Social Control in Industrial Organisations

Industrial Relations and Industrial Sociology: A Strategic and Occupational Study of British Steelmaking

Peter Bowen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351247795
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Negocios y empresa
• Subtopic: Negocios en general

Based on an industrial relations case study conducted in a British Steel plant in the north east coast iron and steel industry, this book, first published in 1976, is an account of the application of sociological concepts and ideas to the process of social relations between employer and employee, and between all types of workers in industrial organisations.

Part one

THE CONCEPT OF WORK CONTROL

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION: INDUSTRIAL SOCIOLOGY AND WORK CONTROL

1.1 THE SOCIOLOGICAL PROBLEM: THE ETHICAL DILEMMA OF THE SOCIOLOGIST

‘The poet suffers for all men, even for those who hate him and torture him.’ so writes Mikis Theodorakis, the Greek poet and musician. (1)

Sociologists languish from time to time under such feelings of despair. Some would argue that its condition is precarious and its critics legion. But if sociology is under attack this is as it should and must be. For if the major intellectual task of man is to strive for the creation of the more humane society, then sociology is the necessary perspective of knowledge for this endeavour. Sociology will be inevitably found in ‘the vortex of social change’ (Fletcher, 1972). It can never escape from the enmities and anxieties of those who have most to lose and most to fear from its challenge. If sociology is frequently attacked, it is also widely misunderstood. Many question its utility, some regard it as a mischievous and disruptive force, whilst others are prepared to write it off as, at best, academically obtuse or, at worst, ideologically polluted. Scientists eschew it and humanists deride it. Yet, and in spite of this uncongenial environment, we have witnessed on both sides of the Atlantic and beyond a truly enormous expansion of sociological education in recent years. Institutions of higher education and organisation of economic, political and social planning and research have all responded with alacrity to the task of propagating the sociological gospel.

Social scientists are employed in organisational networks of many descriptions from the government service to the civil rights agency. They, too, carry the message. But what is the message and why, apparently, is it so perplexing?

Sociology is the study of social behaviour, of types of society and the processes of integration and differentiation within societies. It seeks to explain the problem of how social order is maintained and why conflict within society arises. It is about the relationships between individuals and groups within societies and the values which sustain or divide these groups. It explores the nature of the human condition in social terms: how man’s identity and personality are shaped by his social environment and how his interpretation of this environment leads him to seek changes, and sometimes fundamental changes, in his environment. The sociological enterprise is nothing less than the study of man as a social creature.

But consider for a moment the ethical dilemma of the sociologist. Increasingly the knowledge at his disposal concerning social behaviour and its control has become useful to decision-makers in mass society. Herbert Kalman (1965) posed the problem some years ago when he suggested that any attempt to manipulate behaviour must inevitably restict individual freedom of choice between alternative courses of action of those manipulated. Nevertheless, in Kalman’s submission no formula exists for changing behaviour which excludes the threat of manipulation. Yet the purpose of sociological knowledge has always been towards the improvement of man’s social condition. Manipulation by any definition involves the imposition of one’s own values upon others and it is just this which sociologists involved in the planning of organisational change, and in the design of new organisational structures, may be required more and more to do. Kalman is as aware of the inevitability of control and authority, and thereby of manipulation, as he is of its possible misuse. Nevertheless, he contends that in the design of systems of social control the social scientist should always exercise his professional judgment in ways permitting the enhancement of individual choice and involvement. The sociologist’s rejection of ‘aversive control’ and ‘selfish exploitation’ is his inescapable moral commitment, and this commitment represents the humanistic perspective of the sociological enterprise.

But to argue along these lines is not to say that the sociologist is ideologically committed. To do so would be to imply that there is only ‘a one best way’ to proceed in research, or only ‘one just solution’. What he can do, and with due regard to the norms of objectivity, is to posit the range of alternative solutions available to decision-makers, solutions consistent with his moral commitment to the improvement of human welfare. It follows that the sociologist cannot conveniently play the role of social mechanic and comfortably evade the moral consequences of his proposals. To do so misuses sociology as a justification in scientific terms for prejudice, possible exploitation and even inhumanity. It is this ethical problem which Kalman so clearly recognises. Its existence may explain how sociologists sometimes experience acute unease in certain types of research or consultancy situation.

The humanistic perspectives of sociology create more than ethical problems, important as these may be. They have led to a questioning of the appropriateness of scientific method in the physical and natural sciences for the investigation of social phenomena. Increasingly, sociologists are emphasising the uniqueness of such phenomena and are searching for alternative methods of conceptualising and measuring social behaviour. Boulding (1966), for example, has argued that there is ‘something fundamental in the nature of our evolutionary system which makes exact foreknowledge of it impossible and as social systems are, in a large measure, evolutionary in character, they participate in the property of containing ineradicable surprises.’ To minimise the differences between the social and physical worlds by imposing upon both a uniform method of enquiry would be, in the eyes of some sociologists, to overlook the unique character of society: the ability of men to comprehend and change aspects of social systems in which they live and move.

