe a force for reform at the workplace.The young may be the leastyatient with unrewarding work,but they remain concerned with their success in the labormarket. If their affluence and extended education leave themwith higli expectations, the result more frequently is aheightened interest in "good careers" rather than a rejectionof occupational goals. Th& most volatile segment of tcchior-row's workforce surely will not be filled with the graduatesof medical, business and law schools so popular among to-day's youth. It will be comprised of those groups who havenot shared in the affluence which raises expectations, whosemost basic hopes have remained unfulfilled.

Discrimination and Broken PromisesFor the young; the implicii.promises of the educational

system heighten their sense of disappointment with lab&market realities. For minority and female workers, the pro-mises themielves have been more explicitincludingassurances of equal opportunity and greater advancement to/correct past patterns of employment discrimination. Whilegovernment efforts to end discrimination have brought somegains in this area, the pace of progress has been relativelyslow and almost surely unequal, to the rise in expectationstriggered by these initiatives. This disparity beMeen promiseand reality maintains race and sex, like age, as significantvariables in job satisfaction trends.

The advances of blacks and women in the labor marketover the past two decades are noteworthy (Table 6-2)., Theproportion of black professionals and managers has doubledin the last 20 years, while the relative number working aslaborers or in service industries has dropped considerably. In1960, more than two-nd-a-half times 'as many blacks wereblue-collar 'workers as wfiite-collar, but now this ratio isnearlyequafr-The gal s o ,women in the labor force aremasked to some extent by their increasing participation in re-

Table 6-2 Feinales and Blacks Continue to be Employed in Low Paid Occupations

Occupation

Percent of /total who are

female1960 1981

Percent oftotal who are

black1960 1981

Tptal Labor Force, 33 ' 43 11 11

White-collar 42 54 4 9Professional and technical 36 45 4 9Managers, officials and proprietors 16 27' 3 5Sales 40 45 2 5Clerical 68 81 5 11

Blue-collar 15 19 12 13Craftworkers and foremen 3 6 5 8Operatives .

Nonfarm laborers28

2 ''32 ,12

1227

1516

Service workers 65 62 27 19Private household

Pam) workers98

187- 97

18

50

16I

32

7

Sources* Employment and Earnlngs RepOrt, January 1982, pp. 165-166, and 1981 Employment and Training Report of the Presi-dent, pp. 149 and 151.

1

137

cent years, but they have been significant. While the size ofthe female workforce jumped by 25 percent during the pasttwo decades, the number of women managers increased by44 percent. The percentage of female professionals hasgrown since 1960, while the proportion of women working inservice industries has fallen.

The distribution of jobs in the economy remains skewed tothe detriment of blacks and women, however, reflecting thelegacy of traditional patterns of employment discrimination.Blacks, though comprising only 11 percent of the laborforce, hold 15 percent of all operative, 18 percent of laborer,and 20 percent of service jpbs. Even the shift from blue-collar toward white-collar work by blacks has been achievedprimarily through growth in relatively low-paid sales andclerical fields. The traditional divisions of labor are .equallyapparent in the employment of womenthey remain heavilyconcentrated in clerical and service roles, which constitutemore than half of total female employment. While culturalbiases keep women underrepresented in menial blue-collarjobs, they-also have less than their share dfinanagerial posi-tiolts and break into pforessional roles primarily in the sex-typed occupations of nurse and schoolteacher. Some of theaggregate data on female employment May seem encourag-ing, btft cashiers, waitresses, bookkeepers, secretaries andtypists coniinue to dominate the ranks of working women.

In addition to a narrower and less attractive tange of oc-cupational choices, minorities and women are more likely tosuffer from fluauations and uncertainties in the labormarket. Invariably, relatively more blacks than whites andmore women than men are pushed onto, the unemploymentline' during recessions, and even in periods of healthyeconomic growth, a disproportionate share of blacks andwomen Are unable to find work. When employed, theyreceiVe an average wage well below that of their white,inalecounterparts. And nOt surprisingly, minorities and womenare heavily represented among Americans living in, poverty.,

-

1 -x

138

either because they cannot obtain jobs or because their pay istoo meager to support themselves and their families.

Fox studies of work satisfaction, these facts offer onebasic lessonin an era of presumecf enlightenment and equalopportunity, even gradual improvements may lead to in-creased frustration and bitterness if accompanied by morerapid rises in expectations. Current data on expresseddissatisfaction reflect this gap between expectations and thelabor market realities of groups suffering continuingemployment discrimination, with blackon the a`veragealmost twice as likely to be dissatisfied with their jobs aswhites and women more than one-and-a-half times as likelytohe displeased with their work roles as men. These relation-ships weaken when the analysis accounts for variables suchas income, but the earnings potential of blacks and w4enare an integral part of the discrimination problem and notusefully separated in this manner.

It is unclear to what extent black and female workersfound hope in government initiatives to combat discrimina-tion at the workplace, or how much their rising expectationshave outdistanced actual improvements in the labor market.Yet certainly minorities and women have been affected by re-cent gains in educational attainment and ,by the growingawareness of an "information society," leaving them morelikely than ever before to be conscious of the disparities be-tween their plight and the successes of others. The longerthat equal employment opportunity remains a gdal insteadof a reality, the greater the chance that black and femaleworkers will be disillusioned by seemingly, broken promises.

The Impetus for ChangeIt is premature to argue that a radical transformation is

underway at the modern workplace. The feared decay of the"work ethic" has not unleghed an exodus of workers fromtheir jobs, and the data on worker satisfaction suggest a

139e.prevalence of mixed emotions regarding -work more thanwidespread disaffection. Yet the cumulative impact ofchanges in the labor market on work satisfaction in the years

. ahead cannot be as easily disMissed. 'Even if the quality ofwork does -not deteriorate, tomorrow's workers' may expectand demand more from their job and be more impatient inawaiting results.

Current changes in the labor force are particularly impor-tant because fhey are unique to this era and not likely to bereversedAkspite lags in real income growth during the late1970s, the most likely scenarios for America's' future includeever richer, better educated and more sophisticated workers.This outcome i,s neither inexorable nor preordained, asecological, political, economiC or military catastrophes couldoverturn this progress. Yet should these trends of_affluenceand education continue, theyrmay shape a w rkforce morevolatile than known in any prior generation.

A steady rise in societal affluence will have a particularlyadverse impact on labor force participants who do notreceive a portion of its benefits. Already, poor prospects in )the regular labor market have forced disadvantaged workersout of the mainstream of American society and into theunderground economy.' Of course, much of this, "blackmarket" work arises out of efforts to avoid taxation, but asubstantial portion must also be linked to the failure of thelegal economy to generate sufficient jobs paying adequate

if

1 40

wages. Such shifts toward the underground economy arecomistent with dual labor market hypotheses, and are yetinother indication of the possible polarization of Americansociety in the absence of efforts to provide legal work for thefeast fortunate.

Current labor market trends, therefore, suggest that theimpetus for change at the Workplace will come fronl two verydifferent directions. Persons employed in desirable jobs arelikely to take past gains for granted ,and to seek im-'provements (in both wages and job content) to meet their ris-ing expectations. In contrast, individuals in poor jobs orwithout work are likely to become increasingly disenchantedwith theidisparity between their fate and the advantages en-joyed by others, reacting either with resentment orwithdrawal. The demands for change among the fortunatewill be felt most strongly by employers themselves, whilepressures for action from disadvantaged workers will befocused, on public policy. In either case, the call will be forboth work "reform" and for steps to meet the more basicgoal of a job for all who desire one.

1 4 n

7 Work Reformin Perspective

Distribute the earth as youwill, the principal question

remains inexorable-7-Whopis.-/. to dig it? Which, of us,

, brief word, is to do the hardrig dirty work for the rest

John RualcinSesame and Lilies

The concern for workers' satisfaction 6s culminated inlattbmpts to reform work. Basing their proposals.on con6eptsof alienation, analysts of the workplace have advocated awide-ranging redesign of work roles and ollanizations. Re-jecting theyiew that technology and efficiency maiidate nar-row and unsatisfying jobs; these reformers assert that re-

) warding worlo roles are not only consistent with effieientorganization but ictuall stimulate higher productivity.Presumably, everyone g ins under these enlightened "ap-proaches to the form and substance of work.

' The dominant cArns of w,ork reformers have changedover time. The debate of the 1960s and early 1970s focusedprimarily on narrower issues, of job redesign and workorganizition, 'while more recent proposals have addressed

b 1 broad themes ,of worker participation \ in :`quality-of-

1141

1 5,0

,

142

worklife" programs and "quality circles." Many workreform concepts have evolved over a much longer period,amithe rediscovery of the quality of work is often akin to theproverbial old wine in new bottles. On a practical basis,unions and emPloyeis have been dealing with issues of worksatisfaction for as long as they have been in existence, andthe array ofiiisociologists, psychologists and business con-sUltants who now advocate work reform are relativelatecomers to the scene. The modern critics of work mayshift the emphasis of the work quality debate, but theirclaims,are no more vital to workers than the traditional con-cerns Of labor and management.

It is important to place work reform efforts in historicalperspective before judging the latest collection of proposals.Few methods of work organization have gone untried, andfew suggestions for changes in the design of work arewithout precedent. Some very direct and meaningful im-provéments in the quality of work won through union ac-tivism are totally ignored by contemporary analysts, whosOund as though gains in compensation, health and safetyare somehow less significant than the more abstract goals ofinteresting and rewarding job tasks. Management initiativesin work reform parallel this long record.of union activity, asemployers in even .the earliest stages of industrialization at-tempted to cope with an unruly and turbulent labor force.'Both union and management attempts to raise the quality ofwork have brought successerlIttrlhey also illustrate thelimitptions of work reform which plague such efforts in amodern era.

Union Role in the Design of Worli

Since the inception of the %organized labor movement,work has been affected by the continuing efforts La workersto combat and compromintthe power of their employers todetermine working conditions and job content. The battle

143

has been waged on many frontsfrom the most basic termsof compensation to the establishment of work standards, theprotection of worker health and safety, the introduction of inew prOduction technologies and the protection of in-Idividual rights. Years of bargaining have gradually givenworkers a voice in some aspects of work content mid jobdesign, and the evolved system of industrial jurisprudencehas established a set of worker rights which limit theprerogatives of management to seek maximum output andefficiency. Though technological and market forces havelargely dictated the tasks that must be performed, the collec-tive pressure of organized workers has channeled, directedand at times even controlled the use of human labor in themodern workplace.

The historic role of unions in the design of work has 'beenan important part of the work reform movement. Thosewhosuggest that union leaders are out of touch with discontentedmemberships and. have been slow, to join the bandwagon forwork reform are ignoring the traditional union ac-complishments. The pay, leisure (including rest periods),fringe benefits and work standards on 'which unionbargainers have concentrated are not peripheral to the"quality of work"; to a large extent they determine thisquality. There is some reason to believeas discussed in thenext chapterthat unions may underemphasize less tangibleaspects of work satisfaction in traditional collective bargain-ing efforts. Yet, on the whole, labor leaders have not beeninsensitive, to the desires of their membersthey simplyreCognize that unpleasant tasks will not disappear through;wtht reforni, and they seek the best possible combination ofbenefits and working conditions while accomplishing thesetasks. The result has been some very significant advances inthe lot of American Arkers, and the process continues.

144

Health and Safety 1

The most direct contribution of union bargaining to the

quality of work has come in the area of occupational health

and safety. Although managements have often been free to

establish what work will be done, the line has generally been

drawn at jobs which are particularly dangerous or

unhealthy. In the early years of this century, organized labor

was instrumental in outlawing the use of phosphorus and

lead in manufatturing processes. Over the years collective

bargaining has sought changes in job methods and pro-

cedures to limit dangers in high-risk occupations. The

elaborate rules which govern mine safety and the various

precautions required in construction and heavy manufactur-

ing are the best examples of union-initiated improvements in

industries where management had neglected the adoption of

health and safety standards. Organized labor's goal ofuniform standards was realized in large measure in 1970 with

congressional approval of the Occupational Safety and

Health Act, whiCh covers all but the smallest workplaces and

also provides for federal enforcement of these newly-won

guarantees.

"Back tletore. the safety laws,we had some real horror stories,"

$

145

In addition to this concern for overly dangerous orunhealthy working conditions, unions, particularly at theshop level, have been continually concerned with improvingunpleasant or uncomfortable working conditions. Ventila-tion, lighting, cleanliness, bathroom_facilities, cafeterias,parking, and innumerable other factors related to theworkplace have been the object of union negotiations.Although such improvements cannot change the nature ofjobs, collectively they may significantly raise the quality ofwork.

Pay and Work Standards

.While the scope of labor-management negotiations hasbeen broadened considerably over the years, the system ofcollective bargaining was originally conceived as amechanism for obtaining a fair price for labor. The steadyrise in real wages enjoyed by American workers provides themost concrete evidence of the effectiveness of union efforts,but pressures from'organized laboehave also had a direct in-fluence on work standards. Whether the pay is by the piece'or by the hour, the issues of compensation and 4:1roductionstandards are frequently inseparablenormal work methodsand speeds are an important variable in determining fair payrates, and conversely, the pay rate dictates how much andhow quickly work must be done. For this reason, unions inquest of higher wages continually attempt to keep worknorms at the lowest possible loYel, challenging theemployer's right to demand maximum effort for minimumwages. These struggles over standards of work unques-tionably affect the quality of work, and work rulesnegotiated by unions continue to be a major source of labor-management conflict in manufacturing industries.

Again, the concern for work standards and quality is hard-ly new- In 1914, unions forestalled the adoption of FrederickTaylor's "scientific management" and succeeded in putting

146

"Taylorism" on the defensive by securing legislation whichoutlawed for a time the use of "a stop-watch or other time-measuring device, or a time study of any job" in federalfacilities.' Four decades ago, production standards in theauto industry were not subject to the grievance procedures,but repeated strikes by workers who felt their interests wereat stake have made this a subject of mutual negotiation. In1946, a presidential conference aimed at avoiding strikes fail-ed because management rejected the contention that unionsshould participate in the selection of productiontechnologies, work standards and plant location. Yet in spiteof a continuing ideological battle over appropriate laborroles, unions.have had an undeniable impact on the designand quality of work:

Of course, the other way in which organized labor hasbolstered compensation is through the regulation and reduc-tion of work schedules. The most notable success has beenthe establishment of the 40-hour workweek, which hasreleased workers from the endless cycle of dawn-to-dusk toiland fatigue. Additional leigure time has also been wonthrough negotiated contracts guaranteeing vacation and sickleave rights, pensions that provide for earlier retirement, andmore liberal, lunch and break periods while on the job. Final-ly, unions have exacted premiums for overtime or shift dif-ferentials, thereby encouraging regular and convenientworking hours. The cumulative effect of these changes in thequane and scheduling of work has been jobs which are bet-ter id, w h offer greater freedom at the workplace andwhich require orkers to spend fewer hours at the call ofemployers.

Technology

Or6nized labor has also fought to control the introduc-tion of production technologies which not only threaten jobsecurity but frequently alter job content and the basis for

147

determining fair compensation as well. Thus, as new andfaster machines have come into use, unions have attemptedto establish rules governing their operation and output.Though the number of workers rather than the quality ofwork is most often at issue, resistance to new technology cer-tainly has affected the evolution of jobs, particularly inmanufacturing sectors.

"Down with Machines"

In many cases, unions.have sought to prevent or delay theintroduction of new methodg or machines. Automatic-glassmaking machines, stitchers and lasters in shoe manufac-ture, cigar rollers, paint sprayeri, recorded music, automatictypesetters, and countless other innovations weie vigorouslyresisted by unions because they decreased the skill- ornumbers of workers. In a few cases, the decline in the qualityof work caused by new, machinery wa& suffiaient to leadunions to permanently limit the use of the new equipment.For example, the use of the hand granite surfacer, which wasfaster but more dangerous, was greatly restricted by thegranite cutters' union.' Unions have rarely succeeded inpreventing the use of a machine or process. More commonly,4nions uselvage'and job security td liinit the extent towhich jobs are redesigned in res se to new Production,technologies, thereby preserving some continuity in employ-ment.

The mechanisms through which technological innovationand related production standards are controlled vary across

1ta

148

industrial sectors. In the clothing industry, union-management councils establish the price per garment, effec-tively setting the work standards which must be maintainedto afford decent wages. In other industries, management andunions negotiate the number of workers who must beemployed to perform certain jobs without regard toneedthe retention of firemen on diesel and electric trainsmany years after their work roles were rendered obsolete is aclassic example. More commonly, companies offered no-layoff pledges to preempt union opposition to the introduc-tion of computerized technology or similar innovations.Although these negotiations sometimes seek simply topreserve rriployment, more often they determine the qualityof work as well. The number of workers on an assembly linemakes a difference in work pressures, dictating the frequen-cy of relief breaks, the intervals of repetition, and the speedwith which operations must be performed.

When "viewed collectively, the historic involveMent ofunions in shaping occupational safety and health, pay, workstandards and technological innovation belies claims thatorganized labor has ignored issues of work quality. Nodoubt the reluctance of unions to embrace new and sweepingproposals has frustrated "mqny contemporary work reformadvocat9, and there remains a fundamental conservatism in

the attitudes of many union leaders. Yet the critiques ofacademics and management consultants may also prove less

than objective; as one UAW representative observed, "It iseasier to worry about boredom and forget noise, to writeabout monotony and ignore dust, to fret about dull jobs andnot mention fumes on the job.' Even if the traditional goalsof organized labor seem mundane and intellectuallyunstimulating, they remain meaningful and compelling onthe shop floor.

149

Management and the Redesign of WorkThe historical interest of organized workers in the quality

of their work has been paralleled by similar concerns on thepart of management. For employers, an apathetic ordiscontented workforce threatens productivity, no matterhow gficient the technology or the work organization. Theissue is less sociological or humanitarian than practical:Bowdo you elicit maximum -effort from workers, when neither thejob itself nor its monetary incentives inspire this commit-ment? Workers are approached as motivational problems,and improvements in work quality are contemplated as solu-tions. In contrast to the perspective .of unions, enhancedsatisfaction is seen primarily as a means rather than an end initself.

Sophisticated management science in recent years hasargued aiainst such distinctions between union and Manage-ment concerns, claiming that they both seek the efficient use'of individual capabilities. According to modern theories ofwork reform, Ilk most productive and profitable use ofhuman labor necessarily implies structuring jobs whichchallenge and satisfy workeis. In practice the distinction isnot so easily' erased, reflecting a tension between goals ofwork satisfaction and profit maximization which renderscooperative labor-management initiatives in work reformtentative at . best. Particularly in the case of factorytechnology, efficient production and human fulfillment rare-ly ride along the same set of rails and, when they do, theymay easily collide.

