Research recognizes both a tension between standardized work and employee participation as well as the fact that management and labor negotiate both formally and informally over the reorganization of work. Through a comparison of the lean production systems being implemented at three General Motors assembly plants, this article demonstrates the tension between standardization and participation to be socially constructed due, in part, to workplace historical context. Workplace history shapes the attitudes of actors as they negotiate change and can become a significant obstacle to implementing teamwork and employee participation schemes, while perceptions of the future may determine whether or not those obstacles are overcome.
AdlerPS (1995) ‘Democratic Taylorism’: The Toyota production system at NUMMI. In: BabsonS (ed.) Lean Work: Empowerment and Exploitation in the Global Auto Industry. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, pp. 207–219.
2.
AdlerPS (1999a) Hybridization: Human resource management at two Toyota transplants. In: LikerJKFruinWMAdlerPS (eds) Remade in America: Transplanting and Transforming Japanese Management Systems. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 75–116.
3.
AdlerPS (1999b) Teams at NUMMI. In: DurandJ-PStewartPCastilloJJ (eds) Teamwork in the Automobile Industry: Radical Change or Passing Fashion?London: Macmillan Press, pp. 126–150.
4.
AdlerPSGoldoftasBLevineDI (1998) Stability and change at NUMMI. In: BoyerRCharronEJurgensU. (eds) Between Imitation and Innovation: The Transfer and Hybridization of Productive Models in the International Automobile Industry. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 128–160.
5.
AP (1991) Changes likely to pit plant against plant. Janesville Gazette, 20December, p. 1A.
6.
AP (1992) Ax falls on Willow Run, 11 other plants. Janesville Gazette, 24February, p. 1A.
7.
AP and Janesville Gazette Staff (1986) City plant not on GM hit list. Janesville Gazette, 29October.
8.
AppelbaumEBattR (1994) The New American Workplace: Transforming Work Systems in the United States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
9.
AppelbaumEBaileyTBergP. (2000) Manufacturing Advantage: Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay Off. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
10.
BabsonS (1995a) Lean production and labor: Empowerment and exploitation. In: BabsonS (ed.) Lean Work: Empowerment and Exploitation in the Global Auto Industry. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, pp. 1–37.
11.
BabsonS (1995b) Whose team?: Lean production at Mazda U.S.A. In: BabsonS (ed.) Lean Work: Empowerment and Exploitation in the Global Auto Industry. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, pp. 235–246.
12.
BabsonS (1998) Mazda and Ford at Flat Rock: Transfer and hybridization of the Japanese model. In: BoyerRCharronEJurgensU. (eds) Between Imitation and Innovation: The Transfer and Hypbridization of Productive Models in the International Automobile Industry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 161–188.
13.
BarkerJR (1993) Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly38: 408–437.
14.
BarlettDLSteeleJB (1996) America: Who stole the dream?Philadelphia Inquirer, 8September.
15.
BayónCBensusánG (1998) Trabajadores y sindicatos ante la globalización: El caso del sector automotriz Mexicano. In: Juarez NúñezHBabsonS (eds) Confronting Change: Auto Labor and Lean Production in North America. Puebla: Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, 117–142.
16.
BesserTL (1996) Team Toyota: Transplanting the Toyota Culture to the Camry Plant in Kentucky, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
17.
BrownCReichM (1989) When does union-management cooperation work? A look at NUMMI and GM-Van Nuys. Managing Human ResourcesSummer: 26–44.
18.
BurawoyM (1979) Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process under Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
19.
BurawoyM (1985) The Politics of Production: Factory Regimes under Capitalism and Socialism, London: Verso.
20.
BurawoyM (1998) The extended case method. Sociological Theory16: 4–33.
21.
CappelliPNeumarkD (2001) Do ‘high-performance’ work practices improve establishment level outcomes?Industrial and Labor Relations Review54: 737–776.
22.
CarrilloJ (1995) Flexible production in the auto sector: Industrial reorganization at Ford-Mexico. World Development23: 87–101.
23.
CarrilloJMontielY (1998) Ford’s Hermosillo plant: The trajectory of development of a hybrid model. In: BoyerRCharronEJurgensU. (eds) Between Imitation and Innovation: The Transfer and Hypbridization of Productive Models in the International Automobile Industry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 295–318.
24.
CookeWN (1990) Factors influencing the effect of joint union-management programs on employee-supervisor relations. Industrial and Labor Relations Review43: 587–603.
25.
CookeWN (1992) Product quality improvement through employee participation: The effect of unionization and joint union management administration. Industrial and Labor Relations Review46: 119–134.
26.
CookeWN (1994) Employee participation programs, group-based incentives, and company performance: A union-nonunion comparison. Industrial and Labor Relations Review47: 594–609.
27.
DassbachCHA (1996) Lean production, labor control, and post-Fordism in the Japanese automobile industry. In: GreenWCYanarellaEJ (eds) North American Auto Unions in Crisis. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 19–40.
DuPreM (1987b) Smith: Workers, quality give Janesville an edge. Janesville Gazette, 8January.
32.
DuPreM (1988) GM moving Skyhawk to Janesville. Janesville Gazette, 19January.
33.
DurandJ-PStewartPCastilloJJ (1999) Teamwork in the Automobile Industry: Radical Change or Passing Fashion?London: Macmillan Press.
34.
EatonA (1995) The role of the union and employee involvement in lean production. In: BabsonS (ed.) Lean Work: Empowerment and Exploitation in the Global Auto Industry. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
35.