Peter Berger (1963), for example, questions the conceptualisation of society as being necessarily constraining and determinant of man’s behaviour. Commonly accepted sociological views of society as coercive of behaviour are for him incomplete statements of reality. Man, he argues, is society’s prisoner only to the extent that he allows himself to remain ignorant of its influence. From this perspective, as Berger puts it, social order is seen to be precariously dependent upon the co-operation of many individuals. All this suggests that the basis of the study of society as a humanistic discipline lies in the recognition that men are not merely the creatures of society, but the creators of society, possessing the capacities to transform and modify their social lives and their own society. Such a perspective implies the need for entirely new criteria in measuring the effectiveness of social institutions. Increasingly we shall need to know how far these institutions are meaningful and susceptible to the influence of the mass of rank and file members who are not formally involved in organisational decision-making, but whose consent to these decisions is vital. Some would argue that these issues are now central to any real understanding of current problems of industrial relations: who does what, and when, and for what reward in work. As industries become more and more machine-based, a central preoccupation of management becomes ability to sustain adequate employee relations through periods of intense technical and organisational change. In such contexts the locus of decision-making will inevitably widen. It can safely be concluded that the scope of rule-making and the number of parties to rule determination will expand. The traditional prerogatives of employers to order their own affairs will be persistently challenged by organised labour, and joint decision-making between managements and representatives of employees over a widening range of interests of mutual concern will become the norm. Large organisations – whether in government, industry or education – will become more ‘open’ to the scrutiny of their members and more participative by their memberships in the direction and control of their affairs. This means that the effectiveness of systems of organisational control will depend on the recognition that members’ consent to the rules governing their involvement is always conditional and negotiable in line with their needs and expectations. This is already creating enormous problems in the maintenance of stable social organisations. Sociologists can be involved in the design of such systems and in ways fully consistent with their ethical commitments. We shall go on to consider the more detailed implications of this suggestion in the next section, and with particular reference to problems of social research in industrial organisations.

1.2 SOCIAL SCIENCE IN INDUSTRY

Not surprisingly the growth of ‘organisation theory’ has been substantial in recent years. The findings of research into a variety of organisations by sociologists, psychologists, administrative scientists and others have largely supplanted classical theories of management and organisational behaviour. Such theories, based upon limited empirical observation of organisations and idealised images of the employee were advanced without regard either to objectivity or to particular circumstances. These models are now seen to have provided misleading stereotypes in terms of which informed planning and serious decisions could be undertaken. Whilst the study of organisations and industrial organisations in particular is certainly no exclusive preserve of the industrial sociologist, the latter’s contribution has been increasingly recognised. By comparison the involvement of sociologists in the actual design, as opposed to the study of organisations, has been more limited. Here we shall consider the role of the industrial sociologist in the study of organisation and industrial behaviour and why this has sometimes presented difficulties to both the researcher and the researched.

Initially it seems necessary to distinguish between the analysis of industrial behaviour and that of organisational systems. The study of human and social behaviour in organisational contexts has provided a fertile research field for the behavioural scientist during the last thirty years. W.W. Daniel and Neil Mclntosh (1973, p.3) provide a useful summary of the philosophical foundations and general direction of research in this field. Thus:

The impoverishment of work through mechanisation and mass production has been consistently identified by social critics as a source of social and psychological evil ever since the industrial revolution.

and:

If there is one single lesson that can be learned from all the management innovation and basic research on people and their jobs over the last ten years, it is that the tasks employees are required to do in their work are of central importance in influencing their attitudes to both the job and the organisation for which they work. In particular it is increasingly being recognised that if the content of an employee’s job holds no interest for him, then he can hardly be expected to take any interest in it. If it provides no scope for responsibility, then he can hardly be expected to act responsibly. If it provides him with no opportunity for exercising the basic human need for some control or influence over his actions and involvement, then he will seek to recover some control in ways that are damaging to the efficiency of the enterprise…. And above all, if his job gives him no opportunity to use and develop his abilities in achieving a result that has some meaning for him and with which he can identify, then it is hardly surprising if he regards his work, his place of work, and everything associated with it, with hostility or resignation as an aspect of life to be endured in order that he can begin to live outside work.

The moral critique of the mechanisation and subsequent isolation of modern society and the individual is well developed in classical social theory. To Marx it was the property relations of capitalist society which created the alienation of the employee from the product of his labour. To Durkheim (1964 edn.) it was the division of labour, the increasing differentiation of industrial societies in the process of modernisation, which weakened man’s understanding of the norms or rules governing his social behaviour. Today, industrial workers are frequently seen to be estranged from any sense of control over their work activities by the demands of impersonal production systems based upon managerial and engineering concepts of efficiency. Such problems derive from the ways in which men choose to organise their skills and social relations in situations of technical complexity. Certainly, extensive job specialisation has contributed to production efficiency, but the fragmentation of skills has undoubtedly reduced the level of individual meaning, autonomy and attachment to work itself.