, Regardless of , its distinct emphasis, however, activemanagement interest in aspects of work quality and satisfac-tion also has a history much longer than commonlyunderstood. The earliest management efforts to raise pro-ductivity and profits through greater attention to the motiva-tion of workers are now taken for grantedthey includedetailed studies of worker efficiency, improved amenities at

1

150

the workplace, and institutionalized approaches to overallpersonnel management. These adaptations in managementstyles have provided the foundation for the much moreelaborate concepts of work reform ,currently under con-sideration.

Specialization and Scientific Management

Throughout most of the industrial era, factories weredesigned with the goal of maximizing output per input unitsof labor and materials, but with little regard for the treat-ment of the individual worker. I During this period,specialization and minute subdivision of task's were adoptedas the guiding principles in designing jobs, primarily becausesimplified jobs allowed the use of unskilled, low-paidworkers. Moreover, specialization entailed less waste of timeand materialg in training and increased productivity becauseworkers could become more proficient at their small tasks.Each worker could accomplish more because the wasted-transition time between tasks and' tools were eliminated.These efficiencies-were, and remain, valid arguMents forspecialization; subdivided tasks continue to offer the poten-tial for reducing production costs in many work settings.

1 '

t151

The pattern of neglecting workers in the search for op-timum efficiency in production systems persisted into thetwentieth century. A pool of workers ready to accept harshfactory employment was always available, and more couldbe imported, as needed. Managers found little incentive toworry about motivating workers or improving the quality ofwork. In the crudest terms, most etnplo}iers consideredworkers to be no more than cheap alternatives tojnachines.Only with a series of engineering innovations championed byFrederick Taylor and others did the role of the worker in theefficient design of work begin to receive serious attention.

Taylor, a worker turded engineer, had long analyzed im-pediments to efficiency resulting from the inherent conflictsbetween managers and workers. As one who had been onboth sides of the fence, Taylor was convinced that ownersand workers share a common interest in maximizing produc-

.tion. Calling his system "scientific management," Tayloranalyzed the most efficient methods of performing tasks, us-ing time and motion studies to determine the quickest way toaccomplish the most work. Linking these redesigned workmethods with incentive payments for increased output, hebelieved he could increase wages and improve the lot ofworkers while simultaneously increasing production andprofits. By ensuring that workers performed their jobs withthe utmost physical efficiency and were paid in ways whichencouraged maximum effort, Taylor argued that the goals of

'both management and labor could be served.4

Taylor failed to recognize the uses to which his rigorousanalysis of tasks would be put, and he overstated the con-sonance between individual and corporate goals. Ratherthan aiding workers, Taylor's engineering analysis becamean extension of efficient work organization, in whichspecialized tasks were rigorously analyzed and further divid-ed. Individual work roles became narrower, more controll-ed, and less satisfying than ever. Still, he was one of the first

152

practical designers of work who was concerned with humanvariables in work. Although his name has since beenassociated by some with "inhuman" work arrangements,Taylor's own aims included the design of jobs whichchallenged and motivated workers and paid them higherwages.

Employee Welfare

Taylor's methods of scientific management were widelyadopted during the first two decades of this century becausethey contributed directly to increased efficiency. So-called"welfare management," which came into vogue at about thesame time, was less profitable.. According to the LaborDepartment's description, welfare management was"anything for the comfort or improvement, intellectual orsocial, of the employees, over and above wages paid, which-is not a necessity of the industry nor required by law."'These benefits might include subsidized or free cafeterias,libraries, athletic fields, beautified work surroundings,medical and dental care, safety programs, social organiza-tions, company tiousing, or whatever other amenities mighthelp to obtain the loyalty and support of einployeei.

Di*erse factors contributed to the institution of these"welfare" programs. In some cases the humanitariim in-

153

clinations of the owners were being carried out; in otherswelfare work was a public relations gambit an, frequently,an effort to combat union organizing drives. Most often,however, the systems were founded on the hope that con-tented workers would be docile and more productive. In-creasingly, companies viewed their workforces as in-veStments to be protected and nurtured. During World War 0I, labor force turnover had risen to astounding proportionsamong factory workers, averaging aboVe 8 percent permonth.6 Faced with labor 'discontent and militant unions,companies logically sought to co-opt workers by providingthem with conspicuously improved working conditions andbenefits.

Wdlfarè management was never widely adoPted. Thedecreasing number of immigrants (wlio had been the mostreceptive subjects for these blandishments) and the rise oforganized labor limited the success of corporate attempts toobtain the allegianc( of their workers. More importantly, arise in unemploynriat in 1921 dropped turnover drasticallyand eliminated much of the reason for the "coddling" ofworkers. Many compariies cut back sharply on their frills,and such broad corporate responsibility for employees'welfare was seldom reimplemented on this kale. The benefitpackages of major Corporations today bear a superficialresemblance to the "welfare" policies of sixty years ago, butthe intent now is as much to' attract workers as to co-optthem.

Personnel Management

The corporate awareness of the need to adopt moresophisticated and effective ways of dealing with workers didnot vanish with welfare management. The worker had beendiscovered as a variable factor in the efficiency of anorganization, one which employers attempted to influence

'and control through elaborate personnel policies. Separate

154 .

personnel departments became the rule in large organiza-dons, and employee relations emerged as a major concetn incorporate management.

Thre ghout the nexf fifty years, personnel policies weresteas y designed and refined in an attempt tO ensure smooth

anizational functioning and maxiThum productivity. Pro-cedures for screening, testing, and training workers werecombined with a variety of welfare benefits ,designed tostimulate company loyalty. Supervisory' techniques aorganizational relationships were analyzed to ea,se conflictand friction among v)orkers and to promote efficient realiza-tion of corporate goals. Job evaluation techniques were pur-sued to give structures and pay differentials an aura of objec-tivity. All of these steps reflected a concerted effort to in-stitutionalize responses to potential worker discontent and toinclude the worker in eqvations for efficient productionsystems.

These early peripheral adjustments in workplace amenitiesand management techniques seldom extended to the actualdesign of work tasks. While a vatiety of devices were used tomitigate problems of worker dissatisfaction and to suppressunrest, the primary motivator and satisfier of the workforceremained wage payments. Whatever the effect of work uponthe worker, it was still assumed that a decent wage, tolerableworking conditions, and a minimum of fringe benefits couldbuy a tractable workforce.

Modern Concepts of Work DesignChanges in the work forceind the structure of the modern

corporation led to a reevaluation of traditional managementstyles. Following World, War II, the growth of applied-science in industry brought increasing numbers of scientists,engineers and other specialists into corporate environments.Similarly, the continuing expansion of corporate structuresto produce, market and distribute huge quantities of goods

155s

increased the proportion of professionals, mariagers andother white-collar workers on corporate payrolls. Whencoupled with rising educational attainment in the labor5orceand'the organization df workers in stable unions, many' com-panies found themselves confronting a more Ambitious anddemanding workforce which resisted established personnelpractices.

Today's employers have ample opportuhity to respond tothese shifts ih the composition of their workforce. Attentiondevoted to worker motivation and improved personnelmanagement may !mite always been justifiable, but it hasbecome affordable only with the increasing affluence whichnow supports a plethora of administtators and consultants.Within recent years the swollen ranks of corporate manage-ment have emerged as a prime audience for the 4egion of in-dustrial sociologists ahid psychologists who have joined .thelongstanding debate on the ideal organization of work.Rather than seeking simply to placate employees,esophisticated" corporate executives are now assigned topursue some of the finest nuances of wqrk satisfaction andinnovative management techniques.

Modern advocat6 of work reform have attempted t shiftmanagement attention froin Ipraditional adversarial p tures,

jocusing, instead on adapting work organizations to meethuMan needs. Their approaCh is decidedly optimistic, reject-ing common notions that efficiency requires specialized jobsor that production technojogies necessarily dictate workroses. As an alternative, modern concepts of work designclaim that work environments and roles can, be shaped tomaximize worker satisfaction, and that the effort will actual-ly enhance management goals of pnrductivity, and profit.Management and worker interests presumably can followparallel paths.

The optimism of modern work reformers is also reflectedin their views of human nature and work motivation.

156'

Without stopping to offer evidence, most contemporarytheorists portray the worker as an individual with greatpotential and, implicitly, with cawbilities untapped by ex-isting -miides of wOrk organization. Their concepts of in-dividual needs 'and motivation arise largely out of the Workof Maslow, Herzberg and McGregor, with an emphasis onthe importande of appealing to higher-order needs forchallenge and responsibility. Ultimately, the proposedmodels for improving work have been very similar, based onti following principles:

1. Jobs should allow the individual as much responsibili-ty and autonomy as possible, including participationin decisionmaking with minimal authoritarian super-vision.

2. Jobs should include tasks of meaningful size whichprovide each individual the opportunity to use broadand varied skills.

3. Workplaces shoulcLoffer integrated social en-vironments with room for, personal interaction inhealthy, pleasant surroundings.

The more obvious standards that workers valuegood payand substantial benefitsare sometimes implied but rarelydwelled upon.

As discussed earlier, it is not clear that all workers have the.drive for fulfillment of higher-order .fieeds which moderntheories of work design project. The diversity of workerneeds raises troubling issues for would-be work reformers,diminishing hopes of achieving job designs optimal for allindividuals. yet despite this limitation, the underlyingassumptions of Maslow, Herzberg and McGregor havefound their way into most modern critiques, of workorganization, applied not only to managerial and profes-sional .empjoyees but to virtually all workers. Even if themore traditional rewards of pay and benefits areacknowledged to be important, critics of the workplace con-

157

tend that it is the higher-order needs of workers which havesuffered the most serious and costly neglect.

In the early I970s, it was relatively easy to catalogus'scoresof significant experiments which advanced innovative formsof work redesign. The primary focu§ of these efforts, at leastin theory, was the scope and structure of individual jobs. Bythe close of the 1970s, however, the emphasis had shiftedfrom job-restructuring to much broader attempts at workerparticipation, and management interest in work reform hadgrown dramatically. Literally hundreds of major U.S. cor-porations now have instituted some sort of work reformfocusing on worker participation, real or illusory. The ef-forts are sold under different guises, but their major appealto manasement lies in the hope that new work designs wouldhelp reverse recent declines in productivity and will also serveas an antidote to periodic labor unrest and discontent.

Enlarging and EnriOing JobsThe earlier ideas of modern work reformers stemmed

from the belief that specialization had progressed beyond thepoint of maximum productive efficiency. Citing risingeducational attainment and worker expectations in the laborforce,*the critics of the 1960s argued that narrow work rolesfailed to utilize worker skills and even discouraged work ef-fort through monotony and close supervision. As an alter-native to such confining methods of assigning or ac-compiishing work, reformers sought to instill a sense of per-sonal achieirement by expanding the number or kinds oftasks required in each job. This approach to work reform,often termed job "enlargement" or "enrichment," ultimate-ly attempts to improve the match between job requirementsand indiVidual capabilities and thereby to enhance overallproductivitY among workers.

158'

The most drastic of these innovations is the replacement ofassembly-line manufacture' with benchwork arrangements.Workers with small, highly fractionated jobs are givenresponsibility for a series of operations, or occasionally a fullassembly and testing process. An example as a much-touted experiment by General Foods at its Gai es Pet Foodplant in Topeka, Kansas. The compa iscarded the tradi-tional asssembly-line methods and members of work teams

performed as many different types of tasks as possible.7Similarly, both Motorola Corporation (Plantation, Florida)and Corning Glass (Bedford, MassaChusetts) eStablished fac-tories in which individuals or small groups assembled, in-spected, and tested entire electronic components or in-struments.' While the permanence of results was suspect, thecompanies claimed at least short term successes, citing im-proved morale, lower absenteeism and turnover, andsubstantially better product quality. However, because theoption of reorganizing work on any basis other thanassembly-line manufacture usually is feasible only through.new plant construction, such radical attempts to "enlarge"jobs have stimulated far more discussion' than replication.

A less revolutionary approach to job enrichment is toallow workers to perform various jobs, relieving assembly-

159

line monotony by giving each worker more taiks which mustbe repeated less often. One such attempt at jgb enlargementwas tried at the Maytag Companyassembly and inspectionof a new automatic washing machine was changed from asubdivided (average fifty-second interval) operation to amore complete job which took pine minutes to perform.Although training times were. longer, the workers allegedlyachieved levels of skill which put their productivity on a parwith more fractionated methods.' Again, the Maytag pro-gram reportedly brought at least temporary improvements inworker attitudes and product quality.

Most critiques of the workplace have centered on blue-collar jobs and assembly-line production, but the concepts ofjob enlargement and rotation have been applied to white-collar work as well. In general, the goal has been to reassigntasks so that each worker has a share of both boring,undesirable duties and 'more pleasant, creative ones, ideallyincluding supervision and inspection. AT&T initiated one ofthe earliest exikriments in an office setting in 1965, assigningindividuals cOmplete modules of work in an attempt to cutturnover, and improve productivity. Thus, telephone bookassembleq were given the entire job of processing and verify-ing a section of a book, ,and billing clerks were given com-plete responsibility for certain accounts instead of a singleoperation on each account. Along with this job enlargement,numerous positions were "upgraded" and offices wereredesigned to facilitate communication among employeeswith related jobs. The claimed resultspresumably in-cluding reduced absenteeism and turnover, improved ,pro-ductivity and mOraleattracted widespread attention in thework reform debate.'°

A variety of companies have duplicated the AT&Tmethods. In most cases the emphasis has been on providingworkers with a broader set of tasks and maximum freedomto accomplish them, a sharp contrast to the norm of frac-

160

tionated work roles and-strict supervision:Although workershave been little involved in the planning processes of theseexperiments, they are usually giyen a greater measure of con-trol in the actual performance of their Work. The pdlential Afor this expansion of job responsibilities is limited by skilland staffing levels, but apparently .some companies havefound room to reverse past trends toward highly telescopedwork roles. ,

1

While interest in job design spawned numeroUs reform ex-periments, it should be noted that many such innovationswere nothing more than iniprovements in the workplace. Therenovation of workplaces to accommodate social interactionor work flowwhether through circular benchwork ar-rangements to facilitate conversation or the rearrangementof office furniture to facilitate interaction among membersof work groupshardly constitutes genuine work reform.Improved dining, lavatory, and parking facilities,_ the aboa-tion of time clocks, and,the substitution of salaries for hour-ly wages also aim at peripheral rather than structuralfeatures in job satisfaction. These approaches to poorworker morale may be effective, but they have less to do withthe nature of work per se than with the amenites of the work

L

environment and the differences in perceived status amongvarious jobs. In this sense, such work "reforms" havefamiliar roots in the traditibnar union concern for workerdignity, supported now by management in the pursuit of im-proved morale and productivity.

,

Participatiye Managementand Quality Circles

t

Partly in recognition of the technical and economic limitsto job redesign, actypeates :of "Wóikiiform in the 1970sshifted their focus to broader concepts of participativemanagement, seeking to promote greater diffusion ofresponsibility and control in work organizations. The move

..i '. ';)tj

161

toward participative management is intended to serve multi-ple goals: to more fully use the skills and informaiion ofworkers; to .enhance worker satisfaction; and to link to agreater extent the goals of the individual and the larger workorganization. On the premise that even the most unpleasantjobs become more tolerable when workers have some voicein its overall planning and execution, work reformers haveargued that worker participation provides a basis for iden-tification with the firm's success. Experiments have run thegamut from suggestion boxes to autonomous Iwork groups,but more time is needed to assess whether the fervor withwhich systems of participative management have been pur-sued will have a lasting effect.

As with most other work "innovations," the sharing ofresponsibility and control is not a new idea. The optimumdelegation of authority and control tol achieve given objec-tives has been debated at least since Jethro advised Moses onthe organizatibn oq his chain of command, and has beenthordughly de'velopld as a "science" in this century. Effortsto enlist Workers' voluntary cooperation date as far back as -profif sharing, an idea tried at the Bay State Shoe andLeather Company in 1867. Joint committees of managementand labor have been tried at least since 1924 when the B&ORailroad instituted such a cooperative plan. The Elton Mayopioneering studies in work teams at Western Electric Com-pany and the profit sharing and worker suggestion systemsdevelbped by Joseph Scanlon are early examples of "par-ticipative management." Although current work designersare mostly concerned with the sharing .QCresponsibility as itrelates to individual autonomy and work satisfaction, theirmethods have ample precedent.

It is the systematic analysis and implementation of thisprinciple of worker parti'cipation which is relatively new.Ranging from quality circles to "quality-of-worklife" pro-grams, attempts at highly structured labor-management

LZ..

162

cooperation have proliferated in the last fiye years and nowdominate the discussions of work reform advocates. Fororganized labor, any positive reactions to these new thrustsinto participative management are based, on prospects forimproved job satisfaction; for example, a March 1979 con-ference of union officials examining quality-of-worklife im-provement efforts defined the goal of such efforts as "theopportunity for employees at all levels in an organization tohave substantial influence over their work environment byparticipating in decisions related to their work, therebyenhancing their self-esteem and satisfaction from theirwork.' Needless to say; management representatives cometo quality-of-worklife programs with a somewhat differentperspective, viewing participative management as a tech-nique to improve workerimorale and more importantly to in-crease productivity. In both cases, however, there iremains abelief that meaningful participation can alter Worker at-titudes in a significant and constructive way.

The recent resurgence of interest in participative manage-ment is illustrated by the growing number of quality circlesin American industries. Small committees in which manage-ment and labor representatives jointly analyze and solve pro-

I4

ii

163

duction problems, these quality circles were first conceivedby American consultants in the early 1950s, but were widelyadopted only in. Japin. As, one factor in impressive qualitycontfol 'and iireductivitins in Japanese industry, the con-cept attracted increasing atteniion in the mid-1970s and hasnow emerged as the latest fad in industrial management inthe United States. Depending on what is counted and who isdoing it, estimates of the number of American companies us-ing quality circiles range from 250 to 2,500, including suchcorporate gianth as General Motors, American Airlines, andHoneywell Corporation.'2 Although a survey conducted forthe International Association of Quality Circles indicatedthat many circles are "nothing more than monthly super-'visors' meetings or traditional project committees set up todeal with problems identified by management," they certain-ly are ail institutional mechanism through which worker par-ticipation efforts are channeled.D.

The proliferation of quality circles, and the bioaderquality-of7worklife movement of which they are a part, areheralded by their advocates as offering diverse potentialbenefits fdr both management and labor. Irving Bluestone,the leading American union advocate of quality-of-worklifeinitiatives, has contended that such programs can lead to:more constructive collective bargaining; a more satisfiedworkforce; improved product quality and efficiency; andreductions in absenteeism, labor turnover, grievances anddisciplinary actions." Most of his fellow union leaders areless sanguine about the compatibility of management andworker interests, but increasingly there is a consensupLaptorganized labor cannot ignore quality-of-worklife processes.And for management, quality circles and other participativemanagement techniques are often viewed as the only alter-native to deteriorating product quality and declining com-petitiveness in international markets. Notwithstanding ex-pressions of humanitarian concern for worker satisfactionand fulfillment, fit!ms rarely devote resources to quality-of-

164

worklife programs without an expectation of tangible resultsin the form of enhanced profits.

