Abstract
This chapter focuses on four new models of the division of labor that developed after Taylorism and Fordism: post-Fordism and flexible accumulation, McDonaldization and co-production, Siliconism and socio-technical Theory, and shareholder value by blackboxing production.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Although Harvey does not use the term “post-Fordism,” we still put him in this category for two reasons. First, his major statement on the topic comes from developments in the mid-1980s which focused on the early development of the concept. And second, his work is strongly associated with post-modernity, even though he is continuously seeking rapprochement between post-modernity and Marxism. As we will see with our explanation of the related concept of flexible accumulation, Steven Vallas has less concern with post-modern concepts or reconstructing Marxism. Instead, he is squarely focused on the development of the production process and the division of labor.
Further works on the French regulation school and post-Fordism include Aglietta (1979), Boyer (1993), Boyer and Saillard (2001), Jessop (1990), Jessop and Sum (2006), and Peck (1996).
Vallas goes into much more detail in his critique of post-Fordism. He specifically criticizes this model for not recognizing a tension between power and efficiency, its multiplicity of market adaptations, and its failure to recognize the dualism inherent in the workforce (1999:74–76).
For instance, “the two distinct strains of flexibility theory” that Vallas identifies is “post-hierarchical models of work,” which go back to the McGregor and Hertzberg studies of the 1950s and 1960s, and “flexible specialization” of Piore and Sabel that we will discuss under our last model (1999:70–73). It is interesting that he avoids citing Robert Cole, Jeffrey Liker, or Terry Besher though he does cite Paul Adler on New United Motors Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) and Laurie Graham on Subaru-Isuzu. However, this avoidance of Toyota and discussion of Japan in general helps to distinguish this approach from the lean production view to be discussed later.
This aligns with principal-agent theory that is strongly concerned with how an owner (principal) controls their managers (agents). This was implemented by paying CEOs with shares of stock, which increases the CEOs interest in increasing the value of the stock (Jensen & Meckling, 1976).
Six Sigma is a quality control process that was developed by Motorola in 1986. It seeks to improve the quality of products by removing the causes of defects and minimizing variability in manufacturing processes. Each Six Sigma project is carried out with a defined sequence of steps with financial targets, and it certifies employees with a green to black belt system. Six Sigma itself refers to six standard deviations from the mean.
Jeff Immelt became CEO after Jack Welch, and he has pursued a number of different policies even though he came up under Welch. One important difference is that Immelt has renewed support for R&D (Magee, 2009). Secondly, Immelt became an advisor to President Obama on jobs, which signaled a change on offshoring. In the past two years under Immelt, GE has moved the manufacture of refrigerators from Mexico to the US and invested in producing a new hybrid water heater in Louisville. There is also some evidence of lean production methods that may involve quality control (Uchitelle, 2011). But GE still has a massive offshore investment in Asia. It is not clear at this time whether the firing of the bottom tenth still goes on.
One incident shows Welch’s approach to teams and Japanese methods. Jeff Depew was a GE executive in charge of electrical goods in Asia. He was negotiating a joint venture with Mitsubishi Electric. Depew knew Japanese production and negotiation practices well, and he had set up a deal to bring GE and Mitsubishi together to dominate this market in Asia. GE would also enter into the Mitsubishi keiretsu (business group). The long process was planned out with Mitsubishi CEO Moriya Shiiki. But Welch ignored the carefully drawn out plan and said “let’s agree to do this deal right now” and “make elephants dance.” This basically violated Japanese principles of nemawashi (slow consensus decision-making) and interfered with Shiiki’s negotiations to extract Mitsubishi from deals with some other companies. Mitsubishi dropped the plan, Welch blamed Depew, and two months later Depew was gone (O’Boyle, 1999:4–12).
Welch has written a number of books, edited a column on management in Businessweek with his third wife, taught at MIT, and put his name on MBA programs at two small universities.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2014 Thomas Janoski and Darina Lepadatu
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Janoski, T., Lepadatu, D. (2014). New Models of the Division of Labor—I. In: Dominant Divisions of Labor: Models of Production That Have Transformed the World of Work. Palgrave Pivot, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137370235_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137370235_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-47849-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-37023-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social Sciences CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)