Second Wave Theory

Developments of the labour process theory from a Marxist viewpoint and new range of research from the late 70s to the end of 80s followed in the second wave of analysis which had a strong base in the UK. The well-known studies in the second wave analysis were Friedman, (1977); Edwards, (1979); Burawoy, (1979); Littler, (1982) and their primary focus was the issue of managerial control strategies. For Friedman, Braverman limited control to direct control by management over workers neglecting the issue of class struggle i.e. the fact that workers’ resistance and managerial counter-pressure are forces that might cause changes to the capitalist mode of production. These changing forms of control emanated from conflict between management and workers; it was repeatedly emphasized that Braverman over looked the Marxist belief that withdrawn labour naturally resists management (Kitay, 1997).

Edwards (1979) elaborated on management’s control through technological innovations and machinery where machines have taken over peoples’ roles and have made them redundant thereby de- skilling workers. Because there is need to consider various forces that shape people’s experience, Thompson (1983) contested Edward’s viewpoint on the grounds that he (Edwards) relied on a linear model of labour control driven by technological transformation thus ignoring a contestation of social forces. Knights (1990) made a breakthrough beyond Edwards’ focus on control by technology; he points to Edwards’s failure to explore the make- up of workers’ agency and subjectivity in their daily work. Littler’s (1982) work made huge contribution to the second wave theory. Although Littler retained Marxist philosophy, he also based his work on Weberian concept of bureaucracy and legitimation. He asserted that a new approach to labour process was needed, an approach that operated at three levels – job design, structure of control and employment relationships. Littler’s use of Weberian theory led to an analysis of subjectivity in the workplace.

Another major contributor of the second wave LPT was Burawoy (1979). In his argument, he said that despite the conflictual foundations Edwards and Friedman based LPT on, there was still a level of cooperation between Management and workers much of the time, he rather proposed the issue of consent where the activities of the organization is ordered in a way that workers perceive themselves as having choices. “It is participation in choosing that generates consent” (Burawoy, 1979). It was from here Burawoy developed his analysis of “games” where workers attention is shifted away from expropriation of surplus value by management, to activities in the workplace designed in a manner more favourable to workers thereby beating the management in matters such as incentives. This chance to gain small successes

fronts the essential disadvantage of workers in the capitalist style of production (Kitay, 1997). It is imperative to consider the immediate balance of co-operation and conflict. In terms of the fundamental nature of the employment relationship, Edwards (2003) argues that the key point about indeterminacy of labour (conversion of labour power into profitable work) and strategies of labour control is that managers and workers are locked in a relationship that is antagonistic and contradictory. The relationship is antagonistic because managerial control strategies are about the setting out of workers’ labour power in ways that allow the generation of surplus value without giving workers the chance to determine how their labour power deployed to meet the objective. Also, the relationship is contradictory because managements have to pursue the objectives of control and releasing creativity, both of which are inherent in the relationship with workers and which call for different approaches (Edwards, 2003). Edwards (1986) used the term ‘structured antagonism’ to explain such a relationship because it has elements of co-operation and potential for conflict. Employer-employee conflicts occur as well as other divergences of interests. Within this context, people at work come into conflict not only with their superiors or subordinates but also with peers, customers and clients. Bearing the above in mind, it is not unusual to think that co-operation is pertinent for tasks in the workplace to be carried out. The absence of co-operation therefore has implications for both employer and employee and therefore might impact on experiences of work stressors.

Undoubtedly, these new forms of control might give a broader view of how occupational stress is experienced because it goes beyond the direct influence from management as prescribed by Braverman towards a more incorporating analysis of management-worker relationships at work. Particularly, it will mirror struggles over divergent interests between workers and management but its constraint is that it does not offer an avenue where the study of occupational stress can engage with wider social settings in identifying the causes of stress to workers thus not sufficient for a sociological study of occupational stress advocated by this study. This phase of the labour process is useful to the study of occupational stress but only in a limited way. There is a tendency of identifying how workers’ attitudes are constituted within relations of production but one will only develop an organization-based frame of analysis of occupational stress thus ignoring external connections that could be made. Therefore, the second wave labour process theory will not give a broad sociological explanation of how occupational stress is experienced. Although the second wave theorists (Friedman, Edwards, and Burawoy) made important contributions towards addressing the gap

left by Braverman, their contributions pay little attention to the sociological understanding of labour process i.e. engaging social forces that influence labour process. Nevertheless, such contributions did not leave Braverman’s work redundant; in fact, Thompson (1989) reiterated that for the labour process theory to retain its worth and strength, both the early theorists and second wave theorists have to identify with the core elements of the LPT.

The core elements of the second wave labour process cover issues like labour as a commodity, its indeterminacy and then the conversion of labour power to actual labour allowing for capital accumulation (see Littler, 1990: Thompson, 1989, 1990). These points were inspired either directly or indirectly by insights taken from Marxist political economy. No matter one’s generation in the labour process debate, the following core components will be identified with:

i. The role of Labour in generating surplus makes the relationship between capital and labour an important part of the labour process analysis.

ii. The competition amongst capitalists has put in them a constant appetite for accumulation that compels them to constantly change the forces of production to their favour. This places constraint on workers’ empowerment and workers’ ability to combine conception and execution in their jobs.

iii. Because market mechanism (i.e. the process where capitalist purchase workers’ labour power for capital) cannot regulate the labour process, there is a necessity for control by management to be utilized in other to reduce indeterminacy gap.

iv. The conflict of interests between capital and labour is manifested through the dynamics of exploitation and control. Then capitalist, in order to constantly change the work process, must seek some level of creativity and cooperation from labour which might result to workers’ shift from resistance to accommodation, compliance and consent.

Although there are different waves of development in the labour process theory, this study is attuned to the core labour process theory; this is not to say that the approach is not without limitations. The labour process theory is useful because it provides understanding of the generators of stressors but does little to explain how these stressors are either catalysed or moderated by broader social condition. Spencer (2000) contested the core labour process theory pointing to its ambiguities concerning levels of analysis and hierarchies of concepts. Although his opinions are valuable, Spencer (2000) failed to demonstrate any convincing

alternative propositions (Thompson and Vincent, 2010). Again, Edwards (1990) contested the core labour process theory on the basis of providing a slim construction of the scope and purposes of the labour process theory as there is a clear distinction between the class struggle at work and in the wider society. On this note, Elger’s (2001) standpoint of the core labour process theory was that it was underspecified as to how work and the workplace interact with the wider social relations including the state, inter-corporate relations, labour markets and households. He (Elger) particularly argued that insufficient attention has been paid to refining the core labour process theory. As argued by Thompson and Vincent, (2010), although the labour process theory has been applied to an increasing range of social phenomena, it has been challenged on the basis of interconnections with events, structures and the concepts to explain them. This implies that if theorists omit ‘external’ factors from swaying the labour process, they will end up in an incomplete analysis. The message to draw from these criticisms is that “beyond the immediate core, the labour process does not occur within a vacuum and other levels of causal phenomenon are important both to maintaining capitalism and explaining local outcomes” (2010:51). This does not mean that the labour process is independent and surrounded by external factors that influence it, rather, external relations are embedded in the various aspects of the core labour process theory with different degrees of influence. The question is how can we identify and make meaningful explanations to the underlying forces within specific labour processes? Therefore, the next section goes beyond the local conditions in specific labour processes. It engages with broader social conditions that impact on labour process (particularly, macro-societal factors that consider the influence of the labour market, employment and economic prospects) and then provides an understanding of how some of these social conditions can moderate stress outcomes at the workplace.