Of course, the crucial distinction between various quality-of-worklife efforts is the extent to which they actuallydele'gate responsibility and control to workers. Nearly allcompanies find it advantageous to encourage voluntarycooperation from their employees, and yet few are willing togive broad poliqmaking authority to workers. Between theextremes, the varieties of shared responsibility and controlcome in every shade of gray, making it difficult to gauge thesignificance and effectiveness of the overall quality-of-worklife moveinent. Meaningful diffusion of responsibilityand control is important to the success of participativemanagement models, for only a clear sense of influence willconvince workers that their participation and ideas are takenseriously. The desire of managers to elicit worker participa-tion and thus achieve greater productivity while preservingtraditional decisionmaking prerogatives creates the fun-damental tension in quality-of-worklife schemes, and it is onthe establishment of an acceptable balance that the successor failure of such projects depends.

A few examples help illustrate the range of options utilizedin delegating authority to workers. In one of the oldest andmost widely noted experiments in participative management,Donnelly Mirrors Corporation of Holland, Michigan,transferred responsibility for virtually the entire producti6nfunction of the business to the workers on the line. A smallcompany supplying mirrors to the auto industry with a longhistory of profit sharing and open labor-management com-munication, Donnelly became a model of work reform near-ly two decades ago by dividing employees into task-orientedteams responsible for setting and reaching production goals.

, The workers were given the authority to control the assemblypace and the assignment of jobs along the line. In addition,all employees received salaries rather than hourly wages, col-

165

lectively -setting-the rates at which they would be paid butalso holding the responsibility for implementing the produc-tivity increases which must support pay raises. Under thissystem, the company enjoyed marked improvements in pro-duct quality and manufacturing efficiency, making its pro-gram one of the most successful of its kind."

lily

AGENDA:

PAY

RAISES

"The management seems concerned thatwe're spending too much time on this topic."

.;

This ambitious participative management techniqueinwhich fully autonomous work groups determine productionquotas, work methods, job assignments, and pay rates in-dependently of higher level management-Lhas been tried on-ly infrequently and has generated few long term successstories. The full-scale diffusion of responsibility and controlwas attempted at Weyerhauser Lumber Company inTacoma, Washington and resulted in some significant costsavings, but over time a number of autonomous productionunits failed to reach management-set standafrds and wereabandoned.'6 Similarly, an in-depth study of work groupsinitiated at Sound, Incorporated in Los Angeles concludedthat the most innovative attempts to give woikers decision-making authority failed to get off the ground." It is not sur-prising that most companies still view the wholesale, diffu-

166

sion of production responsibilities as more of a risk thanthey are prepared to take.

The mainstream of contemporary quality-of-worklife pro-,grams is typified by a hybrid of traditional and innovativemanagement styles, in which top management reservesunilateral rights to overrule quality circle or worker reCom-mendations but must exercise such rights sparingly in orderto preserve a spirit of meaningful participation. Thus,Westinghouse Electric Corporation has embraced a systemof participative management based on a series of councils,committees and quality circles whieh deal with issues asdiverse as the allocation of capital among production unitsand vandalism in worker restrooms." General Motors andthe United Auto Workers agreed in 1973 to form a nationaljoint committee to improve the quality-of-worklife, andsubsequently developed a set of guiding principles whichhave become the basis for at least fifty quality-of-worklifeprograms in local UAW-GM bargaining units, including amodel program at the GM assembly plant in Tarrytown,Nevi York.'9 The list of notable quality-of-worklife pro-grams goes on and onincluding Xerox, Polaroid, GeneralElsctric, Texas Instruments, Sperry Corporatiqn, DigitalEquipment and many smaller firms. While it is uncertainwhether these innovations will pay off for either labor ormanagement, it is at least clear that a significant number ofcompanies, including major corporations, are willing to ex-perimen with accepting workers as limited partners throughparticipative Management.

Work Reform in Europe

The debate surrounding the structure and implementationof work reform efforts has been more heated in WesternEurope than in the United States. Virtually every major in-dustrialized nation has its own 'record of work experimentsaddressing problems of worker satisfaction and productivi-

167

ty, including numerous attempts by manufacturers, inEngland and on the Continent to develop more humanizedjobs in factories. European trade unions have succeeded inestablishing a much stronger pattern of industrial democracythan eVer contemplated in the United States, with substantialcontrol of production frequently delegated to worker coun-cils or representatives. In general, the concept of worker par-ticipation is less foreign to the history and managementpsychology of European firms, and work innovations havebeen tied more closely to government policies and uniondemands.

Studies on autonomous work groups and worker motiva-tion were pioneered by the Tavistock Institute of HumanRelations, founded in England in 1946. The Institute's earlyresearch among coal and textile workers spawned a widerange of work reform initiatives throughout Europe in the1950s and 1960s. In its continuing work on employee motiva-

, tion and satisfaction, the Institute has examined issues ofwork reorganization, industrial democracy, and the impactof organizational and legal structures on the process ofworker paiticipation in Europe. Its landmark studies onw6rker attitudes have shaped much of the subsequent debateon work reform, and its contributions continue to move that'discussion forward in the 1980s.

As in the United States, numerous work reform ex-periMents in European nations have concentrated onrelatively narrow issues of job redesign. Attempts at Saaband Volvo plants in Sweden to avoid the worst aspects ofauto assembly-line work, through both job pnlargement andthe creation of work teams which assemble entire vehicles,gained Videspread media attention. In France, considerableattention has been given_to the architectural design of ,work

ienvironments and the size of production units as importantfactors In work satisfaction." West Gerinany ,has supportedexperiments in work reorganization, and the government's

168

program has been criticized for assisting companies inworker safety and automation initiatives more appropriatelyfinanced by the films themselves." In all of these cases, thestudy of job design has addressed concerns for occupationalhealth and safety as wep as less tangible areas ofpsychological stress and job`satisfaction.

State programs in France and West Germany are signifi-cant because they have linked issues of work organizationwith broader strategies for economic modernization andwith responses to larger socio-technological prOblems."Believing that a movement away from short work cycles andconventional assembly-line techniques will enhance produc-tivity and international competitiveness, the German govern-ment spent about $42 million on "humanization" projects,with its Ministry -of Research and Technology reimbursingemployers for 50 percent of the direct cost of restructuring awork operation and retraining workers. The French govern-ment played a similar role in promoting workreformlegislation passed in 1973 created the national agen-cy for the improvement of working conditions, whichpublishes periodic reports on trends in work refOrm and alsosubsidizes experimental projects in private industry. Thewillingness of the German and French governments todevote public resources to work reform experiments is instark contrast to the lack of United States' public involve-ment in-such activities.

*

The concept of worker participation and control has alsobeen developed in European countries to a far greater extentthan in American firms. In Yugoslavia, production systemsin which small teams determine production goals and jobassignments while reaping the benefits of productivity gainshave flourished since the end of World \War II. Trade unionsin Scandinavia have had sufficient muscle to secure govern-ment mandates guaranteeing worker participation in thedecisions of private companies and sharpry curtailing

1. ""a i

,

management prerogatives in a wide range of areas. A .1977Swedish law required full disclosure of_information<elatedto management decisions and removed limitations on thesphere of collective bargaining so that even decisions on in-vestment policy and plank location could be subject to unionnegotiations." Similarly, a 1977 Norway law included- far-

Aeaching demands for the reduction of stress and Monotonyat the workplace, for variability and opportunities for per-sonal development in jobs, and for self-determination in thelabor process." Wbile union leaders in both countries haveconcentrated their efforts on occupational health and safetyand less concrete- participation and job content mandateshaw proven difficult to enforce, the policy changesthemselves reflect the level of interest and commitment towork reform and enhanced worker participation.

Thecontrast_hetween American and European models ofindustrial relations is most clearly illusn-ated by culturalperspectives-on codetermination, the direct participation oflabor representatives in company management. With ligherlevels of unionization and greater politicization of Europeanunions, codetermination has become an integral part ofworker participation mechanisms in West Germany,Sweden, and Norway, and has drawn increasing attention inFrance and Italy. Yet the codetermination model has beencoolly received in the United Statesby management andlabor alike. Noted-lab-or econOmist Jack Barbash has arguedthat codetermination "runs against the grain of theAmerican way in .industrial management," rejected bymanagement for fear of losing control and by labor for fearof losing bargaining effectiveness through shared respon-sibility." The president of the Comniunications Workers ofAmerica, Glenn E. Watts, put the union position succinctlywhen he remarked,"I don't want to sit 'on the board and berdsponsible for managing the business. I want to be free as aunionist to criticize management.".

170

This adversarial tenor of American industrial relationsalso plays an extremely important role in distinguishing be-tween work reform experiments in the United States andJapanese models of participative management currently invogue. While Japanese concepts of quality control and in-novation may be applicable in some circumstances toAmerican firms, the cultural differences which separateworkers in Japan and the United States seriously limit therelevance of Japanese models of work organization toAmerican problems. American labor exhibits neither theheightened class consciousness of its European counterpartsnor the docility of Japanese workers. It occupies a middleground charaCterized by a practical distrust of management,resisting both the internalization of corporate goals and theideological pursuit of anticorporate sentiments throughclass-based political action. The structure of American in-dustrial relationsois not immutableas but one example, itseems possible that conservative economic policies embracedin the early 1980s will lead to a period Of greater political ac--tivism by unions. Yet the historical development of labor-.management relations does define both the prospects of andlimits to change at the American workplace.

The Importance of Reform ExperimentsThe attention focused im experiments to redesign jobs .

stemmed originally from the publicized notion of 4he"alienated" 'worker, but the impact of work refOrm has nowstretched wellbeyond that narrow discussion of job satisfac-On. Even if no crisis of.discontent ig in sight; the discoverythat work in many cases can be reorganized while stillmeeting productivity and profit goals is of humanitarian in-terest. Menial ,and monotonous jobs requiring hard and dirtywo.-it are not, new, but nekther are they illusions created bywork reformersthey simply are the continuinvbyproductof. an industrial system now populated by a less:timid andless patient generation. On this basis alone; there is -ample

0-

t)

171

reason to believe that wott reform experiments will continueand that new solutions td problems of undesirable v.kork will

sought in an attempt to cope with rising expectationswithin the labor force.

The increasing awareness among management and labor -of the potential for marginal improvements in work has beenparticularly encouraging. Although the basic concepts in °modern work design experiments are familiar,the use ofthese techniques seems more common than elven a decadeago. Similarly, while all workers may not strive for self-actualization through work, many will no doubt appreciatethe benefits of more challenging and rewarding jobs. It is im-portant tO l*p the rhetoric of work reformists in perspec-tive, for the limits of job redesign and worker participationare at timesirsevere. Yet by emphasizing the importance ofworkers as human capital, .thq advocates of work reformhave made a lasting contribtaion to the quality of work for'generaticins to corrie.

A

8 The Limits to Change

The fact is that the work whichimproves the condition of mankind,the work which extends knowledge

and increases power and enrichesliterature, and elevates Aught,

is no,t done to secure a living.lt isnot the work of slaves, driven totheir task by the lash of a masteror by animal necessities. It thework of men who perfOrm it for

their Own-sake, and not that theymay get more to eat or drink, or

wear, or displo. In a state ofsociety where %/pHs abblished,

-work Of This sort could be,enormously increased.

Henry George,Progress and Poverty

Reports of work reform experiments are almost always"success" stories. These positive accounts are understand-ablethe literature is most often the product of reform ad-Vocates committed to change at thp workplace. Yet a calmerevaluation of the potential for work refop ipust recognize

k the biases of such messianic tracts, 'ancl, examine the fullrange of experience in areasof job-redesign and participativemanagement. .

r

44 V,"'6,

1

174

/The tendency toward sele tive reporting of work, reform

results is impossible to ignorej Companies whose enrichmentand participatio plans tu sour rarely trumpet the news,just as consulta s drawing fees for their advice have little in-centive to emp size the limits to work reform. Even jour-nalists seeking ood copy tend to overlook the continuing ef-fectiveness of authoritarian controls and tradkional jobrewards while ublicizing less representative innovations byemployers. lthough acclaimed experiments at theworkplace do ovide useful lessons as to what "works" andwhy, their ac ievements must be viewed in a realisticperspective whi h acknowledges the obstacles to long termand widespread ange.

Perm nence and Replicability:

It is common for oponents of work reform to cite im-mediate gains in productivity, worker morale and productquality following the implementation of work innovations.Yet short term results of such efforts are not in themselvessignificant. As documented by industrial psychologists 1 at

Western Electric Company's Hawthorne plant in the 1920s,any change in management style, whethei autocratic ordeinocratic, may generate short term productivitygainsworkers simply respond to expressions of manage-ment interestt This "Hawthorne effect" makes longitudinal'studies of work reform experiments particularly important,and yet su \ long term analyses of work innovations remainextremely r e. In fairness to advocates of work reform, thedifficulfies f est blishing rigorous controls ,and isolating

?Iother vftiab the workplace are numerous, and manage-ment attempts at work reform usually emphasize tangibleresults rather than valid proofs of causal relationships. Theinevitable record, however, is garbled accounts of produc-tivity gains and tenuous assumptions about their, origin, pro-viding a weak researcrs for any claims of success.

1 r , 9h_ ....,

,.

4

175

If the productivity gains of work experiments ai-e of in-determinate duration, changes in worker attitudes andmorale may be even less permanent. Just as today's youngunion member's may have little appreciation for the wagesand working conditions won by earlid genefations, so newWorkers in'humanized" plants may fail to find their workuggraded or more enjoyable. Those who are present for thechange from assembly lines to benchwork, or those who

--temember the authoritarian superyision which preceded theintroduction of particigative management, may appreciatethe better quality of their work.But positive reactionsresulti 61.;_x innovations,inevitably fade as novel systemsbeconi j?",, tine, and new arrivals are likely to seeonly jobswith certain sets of tasks, wages, and bosses. An initial spurtof enthusiaStni for redesigned work may objectively reflect"better" jobs/ but there is ample reason to believe the longterm result will be higher expectations rather than enhancedworker satisfaction.

The question ots permanence is perhaps most critical inprograms of participatiye management. Because an un-

ering commitment tol nontraditional management stylesis senti4 to the continuing success of worker participationscheittes, many initiatives falter when the novelty wears off.Managers may become frustrated with the demands'of par-ticipatiVe decisidnmaking, and workers may become disillu-sioned with the slow pace of Atange or the limited extent of .

their influence. In either case, a sense of meaningful worker

4

176

participation is easier to create through work innovationsthan it is to sustain over long periods of time. Unlike changesin actual job design, the benefits of participative manage:ment are as ephemeral as the spirit of cooperation and opencommunication from which they arise, and thus mayevaporate in the face of personnel changes and unfulfilledexpectations. Reports of the short term gains may encouragereform advocates, but the true test of participative manage-ment efforts lies further down the road.

Thesejransient and illusory characteristics of many workreform attempts serve as important qualifications to theliterature describing such experiments. Yet even in thosecases in which lasting results are achieved through innova-tions at- the 'workplace, the expansion or diffusion of suc-.cessful reform methods has proven extremely difficult. In adiscussion of past work redesign initiatives, one observerargued that successful case studies have left us with littlesylstematic knowledge of how to effectively ,organize workactivities, claiming that few experimental programs had beenreplicated in other organizations or even diffusedthroughout the organizations in which they were launched.'Frequently, work reforms are undertaken in relatively smallcompanies on a comprehensive basis, or else become encap-sulated in a particular unit of a larger corporation as a "pilotproject."ari ,either event, new principles of work ofganiza,tion and design which can-be clearly articulated arid applied`in diverse work environments remain very limited.

There is con,siderable 6'idence to suggest that diffusion ofinnovative work systems is inherently slow, particularly forthe more nebulous quality-of-worklife programs currently invogtie. Initiatives in participative management tend, to behighly subjective and personalized, providing more a processfor improved communication than a standardized solutionfor specific problems of work organization and design. Forthis reason, even when quality-of-worklife programs offer

177r-

relative advanta es over existing systems, they often are dif-fictilt to repli ate.tby nature they tend to conflict withestablished no ms and values, to defy easy description, topose risks of failure, and to threaten the authotity and con-trol of traditional decisionmakers.2 Finthermore, for unitmanagers there is little to be gained by adopting a workdesign successfully tested in another branch of the organiza-tion. At best, credit for_ the diffusion is shared with theoriginal designers, while responsibility for failure to replicatea "proven" model is likely to fall solely upon the unitmanager.

The combined lack of permanence and replicability has ledJames O'Toole to conclude that almost all of the Well-publicized efforts of the 1970s to restructure the work en-

, vironment have failed to survive intact. Rather than thriving,he contends that "the general patternin more than 100plants, ranging from a radio factory to a telephone com-panYis one of a brief leap forward followed by a prolong-ed backslide."3 Although O'Toole attributes these failures toex1Nricnental designs...which were monolithic, static, and in-sufficiently tiedto monetary rewards, it seems that an ex-haustive list of barriers to work reform would be con-siderably longer and that the very potential for improvedwork may be seriouslylimited.

Witiioit Auestibn; saine experiments in ja redesign andparticipative management have produiced promising resultsfrom the perspective of both man4ement and labor.Reported gains in *duct quality, productivity and workersatisfaction cannot be totally dismissed, .and Yet they alsomay not represent the wave of the future for most organiza-tions and -workers. Such experiments focus heavitir onmanufacturing settings, a work environment which is in-creasingly dwarfed by the growth of the service sector. Moreimportantly, even in this relatively narrow context,technologkal and economic forces seriously constrain alter-

1,

178

1native ways of organizing work. In the absence of fun-damental revision§ of our economic system, voluntary ef-forts at work reform will never transform the workplace, butwill remain confined to narrow areas in which the commpninterests of labor and management are clear and compelling.

Technology and Job Redesign

The concept of redesigning or enriching jobs is fundamen-tally a challenge to the idea that technology dictates workorganization and job definitions. To replace more tradi-tional notions of technological determinism, work reformproponents suggest that there aie a number of equally pro-

-ductive alternatives for job design within any technologicalframework, some of which exact greater human costs thanothers.

The goal of job enrichment is to correct what advocatesview as a longstanding failure to coniider the human Costs of

...production alternativescosts which some suggest .willrenderinôdein órginfiatioris- inCieaSinglY dysfUnctionaI.4this sense the plea for "enriched" or "humanized" jobs iscoupled with a vision of vast, untapped human_potential. A

..,xnajof advocate asserted:

If only a small percentage of time and money that isnow devoted to hygiene : . . were given to jobenrichment efforts, the return in human satisfac--tion and economic gain would be one of the largestdividends that industry and society have everreaped through their efforts at better personnelmanagement.'