Given the nature of the problem it is not difficult to infer how social scientists have approached it. They have sought to explore the range of processes underlying behaviour, processes involving the study of the technical, occupational, economic, political and social frameworks within which organisations function and individuals motivated to act. Frequently, however, the perspectives of their studies have been similar: to counter the consequences for working members of the industrial system as others have designed it. In so doing, whether in the study of individual attachment to job and work, in the organisation of tasks, or in the creation of more participative schemes of decision-making, social science has consistently challenged accepted ideologies and ‘mechanistic’ assumptions of human effort and performance. It has advanced the view that the separation of the control of work from its performance is not the most desirable method of motivating the employee. It has asserted that there are alternative systems of work design to those based upon the fragmentation of skills and the extension of the division of labour. And with the growth of organised labour it has claimed that the objectives of large organisations are increasingly influenced by the interests and collective power of working people. Throughout his long involvement in the study of organisational behaviour the industrial sociologist has retained his firm commitment to the advancement of human welfare. Operating from positions both within but largely outside organisations he has combined the roles of critic as well as researcher. In some measure his contribution has served to secure a reorientation of managerial thought on such matters as human effectiveness and satisfaction in work: he has helped to transform the concept of organisation. But this has not been achieved without cost.

Appleby (1972), for example, examined the expectations and dimensions of the applied social scientist’s role in British industry. She found that employers stressed the importance of recruiting social scientists who possessed industrial experience and who were already socialised to the values and goals of industry. Both employers and social scientists interviewed commented on the unfavourable image of social science held by industry and in particular the belief that social scientists sought confrontation with authority. Employers who were opposed to social science treated it as an irrelevance rather than with open hostility. To others it was acceptable as a tool: as a means of increasing the effectiveness of management. There was seldom much knowledge of the spheres of interest of social scientists or of the methodology they employed. What emerged from her study was the recognition that there were serious differences between employers and social scientists in the meaning and applications of social science. Employers were frequently unable to understand neutrality, or the notion of a value-free social science.

In the light of our previous discussion neither this nor other value conflicts between the manager and the scientist appear altogether surprising. We must conclude that the pure scientist of whatever discipline, but especially the social scientist, is unlikely to find the pursuit of industrial success alone a sufficient justification for his commitment to the analysis of managerially defined problems. For these reasons their relationship is tenuous: the doubtful ‘respectability’ of the social scientist in industrial circles is the price he pays for the dual role he must inevitably perform: critic and researcher.

1.3 ORGANISATIONAL DESIGN AND WORK CONTROL

It is, however, in the wider field of organisational systems design and their control that one senses most vividly the problems and the promise of industrial social science. It is now recognised, albeit belatedly, that traditional structures of organisations based upon narrowly defined work roles and rigid authority structures are inappropriate models of control in situations requiring a flexible response to changing technological, market and manpower conditions. In this context the works of Woodward (1965), Burns and Stalker (1961), Miller and Rice (1967), and Pugh et al. (1969), in the UK, and Perrow (1967), Lorsch and Lawrence (1970) and Dalton, Lawrence and Lorsch (1970), in the USA, represent some authoritative examples of relevant research. Most recently, contributions by Peter Clark (1972a and 1972b) provide an encouraging account of how social scientists can assist in the still largely unexplored field of organisational design.

Based upon consultancy experience acquired in the design of a technologically advanced factory to replace the existing production facilities of a large manufacturing company, Clark demonstrates the potential and distinctive contribution of the industrial social scientist in the planning of organisational structures. Explicitly, he foresees the need for a new breed of social scientist consultant capable of diffusing knowledge about organisation structures and human behaviour within planning teams at the design states of new organisations. The activity of ‘design’, he argues, is substantially different from ‘research’: it is concerned primarily with the generation of a range of alternative organisational designs for the same set of technological tasks. This distinction emphasises an important difference of outlook between the academic whose audience is the university and the practitioner as consultant who communicates directly with the parties to change. Indeed, he argues, a major problem in organisational design must be to encourage behavioural scientists to relinquish traditional research roles.

To do so, however, requires a major shift in the present orientation of social science education because, as Clark points out, there exists at the present time no satisfactory language for the examination of organisational systems capable of easy application to problem-solving. This deficiency can be attributed in part to the exclusion by management of sociologists from involvement in organisational design for reasons which were described in the previous section. Unfortunately, this outcome appears so far to have carried the tacit approval of sociologists themselves. The solution to this vicious circle may be found in the mutual adaptation of the values of both managers and social scientists. In the case of the latter this requires investigations into the development of entirely new strategies in the fields of organisational design and work regulation to complement rather than replace approaches of a more traditional kind. At the same time, managers must recognise that practitioners cannot be employed indifferently to manipulate the commitment of employees to the objectives of the organisation as these happen to be proclaimed by employers. The possible misuses of social science in industrial situations are demonstrated by Clark’s assertion that all too frequently practitioners have been employed to invent ways of installing predesigned innovations.

Assuming that these obstacles can be overcome, how can the skills of the organisational practitioner be used? Clark is left in no doubt that the social scientist must be concerned with the basic problems of organisational design. His role should be ‘concerned with the making of decisions about the forms of accommodation, control and motivation that best fit the enterprise’. In making these decisions, it is necessary to consider external factors like the market, and internal factors such as the needs and aspirations of the members of the enterprise. Implicit in this approach is the awareness that the goals of managers and practitioners may necessarily differ in...