Scholars often offer competing accounts of the consequences of workplace teams. Researchers in the empowerment tradition describe autonomy in teams as generating satisfaction and pro-social behaviors. The panopticon approach emphasizes the disciplinary aspect of teamwork – arguing that peer monitoring elicits intense effort and discourages resistance through visibility and normative control. The conflict school highlights variation in experiences of and responses to teamwork, calling particular attention to worker resistance. This study uses mixed methods to investigate these perspectives simultaneously, analyzing content-coded data on 204 work groups. Though evidence supports both empowerment and panopticon theories, especially when used in combination, the conflict perspective emerges as pivotal to understanding not only worker resistance but also consent to empowerment and even panoptic control.
AdlerP (1995) ‘Democratic Taylorism’: The Toyota production system at NUMMI. In: BabsonS (ed.) Lean Work: Empowerment and Exploitation in the Global Auto Industry. Detroit, IL: Wayne State University Press, pp. 207–219.
2.
AppelbaumEBaileyTBergPKallebergAL (2000) Manufacturing Advantage: Why High-performance Work Systems Pay Off. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
3.
ArielyDKamenicaEPrelecD (2008) Man’s search for meaning: The case of Legos. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization67(3–4): 408–437.
4.
BarkerJR (1993) Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly38(3): 408–437.
5.
BarkerJR (1999) The Discipline of Teamwork: Participation and Concertive Control. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
BattR (2004) Who benefits from teams? Comparing workers, supervisors, and managers. Industrial Relations43(1): 183–212.
7.
BattRAppelbaumE (1995) Worker participation in diverse settings: Does the form affect the outcome, and if so, who benefits?British Journal of Industrial Relations33(3): 355–378.
8.
BélangerJEdwardsPKWrightM (2003) Commitment at work and independence from management: A study of advanced teamwork. Work and Occupations30(2): 234–252.
9.
BesserTL (1996) Team Toyota: Transplanting the Toyota Culture to the Camry Plant in Kentucky. Albany: State University of New York Press.
10.
BurawoyM (1979) Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process under Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
CappelliPRogovskyN (1998) Employee involvement and organizational citizenship: Implications for labor law reform and ‘lean production’. Industrial and Labor Relations Review51(4): 633–653.
12.
CappelliPBassiLKatzH. (1997) Change at Work. New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
CaseyC (1999) ‘Come, join our family’: Discipline and integration in corporate organizational culture. Human Relations52(1): 155–178.
14.
CollinsJ (2001) Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make The Leap … and Others Don’t. New York: Harper Business.
15.
CoserLA (1990) Forced labor in concentration camps. In: EriksonKVallasSP (eds) The Nature of Work: Sociological Perspectives. New Haven, CT: American Sociological Association Presidential Series and Yale University Press, pp. 162–169.
16.
CrowleyM (2012) Control and dignity in professional, manual and service-sector employment. Organization Studies33(10): 1383–1406.
17.
CrowleyM (in press) Class, control and relational indignity: Labor process foundations for workplace humiliation, conflict and shame. American Behavioral Scientist.
18.
CrowleyMTopeDChamberlainLJHodsonR (2010) Neo-Taylorism at work: Occupational change in the post-Fordist era. Social Problems57(3): 421–447.
19.
DevinatzVG (1999) High-tech Betrayal: Working and Organizing on the Shop Floor. East Lansing: Michigan University Press.
20.
EdwardsRC (1979) Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the American Workplace in the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books.
21.
EzzamelMWillmottH (1998) Accounting for teamwork: A critical study of group-based systems of organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly43(2): 358–396.
22.
EzzamelMWillmottHWorthingtonF (2001) Power, control and resistance in ‘the factory that time forgot’. Journal of Management Studies38(8): 1053–1079.
23.
FantasiaRVossK (2004) Hard Work: Remaking the American Labor Movement. Berkeley: University of California Press.
24.
FernieSMetcalfD (1998) (Not) hanging on the telephone: Payment systems in the new sweatshops. CEP Discussion Paper 390. London: Centre for Economic Performance.
25.
FrankRH (1997) The frame of reference as a public good. Economic Journal107(445): 1832–1847.
26.
FreelandRF (2001) Consent and rational choice. Contemporary Sociology30: 446–448.
27.
FriedmanAL (1977) Industry and Labor: Class Struggle at Work and Monopoly Capitalism. London: Macmillan.
28.
FoucaultM (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.
29.
GamsonWA (1975) The Strategy of Social Protest. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
30.
GecasVSchwalbeML (1983) Beyond the looking-glass self: Social structure and efficacy-based self-esteem. Social Psychology Quarterly46(2): 77–88.
31.
GodardP (2001) High-performanceand the transformation of work? The implications of alternative work practices for the nature and experience of work. Industrial and Labor Relations Review54(4): 776–805.
32.
GrahamL (1995) On the Line at Subaru-Isuzu. Ithaca, NY: Industrial and Labor Relations Press.
33.
HandelMJ (2005) Trends in perceived job quality, 1989 to 1998. Work and Occupations32(1): 66–94.
34.