Not only can job redesign be accomplished with Minimal ef-fort, the argument goes, but it is an avenue for raising pro-ductivity thrpugh the more enlightened use of 'humanresources.

1-

i

179

The' surge of interest in job design has not been without itsuseful contriibutions to accepted ways of dividing tasks at theworkplace. iAt a basic level, the debates concerning jobenrichmFnt has counterbalanced overly narrow views oftechnoldgical efficiency in which human resources areforgotten as important variables in the production process.For example, work reform advocates have succeeded infocusing discussion on, Ale inefficiencies of excessive divi-sions of labor with extremely short and highly repetitive jobcycles. It is very possible that some workers would be moreproductive if they had more interest in their work, and thatjob cycles of three or ten minutes would be less monotonousand more efficient than those of thirty seconds. Experimentsin job redesign serve as reminders that workers themselveshave some control over output and productive efficiency,and that at some point the pursuit of narrower goals oftechnological efficiency through greater speializationbecomes counterproductive.

,

,

In their zeal, however, advocates of job redesign haveoften overstated tkir case,.ignoring the constraints imposedby technology in the search for productitn efficiency. Even

I

I 1 1

40f

1 1

,4,1 J.4

if technology is not an absolute determinant of job design, itremains a decisive influence in the great majority of worksettings, particularly in manufacturing. Milling machines,computers, forklifts and arc welding techniques tend todwarf any choices of task assignment in dictating the natureand scope of individual jobs. Particularly in mass produc-tion systems, there is little room for variation of work roleswithout decreasing productivity. The traditional structureof manufacturing industries 'has not evolvedhaphazardlYspecialization may be costly in terms ofhuman satisfaction, but it promises relatively cheap produc-tion. At some point, advocates of job enrichment clashdirectly with the logic which first spawned the division oflabor as an essential ingredient of efficient mass production,overlooking the unprecedented advances which the assemblyline has made possible.

A few attempts to depart radically from assembly-line pro-duction methods have met with some success, and yet thealternative systems of manufaCture are applicable to only asmall number of situations. For example, the widely herald-ed "benchwork" assembly methods at Motorola, Maytag,and Corning Glass involved products with small corn-ponenti, fairly lengthy assembly times, and few tools. In-dividual and small group assembly of whole items is muchless feasible in industries which involve large units or com-plex, expensive toolsthe inescapable logistics of storingand moving large components generally means that assembl-ing carsmor refrigerators or engines can beaccomplished mostefficiently on a conveyor belt. Even the reform-mindedmanagers of Donnelly Mirrors realized that an assembly.line,with specialized jobs and constantly paced synchronized

, operations, was essential to profitable mass production.

In industrial sectors where existing technologies are par-ticularly rigid or oppressive, the benefits of work restructur-ing may be severely limited, offering "little more than a

f

181

Band-Aid."6 One critic of joh enrichment efforts viewed thesearch for more "humanistit" designs as fundamentally atodds with production goals:

Given . . . the basic nature of mass production,where can there possibly be opportunities for such -highly individualistic activity- as autonomy,creativity, and self-actualization? I ankafraid there.are fewif any at all.'

in'inanY wayS, the-mass production of multiple, idetitical,consumer goods is dismally confining. The worker in an effi-ciently designed, machine-dominated factory is often a cog,performing jobs that cannot be deeply satisfying. Whilemanagement techni4ues may have the potential for relievingpressures or enhancing self-esteem, the prospects forcreating interesting or meaningful work roles in these set-tings are very sliM.

Of course, the champions of job enrichneni launch theirarguments With appeals to the prcifit mo\tive. They claim thatthe advantages of eliminating high turnover rates, raisihg,product quality, decreasing waste, and tapping firsthandknowledge for design innovations justify improvements inwork quality on economic grounds alone. Yet proponents ofwork reform ultimately seek to enlarge jobs, increaseiskills,lengthen job cycles or rotate tasks for the. sake of workersthemselves, as part of an effort to make work more"humane." In the extreme, this view becomes*an argumentfor a return to craft production, characterized by more com-plex jobs with longer training times. When the true costs ofjob enrichment (including higher training costs, greater in-ventories, and duplication of tools) are tallied, such reformsare exposed as appealing but noncompetitive and thus of lit-tle interest to management. An automobile can be producedby craftsmen, hut only at costs that few can afford.

1 9.)

182

Even when technological advance or creative engineeringdesigns make possible more "humane" forms of workorganization, the awesome capital investment necessary torevamp established methods of production poses a majorbarrier to job redesign. If manufacturing jobs have becomehardened into molds cut generations ago, much of the reonlies in the physical plant and machinery accumulated overthe yedrs. Plants-manufacturing durable goods contined anaverage of approximately $60,000 of fixed capital per workerin 1980, and, these real costs are constantly rising. Particular-ly as automated machinery is introduced to ensure morestringent quality controls, the factory will become increas-ingly capital-intensive and even less susceptible to thedramatic reorganization of work processes. It is hardly sur-prising that the most innovative experiments in job redesignhave been undertaken in hewly-constructed facilities,without the limitations impliqt in years of ,accumulatedcapital. \

Changes at the workplace are painfully slow and evolu-tIdnarY in- nature. The design of lobs niiy be fir froni idealin terms of potential job satisfaction, but they do reflect theplodding rate at which new technologies are adopted in a ra-tional search for production efficiency. industrialpsych9logists can sweep through factories unlocking ex-ecutive toilets and removing time clocks, and such incidentalimp`roN)ements in the work environment may bolster workermorale. Yet the same workers and machines will be left tocrank out coffee pots or card tables or cookie jars, with littleflexibility to alter basic manufacturing processes. Placed in arealistic framework of technologicat change and productionconstraints in competitive markets, principles of job redesign-can do little more than correct excessively narrow definitionsof efficiency and remind us that workers remain a significantvariable in the drive for Improved productivity.

,

onmon Interests and Participationjust as ,th nthusiasm for job redesign has been based on

an pverly opt! 'stic view of technology, the growing interestin participative nagement is rooted in a rose-colored vi-sion 'of the comm ality of interest between management.

and labor. Participat ve decisionmaking, profit sharing, andautonoinous work .arrangements all 'seek to unite the in-

, dividual's goals with the firm's pursuit of profits. From anelnployer's perspective, th t? hope is that shared responsibilitywill cauSe workers to identify with the larger organization,and that an acceptance of the organization's aims willtransform a monotonous job into a -labor of love.Presumably, everyone wins under this e4nlightened manage-ment styleworkers feel more important and thereby moresatisfied, while management reaps the benefits of greaterproductivity and fewer disruptions at the workplace. Yet fewproponents pause to examine the strength of this com-monality of interest, and they ignore the tension betweenmanagement and labor priorities- which seriously limits thescope and significance of participative management effort*

Excppt in the face of deep crisis, the goals of any sizablecorporkiion and those of its employees are not easily har-monized. By its nature, the corporation is not primarily con-cerned with worker satisfaction, \but rather is 'openly in-terested in profits and evaluates most other goals in relationto this single variable. Similarly, worktrs are concerned withimproving their own lives, a goal only incidentally related tothe corporation's success and often in direct conflict with thecorporate drive for higher profits. Unless corporate_ enter-

\ prites radically alter their' function to make the welfare ofemployees their first reason for being, the basis on whichworkers would fully embrace the firm's goals is hard to im-agine. Management and labor, simply have distinctly dif-

I ferent sets of priorities and concerns at the worOlace.

183

10 t

4

184

The tension between management and labbf goals is

revealed when the actul implementation of partifipativemanagement, is considered. For example, managementrespondents commenting on a recent labor conference onquality-of-worklife programs repeatedly voiced concernsthat too much attention was being given to worker needs,noting that increased produclivity and improved organiza-tional effectiveness are among the key objectives which makemanagement :willing to spend time and money on par-ticipative management.' In a similar vein, \vhile formerUAW vice-president Irving Bluestone ass-erts, that"democratizing the workplace and humanizing the job neednot be matters of confrontation" between labor andmanagement, he also expresses hope that the auto manufac:turers will- abandon `,`the historic trickle-doWn theodr thatprofits come first, that profits exemplify good in themselvesand can only redound to the benefit of society."' Amidstfears that the prior\ ities of both parties will omehow be lostor forgotten, the cdmmon ground for labor-managementcooperation seems much ginallAr than theorists suggest.

The distinction between labor and management interests ismore than some abstzact Marxist truism. Rather, the poten-1tial for conflict is -apparent Whenever thecost of Wen."reforms becomes significant. Employers are acutely awarg ofwhat reform initiatives may cost, and they rarely pursue suchinnovations without the promise of long term payoffs in pro-fit and productivity. More imp-ortantly, when work reforni'fails to produce benefits for management, the effort is quick-ly dropped even if it offers gains in worker satisfactiOn. Theexperience of one corporation, an early participant in jobhumanization experiments, illustrates the point: The ownerwas committed to improved work, but he abandoned theconcept when profits plummeted, obserying that "the pur-pose of business . . . is hot to 'develop new theories lofmanagement."1° A better kit for workers does not always

185

translate into higher profits for employers, and few firmsstick 'With experiThents on humanitarian grounds alone.

Workers are no less disinterested in their approach towork reform. Few employees would give up.a part of theircompensatiOn to support costs of job redesign or par-ticipative management, and many might reject"humanized" work if it meant accepting lower levels' or evenslower growth of wages. Furthermore, labor is wary of thesource of higher profits and ,productivity stemming fromwork reform, believing that experiments at the workplacemay simply elicit greater work effort without providing faircompensation in return by raiing production standards, cir-cumventing seniority systems, and upgrading skill levelswhile avoiding additional rembneration." -Particularly ifthey do not enjoy any of the benefits of reduced costs and'higher productivity, workers may sbe justified in viewingwork reform as part of a long tradition of managementmanipulation contrary to labor interests.

f.

stancladdlivingvs.

hbmanizotion

The adversarial relationship between labor and manage-ment is evident not only when considering the costs andbenefits of work reform, but also when determining the ex-tent of worker responsibility and 'control in participativemanagement schemes. From a management perspective, the

.

186

retention of control or ultimate decisionmaking authority isan integral part of profit maximization, and very few firmsare so devoted to worker partidipation that they are willingto surrender "veto" powers over worker recommendations.Some employers may demonstrate a genuine intqest inengaging workers 'in the stiution of, production problems,but beyond this narrow realm, the goal is to give employees a"sense" of contrOl without surrendering decisionmakingprerogatives. To the extent that meaningful influence and

-'authority are withheld, such experiments in participativemanagement may be rightly viewed by labor as shams, assophisticated attempts at behavior modification. Yet thealternativeto relinquish actual control of production andprofits to a group of workeisposes a threat to the very ex-istence of the gorporation in its traditional form.

In practical terms, the social and institutional forcesresisting meaningful diffusion of responsibility and controlare extremely powerful. As sociologist Robert Schrank hasnoted, the primiry purpose of hierarchy is control, and anyshift in the nature of control threatens those who mi&ht losesome authority:2 Middle managers upon whom the Aiccessof more open, participative styles of management depend areonly too frequently disposed toward autocratic forms ofsupervision and decisionmakingthis management ap-proach fits nicely with traditional organizational structures,enriches managerial roles, and is consistent with the domi-nant behavior styles of both employees and managers in con-temporary organizations. More innovative managementstyles not only require a distinctly different set of interper-sonal skills, but they also run counter to the competitive in-stincts which are usually responsible-for corporate survivaland achievement. In this context, :middle management hasemerged as a major institutional barrier to even the, mostwell-intentioned participative management efforts.

187

Supporters of worker participatid are gdilty not only ofunderestima'tii the dive gence of labor and managementgoalsthey ca also b faulted for failing to acknowledgethe strength author' arian and meritocratic norms embed-

- ded in Anierican cdlture." Throughout our society, we placegreast emphasis on individualism, on a competitive strugglefor recognition and authority, so that the concept of col-laborative decisionmakpi and its implicip diffusion ofresponsibility and con rol is typically rejected in largeAineriean organizations as foreign and counterproductive.While most reforin advocates discuss prospects for par-ticipative management as though these experiments were tobe undertaken in a cultural vacuum, their effectiveness inreshaping the modern workplace is severely limited by strongphilosophical and,behavioral biases favoring authoritarianand hierarchical control. With managers and workers ac-customed to ,other norms, the drive for acceptance of par-ticipative values will remain an uphill battle.'

It is not surprising that American management hasresponded to these problerris of diverging interests andcultural biases by establishing very modest objectives .forworker participation. Rejecting the odtremes of completemanagement manipulation or worker control, "qualitycircles" and related initiativrelatively limited areas, hopinimproved communication betwhile realizing marginal gains i

s seek cooperation withinto establish some basis" for

een managers and workersproductivity, product quali-

ty and profitability. Limit d profit-sharing schemessometimes are adopted as a nieans of streng.thening workercommitment to such participative niedhanisms, although'even this distributions of profits can be only, partial ifmanagement incentives to adopt work reforms are to bemaintained. Workers typically are given a voice withoutgaining significant responsibility or authority, and thereforethe likelihood that they "internalize" the firm's goals seems

188

very slim. Employees who enjoy opportunities to voice their'opinions and Participate in joint undertakings may feel more.satisfiecl with their jobs, but the adversarial tenor ofAmerican industrial relations will hardly be dispelled in the

ri41rocess.

,The eventual success of participative management tech-niques depends largely on the relationship betw,een managersand workers. Some advocates stress that positive attitudeand commitment within managerial ranksoare critical to theeffeotiveness of such work experiments, while other pro-ponents have emphasized a presumably diiect relationshipbetween the scope of participagOn and improvements inmorale; motivation and productivity. Unfortunately forwork reformers, the intangibles of managerial behavior areextremely difficult to alter or influence in a systematicfashion, and the expansion of Worker responsibility anddecisionmaking authority heightens the risks of participativemanagement, thereby diminishing its attractiveness. Theuseful lesson found in concepts of participative managementis neither revolutionary nor 'comp leic, but perhaps far moreuseful in practiceany change in nianagement style or deci-sionmaking which treats workers as individuals with ideas ofpotentiaf value, rather than as cogs in a machine, is likely toallow 'workers a greater sense of dignity and foster a morepositive attitude toward management and work as a whole.In this sense, even the simplest reforms to increase workerparticipation will have on'le humanistic value when adoptedby enlightened and well-intentioned emplOyers.

:rhe Fallacies of Radical Work aeformInflated 4ectations for reforming work may often be

traced in part to the redesigner'S inaccurate or incompleteunderstanding of the job market ana the workforce realities.Too frequently job redesign donstiltants seem to attack and"solve" problenis which exist mostly in their imaginations.

A

189

i Even when the problems of harsh or unsatisfying 'work doexist, reform speculations tend to ignore the basic

' teclanological and'economic forces whia created them andto offer solutions NO-rich are unworkable in a market context.Cledrly there are some improvements in job design andworker participation which can be adopted in a manner con-sistent with societal norms and economic constraints, but toexpect too much from the rettucturing of jobs and .workorganizations is to invite disappointment and discontent.

...

,

l

In both job tedesign and participative management, much.of the work of reform advocates invokes a sense ofnostalgia, wistfully seeking a return to an earlier era of in-dustrial d_evelopment. Jobs are to be enlarged toward theideal of the highly skilled craftsman, and organizations arefo be split into smaller units where the individual "doesn'tget lost." Yet whatever the price that society is paying in -

terms of "dehUmanized" jobs in .monolithic, facelessorganizations, it is unrealistic to hark back tb a simplerworld in which organizations Ir'ere small and jobs were,large,as though "paradilse lost" could be regained. Specializedroles and specialized knowledge are essential to largeorganizations, and large organizations are unavoidable in anadvanced society. Breaking up the corporation into small

190 ..

units with broad 'work roles. may indeed be desirable fromthe standpoint of improving the quality of work, but itwould not provide the efficient production which supports,the tremendous affluence to which we have become ac-customed.

Some critics of the modern workplace have gone so far asto reject the importance of economic, efficiency as anecessary attribute of reformed work, arguing that the needsof workers should dictate the design and organization ofproduction processes even if overall productivity is reduced.In this model of social efficiency, traditional economic costspresumably are to be balanced against the social costs ofalienation, dissatisfaction, poor health and other products ofunrewarding work. Yet any retreat from the productivityfront to more primitive, costly, and "human" methods ofmanufacture would certainly occur only through govern-mental intervention, and most likely would not reflect thepriorities and values of workers or of the majority of society.In a complex society seeking to support ifs growing popula-tion at an ever-rising standard of living and to pull in manymore who were excluded from partlking in the rewards of anaffluent society, the trends toward increased specializationand large hierarchical organizations are far more willful thanaccidental. The values and priorities conceivably couldchange, but at present we seem far away from placing workquality before aVence-.

There is an inescapable irony in the debate over workreform and concepts of social efficiency. In a sense, themethods of production so decried for their low-quality work thave spawned their own opposition, generating un-precedented standards of living which now provide the basisfor criticisms of work quality. Without the tremendous af-fluence generated by efficient mass production, there wouldbe no alternative lifestyles or occupations for workers fo en-vy, and no time to invest in the education which has con-

,1 if 0

4.. (.1 ....).0.

4

191

tributed to workers' dissatisfaction. Even while indulging innostalgic longings for "better" work, , there is littlelikelihood that the vast majority of current society would ac-tually sacrifice more income in favor of a more "human"form of work. For now at least, it does not seem that We canafford both.

By ignoring the diversity of human interests andneeds,work reform proponents run the risk of projectingtheir personal value systems On 6thers as though there were asingle, optimal approach to the design and organization ofwork. Advocfes of job redesign,have been the rilost specificin their criteria for "meaningful" work. For example, LouisDavis developed an exhaustive list of social objectives forjob redesign, ranging from self-organizafion and self-controlto independence, variety of job tasks, a sense Cif relationshipto the larger production system and a basis for relating one'swork to the outside community." Yet, as one skeptic of suchjob redesign schemes put it, "It is not clear that all workerswant job enrichment or that job enrichment alone, withoutincreased wages, increasedt promotion opportunities, and ahigher social status for blue-collar work, would resolve suchblue-collar dissatisfaction as does exist."5

The desire for "challenging" work is far from universal.In initiating a team production

, system in its Westminster,Massachusetts plant, Digktal Equipment Corporation foundthat only two of every three workers were interested in workrequiring personal initiative as opposed to traditionalassembly-line production." Some workers who lack theaspiration for such changes and others who may favorauthoritarian supervision find newly-redesigned jobs lessthan comforting. Reform advocates have oversola the needfor change as well as their ability to effect it.

