In this article we highlight rationalizations within industry that were initiated and conducted locally during overt or latent threat of plant close-down. A common feature in our four investigated cases of 'declining organizations' is that the surprising increases in productivity cannot be thought of as the result of 'management by fear' or other active measures taken by management. On the contrary, our findings suggest that the 'close-down effect' is brought about through workers' active and creative involvement in production matters when managers' interest in maintaining the established order at the workplace is fading away.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bergman, P. (1985) Teknik och lagarbeteteknik, arbetsorganisation och arbetsvilkor vid strdnggjutning, TRITA-AML-0145. Stockholm: Arbetsmilj6laboratoriet Tekniska Hogskolan i Stockholm.
2.
Bergman, P. (1995) Moderna lagarbeten. Studier ai arbere, teknik och organlisation i hogteknologisk processindustri. Lund: Arkiv f6rlag.
3.
Bergman, P. (1997) "Blev som en javla anda darn. Om ovantade arbetsformei under nedlhggningshot', Arkiv 71: 63-78.
4.
Burawoy, M.
(1979) Manufacturing Consent. Changes in the Labour Process under Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
5.
Fricke, W. (1985) 'Soziologische Aspekte industrieller Arbeit', pp. 142-79 in W. George et al. (eds) Arbeit und Wissenschqft. Arbeitswissenschaft? Bonn: Verlag Neue Gesellschaft GmbH.
6.
Friedman, A.
(1977) 'Responsible Autonomy versus Direct Control over the Labour Process', Capital and Class 1.
7.
Friedmann, G.
(1992) The Anatomy of Work. Labor, Leisure and the Implications of Automation. New Brunswick, NJ and London: Transaction Publishers. (Originally published 1956.)
8.
Genberg, M.
(1992) 'The Horndal Effect: Productivity Growth without Capital Investments at Horndalverken during 1927 and 1952', Department of Economic History, University of Uppsala.
9.
Greenhalgh, L.
and R.I. Sutton (1991) 'Organizational Effectiveness and Job Insecurity', pp. 151-171 in J. Hartley et al. (eds) Job Insecurity: Coping with Jobs at Risk. London: Sage.
10.
Knights, D.
(1990) 'Subjectivity, Power and the Labour Process', pp. 297-335 in D. Knights and H. Willmott (eds) Labour Process Theory. London: Macmillan.
11.
Kronlund, J. and Wigblad, R. (1979) 'BoxholmsprojektetOm fackliga konflikters orsaker. Del II', Ekonomiska institutionen, rapport nr 83, Universitetet i Linki6ping.
12.
Metallarbetaren (1982) 'Praktisk demokrati i Lulea: Det tjanar alla pa', No. 10.
13.
Schmidt, G. (1974) Gesellschaftliche Entwicklung und Industriesoziologie in den USA. Eine historische Analyse. Frankfurt am Main: Europaische Verlagsanstalt.
14.
Schumann, M., E. Einemann, C. Siebel-Rebell and K.P. Wittemann (1982) Rationalisierung, Krise, Arbeiter. Eine empirische Untersuchung der Industrialisierung aufder Werft. Frankfurt am Main: Europaische Verlagsanstalt.
15.
Sutton, R.I.
(1987) 'The Process of Organizational Death Disbanding and Reconnecting', Administrative Science Quarterly32(4): 542-569.
16.
Thompson, P.
and D. McHugh (1991) Work Organisations. A Critical Introduction. London: Macmillan.
17.
Wigblad, R. (1992) 'Utveckling i Avveckling', European Research Unit, Ds 1992:17, Stockholm.
18.
Wigblad, R.
(1995) 'Community Turnarounds in Declining Company Towns: A Restructuring Model', The Journal of Socio-Economics, 24(3): 463-475.
19.
Willmott, H.
(1990) 'Subjectivity and the Dialectics of Praxis: Opening up the Core of Labour Process Analysis', pp. 336-378 in D. Knights and H. Willmott (eds) Labour Process Theory. London: Macmillan.
