The ‘Tools’ of work at that time were merely pens, paper and files used to store the recorded transactions (Material). ‘Material’ or paper output was considerable in its content and it was extremely cumbersome and thus costly to store; a problem for all organizations who are legally required to store historical records for several years.
During working hours fellow workers and/or managers spent a great deal of time re-calculating, checking and correcting the mistakes of subordinate clerks, also managers had to control these clerks making sure work time (Labours) was not wasted chatting, misbehaving or pursuing non-related work activities. This historic example highlights the reality that that workers’ time spent on ‘Labours’ is not always as effective as it could or should be, which is normal human nature. The idea of man management itself is that the supervision by more responsible members of staff (managers) leads to better control of workers’ activities during work time (Labours). This is a mechanism by which the employing organization manipulates its workers in an attempt to maximise their output (Material) to ascertain profit.
The time management of workers itself became its own science, writers such as Taylor have published numerous articles in this subject area of scientific management, relating and measuring the activities of human workers to mechanical tasks performed by robots. Industrial engineers have used the theories postulated in Taylorism to validate their claims that deskilling simplifies tasks and thus improves output. Notwithstanding, the advancement of technology and the implicit requirement of workers to use this new technology has overtaken and practically negated Taylorist arguments.
Thompson [1989] states that the “There is a need to constantly revolutionize the production process, which arises from the competition between capital and labour that is unique to capitalism as a mode of production” also that “There is always a ‘control imperative’ because ‘market mechanisms’ alone cannot regulate the labour process” (Watson, 1995, p263). It is this argument that implies organizations not only derive organizational and managerial objectives from their capitalist ideals but also from their social, political and economic environment. In essence, taking into account all environmental factors when defining their required work processes and related workers requirements. The example of an accountant’s office before and after technological advancement can be congruent with Thomson’s emphasis for the constant requirement to develop the production process (work related skills and thus output (material).
Technological Change
In the example above it is possible to describe how the labour processes have been specifically changed by modern technology i.e. the advent of the modern office, the personal computer and computer systems.
First of all, calculators were invented (new Tools) which changed the nature of the work (Labours) of clerical workers as well as enhanced the output (Material) limits of these clerical workers. This actually meant that these workers could do more work and with better accuracy, assuming that sufficient training was given to use the new tools.
Greater work output (Material) and increased accuracy meant that fewer workers were needed to complete the same amount of work as before, a direct benefit for the employing organization.
The activity of work (Labours) became a great deal more interesting for the clerks, as new ‘Tools’ meant that they could perform their duties in a different way. The ‘Tools’ were ‘Labour’ saving devices, but also ‘Labour’ improving devices. The quality of work output (Material) could be greatly improved by the use of new ‘Tools’.
This advancement in technology continued with the introduction of computers (advanced Tools) into the workplace some thirty or so years ago. This was a real revolution in the workplace improving worker outputs (Labours and Material) hugely.
In the modern office environment, especially in an accountants office, a required ‘Material’ of work is generally set by the employer or their representatives in the form of managers; whom may also set particular criteria or methodologies to be followed in the undertaking or the completion (Labours) process of the ‘Material’. It is then up to the worker (clerk) to use the time available to them with the ‘Tools’ provided, to produce an output (Material) acceptable to the employer.
Modern ‘Tools’ enable the worker to be more competent at his work thus less man management or supervision is required. In fact, modern ‘Tools’, i.e. computers can be used as a form of supervision themselves whereby they can automatically record exactly what the worker has been doing and how long he has been working. Individual workers' can be compared against each other and office standards set for ‘Material’ output.
The reality of what has happened in this example seems to be at odds with Braverman’s [1974] thesis that “the pursuit of capitalist interests has led to a general trend towards deskilling, routinising and mechanising jobs across the employment spectrum.” (Watson, 1995, p260) 1
The Benefactors of Changes in the Labour Processes
All of these modern day technological advances gave a definite benefit to profit seeking companies, as well as to efficiency seeking non-profit making organisations. Less wages to pay via less workers and less overtime required as well reduced absenteeism meant more profit for the owners or shareholders; and increased efficiency led to a better quality of output meaning resources saved could be put to use elsewhere.
It could also be argued that this technological revolution was of benefit to the remaining workers as well. They would have been trained to use the new ‘Tools’, which should have meant increased job security and in addition transferable skills with which to take with them if they decided to seek work elsewhere. Any workers left redundant by these changes could fill in the gaps elsewhere in the unskilled labour market, which ‘Freidman’ describes as a market that is never fully employed. Workers who rejected change, failed to learn and/or who could not adapt to new technologies were those that became redundant. These individuals are the only real long-term losers from technological advancement and the resulting change in labour processes.
It is obvious that the employer gains from this improvement in working by obtaining an enhanced and better quality output (Material). However, it must not be forgotten that the employer had to invest and purchase these ‘Tools’, and new technology is always expensive. These benefits are the employer’s commercial reward for his investment. In addition, the introduction of new technology and advanced ‘Tools’ has benefited the modern worker enormously. In the example, an accountants office, a clerk would require less supervision, therefore the individual worker would be happier about their working environment, knowing that they are not being watched over, which can be disturbing. A relaxed worker feels more at ease to perform their tasks willingly and with greater care, as they themselves wish their work to be of good quality. Exposure to the dog-eat-dog world means they know that to retain their position depends on the quality and quantity of their output (Material), a capitalist market is at work even in employment.
Allowing the workers training and access to use new ‘Tools’ (computers and related accessories) gives them a certain amount of freedom to fulfil their tasks in a manner which suits themselves i.e. more freedom. Also, it enables the clerk to become more flexible in how they perform their duties. Empowering a worker by providing them the best ‘Tools’ to complete their job is a proven method of optimising their output (Material).
It can therefore be concluded (in this example) that investment in modern office equipment and computer technology (Tools) has benefited both the employer and the employee in a variety of ways.
The extents to which the derived benefits from change can be quantified are different, and are not specifically financial.
Financial benefits to employers might be reduced personnel requirements or reduced working hours from existing staff; both leading to reduced personnel costs. Also, increased quality of output meaning reduced costs of resources (stationary, office equipment, management time etc.).
Non-financial (and non-quantifiable) benefits to employers might be, the improved quality of workers output leading to more satisfied and happier workers, in turn creating a more harmonious working environment. Effectiveness in the workplace and quality output brings real customer satisfaction, and the retention of customers is vital for any business. Happy customers promote a positive image of the business and result in good referrals from said customers, which generically attract additional customers. Also, a satisfied and thus flexible workforce is in a position to assist management with business development, whether that is in the form of increasing their output at any given time or changing their output altogether alongside newly emerging office technology. This organizational flexibility puts the business in a much better position to meet the ever changing requirements of the customer.
References:
1 Tony J. Watson; Sociology Work and Industry; Third Edition; 1995;
ISBN 0-415-13373-4.
2 Karl Marx: Capital Volume 1 Chapter Seven: The Labour-Process and the Process of Producing Surplus-Value; 1867.