Experiments in participative Management are less likely toimpose values on workers (presumably particfpation is notmandatory), and yet these reform efforts highlight another

1 ').9II

,

ft

192

sort of moral question. As already noted, the potentialbenefits reaped by management and labor under workreform programs are distinctly differentworkers gainsatisfaction while employers gain profits. Reform advocateshail this outcome as the basis for cooperation and commonaction at the workplace, but they ignore the very real sense inwhich workers can be manipulated and exploited under theguise of work reform. Because worker gains are so intangi-

. ble, management is likely to be far more concerned thatirorkers "feel" involved than than their participation is ef-ficacious. One analyst wondered: "If management's gainsare real, while workers' benefits are only in their minds, who

,has really benefitted?"7

Reform advocates have not only overlooked the diversityof worker interests and need's, they have also ignored themarket mechanisnis which foster evolutionary rather thancataclysmic change. To a considerable extent, the economicsystem provides a basis for determining whether a job isworth doingemployers decide what they are willing to pay,and workers what they are willing to accept. Assessments ofqverall job quality and satisfaction thus are reflected everyyear in myriads of individual decisions on what jobs to seek,which one to accept, at what level of compensation, and howlong to,remain on the job. While slack labor markets canseverely limit worker choices, crises at the workplace areavoided largely because individuals change jobs and jobsthemselves change. The market system cannot incorporate oraddress many goals, and It does hot guarantee satisfyingwork, but its pricing mecFanisms do respond in a way whichpromotes gradual shifts in both jobs and worker expecta-tions. . .

P .

Most prophecies of doom advanced by -would-be workreformers ignore society's well-oiled machinery for matchingworkers to jobs. Should a particular task be deemed

o price itself out of thein-

tolerable by workers, it will begin ts.

C J 1 )

Ie.

193

market, increasingly left to machines or eliminatedaltogether. If job satisfaction ever assumes overwhelmingimportance among worker priorities, the existing structureof pay differentials and the mix of jobs itself will changeconsiderably as these new priorities are at least crudelytranslated in the normal functio4ing bf the labor market.Job satisfaction may take on a greater role in balancing thecosts and benefits of employment, but it cannot alter thenature of the trade.

Of course, the range of choice confronting most workers isnot unlimited, and, particularly during times of highunemployment or within groups with limited skills theemployment options may prove far less than desirable. Thewillingness to accept a job is not the same as liking it, and itis in this sense that job reforniers are addreSsing real issues ofgrowing importance. As greater education and affluence liftworker expectatiCns,to new levels, employers will- have torespond in some way or face unrest in their workforce. Evennow, innovations at the workplace offer the only hope forthose trapped at the bottom of the labor market, whoseproblems alone warrant the attention devoted to workrefoim initiatives.

Reform innovations will gather greater force as they cometo represent the wishes of workers, rather than those ofproductivity-minded managers or well-intentioned con-sultants. Many workers with demeaning jobs accuratelyperceive their work as unstimulating activity in the service ofothers, and they 'view collaborative efforts, with theiremployers with deep skepticism. As, bolt tighteners andmachine watchers, they may' seek to escape their work butcarry few delusions about making those tasks somehow morechallenging.. When those workers become more preiiared tbdemand changes in the nature and organization of their jobs,the work reforrn movement will liave moved an importantsteP beyond the manager's search for greater productivityand prOfits.

23 4., /

,

194

Union-Reslionse to Work ReformDue to the impOrtance of worker interest in attempts to

restructure work, reform advocates have sharply criticizedunions for their historical lack of enthusiasm for innovationsat the workplace. Persuaded by the 'truth of their ownmessage about the crying need for work reform, some of itsardent, supporters have claimed That labor leaders who don'tplace work reform as a top prigrity on their ageqdas are outof touch with the rank and file and unaware of the scope ofdissatisfaction at the workplace: Others have adopted a morereasoned approach, seeking to identify institutional barriersto union involvement in work reform. Yet virtually allobservers concede that the response of organized labor willplay an important role in the future of work reform efforts.

1

..The most simplistic explanatiOnof union disinterest in

'work reformithat union leaders do not know what their, members wantis supporied neitherby evidence nor logic.

The frequency with wfiich members vote to reject settlementsnegoti,ated by their bargainers demonstrates that workers

,

r) .(../ ..,

.0

.

4

,.,

,

195-#

seldod keep theirzishes secret,.and the law guarantees themthe right.to 'express their Wishes. Surely no outstde urging_was necessary to win workers' support,for better pay, shorterhours, or improved working conditions. Similarly, thelongest lasting models of participative management in theUnited States are the Scanlon plans, Nthich were designedandinstituted by union members. Given this record of unionactivism, the claim of stifled memberships seems less plaUsi-ble than the alternative that union leaders and members justhave hot viewed work reform as crUcially impOrtant.

Much of the detachment of organized labor from ex-perimenti in job redesign and participative managemeatreflects a set Of worker priorities, which reform advocdeprefer not fo acknowledge. Before unions vigorously seekimprovethents in work, a majority of their members mustfeel such changes are worth striking for. At present, a ma-jority of union members occasionally supports strikes overpay, leisure, pensions, job security and work rights, but theyseldom protest the quality of their work in such walkouts.Furthermore, the leverage of organized labor on issues con-cerning the content and control,of work is limited, as theself-interest of management has always far exceeded that 0union members. While union negotiators may.broach a fewof these subjects as peripheral concerns, they will not be like-ly to stick by them under pressure until the rank and file isprepared to trade or risk other benefits for improvements inwork quality.

There is some reason to believe that the structure and in-ternal politics of labor organizations may cause unionleaders to 'Underemplasize less tangible quality-*worklifeissues in negotiations wiK management. Wages and other./forms of compensation are easily quantified and universally'desired by union melnbers, while the value of gains in workquality is more subjective and may vary considerably for dif-ferent segments of the membership. Pay increases can be

N4.

196

spread across the entire worlabrce, while union efforts toeliminate'or improve the worst jobs in a given factory 9r of-fice would directly aid -a few and do little or nothing tobenefit other members. For this reason, work quality issuespose thorny political problems- for union leaders, and it ishardly surprising that, in,the absence of strident complaintsfrom workers, they have maintainen more putious ap--

proath by focusing on "bread and butter" issues of pay,benefits, work rules and ocCupational safety.

c.

Nevertheless, the conservatNe and often skeptical 'mac- /..\.(ions of Unions to work reforms initiated by management is

, also fueled by bast experience. Ever since the days ofFrederick Taylor, management innovations at the workplacehave been associated with work ``speed ups" and other stepsto raise employee output and effOrt without commensurateitwards. Workers are keenly aware 'of the profit motiveswhich draw employers to these work refor) ideas, and can-not avoi.d suspicions that management is pursuing subtle c&n.games to manipulate labor. To them, absenteeism, turnoverand disruptions on the job are not signs of a decaying workethic, but simply the logi al response to jobs'that are notworth, doing well, or perha s not worth doing at all. Unionshave little faith in the mana ement and labor eommunity ofinterest, and th'ey display sto'i skepticism, if not hostility, /to claims thatswork reform can/ ansPorm lousy jobs into im-portant or challenging work.

The most recent wave of inthiest in Work reform has pro-yoked cohcerns that quality circles and other forms of par-

r-- ticipative management post direct threats to unionism,reflecting conscious efferts by emiiloyers to co-opt. workers .

and to:undermine traditional union goals. The bitterness ofthe political- battle between management add labor duringcongressional consIderation of labor law reform legislgipnin 1978 renewed fears of an all-out attack on orgahizedlabor, and the 'humanization" of work is often viewed as

, t4

,

197fr

part of this broader anti-union effort. No doubt many firmsbring more benign motives to their reform programs, and anumber of major unions have committed themselves tocooperative quality-of-worklife initiatives in spite of linger-ing skepticism. In some cases, organized labor actually mayhave little choice but to establish a role and a voice for itselfin reform efforts, lest participative management schemesproceed without input from union representatives. Yet mostwork reform programs have started in (nonunion shops, andthe idea that they are designed partly to avoid future organiz-ing efforts is anything but farfetched.

- Amidst highly publicized union "give-backs" and conces-sions in 1982, some analysts have begun to speculate thatharsh economic conditions as well as management initiativesmay force unions tO take cooperative efforts more seriously.There is no question that unions in declining industries, fac-ing the worst recession* in decades, have responded by ex-changing wage concessions and labor prerogatives forgreater job security. yet outside of clegly.. troubled sec-torsidcluding automobile, rubber, steel and airline in-dustriesthe eVidence in support of proclamations announc-ing a "new mood" of cooperation in American industrialrelations is far from clear."

For the future of work reform and participative manage-ment efforts, the issue is nOt whether labor has moderated itsdemands to, reflect hard times, but rather whether it hasaltered its approach to collective bargaining and negotiationim fundamental and lasting ways. Former Labor SecretaryJohn Dunlop contends that the current 'wage-c9ncessiontrend is neither the sign, of a new era of union-managementrelations nor .especially important in'the long run. Similarly,Daniel J. B. Mitchell of the University of California con-ducted a study of 45 cases of union concessions in 1981 andearly 1982 and concluded that they did not represent "asharp break from past behavior" or a significant change in

2 j5

198'

historical patterns of negotiation.'9 In contrast, Jack Bar-bash and others view experiments with quality-of-worklifeprograms, codetermination, employee ownership and tripar-titism as rudimentary forms of labOr-management coopera-tion and as part of a larger trend fueled by poor economicconditions."

The true test of such fledgling innovations tvill come dur-ing a period of economic prosperity, for'only then will it bepossible to distinguish between union responses to adversityand more permanent changes in labor attitudes towardmAagement and contract negotiations. The basic adver-sarial structure of labor-management relations will no doubtremain in place following the current wave of "give-backs"and concessions, for the common, interests of labor and

management will continue to be limited. However, it is

, significant that latrr leaders such as Victor Gotbaum arebeginning to urge unions to pay greater ateentiOn to manage-ment's business, not as an exercise in altruism but rather outof a need "to recognize management's motives and optionsand. to present alternatives.'"' Even if unions do mot wish toiccept the responsibilities of being managers, they may findit in their interest to understand the concerns of the opposi-tion.

In the meantime, most unions will tend to view warily,management initiatives to restructure work for fear that suchefforts will become a means of co-opting their .members.Limited gains in work quaty v)ll continue, as managementand labor identify narrow ises of common concern or asunions slowly expand thei,r traditional demands for improv-ed wox&g conditions. Yet knowing that the potential for"enriched" jobs or meaningful participation within manage-ment profit constraints is limited, unions are likely to plasp"little stock in the voluntary overtures of management for im-provements in the quality-of-worklife.

4

199

Means for Lasting SuccessWork reform will remain inconsequential to most workers

until they are willing to pursue improvements in work qualityas rights secured through collective bargaining. Whenworker interest is spontaneous and Vocal, job enrichmentwill develop as a logical extension of organized labor'sdemands on behalf of its members. A'ssuming that workerscome to care enough about challenging and rewarding jobsto be willing to bargain and strike for them, unions will seeka voice In determining the content of jobs, further en-croaching on management prerogatives. Bargaining mayforce the elimination or improvement of jobs which workersfing undesirable, and pay scales may reflect to a greater ex-tenf the intrinsic benefits of individual work roles. Suck im-provements in work quality under these conditions wouldnot be subject to the whims of management or the pro-fitability of such innovations, but would be secured asbenefits by organized labor in the same lasting manner thatmore traditional forms of compensation are now won.

When sufficient interest is aroused, the mechanisms forunion pursuit of improved work- quality will be familiarones. The kinds of demands which unions might makethrough collective bargaining and to which employers mightacquiesce include:

1. Special rewards to those with undesirable jobs: Workerswith harsh or unchallenging jobs might receive extraholidays, more flexible work hours, or higher wages,providing incentives for management to improve oreliminate these work roles.

2.A voice in the design of new production systems:Unions might seek an opportunity to evaluate or com-ment upon new methods of production, or they mighteven push for a system through which they couldpressure management to abandon undesirable changes.

200

. .,..A threat of.Lstrikes or abandonmenof jobs would havefar greater impact when work plans were still on thedrawing board than when such innovations had already

_been introduced oh the factory floor.

3. Expand occupational safety and health. legislation:Following European models, organized labor mightwork to expand coverage under existing occupationalsafety dnd health laws so as to encOmpass harmfulphysical and psychological effects of monotOnous orunchallenging jobs,' Some further research might benecessary to defend such an effort, but surely the healthof workers can be interpreted to include more than theirprotection fro \ri imminent physical danger.

4. Participation i ii overall management decisions: Short ofcodeterminatio , unions might insist on a greater 'role inthe setting of p,oduction goals or the allocation of in-vestment capital as decisions which influence the qualityof worklife. The -scope of such demands will dependpartly on future interpretations of the proper adver-sarial role and foals for organized labor.

The willingness of workers to pursue these further stepstoward controlling their worklives is nof clear, for such gainsonly will be secured in at least iiartial exchange for a slowerrate of growth in traditiQnal union benefits.'Yet if produc-tivity resumes its historical growth and as the affluence ofAmerican wbrkers continues to increase, they may'becomemore and more willing to trade marginal amounts of pay andbenefits for more challenging work environments. If thatshift in 'attitudes occurs, advocates will neither have to pleadfor the adopction of work reforms nor justify their value interms of management profits.

9 The 'Future of Work

You ask . . . why I go on working.I go on working for the Same reason

a hen goes on laying eggs.

MenckenLetter to Will Durant

Most predictions about the future of work are specula-tions based on straight-line forecasts of a single trend or evenan isolated event. A rise in unemployment is cited to supportthe prognosis that society will soon have little use for thelabor of most citizens. Rapid advances in computers arouseforebodings that workers will soon be "futureshocked"'bythe baffling complexity "of their jobs or replaced by bat-.talions of robots. Incidents of worker unrest supposedlythreaten impending criies and d,emand radical work reforms.More .optiMistically, successful_efforts to redesign certainjobs or to elicit worker participation are hailed as precursorsof an qa in which all jobs will be "humanized." Each themetrack a single thread, but fails to examine the broader socialfabffe of which it is a part.

Even while illuminating important facds of work, theseMonolithic forecasts offer misleading half-truths about itsfuture. Current trends are extrapolated to an extreme,. withlittle or no thought given to factors which woulcr limit thescope or sift the paee of such ,change. While would-bereformers and self-proclaimed seers find visions of a

,,

,

,'202 :

.

dramatically new future appealing, a gradual evolution ofthe workforce and of work itself is far more likely in a com-plex and diverse society. Not ignoring the disturbingdevelopments in the labor market, there are also majorcauses for optimism usually overlooked by work's prophetsof doom.

Familiar Prophecies

None of the dubious notions advanced about the future ofwork have been more persistent than the idea that work willsomeday disappear. Whether,the result of an alleged waningof commitment among workers or of a compelling wws, oftechnOlOgical advance, such prophecies portray a worklesssociety in .which civilization withers from lack of productivechallenge. While one could imagine a "leisure society"characterized by unprecedented diversity and culturaldevelopment, most choose to conjure visions of a populationdead-ending itself in front of a television set or perpetuallylost in druA-induced euphoria. Implicit in these warnings isthe assumption that leisure time,would not be spent wisely bythe great majority of the populace, an argument peminiscentof the debate over the 40-hour week which occurred a cen-tury ago. -'"st,

'When the actual patterns of work and leisure are moreclosely examined, images of a workless society are quicklydispelled. No reasonable reading of current trends, includinggains in leisure time, supports.the conclusion that jobs willbecome anachronisms even in the distant future; Despitephenomenal productivity gains, the labor force remains asteady or slightly rising percentage of the rhopulation, andwomen are virtually stampeding into the labor market.. Con-currently, demands for goods and services have unflagginglykept abreast or a d of the economy's production and showno signs of gi ing uP the race. Concern over the disintegra-tion of the "work éth c" is more an uncritical and literal ac-ceptance of presumed dedication to work in eras past that ex-

0 1f..., .,. 0

.

,

203

isted in the writings of moralists. In fact, today's workerscontinue to toil for reasons very similar to those of theirpredecessors. Even if they expect more at the workplace,most AmeriCans still find reasons to remain employed.

Contrary to the gloomy forecasts of some futurists, theopportunity to work has also not lagged far behind the desireto work. While robots and other, computerized technologieswill make inroads in the production of goods and thedelivery of services, there is good reason to believe that theexpanding tasks which society deems acessary will maintainaggregate 'employment levels: As manual work has beenmechanized, it has been replaced with mental effort; if mindsare to be computerized into obsolescence, then work may7beredefined to include emotional or spiritual labor. Alreadythe work of psychiatrists, social workers, clergymen and

, related professions involves less manual or rational effortthan emotional support, and in an affluent society the de=mand for such "human" services can be expected to riseeven faster than the decline in nfore traditional productionroles. The.riew technologies of tbe workplace will have somefar-reaching consequences for our lives, but widespreadjoblessness is not likely to be among them.

o

204'

The trend toward greater leisure for American workers isclear and significant, but those predicting the demise of workhave misjudged the natur& of this shift. Aside from earlierretirement, the expansion of leisure time in recent years hasnot come through an exodus of workers from the market-place, but rather through the gradual growth of holidays,vacation, and other forms of paid leisure as well as throughincreases in the number of part-time workers. For in-dividuals, the gains in leisure time have come in small in-crements and as part of a changing mix of work and leisure,rendering the visions of a workless society largely irrelevant.And because the demand for greater leisure arises from aworkforce of ever-increasing affluence and education,. eventhe assumption that Americans would be unable to cope withtheir new-found leisure seems highly questionable.

i

Although less -dramatic than predictions of the disap-pearance of work for most niembers of society, recent claimsof widespre.ad worker dissatisfaction enjoy no stronger sup-'port from current labor market trends. While some workersare undoubtedly frustrated or unhappy in their jobs, it seemscertain. that this reaction has always characterized a portionof the workforce engaged in- unpleasant and unrewarding

,tasks. Contemporary studies of work satisfaction areplagued by inethodologitO uncertainties, offering doguidance as to how worker _titritudes have changed over timeand fiequently reflecting the biases of survey qjlestiOns morethan the 9oncerns of labor force participants..The problemsof undesirable jobs certainly should not be ignored, for theycontinue to exact a significant toll from workers in the formof poor health, personal suffering 4nd lost potential. Yet theevidence does pot suggest that the feelings of this generationof workers are unique, ahd prophecies of widespread reiloltat the workplace have gone unfulfilled.

The concern for worker satisfaction has s4awned someuseful experiments with the design and organization of

,

0 ,A. _, 9...,

%

,

205

work, and their lessons may help to alleviate some of thestrains at the workplace in years ahead..As is often the casethe most zealous advocates of work reform have pressedtheir point too far, losing sight of the technological andeconomic forces which limit the feasibility of job redesign -and participative management schemes in practical work set-tings. Given the dichotomy of labor and management in-terests, the day in which tall work will be "humanized" ap-pears far bff, and pragmatic attempts to implement work in-novations lr the meantime will be necessarily restricted torather narrow areas of cooperative activity. These realities ofthe labor market offer apore reliable bagis fof sketching ayision of the workplace of the future than visions of futuristswho predict a social order where workers will perform only"meaningful" and attractive labor.

