17 research outputs found
Teams between Neo-Taylorism and Anti-Taylorism
The concept of teamworking is the product of two distinct
developments. One: a neo-
Tayloristic form of organization of work, of which Toyota has shown
that it can be very profitable, was
packaged and reframed to make it acceptable to the Western public.
Two: anti-Tayloristic ways of
organizing work, inspired by ideals of organizational democracy,
were relabeled to make these
acceptable to profit-oriented managers.
Drawing on empirical research in Scandinavia, Germany, The
Netherlands and the UK, as
well as on published case studies of Japanese companies, the paper
develops a neo-Tayloristic and an
anti-Tayloristic model of teamworking.
Key concerns in the teamworking literature are intensification of
work and the use of shop
floor autonomy as a cosmetic or manipulative device. Indeed, all the
features of neo-Tayloristic
teamworking are geared towards the intensification of work. However,
one of the intensification
mechanisms, the removal of Tayloristic rigidities in the division of
labor, applies to anti-Tayloristic
teamworking as well. This poses a dilemma for employee
representatives. In terms of autonomy, on the
other hand, the difference between neo-Tayloristic and
anti-Tayloristic teamworking is real.
In anti-Tayloristic teamworking, there is no supervisor inside the
team. The function of
spokesperson rotates. All team members can participate in
decision-making. Standardization is not
relentlessly pursued; management accepts some measure of worker
control. There is a tendency to
alleviate technical discipline, e.g. to find alternatives for the
assembly line. Buffers are used.
Remuneration is based on proven skill level; there are no group
bonuses.
In contrast, in neo-Tayloristic teamworking, a permanent supervisor
is present in the team as
team leader. At most, only the team leader can participate in
decision-making. Standardization is
relentlessly pursued. Management prerogatives are nearly unlimited.
Job designers treat technical
discipline, e.g. short-cycled work on the assembly line, as
unproblematic. There are no buffers. A
substantial part of wages consists of individual bonuses based on
assessments by supervisors on how
deeply workers cooperate in the system. Group bonuses are also
given.
The instability and vulnerability of anti-Tayloristic teamworking
imply that it can only
develop and flourish when managers and employee representatives put
determined effort into it. The
opportunity structure for this contains both economic and political
elements. In mass production, the
economic success of Toyota, through skillful mediation by management
gurus, makes the opportunity
structure for anti-Tayloristic teamworking relatively unfavorable
Recommended from our members
High Involvement Management, High Performance Work Systems and Well-being
Studies on the impact of high-performance work systems on employees' well-being are emerging but the underlying theory remains weak. This paper attempts to develop theory of the effects on well-being of four dimensions of high-performance work systems: enriched jobs, high involvement management, employee voice, and motivational supports. Hypothesized associations are tested using multilevel models and data from Britain's Workplace Employment Relations Survey of 2004 (WERS2004). Results show that enriched jobs are positively associated with both measures of well-being: job satisfaction and anxiety–contentment. Voice is positively associated with job satisfaction, and motivational supports with neither measure. The results for high involvement management are not as predicted because it increases anxiety and is independent of job satisfaction