HastieRDawesRM (2001) Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
HodsonR (2001) Dignity at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
HodsonRChamberlainLJCrowleyMTopeD (2011) Coding ethnographies for research and training: Merging qualitative and quantitative sociologies. Sociological Perspectives54(1): 125–131.
37.
HuselidMA (1995) The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal38(3): 635–672.
38.
KanterRM (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
39.
KnightsDMcCabeD (1998) Dreams and designs on strategy: A critical analysis of TQM and management control. Work, Employment and Society12(3): 433–456.
40.
KraftP (1999) To control and inspire: U.S. management in the age of computer information systems and global production. In: WardellMSteigerTLMeiksinsP (eds) Rethinking the Labor Process. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 17–36.
41.
KundaG (2006) Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-tech Corporation, rev edn. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
42.
McKaySC (2004) Securing commitment in an insecure world: Workers in international high-tech subsidiaries. Economic and Industrial Democracy25(3): 375–410.
43.
MilkmanR (1997) Farewell to the Factory: Auto Workers in the Late Twentieth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press.
44.
MinssenH (2005) Challenges of teamwork in production: Demands of communication. Organization Studies27(1): 103–124.
45.
MorganDL (2007) Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research1(1): 48–76.
46.
NiemeläJKalliolaS (2007) Team membership and experiences of work in the Finnish context. Economic and Industrial Democracy28(4): 552–588.
47.
OuelletLJ (1994) Pedal to the Metal: The Work Lives of Truckers. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
48.
PioreMSabelCF (1984) The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. New York: Basic Books.
49.
Plankey VidelaN (2006) It cuts both ways: Management and the construction of a ‘community of fate’ on the shop floor in a Mexican garment factory. Social Forces84(4): 2099–2120.
50.
PruijtH (2003) Teams between neo-Taylorism and anti-Taylorism. Economic and Industrial Democracy24(1): 77–101.
51.
RoscignoVJLopezSHHodsonR (2009) Supervisory bullying, status inequalities and organizational context. Social Forces87(3): 1561–1589.
52.
ScottA (1994) Willing Slaves?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
SennettR (1998) The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. New York: WW Norton.
54.
SewellG (1998) The discipline of teams: The control of team-based industrial work through electronic and peer surveillance. Administrative Science Quarterly43(2): 397–428.
55.
SewellGWilkinsonB (1992) ‘Someone to watch over me’: Surveillance, discipline and the just-in-time labor process. Sociology26(2): 271–289.
56.
ShaikenHLopezSMankitaI (1997) Two routes to team production: Saturn and Chrysler compared. Industrial Relations36(1): 17–45.
57.
SmithV (1996) Employee involvement, involved employees: Participative work arrangements in a white-collar service occupation. Social Problems43(2): 166–179.
58.
SmithV (1997) New forms of work organization. Annual Review of Sociology23: 315–339.
59.
SmithV (2001) Teamwork versus tempwork: Managers and the dualisms of workplace restructuring. In: CampbellKCornfieldDMcCammonH (eds) Working in Restructured Workplaces: New Directions for the Sociology of Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 7–28.
60.
SnapeERedmanT (2010) HRM practices, organizational citizenship behavior, and performance: A multi-level analysis. Journal of Management Studies47(7): 1219–1247.
61.
StewartPRichardsonMDanfordA. (2009) We Sell Our Time and No More: Workers’ Struggles against Lean Production in the British Car Industry. New York: Pluto.
62.
ThomasRJ (1994) What Machines Can’t Do: Politics and Technology in the Industrial Enterprise. Berkeley: University of California Press.
63.
ThompsonPAckroydS (1995) All quiet on the workplace front? A critique of recent trends in British industrial sociology. Sociology29(4): 615–633.
64.
TownsendK (2007) Who has control in teams without teamworking?Economic and Industrial Democracy28(4): 622–649.
65.
VallasSP (1999) Rethinking post-Fordism: The meaning of workplace flexibility. Sociological Theory17(1): 68–101.
66.
VallasSP (2003a) The adventures of managerial hegemony: Teamwork, ideology, and worker resistance. Social Problems50(2): 204–255.
67.
VallasSP (2003b) Why teamwork fails: Obstacles to workplace change in four manufacturing plants. American Sociological Review68(2): 223–250.
68.
Van den BroekDCallaghanGThompsonP (2004) Teams without teamwork? Explaining the call center paradox. Economic and Industrial Democracy25(2): 197–218.
69.
VidalM (2007a) Lean production, worker empowerment, and job satisfaction: A qualitative analysis and critique. Critical Sociology33(1–2): 247–278.
70.
VidalM (2007b) Manufacturing empowerment? ‘Employee involvement’ in the labor process after Fordism. Socio-Economic Review5(2): 197–232.
71.
VidalM (2010) Review of We sell our time and no more: Workers’ struggles against lean production in the British car industry. British Journal of Industrial Relations48(3): 646–648.
72.
WeeksJ (2004) Unpopular Culture: The Ritual of Complaint in a British Bank. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
73.
WomackJPJonesDTRoosD (1990) The Machine that Changed the World. New York: Rawson Associates.
74.
ZbarackiMJ (1998) The rhetoric and reality of total quality management. Administrative Science Quarterly43(3): 602–636.