Sources of Optimism

In some ways, the geiral tone of post visions of thefuture of wOrk is surprising. Regardless of whether onebelieves any specific scenario of impending change, the em-phasis on potential crises in the literature leaves an impres-.sion that the next few decades at the workplace at best will betypified by the successful aversion .of various pitfalls andcatastrophes. Perhaps it is the inclination of consultants tosearch for problems in need of resolution, or'perhaps jtist the .

habit of most people to take eYolutionary improvements forgranted. Yet for whatever reason, causes for considerableoptimism which are clearlyapparent in current labor markettrends have been overlooked in most accounts of the futureof work.

The most basic sources of promise and hopeare the- stroligand unwavering trends toward greater affluence, and leisurein American society, fueled by dramatic'gains in prod6ctivityduring this century. In 1900 a workforce of 29 millionlabored approximately 80 billion hours to produce a gross

, 206

national product of $154 billion (in 1980'dollars). In 1980 anaverage of 97 ril on people worked 182 billion hours to ad-

.

vance it to $2 billion. An hour of labor which producedthe equivalen of less than $2.00 in goods and services in1900 produced $14.00 in 1980. While lagging Productivitygtowth in recent years has prompted some concelm.regardingthe permanence and future magnitude of this overall trend,the most likely scenario is that natidnal productivity willresume its upward climb. ,

, ...Past gains in productivity have enabled the average

American to enjoy both markedly higher incomes and addi-tional leisure time. The extent of these gains has already beenportrayed, and indeed they have occurred slowly enough topermit their full scope and significance to escape notice. Yetthe affluence and leisure which rising productMty has madepossible are now reshaping the nature of work in Americansociety, and driving three distinct and hopeful trends: (1) theexpansion of individual choice in work; (2) the removal ofunpleasant or undesirable work; and (3) the growth of con-cern for human potedtial at the workplace. In this context,while increasing productivity may never pardon us from our

, term in the "workhouse," it seem's certain to lighten thesentence.

Toward Choice in Work t

Freedom of choice in employment is by any measure a lux-ury. In agrarian and early industrial eras, virtually allmembers of a family had to contribute to its support, and therange of work oyflions for even the most fortunate waslimited to a very few trades. Even today, the sreattmajorityof the labor force is confined by established rdes which'guarantee certain wages and demand certain hours, andihcomparatively few individuals are free to change jobs at willor to avoid employment entirely. But with the rise of multi-ple family earners and increasing wealth, the stranglehold of

-

4

201

work is gradually relaxing. Once productivity resumes itshistorical trend, higher incomes will grant broad discretion41 work to an unprec.edented number of individuals, transferpayments will allow many to escape from jobs entirely, andaccumulated wealth will make labor opliainal to hundreds ofthousands more. In all cases, -the degree, of personal choiceand control at work can be expected to expand steadily.

Commonplace signs of the movement toward lehbice in

work abound. As wages have risen, absenteeism and inter-mittent or part-time job holding have become mor,e feasible.Households are often able to support several nonworkerswith the earnings of a single member, and those with two ormore workers effectively, reduce the risks of vojuntary jobchanges. Children are now supported for many years duringtheir education, and-most wives have the option not to workeven when, freed from the burden of household chores. Thedevelopment of extensive public and private -retirementsystems enables older workers to leave the labor force evenwhen still able to work. All of these shifts have moved usslowly but steadily in the direction of greater choice in workfor a larger portion of the labor force.

The option of not working currently is meaningful only atextreme enas of the economic spectrum. At the top enci ofthe- income scale, work has always been voluntary, whereaspublic and private transfer payments have provided an alter-native to the most low-paying employment society'spoorest members. It is particularly significant th reansferincomes have grown dramatically in recent years, climbing in1980 dollars from $8.2 billion in 1929 (prior to the New Deal)to $90 billion'in 1963 (prior to the Great Society) and then to$318 billion by the time President Reagan took office.,Dur-ing this half century, transfer payments rose as a share oftotal disposable income from 1.8 percent to-17.5 percent.

'Should this trend continue as our society becomes moreprosperous, increasing numbers of Americans will enjoy

21 5

$

208

either a cushiori of high income to mitigate the risks Of jobchoices or a gradually rising "floor" under employmentwhich offers an alternative to the most undesirable-and low-

paying work.

For the great majority af workers between these extremes,greater flexibility to choose desired work is a more realisticgoal than any complete departure from the workplace. Ris-ing levels of affluence and leisure have had a direct role in ex-panding this aspect of occupational choice as well. Withhigher incomes, households h a ve a greater opportunity todevelop their own financial cush ns to protect against ha.rdtimes and.to weather short periods of unemployment duringvoluntary job transitions. Increased leisure has made it easier

.. for workers to explore other career,oPtions while still retain-ing their present jobr Finally, the prosperity of Americansociety has triggered other developments which are closelylinked tO leisure and choice in workmbst notably, risinglevels of educational attainment and improvements in homeand transportation technologies. , 1

. .

Mass education has not only raised expectations but ex-panded the range of occupational choices for most in-'dividuals. Even a high school education postpones occupa-tional decisions and provides limited cf4nces to expldrealternative job opportunities before entering any particularfield. Pursuit of a college education offers even greater op-

r poytunities to test and'alter career choices or to tailor educa-tional programs for specific jobsfot example, the would-be doctor who has no stomach for dissecting frogs Or theaspiring astronomer who has no facility for numbers willdiscover these shortcomings in time to switch occupatidnalfutures without great difficulty. These opportunities do notguarantee that graduates and their professions will beperfectly Matched, but the chances that individuals will besatisfied with their eventual work roles are certainly improv-ed. 4 --,

sr

v209

. ,

Choice in work has also been promoted by advances inhome and transportation techndogies. A few decades agomost individuals were confined to' the en less routines ofhomemaking, or confined to. employmnent thin a narrow

Iwi

circumference of their homes. Today's workers accomplishmost of-their, daily maintenance tasks with little time and ef-fort and are free to travel substantial distarices to take jobsof their. chodsing. Despite the criticism leveled at unreliable

. gadgetry and wasteful automobiles, these machines have cer-tainly teleased people to pursue the activities which theyprefer. The future undoubtedly promises greater freedomalong these lines. . ..

w

r

Clearly, a plethora of fecfors have contributed to expand-,, ed control and choice ofAmployment. Lengthening prework

education, shrinking time spent on jobs, enlarged geographicmobility, the elimination of many routine daily tasks, thegrowth of various transfer payments, and, the general diffu-.sion of affluence have combined to make a person's jobmore an expression of his own decisions and less a functionof his economic or social background. It is important sto notethat not all segments of the labor force enjoy this greater

. freedom of choice, and many Americans remain trapped inpoor jobs or with few work options. Yet most individuals areincreasingly free to choose their work rather than condemn-

-I_2 -,- ,

210

ed to accept it, and they are able to make decisions based lesson what is most available than on what is most desirable.Rising productivity and wealth will continue to weaken thebonds which tie workers unwillingly to their jobs.

Eliminating Undesirable Work

Increasing choice will bring new pressures to bear on thedesign and organization of work and is likely to hasten theelimination of unpleasant;or unrewarding jobs. To the extentthat workers are.,willing and able to demand more desirable

'.work, their interests will beSme a significant force forchange at tomorrow's workplace. The worst jobs will beshunned by growing majorities, forcing some employers

ther to raise wages or to eliminate the jobs. Whereorganiiational changes and job redesign can upgrade work,there will 'be intense pressure for these improvements. Mostimportantly, the work. which society chdosesr.to accomplishwill be increasingly determined by what workers want to do,as well as by what tasks societY wants done..

Under any circumstances, ttrOccupational mix 'within thelabor market is not static. As the demand for goods and ser-vices shifts and production technologies change, many of theworst jobs are 'automated or in some way improved (in-cludkng by better pay). While work refOrm advocates

use examples 'of assembly lines, steet and textileand machine tool factories to bolster their argumetft

woikers in these settings represent a smaIl and dwindlingportion of the labor Torce. The job prOblems in some ofthese fields remain serious, but the workers in these in-dustries constitute only a tiny fraction of the -expandingworkforce and considerablt incentives to phase out the leastdesirable work roles already exist. The rising expectations'and expanding job choices of workers will simply accelerate

_ this natural progression of techn9logical advmee ip aniodern era.

a

,

...

211

The prospect of eliminating harsh employment is one ofthe mosrpositive results of recent advances in robotics andother computerized technologies. Although the impact ofautomation on individual workers may be severe, the long-range effect on occupational structure. will be to removeworkers from the most dangerous and debilitating workroles. The monotony of assembly lines will be graduallyborne by robots which do not mind the tedium, and thehazards of welding, material handling and sundry other jobswill be experienced by costly machines which can be damag-ed but not hum The process of eliminating undesirable workwill be necessarily slow and not without its own human andeconomic costs, but it will represent one of the most signifi-cant trends shaping the future of work in the comingdecades.

The rise in worker expectations.and elpansion of Occupa-tional choice will ensure that the quality of work becomes anincreasingly important issue at the workPlace. In a very richand educated society, it is possible that money and leisurerewards may become less' important social issues than theredistribution of creative and responsible work. As workers'freedom grows, pressure to restructure jobs may lead to theacceptance of reforms which ate deemed unrealistic today.Sual "enlightened" revisions by employers will not emergefrom any new1y7discovered sense of humanism or philan-thropy, but ratfier from very direct ecoilomic pressures tomaintain a stable and competent set of workers amidst an in-,

creasingly selective labor force. In those cases where newtechnologies do not improve the quality of work in large-scale production, manufacturing employers will progressive-ly be fotced to find their new employees in pools of surpluslabof filled with the poor ang undereducated. Advancingtechnology alone will not upgrade all jobs, and yet themonetary and leisure incentives required to man industrieswith rigid and undesirable work roles may escalate sharply asthe ecdnonly develops alternate jobs.

t1,

212

119

vi.l.1.1181..lfeMoisr AIV,VP4,0V.A.:de/WI a, ow..PAorYilhea.:Woario7. arra:.

So long as significant sectors of society remainunemployed ,and underemployed, no sellers' market for in-

t, dustrial labor will develop. Still, the growing awareness insociety that each person should have a right to choose workwill undoubtedly place factory employers at a disadvantage.The greater the value society places on meaningful work, themore rewards workers at monotonous and unchallengingjobs will be able to demand for their.Tabor. Workers in thoseroles will pursue an already familiar paththey will radicallydivide their lives, putting up with hours of drudgery at workwhile seeking more money and.more tiine off in which to en-joy this expanding supply of goods and services. Some willmake the trade more willingly than others, but as a groupthey will steadily decline in numbers as technological changeand worker priorities whittle away the most unpleasant andunrewarding work.

Workers as Human Resources

The same forces which are accelerating the elimination ofundesirable work are also drawing increasing attention to theproductive potential of workers th,emselves. Most discus-sions focus on the negative side of the issue, examining "pro-blems" of worker dissatisfAtion with unrewarding jobs, butthe rediscovery of workers as a significant variable in pro-

213

duction equations has an simportant positive side as well. -Inthe face of growing pressures to respond to worker needs,both management and 'labor have begun to search. for moreeffective ways to utilize individual capabilities and to reachpreilously untapped potential. It is a trend which promisesboth greater dignity for workers and more challenging orhuman work settings.

Again, signs of a fundamental change in attitudes towardworkers are already apparent. Even if current experiments inparticipative management are not successful in promotingsu-stained collaboration between management and labor,they do indicate that the basic assumptions of traditiealmanagement styles are being sefiously questionednot onlyin academic classrooms, but also in corporate board rooms.Alternative styles of management designed to promoteworker participation and tap worker knowledge are receivingincreasing attention by progressive tmployers, and graduateprograms in business administration at scores of institutionshave been revised to include the study and practical applica-tion of such theories.

This heightened awareness of worlers as valuableresources will not have the sweeping impact that reform ad-vocates might hope. While the shift toward a collaborapvestYle of decisionmaking in hierarchical work organizationscan only bode well fen- the satisfaction of those who hang onto thq.bottom rungs, it remains to be seen how quickly thesenew attitudes will filter down to first-line managers. who dealdirectly with and may be threatened by workers.. Still, therenewed attention given to workers will give them some_greater sense of dignity, and may correct poor job designsbased on overly narrow concepts atedhnological efficiency.Yet once the tasks desired by society are determined, theycannot be greatly alteredchambermaids will continue toMake tiedrjanitors sweep floors, Sas station attendants-pump gas, and garbage c011ectors, even if they are called

r, 221

. 214

sanitation engineers, still collect garbage. What we can hopefor is marginal gains which will make some jobs moretolerable and which will alter the way in which future jobsare conceived and decisions made in modern work organiza-tions.

Perhaps the most important outgrowth of a greater em-phasis on workers as human resources will be the develop-ment of new government initiatives to create and channeldiscretionary employment. As previously discussed, a largeportion of work in an affluent society is "non-essential,"and the puiblic sebtor plays a major role in allocatingresources in pursuit of societal goals. Dramatic changes inmanpower distribution are usually initiated only in the midstof serious national crises/ ?ut even routine government deci-sions channel workers into fields as diverse as space explora-tion, health care and public education. If the current surge ofinterest in human potential at the workplace extends farenough to affect popular values, government may devote in-creasing attention to the needs and desires of workers as wellas to substantive goals of public pollicy in allocating discre-tionary resources and employment. Already, the debate oVerfederal employment programs has come to emphasize the

Atv ,o

sw,

215

creation' of "good" jobs as opposed to the subsidization of"make-work" employment. An affluent and sophisticatedsociety may increasingly define the purpose of work not onlyby what is to be accomplished, but also by the humanberfefits of accomplishing it.

Clouds on the HorizonThere remain many reasons for being optimistic about the

future of work in affluent, post-induStrial societies. Thereare also a few source,s of serious cOncern. The opportunitiesfor exercising choice of work are steadily expanding, butsuch-freedom, is denied to a significant segment of the laborforce. "While undesirable work will gradually disappear, theprocess will be too slow to aid some workers and willpreclude others from using the .pnly occupational skills theypossess. While most Americans will enjoY the fruits of risingproductivity and societal wealth, a minority will be leftbehind in what may become a permanent underclass in anotherwise affluent society. In all cases, the Prospect of agrowing gap between the most and least fortunate challengesour, basic concepts of equity and our quest for continuingsocial proess.

The rosy vision of a future in which individuals have ever-greater measures of choice in determining their work rolescertainly is an empty mirage to those who gave not shared inthe economy's bounty. Choice in work is a luxury affordedto those with the incomes and leisure to pursue their owngoals.-For those who have been denied a share of the moneyand free time which prosperity has wrought, choice of workwill be one more unattainable hope. Included in this groupare the millions who are unemployed, the millions who aretrapped in low-paying jobs, and the millions who canhot ac-cept the risks of abandoning work they hate. Regardless of .

how bright the eventual prospects or how positive the current

22 LI

216

trends, society cannot ignore its responsibilities to thesemembers at the bottom of the labor market.

As the gains in freedom of choice in work leave part of theNorkforce behind, so the advance4 brought by technologicalchange have also failed togimprove the lot of many workers.Because the processes of investnfent 'and automation occurrelatively slowly, some Americans will continue to holdmenial jobs for decades to come. The most dangerous workis likely to be automated 6T eliminated first, but the societyin which all workers have challenging orrewarding roles re-mains far beyond our rech. Even the growth of the servicesector, which appears tal offer long term relief from theharsh work associated with assembly lines in manufacturing,will generate an ample share of unexciting and undesirablejobs for tomorrow's worker. Given the direction of changesin occupational mix fostered by technological advance, there

,is cagse for encouragement, but the transformation of workadvocated by would-be reformers will be a long time in corn-

s ing.,

The most disturbing threat to the welfare of workers posedby technological change is the displacement of those withnarrow, or limited skills. These problems are already becom-ing acute in declining manufacturing industries where unionshave succeeded in achieving for their members relatively highpayfor example, in the domestic steel and auto industries,Individual skill levels offer little or no assurance of j0"'security, and some of the most highly-skilled trades which'. ,typify well-paid blue-collar work will be rendered obsolete in

'an age of coMputirized design and production. Hardest hitby these occupational shifts will be middle-aged workers yhohave worked their entire lives in jobs requiring limited skillsand offering little job mobility. Since areas of new emplo5r-ment growth will require skills much different from thoseneeded in declining manufacturing sectors, the spectre oflong term, structural unemployment for displaced workersmust be taken seriously.

,

,

, -

217

This problem of worker displacement, if unchecked byprivate and public remedies, will have a growing impact onboth regional and national economies. Disparities in regionalgrowth are already triggering stgrn warnings of a potentialpolarization of the nation's political system by region, withthe Northeast and Midwest struggling to maintain leveks ofeconomic growth and political power now threatened by theburgeoning Sunbelt states. The concentration of displacedworkers in areas of broader economic decline will make ef-fective state and local responses to their employment ills con-siderably more difficult, and could heighten an already visi-ble trend towqd pockets of high unemployment and laborshortages existing side by side in different regions and sectorsof the economy. Notwithstanding the tragic human sufferingimplicit in such a scenario, the costs of this pattern of oc-cupational and geOgraphic displacemetit in terms of lost pro-ductive capacity alone suggest the need to pursue an alter-nate course.

Finally, the long term future of work is clouded by thecontinuing exclusion of impoverished women, minoritiesand other jbbless Americans from the harvest of growingprosperity. Even as Choice in work and personal incomes in-crease for the majority of the labor force, disadvantagedsubgroups continue to lag far behind either because of defi-cient educatiOn, lack of skills or discriminatory employmentpolicies. Extremely high rates of joblessness among teen-agers and minority groups serve As reminders that portionsof the workforcé are being left behind in a generally improv-ing labor market, and that it may become increasingly dif-ficult for these groups to catch up with or even to keep fromfalling further behind the affluent majority. It is this pros-pect of a permanent underclass, enjoying neither the hopesnor the benefits of future iinprovements in work, which mustbe averted by a just society.

2 5

218

Unfortunately, for the disadvantaged minority it appearsas though things wilt get worse before they get betterYAfter along period of declining poverty levels (in both relative and

, absolute ,terms) responding to Great Society programs, thetrend has reversed and the incidence of poverty in America isnow rising. In1978, 24:5 million people, or 11.4 percent ofthe population, were living in poverty. Only three years later,the ranks of the poor had swelled to 31.8 million, 14.0 per-cent of all Americans and rising. Economic growth alone willnOt correct this disturbing imbalance, and a narrow relianceon private sector initiatives can only generate a society inwhich the majority enjoys greater freedom and affluencewhile the rest languish in pockets of poverty, unemploymentand brclici economic decline. Given the significant cuts in in-come transfers initiated by the Reagan administration duringiti first year, such an expansion of the ranks of the poor nowseems unavoidable.

