The New Crafts: On the Technization of the Workforce and the Occupationalization of Firms

[Excerpt] In the late 1960s and early 1970s American students were told that the value of a college education was declining (see Freeman 1976). Although liberal arts students were particularly discouraged by reports of recent graduates driving taxicabs, even the demand for engineers and other technical specialists seemed bleak. Two decades later, the headlines have reversed. Study after study proclaims that American children are performing more poorly on achievement tests than the children of most other industrialized nations. Employers complain of a shortage of skilled workers: young people are said to be ill-prepared for the demands of the workplace and older workers are said to lack the educational background requisite for retraining (Johnson and Packer 1987). Studies by labor economists have largely confirmed the employers\u27 contentions and foretell of even greater shortages of skilled labor in the near future (Bishop and Carter 1991)

Institutionalization and Structuration: Studying the Links between Action and Institution

Institutional theory and structuration theory both contend that institutions and actions are inextricably linked and that institutionalization is best understood as a dynamic, ongoing process. Institutionalists, however, have pursued an empirical agenda that has largely ignored how institutions are created, altered, and reproduced, in part, because their models of institutionalization as a process are underdeveloped. Structuration theory, on the other hand, largely remains a process theory of such abstraction that it has generated few empirical studies. This paper discusses the similarities between the two theories, develops an argument for why a fusion of the two would enable institutional theory to significantly advance, develops a model of institutionalization as a structuration process, and proposes methodological guidelines for investigating the process empirically

Introduction: At the Intersection of Organizations and Occupations

[Excerpt] The lack of research and, by extension, the paucity of empirically grounded theory on organizations and occupations have left unanswered questions that are critical for understanding the social organization of work in post-industrial economies. Under what conditions are organizations likely to bureaucratize professional tasks? What types of tasks are most likely to be affected by such bureaucratization and how do occupations adjust to such changes? Conversely, what forces have transformed organizations into breeding grounds for new occupations? How are organizations affected when they employ large numbers of professionals? What dynamics occur when the boundaries between occupation and organization begin to blur? Questions such these are grist for the papers in this volume. Our aim in assembling the papers has been to stimulate researchers and theoreticians to examine more closely the intersection between organizations and occupations. Like the authors of these papers, we believe that it is no longer wise for organizational and occupational sociology to develop as independent areas of theory and research. In fact, to continue to do so may mean that our understanding of the workplace will become increasingly unrealistic

Why might a video game developer join a union?

This paper contributes to the union renewal literature by examining the union voting propensity of workers in the high-tech tertiary sector of videogame development toward different forms of unionization. We used exclusive data from a survey of videogame developers (VGD) working primarily in Anglo-Saxon countries. When looking at the factors related to voting propensity, our data indicated that the type of unionism matters and that industry/sectoral unionism is an increasingly salient model for project-based knowledge workers. This is an important policy dimension given that the legal structures and norms in Anglo-Saxon countries still tend to support decentralized enterprise-based unionism. It is also important for unions insofar as their organizing tactics remain geared toward a shop-by-shop approach or, at least, a localized geographical approach. Although additional work is required, our analyses lends support to the argument that high-commitment and high-involvement workplaces can engender a desire for collective representation and voice such as is offered through unionization. Whether this is because such workplaces step over a breaking-point line where the requirement for full alignment with employer goals becomes untenable and a source of discontent, whether this represents the existence of dual commitment where a representative agent like a union is seen as necessary to protect the work that people love, or whether there is a combination of these forces is not yet clear, but it is a critical area of future study for project-based knowledge workers

60th Anniversary Essay: Ruminations on How We Became a Mystery House and How We Might Get Out

This essay responds to, largely concurs with, and extends the concerns Jerry Davis expressed in his June 2015 editorial essay in ASQ about the state of research in organizational theory. In particular, it discusses the reasons novelty has become such a valued commodity in organizational theory and its unintended consequences. Fault lies with the way students are trained, the reward system that most universities implicitly or explicitly use to promote faculty, and the role that editors and reviewers play in wittingly or unwittingly rewarding the quest for novelty in the peer-review process. One way to revitalize organization theory while also addressing such problems would be for the researchers to begin to focus on the myriad ways that organizations shape our society and for organizational theorists to begin to collaborate with engineers and researchers in schools of public policy who are more aware of and interested in addressing problems that organizations, especially profit-making firms, create as they seek to shape their own environments