Publie Policy and Work's FutureFor some, work is already becoming what they would

"rather do .inyway." For othersthe hewers of wood andthe drawers of waterno ref'orm may ever make their worksatisfying or worthwhile in its own right. The governmenthas a responsibility to encourage a more ecwitable distribu-tion of preferred jobs, and it can do so by arbitrating, withinfree labor markets, the rights of workers and the needs ofsociety. Yet society should place top priority on. ensuringthat all who want jobs have them, that even the wages of thelowest:paid workers will support a decent standard of living;and that those who suffer temporary misfortunes are shield-ed from the market's harshest blows.

_Public policy already plays a central role in cushioning the

impact of economic uncertainties on labor force par-ticipants. Income transfers have placed a floor beneath manyof those out of work, and job training programs have at-

*

5

219

tempted to smooth the transition into new occupations.Public financing of education has also fostered greaterchoice in work, and thereby enhanced thesontrol which in-dividuals exercise over their worklives. In the absence ofsuch direct and indirect government efforts to ease jobchanges and to reduce the suffering caused by economiccycles, the uncertainties of a market system would be far lessacceptable to'an affluent, democratic society.

The clouds on the horizon suggest that the rold of publicpolicy ins shaping the future of work will be no less importantin the years ahead. The problems of displaced workers andregional decline stemming from 'technological advances willbe well beyond the reach of voluntary individual or collectiveaction, and can be ameliorated through government in-tervention. Similarly, the disturbing abandonment in the ear-ly 1980s of gOvernthental efforts to provide opportunities forWork and training in the marketplace may fuel the growth ofan American underclass populated with the unskilled and,deficiently educated. The health of the larger .economy andthe rise of affluence and choice in work will offer no con-solation to,these groups who are increasingly left behind in-the prOcess of technological and economic change. It re-mains a public challenge and responsibility to include theleasCadvantaged in the prosperity which our system haswrought.

Those who proclaim the demise of work have missed themark. Work is surely here to stay, and it is only by virtue Ofthe tremendous fruits of our labor that we can now con-template more leisure time and treater choices in our selec-tioil of jobs. As we continue to rely upon work as themainstay of our lives and our economy, we mustalso con-tinue to search for the vehicles by which we can offer thisrole and its many benefits to all of society's members, .

Should we not fulfill this prime responsibility, the failings ofwork will be our own.

NOTES

Chapter 1

1. Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its Discontents, translated IV JamesStrachey (New York: Norton, 1961), P. 46.

2. David Rieman, Abundance for What? (Garden City, NY: Double-day, 1964), p. 151.

3. Daniel Bell, "The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism," ThePuiplic Interest, Fall 1970, P. 38.

4. Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism (New York: WarnerBooks, 1979), P. 574.

5. John P. Robinson, "Toward a_Post-Industrious Society," PublicOpinion, August/September 1979, P. 46.

6. "Opinion Roundup," Public Opinion, August/September 1981, pp.24-26:

7: George Katona and Burkhard Strumpel, A New Economic Era (Newyork: Elsevier North-Holland, 1978), P. 71.

8. Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (New York: Random House,. 1937), pp. 4-5.

-Chapter 2

1., Sebastian de Grazia, Of Time, Work, and Leisure (Garden City, NY:Anchor Books, 1964), pp. 1-56; Adriano Tilgher, Homo Faber: WorkThrough the Ages (Chicago: Regnery, 1965); and Wilbert Ellis Moore,Man, TiMe, and Society (New York: John Wiley, 1963).,

2. Gerhard E. Lenski, The Religious Factor (Garden City, NY: Double-day, 1961), pp. 4-5.

3. Robert SChrank, "Are Unions an Anachronism?'Harvard BusinessReview, September-October 1979, pp. 108-109.

4. Bernard Lefkowitz, Areak Time: Living Without Work in a Nine toFive World (New York: Haw,thorn:Books, 1979), P. 98.

0-

221

2

a.

222

5. Rosabeth Moss Kanter, "Work in a New America," Daedalus,Winter 1978, p. 52.

6. Studs Terkel, Working (New York: Pantheon, 1971), p. 44.

7. John Colenian, Blue-Collar Journal (Philadelphia: Lippincott,. 1974), p. 96.

8. The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Current Developments, July24, 1980, p. A-7.

9. Harry Maurer, Not Working (New York: Holt, Rinehart 'and,Winston, 1979), p. 1.

10. Lillian B. Rubin, Women ofa Certain Age: The Midge Search forSelf (New York: Harper and Row, 1979), p. 59.

11. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Work inAmerica (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), pp. 8-9.

.12. Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: Norton, 1961), p.24.

13. John A. Garraty, Unemployment in History (New York: Harper andRow, 1978), p. 5.

14. Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its Discontents, translated by JamesStrachey (New York: Norton, 1961), p. 27.

15. U.S. Congress, House Committee on EdUcation and Labor, Hear-ings on Hours of Work (Washington: U.S. Governmejn Printing Office,1963), p. 220.

Chapter 3

1. Juanita Kreps, ed., Women and the American.Economy: A Look to/he 1980s (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1976), pp. 9, 63.

2. The ROper Organization, The 1980 Virginia Slims American-Women's Opinion Poll, p. 35.

3.4tden Hall and Terry R. Johnson, "The Determinants of PlannedRetiranent Age," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, January 1980,p. 251.

4. Philip L. Rones, "Older MenThe Choice Between Work andRetirement," Monthly Labor Review, November 1978, p. 4.

a

223

5. Elliot Liebow, tally's Corner (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), p. 61.

6.1ester C. Thurow, The Zero-Sum Society (New York: Basic Books,1980), pp. 64, 72-73.

7. Robert A. Moffitt, "The Negative Income Tax: Would it DiscourageWork?" Monthly Labor Review, April 1981, pp. 23-27.

8. Janice Neipert Hedges and Daniel B. Taylor, "Recent Trends inWorktime," Monthly Labor Review, March 1980,1). 9.

9. U,S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Handbook of Labor Statistics(Wishington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980), Tables 52 and86.

10. Hedges and Taylor, "Recent Trends in Worktinie," p. 4.

Chapter 4

1. Harold L. Sheppard and Neal Q. Herrick, Where Have All theRobots Gone? (New' York: The Free Press, 1972), p. xi.

2. Harvey Swados, Foreword to Sheppard and J-Ierrick, Where HaveAll the Robots Gone? p. x.

#

3. Richard K. Nixon, Presidential Labor Day Address, September 6,1971.

4. Karl Marx, Early Writings, edited and translated by T. B. Bottomore(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 125.

5. Richard Schacht, Alienation (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971),pp. 168-173.

6. Robert Blauner, Alienation and Freedom (Chicago: University ofChicago. Press, 1964), 13.

7. Jacques Ellul, The TechnologiKndpf, 1964, ) p. 320.

8. AlviU Toffier, The Third WaVe (New York: Bantam Belok, 1980),pp. 17, 206.

9. Blauner, Alienation and Freedok pp. 166-167.

10. Frederick I. Herzberg et al., Motivation to Work (Nevi York: JohnWiley, 1959).

al .Society, (New York: Ared A.

11

224

11. Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1960).

12. Daniel Yankelovich, New Rules (New tork: Random House, 1981),p. 44.'

13. ElIul, The Technologicaf Society, pp. 39920.14. lerome M. Rosow, "Quality-of-Work-Life Issues for the 1980s," inWork in America: The Decade Ahead, Clark Kerr and Jerome M.Rosow, eds. (New York: Van N5Stra94-/Reinho1d, 1979), pp. 157-187.

15. Irving Bluestone, "Worker Participation in Dedsion Making," inHumanizing the Workplace, Roy P. Fairfield, ed: (13uffalo, NY: Pro-metheus Books, 1974), p. 54.

16. Lloyd Ulman, Robert Flanagan, and George Strauss, WorkerDiscontent: Where Is the Problem? (Berkeley: Institute of IndustrialRelations, University of California, 1974).

17. Daniel E. Taylor, "Absent Workers and Lost Work Hours, May1978," Monthly Labor Review, August 1979, p. 49.

18. U.S. Bu-reau of Labor Statistics, Handbook of Labor Statistics(Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980), Tables 167 and170.

19. Robert P. Quinn and Graham L. Staines, The 1977 Quality ofEmployment Survey (Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, TheUniversity of Michigan, 1979), Pp. 212-213, 220.

20. Nancy Morse and Robirt Weiss, "The4unction and Meaning ofWork," American Sociological Review, April 1966, pp. 191-198.

21. Yankelovich, New Rules, p. 152.

22. George, Strauss, "Is There a Blue-Collar Revolt Against Work," inHumanizing the Workplace, p. 25.

23. Ibid., p. 38. See also Jack Barifish, Job Satisfaction AttitudesSurveys (Paris: Organisation for.Economic Co-operation apd Develop-ment,.1976), p. 22.

3

243fichael Crozier, The World of the Office Worker (Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press, 1971).

25.'David McClelland, The Achieving Society (Princeton, NJ: VanNostrand, 1961); Arthur N. Turner and Paul Lawrence, Industrial Jobsand the Worker (Cambridge: Harvard University Graduate School of

B,usiness Administration2 1965); Charles Han and Milton R. Blood,"Job Enrichment, Industrial Differences, and Workers' Responses,"Psychological Bulletin (1968), pp. 41-55;4William F. Whyte, Orgdniza-tional Behavior (Homewood, IL: Richard D. trWin, 1969), chapter 32;and Wain W. Susjanen, et al., Perspectives on Job Enrichthent and Pro-

cluctivity.(Atlanta: 'Georgia State University, 1975).

26. Mitchell Fein, "The Myth of Job Enrichment," in Humanizing the-Arbrkplace, p. 73.

27. Quinn and Staines, The 1977 Quality of Employment Survey, pp. 48,57.

28. William M. Winpisinger, "Joh Satisfaction: A Unio esponse4L.The American Federationist, February 19 . 9.

29. Goran Palrd, The Flight From Wok transl ted by Patrick-Smitb(Cambridge: Cambridge University Preis, 1977), p. 16.

3O.,1ainer, Alienkon and Freedom, pp. 29, 183.

31. Ellul, yle Technological Saciety, p. 396.

1. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, AMedium Term Strategy for Eniployment and Manpower Policies (Payis:OECD, 1978).

Chapter 5

2. Stanley Aronowitz, False ?romises (New York: Mc9raw-Hill,p. 292.

9

3. Russell W: Rumberger, '"The Changing Skill Requiremenq of Jobs:in the Unite&States," Industrial and Labor Relations Reviek Jiay 081,pP. 578-590.-

. , . . ,.

4. Colin Norman, The God That Limps: Scieniand Technol gy in tho . ''Eighties (New irork: Norton, 1981), p:113.,

i.

5. Working Women, "Race Against Time . Automation-of the OfTice'''.,

(Cleveland: 'April s

6. "Robots Join the Labor Force," Business Week, June 9, 1980x. p 62;and Mann S.-Lublin;"As Robot Age ArOves . . ,!? Wall Street Jonal, Octbber 26, 1981, p. 1. -

29

'

19 s

226

7.-Ott'o Friedrich, "The Robot Revolution," Time, December 8, 1980,P. 75.

8. Gene Bylinsky, "A New Industrial Revolution is on theWay," For-tune, October 5, 1981, pp. 106414; and Barnaby J. Feder, "TheAUtomated Research Lab," The New York Times, October 27, 1981, p.

9. Herman Kahn, William Browrond Leon Martel, The Next 200 Years(New York: Morrow, 1976), pp. 8, 20-24.

10. Lublin, "As Robot Age Arrives . . ," p. 1; and "The Speedup inAutomation," Business Week, August 3, 1981, p. 62.

11. Senator Lloyd Bentsen, Congressional Record (daily edition),December 10, 1981, p. S14908.

12. Harley Shaiken, "Detroit Downsizes U.S. Jobs," The Nation, Oc'tober 11, 1980.

13. Fred Reed, "The Robots Are Coming, The Robots Are Coming,"Next, May/June 1980, p. 32.

14."The Speedup in Automation," p. 62.

15. Diane Werneke, "Women and Microelectronics: The Impact of theChip on Office Jobs," report prepared for the Interpational Labour Of-fice, December 1981, Pp. 115-124.

16. Clive Jenkins and Barrie Sherman, The Collapse of Work (London:yre Methuen, 1979), p. 182.

17. Mick McLean, "Sector Report: The Electronics 'Industry,"background study prepared for Orgauisation for Economic Co--opreration and Development in Technical Change and Economic Policy(Piris: OECD, 1980).

18. Richard W. Riche, `..3.0pact of New Electronic Technology,"Monthly Labor Review, March .1982, p. 39.

19. Quoted in Reed, "The Robots Are Coming, The Robots Are Corn-ing," pp. 37-38.

20. Lublin, "As Robot Age Arrives . . " p. 21.I/ 'y21. William W. Winpisinger, "Cor ecting the Shortage of Ski,UId

Workers," The Ainerican Federationist, June 1980, p. 21.0

227

22. Theodore J. Gordon and Olaf Helmer, "Report on a Long-Range'Forecasting Study," in Social Technology (New York: Basic Books,1966), pp. 81-82.

23. James S. Albus, People's Capitalism: The Economics of the RobotRevolution(College Park, MD: New. World Books, 1976); and ColinHines and Graham Searle, Automatic Unemployment (London: EarthResources ,Research Ltd.; 1979):

24. Hesh Wiener, "The Robots Are Here, But Are They Helping?"Business and Society Review, Fall 1980, p. 37.

Chapter 6

1. Anne McDougall Young, "Trerids in Educational Attainment AmongWorkers-in the 1970s," Monthly Labor Review, July 1980, p. 46.

2. Ivapperg, Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery (NewYork:Traeger, 1970).

3. University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Survey of WorkingConditions, November 1970 (Washington: ,U.S. Government PrintingOffice, 1971), p. 406.

4. James O'Toole, "Education Is Education, and Work Is WorkShallEver the twain Meet?" Teachers College Record, Fall 1979, P. 9.5. Russell W. Rumbergei, Overeducatlon in the U.S. ,Labor Market(New York: Praeger, 1981), p. 97.

6. William W. Winpisinger, "Correcting the Shorhtge of Skilled'Workers," The American Federationist, June 1980, p. 22.

7. "The Usmkrground Economy's Hidden Force," Business Week, April5, 1982, p. 66.

Chapter 7

1. Don D. Lescohier, Working Conditions, in John R. Commons and'Associates, History of Laboi in the United States, 1896-1932 (New York:Macmillan, 1935), VOL 3, p. 314.

gr).1t) 44K:

228

2. Sumner H. Slichter, Union Policies and Industrial Management(Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1941), p. 208.

3.:Franklin Wallick, "Work with Dignity," in Humanizing theWorkplace, Roy P. Fairfield, ed. (Buffalo, NY: PrometheusBooks,1974), p. 67.

4. Frederick W. Taylor, Shop Management (New York: Harper, 1912):

5. Lescohier, Working Conditions, ,p. 316.

6. Ibid., p. 331.

7. Richard E. Walton, "How to Counter Alienation in the Plant,"Harvard Business Review, November-December 1972, pp. 70-81.

8. Claude Davis, "Manufacturing of the Pageboy II" (Schaumburg,IL: Motorola Communications, 1972), unpublished paper.

9. fames P. Biggane and Paul A. Stew4rt, "Job Enlargement: A CaseStudy," in Louis E. Davis and James/e. Taylor, eds., Design of Jobs(Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1972), pp. 264-277.

10. Robert N. Ford, "Job Enrichment Lessons from AT&T," HdrvardBusiness Rel;iew, January-February 1973, p. 96.

11. Paul D. Greenberg and Edward M. Glaser, Some Issues in JointUnion-Management Quality of Worklife Improvement Efforts(Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research,1980), p. 19.

12. Clayton Jones, "The Workers' Stake in Quality:A U.S. Idea Hometo Roost," The Christian Science Monitor, September 25, 1981, p. 10.

13. Charles G. Burck, "What Happens When Workers ManagerThemselves," Fortune, July 27, 1981, p. 64.

.

14. Irving Bluestone, "How to Put QWL to WPrk," unpublished paperpresented to Work in America Institute, Washington, DC, December 6,1979, pp. 7-8.

15. Judson Goodin, "It Pays to Wake Up the Blue-Collar Worker,"Fortune, September' 1970; also William A. Ruch and James C. Her-shaver, "Productivity in PeoPle-Oriented Organizations," ArizonaBusiness, May 1975, pp. 11-20.

16. Neal Q. Herrick, "The Other Side of the Coin," unpublished paperpi esented at the Twentieth Anniversay Invitational Seminar of thc ProfitSharing Research Foundation, Evanston, IL, November 17, 1.971.

229

17. John F. Witte, DentocraCy, Authority, and Alienation 'in Work(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).

18. Jeremy Main, "Westinghouse's Cultural Revolution," Fortune,June 15, 1981, pp. 74-93.

19. Robert H. Guest, "Quality of WorklifeLearning fromTarrytown," Harvard Business Review, July-August 1979, pp. 76-87.

_ . . _ _ _

20. David Jenkins, "Work Reform in France: A Ten-Year Record ofContinuing Effort," Jenkins Work Report, February 1979 (supplement),pp. 17-24.

21. "Programme to 'Humanise' Workplace Comes Under Criticism,"The German Tribune, May 9, 1980.

a 22. International Institute for Comparative Social Research,'Humanisation of Work' Between Labor Unions and the StateASurvey of Seven Countries" (West Berlin, West Germany: HCSR, 1980),p. 3.

23. John Logue, "On the Road Toward Worker-Run Companies? TheEmployee Participation Act in Practice," Working Life in Sweden (NewYork: Swedish Information Service, December 1978).

24. International Institute for Comparative Social Research," 'Humanisation of Work' Between -Latl-or Unions and the StateASurvey of Seven Countries," pp. 28-35.

25. Jack Barbash, "What Labor Wants Over the Next Decade,"Business Week conference, Houston, TX, March 28, 1980, p. 7 (un-published).

26. Glenn E. Watts cited, in "The New Industrial Relations," BusinessWeek, May 11, 1981, p. 86.

-

Chapter.8

1. J. Richard Hacknian, "The Design of Work in the 1980s,"Organizational Dynamics, Summer 1978, pp. 15-16.

2. R. E. Waltoh, "The Diffusion of New Work Structures: ExplainingWhy Successes Didn't Take," Organizational Dynamics, 1975 (No. 3),21.

2 " D

pc)

3. James O'Toole, "Thank God, It's Monday," The Wilson Quarterly,Winter I 98001n. 130-131.

4. Louis E. Davis, "The Coming Crisis for Production Management:Technology'and Organization," in Louis E. Davis and James C. Taylor,eds., Design of Work (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1972), p. 428.

5. Frederick Herzberg, "One More Time: How Do You MotivateEmployees?" in Ibid., p. 125.

6. Wickham Skinner, "The Impact of Changing Technology on theWorking Environment," in Clark Kerr and Jerome M. Rosow, eds.,Work in America: The Decade Ahead (New York: Van Nostrand,Reinhold, 1979), p. 218.

7. Robert Schrank, "On Ending Worker Alienation: The Gaines PetFood Plant," in Humanizing the Workplace, Roy P. Fairfield, ed. (Buf- -falo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1974), 'p. 129.

8. Paul D. Greenberg and Edward M. Glaser, Some Issues in JointUnion-Management Quality of Worklife Improvement Efforts(Kalamazoo, MI: W. E., Upjohn Institute for Employment Research,1980), p. 21.

9. Irving liluestone, "Worker Participation in Decision Making," inHumanizing the Workplace, pp. 53-54, 61.

10. "Where Being Nice to Workers Didn't Work," Business WeekJanuary 20, 1973, p.' 98.

11. Jack Barbash, "Humanizing WorkA New Ideology," TheAmerican Federationist,, July,I977, pp. 12-14:

12. Robert Schrank, Ten Thousand Working Days (Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press, 1978), p. 222.

13. John F. Witte, Democracy, Authority, and Alienation in Work(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 2.

14. Davis, "Coming Crisis for Production Management," pp. 440-442.

15. George Strauss, "Is There a Blue-Collar Revolt Against Work?" inHumanizing the Workplace, p. 44.

16. "The New Industrial Relations," Business Week, May I I, 1980, pp.96-98.

17. Mitchell Fein, "the Myth of Job Enrichment," in Humanizing theWorkplace, pp. 76-77.

74,

i,231 ,

18. Peter S. Barth, "The New Mood in Labor anagement Relations,"The Wall Street ..fournal, April 6, 1982;. nd A. H. Raskin, "TheCooperative Economy," The New York Times, .February 14, 1982.

19. "Moderation's Chanz to Survive," Business Week, April 19, 1982,p. 123.

20. Jack Barbash, "Reflections on Positive Collective Bargaining,"Labour and Society, 'Vol. 6, January-March 1981, pp. 81-90.

21. Victor Gotbaum and Edward Handman, "Labor's Business," TheNew York Times, April 22, 1982.

,

4 f

I .

pi. '

2`)Q

ft

Absenteeismand overeducation, 129and quality-of-worklife

programs, 163recent trends- in, 73and work.,satisfaction,

72-.73. ,

worker rationale for, 196beforeVorid,Wai 1, 27 ,

Accident-frequency rate and Viorksatisfaction, 72-73

Affluence, 8and expectations, 5-6, 132increase in, 130, 205-206

'and labor forceparticipation,

and occupational choice,207-208

and retirement, 47-49and service sector growth, ,

93

and transfer payments, 6and turnover, 132

Age and work satisfaction, 79Age Discrimination in

Employment ACt, 50 .

Alienation, 26evidence for, 72-75and industrialization, 24Marx's description,

23, 65-66modern dermition, 66and techno16gical change,

Automation, 99-100. See.also Robots

constraints on, 110-111and elimination of- undesirable work,

210-211European reaction to, 109and job displacement, 90in the office, 107-109past effects of, 112and predictions, 105,and psychological discomforti.

114115rate of introduction, 106-107in the service sector, 110and skilL, requirements, 115and unions, 115-116'and work reform, 182and work satisfaction,

113-117,Automobile hiclustry

international competition, 118robots in, 106-107

Barba'sh, Jack, 169, 198*Bendhwork, 158, 190Blacks

deprivation among, 217discrimination against,

137-138labor force participation of,

46, 50-53occupational advances of, 135

67-68and unemployment, 31

233

unemployment of, 137work satisfaCtion of, 138

..234

Blue-collar employment- blacks in, 137

decrease in; 93and international

.compention, 118women in, 137work satisfadtion in, 79

Blueitbne, Irving, 184on quality-of-worklife

programs, 163Brenner, M. Harvey, 32

Capital formation andtechnological change, 110

Capital investment arid workreform, 182

Christian concept of work, 19Codetermination, 169Coleman, John, 31Computer technology, 101. See

also Adomation;Microprocessor andoffice workers'produttivity,103 .

Demographic change and thework ethic,. 21

Discouraged vorkers, 54, 55Discrimination; "135-138

in dual labor markettheory,,52

Displaced workers, 7, 16;216-217.See a lso Job displacement .adjustment of, 117-119

public policy and, 119, 219Division of labor. See

Specialization 'Dual job holders, 60

and income, 84 &Dual labor market hypothesis, 52

underground-economy-in,440Dunlop, John, 197

Economic change and thework ethic, 21

Economic constraints on workreform, 16; 177 -

Economic incentives and femalelabor force participation,43

Educaticinas alternative to

,linemployment, 127public financing of, 219

Educational attainment, 8, 122of black youth, 50-51and expectations, 6-7and hiring, 125-126and lifetime earnings, 125median, 123and occupational choice, 208and skill requirements,

123-124, 128-130and.work satisfaction, 12,

127, 129-130after World Mar II, 155:

Ellul; Jacqueson alienation, 67on worker self-fulfillment, 71

England, work reform in, 167Europe

reaction to aMomation in,109

work reform in, 166-170Expectations

and affluence, 132and future quality of work,

211and labor force participation,

39And work reform, 175and work satisfaction, 5-6,

68, 89, 138.__in_work_satisfaction.surveys,.,

81-82

Family income and female labor. force participation, 43, 84

Female labor force participation,9, 40-45, See also Womenaud effecis- ofunemployment, 55

and fertility rate, 42-43arid family income, 43, 84increase iri, 135-137and labor market conditions,

44-45and office automation, 109and service sector growth, 93,and technological change,

42-43Fertility rate and female labor ,

force participation, 42-43-France, work 'reform in, 167-169Freud, Sigmund, 23-24;36Friedan, Betty, 34Full employment, 54

Garraty, John, 36

Gotbaum, Victor, 198Great Society, 51Greek concept of work, 18, 20

Health and overeducation, 129 tHealth and safety standards se

in European work reform,168

and uriions, 144145Herrick, deal Q., 77-78Herzberg, Frederick, 70-71, 156'Holidays, 15, 58 .

Housework, 34Human capitaLt 171

Immigrantsfemaleilabor force

participation of, 40and .welfare management, 153

235

Incomeof blacks, 52discrimination in,, 137-138and retirement age, 47-49and work satiifaction, 79,

83-84Industrial Workers of the World,

29Industrialization and the work

ethic, 23-26Inflation and retirement systems,

50

International competition, 118and qualiticircles, 163

International Labour Office,107-109

Japanparticipative management in,

170quality circles in, 163

Job attributes and worksatisfaction., 82

Job displacemenf,40;f15-116.See also DispIabed workersand robots, 109-110

Job enrichment, 13, 15, 157-160.See also Work reforMgoal of, 178

true costs of, 181worker interest in, 191

Job redesign. See Job enrichment;Work refoim

Job security and automation, 112,115-116

Job training proirams, 218

Labor force composition followingWorld War H, 154-155

Labor force participationand-affluenee3-39of black men, 56-53changes in, 4

2 41

236

Labor force participation(cont.) ,

growth in,.37-38male, 45-53of; older -men, '461:50

- racial differential, 51of women, See Female labor

force participationof youth, 134

Labor force projections, 139-140Labor surplus, 55Leisure

future tredds, 15 ,

increases in, 39, 56, 204-206and industrialization, 25-27lifetime gains, 47and multiearner families,

58-60preindustrial, 24and productivity, 60-61and union bargaining, 146and work ethic, 2-4

Liebow, Elliot, 51Life-expectancy, 47Lifetime earnings and

educational attainment, 125

Managementon codetermination, 169middle, in partjcipative

management, 186and quality-ofworklife

programs, 162and work reform, 15, 142,

149-154; 184-186Manufacturing

technological change in, 16technological constraints on

work reform in, 180-181work reform in, 177,

9

Marx, Karlon alienation, 65-66analysis of work, 23-24

Maslow, Abraham, 132, 156misinterpretation Of, 8 f 4-1and work satisfadtion, 68-71

Maurer, Harry, 32McClelland, David, 82McGregor, Douglas, 70-71, 156Men

labor force parficipation of,45-53

older, labor forceparticipation of, 46-50

Mental health and unemployment,31

Microprocessors, 101-106Military staffing patterns, 95Minorities, female labor force

participation of, 40Mitchell, Daniel J. B., 197Moonlighters, See Dual job

holdersMultiearner farifilies

and effects of unemployment,55

and leisure, 58-60and occupational choice,

206-207 -

No-layoff pledges,'!;15, 148

Occupational changeand technological change,

99-100and work satisfaction, 12

Occupational choice, 16, 206-210of black', 51excluded workers, 215-216and future quality of work,

Ch1811210 211Occukational distribution and

public olicy, 214.; -

Market mechanisms and workreform, 192

4

OccupatiOnal Safety and HealthAct, 144

Occupational strutture, changesin, 4

'Older foreeparticipation of, 46-50

Older workers -

part-time, 58and sociological incentives, 49

Organized labor. See UnionsO'Toole, James, 177Overeducated workers, 7, 128-130Overtime, 60

Palm, Goran, 85Participative management, 13, 15,

157, 1667166, 183:188cultural constraints, 187in Europe, 167-169middle management in, 186permanence of, 175-176significance of, 213as threat to unionism, 1967197worker responsibility in,

185-186, 18&L Part-time workers, 15

.? increase in, 58in unemployment statistics, 55a

Pensions, 47-49, 84Personal identity and work, 32-35Personnel management, 153-154.Poveity

increasing, 218and work attichment;33-34

Product qualityand quality-of-worklife

programs, 163and work reform, 158, 174,

177Productivity

Hawthorne effect, 174mcrea,05-21,- 06

237

ProductiVitY

in joWnrichment, 178andleisure, 60-61in rnanufacturing4orkr

retotm, 180and office computer

technology, 103and overeducation, 129and work reform, 155, 156,

174, 177, 190and work satisfaction,

66-67, 71, 149Profit and work reform, 155Profit sharing, 161, 187Protestant ethic. See Work ethicPublic_policy .

on discrimination, 135, 138and displaced workers, 119future of, 218-219and occupational distribution,

214

Quality circles, 142, 161-166, 187-and-threatTo üiiisi

196-197Quality-of-worklife programs,

141-142, 161-166diffusion of, 176-177in union negotiations, 195-196

Quit rate. See Turnover

Race and work satisfaction, 79Rengan administration

and displaced workers, 119full employment defmition

.of, 55and increasing poverty, 218

*id retirement, 50,.Reformation and the work ethic,

.22, 27Relative income gahwas_work

It motivation, 29

24 3

238

Renaissance, work ethic in, 20-22Retirement, 46-50

and pensions, 84Robots, 103-404..See also

Automationin the automobile industry,

106-107and international

competition, 118and job displacement, 1-0-9-110rate of introduction, 111-112_tasks assumed by, 113

Scanlon plans, 195Schrank, Robert,,186Scientific_management, 151-152Service sector

, automation in, 11,blacks in, 137growth in, 2, 91-95undesirable work in, 15-16,

216women in, 45, 137

Sheppard, Harold L., 77-78Skill requirements

and automation, 115-changes in, 90, 98-99and educational attainment,

123-124, 128-130in work reform, 156and World War II, 123

Social efficiency, 190-191Sdcial security eligibility, 47-49Sociological needs

and female labOr forceparticipation, 44

of unemployed, 56Specialization, 26, 150

as counterproductive, 179need for, 13, 189-190in scientifie management, 151 .in work reform, 13-14, 155,

157, 179, 180 14 r

Steel industry; 118StrausS, George, 73

on work satisfaction, 79on work

surveStrikes

and wand

Supetvisi7

Sweden,

TavistockRel

Taylor, Fre1%

Technological changg, 4, 8, Seealso Automation; Robots

and alienation, 67-68constraints on, 110and female labor force

participation, 42-43and job displacement, 90and occupational change,

99-100predictions of, 101psychological barriers to, 111and service se tor growth, 93and unions, 1 -148and the work thic, 21and work satis action,

99-100Tea-hnology

and occupational çhoice,208,.209

and work reform,.1 , 16,

177-182Teenage workers and autornation,

116 \Terkel, Studs, 31, 33Transfer p

and affluence, 6growth in, 207-208

Isfaction -, 80-al

ges, 84ork satisfaction, 72-75n and work satisfaction;

ork reform in, 167, 169

Institute oalumantions, 167

erick, 145, 151-152,

Transfer payments (cont.)and occupational choice,

207-208

nd unemployinent, 55and wOrk motivation, 56

Turnverand affluence, 132and income, 84and oVereducation, 129and unempbtyment rate, 73and work reform, 158, 163and wprk satisfaction, 72-73woirker ratiOnale for, 196before World War I, 27during4World War II: 153

Underground economy, 149-146Undesirable.worls, elimination of,

210-212Unemployment

concentration of, 53-and economic hardship, 55-56education as an alternative

to, 127and full employment, 54-55future, 217

is*psychological effect of, 31

Unemployment rate and turnover,73

Unemployment statistics, 54Unions

and automation, 115416on codeterthination, 169concessions, significance of,

197-198European, 167-170and health and safety

standards, 144-145interest in work reform,

15, 185-186and quality-of-worklife

programs, 162, 163

239

Unionsresponse to work refoyns,z.:

194-198and.,technological change,

144-148and wage standards, 145and work reform, 142-149and work standards, 145-146

University of MichiganSurvey Research Center, 77,

83"Sarvey of ,Working

Condiiions, 138Unskilled entrants and

automation, 116Unskilled jobs;_decline-in, 90-

Vacations, 15, 58

Wage standards, 145Watts, Glenn E. 169Weber, Max, 28Welfare management, 152-153West-Germany, work reform in,

167-169White-collar employment

automation of, 107-109blacks in, 137increase in, 93-95nonessential, 94-95women in, 137

_ work satisfaction, 79*omen. See also Pemale labor

force participation"discrimination against, '

137-138leisure time of, 60occupational advances of,

135-137older, 46aslact-time-workers, 58and sociology of work; 34-35

,

2'45

r

_;

4

Women icont.)and technological chinge,

, 42-43. lungnployment of, 137

-work attachment of, 35

'work satisfaction Of, 138

`Woitand personal identity, 32*definition of, 10premodern concepts of, 18-20

Wo'rk attacfiment. See Work.ethic; Work motivation

Work enifironmentin work reform, 156and work satisfaction,.77

ethic, 17-18, 202--203. See.a motivation

d nition o 26history of, l-and indUst ialization, 23-26in mode socipty, 24

, 20-22significance of, 26-28among youth, 134-135

Work Motivation, 9-10of blacks., 52econ*ic; 29as human natnret 28of min, 45.and relative'income, 6soCiological and

psychqogical, 30-and transfer payment 56.of unemploged, 54of woine,n, 35, .

of working poT4i3

)-7

Work reform, 12-1 5. See alsoParticipativ.e management;Quality circles; Quality-of-worklife prOgrams

aild automation, 182and capital investrfient, 182

(1)4 A 0'

Work reforniconcerns.in, 141-142

' constraints on, 177-178diffusion 'of, 176-17.7Nnornic constraints On, 13in gurope, 16-170excluded workers, 215=21

, and expectations, 175failure of, 177 ,

tfallacies of, 188-194impact of,170-171laboritanagement, relations

and, 14management in( 142, 149-154

. managemeht inrerri184-186

in manufactUring, 210and market rnechabisins, 1.92/modern principles of;156ailed for worker intereolty,

pehnanence Oft.174-177ahdapioduct quality, 174, 177and productivity,-155; 157,

174, 177, 190profit in, 155'Specialization in, 13-14, 155

157, 179, 180and technology,,13, 16

.177482 .*

unitni.intirest in, 185-186union response ,to, 194-198 ,

, unions in, 142-149worker'expliotatiori in, 192worker interest 0,1193,

199-200 `Work satisfaction, 70, 121-122

and alienation, 66assessment of, 11-12, 204and.automation, 113-117of blacks, 138conteporary theories, 70-71

Work satisfaction (cont.)in dehumanizing jobs, 85-86and demographic

characteristics, 79in early 1970s, 63and educational aftainnient,

127, 129-130in European woe reform, 168and expectations,.68, 138job attributes and, 77longitudinal studies of, 11-12and the nature of work,

89-9r-problems associated with

drop in, 71-72and productivity, 66-67,

71, 149 -_role of, 193.in service sector,'96and structural labor market

changes, 97-98survey Methodologies, 75-83and technological change,

99-100white- vs. blue-collar, 95-96

^

1 r

241

Work satisfaction

of women, 138and work reform, 177

Work standards, 145-146Worker participation. See

Participative managementWorkers. See UnionsWorking _poor, 53

black, 52Workless society, 202-204Workweek, 9, 57-58

40-hour, 146Workyear, 58

kWorld War IIand female labor

participation, 41-42and skill requirements, 123turnover during, 153

Youthlagor force participation of,

46, 134as part-lime workers, 58work attitudes of, 132-135

0 I

SECOND THOUGHTS ON WORKDespite vast changes in technology, social mores, oc-

cupations and living standards,'-the work ethic is alive /and well in the United States. In a portrait of work in jAmerica which contradicts a host of contemporarytheories and predictions, SECOND THOUGHTS ONWORK sketches a bright outlook for work in a societyof 'growing affluence, expanding leisure and risingeducational_ attainment.

"What I like about SECOND THOUGHTS ON WORKis first of all the topic. Work is still at the center orthepublic discourse and this volume handles the subjectliteratelythe diriting is incisive and interestingandanalytically. It is full of insights and good sense and in-formed throughout,by humane values and a refreshingskepticism about overblown abstrAtions."

Jack BarbashPrdfessor of EcoliomicsUniversity of Wisconsin

"SECOND THOUGHTS ON WORK is a long-overdue"myiii.iiuster that 'gives us a thoughtful arid balancedperspective about work in Americayesterday, todayand tomorrow."

Ben J. WattenbergAmerican Enterprise Institute

"SECOND THOUGHTS ON WORK is a 'must' foranyone interested in what's happening at today'sworkplace. By debunking popular myths about thedemise of the work ethic, Levitan and Johnson examinethelorces.Which are changing work in the 1980s and of-fer a cpncise analysis of the challenges for social policywhich lie ahead." 5

Raymond Marshallformer Secretary of Labor

INSTITUTE.............. a

246

0-88099-001-5