FantasiaRClawsonDGrahamG (1988) A critical view of worker participation in American industry. Work and Occupations15: 468–488.
36.
FuciniJJFuciniS (1992) Working for the Japanese: Inside Mazda’s American Auto Plant. New York, NY: The Free Press.
37.
FujimotoT (1999) The Evolution of a Manufacturing System at Toyota. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
38.
GodardJ (2004) A critical assessment of the high-performance paradigm. British Journal of Industrial Relations42: 349–378.
39.
GrahamL (1995) On the Line at Subaru-Isuzu: The Japanese Model and the American Worker, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
40.
GrenierG (1988) Inhuman Relations: Quality Circles and Anti-unionism in American Industry, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
41.
HodsonR (1996) Dignity in the workplace under participative management: Alienation and freedom revisited. American Sociological Review61: 719–738.
42.
HodsonR (2001) Working with Dignity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
IchniowskiCShawKPrennushiG (1997) The effects of human resource management practices on productivity: A study of steel finishing lines. The American Economic Review87: 291–314.
44.
KenneyMFloridaR (1993) Beyond Mass Production: The Japanese System and Its Transfer to the U.S. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
45.
Knight-Ridder (1992) Courtship pays off for Texas: Auto plant spared in flurry of incentives, lobbying. Janesville Gazette, 25February, p. 3A.
46.
KochanTLansburyRMacDuffieJP (1997) After Lean Production: Evolving Employment Practices in the World Auto Industry. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
47.
LevineDITysonLDA (1990) Participation, productivity, and the firm’s environment. In: BlinderAS (ed.) Paying for Productivity: A Look at the Evidence. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
48.
LikerJKFruinWMAdlerPS (1999) Remade in America: Transplanting and Transforming Japanese Management Systems. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
49.
MacDuffieJP (1995) Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review48: 197–221.
50.
McCrackenJ (2003) UAW may consider plant closings. Detroit Free Press, 16May.
51.
MicheliJ (1994) Nueva manufactura globalización y producción de automóviles en México. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
52.
MilkmanR (1991) Labor and management in uncertain times: Renegotiating the social contract. In: WolfeA (ed.) American at Century’s End. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 131–151.
53.
MishinaK (1998) Making Toyota in America: Evidence from the Kentucky transplant, 1986–1994. In: BoyerRCharronEJurgensU. (eds) Between Imitation and Innovation: The Transfer and Hypbridization of Productive Models in the International Automobile Industry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 99–127.
54.
MoodyK (1997) Workers in a Lean World: Unions in the International Economy. New York, NY: Verso.
55.
NelesenM (1989) UAW’s Lee pioneered changes in tradition. Janesville Gazette, 15February.
56.
ParkerM (1993) Industrial relations myth and shop floor reality: The ‘team concept’ in the auto industry. In: LichtensteinNHarrisHJ (eds) Industrial Democracy in America: The Ambiguous Promise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 249–274.
57.
ParkerMSlaughterJ (1988) Choosing Sides: Unions and the Team Concept, Boston, MA: South End Press.
58.
ParkerMSlaughterJ (1995) Unions and management by stress. In: BabsonS (ed.) Lean Work: Empowerment and Exploitation in the Global Auto Industry. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, pp. 41–53.
59.
PilFKMacDuffieJP (1996) The adoption of high-involvement work practices. Industrial Relations35: 423–455.
60.
PioreMJSabelC (1984) The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. New York, NY: Basic Books.
61.
RinehartJHuxleyCRobertsonD (1997) Just Another Car Factory?: Lean Production and Its Discontents. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
62.
RoscignoVJHodsonR (2004) The organizational and social foundations of workers’ resistance. American Sociological Review69: 14–39.
63.
RothsteinJS (2006a) Selective participation: Controlling workers’ input at General Motors. Research in the Sociology of Work16: 151–175.
64.
RothsteinJS (2006b) The uncertain future of the American auto industry. New Labor Forum15: 65–73.
65.
RubensteinJM (1992) The Changing U.S. Auto Industry: A Geographical Analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.
66.
ShaikenH (1990) Mexico in the Global Economy: High Technology and Work Organization in Export Industries (Monograph Series). San Diego, CA: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies.
67.
ShaikenH (1994) Advanced manufacturing and Mexico: A new international division of labor?Latin American Research Review29: 39–71.
68.
SmithV (2001) Crossing the Great Divide: Worker Risk and Opportunity in the New Economy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
69.
StewartPRichardsonMDanfordA. (2009) We Sell Our Time No More: Workers’ Struggles Against Lean Production in the British Car Industry. London: Pluto Press.
70.
TaplinIM (2001) Managerial resistance to high performance workplace practices. Research in the Sociology of Work10: 1–24.
71.
TaylorFW (1911) Principles of Scientific Management, New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
72.
ThomasRJ (1989) Participation and control: A shopfloor perspective on employee participation. Research in the Sociology of Organizations7: 117–144.
73.
ThomasRJ (1994) What Machines Can’t Do: Politics and Technology in the Industrial Enterprise. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
74.
VallasSP (1999) Rethinking post-Fordism: The meanings of workplace flexibility. Sociological Theory17: 68–101.
75.
VallasSP (2003a) The adventures of managerial hegemony: Teamwork, ideology, and worker resistance. Social Problems50: 204–225.
76.
VallasSP (2003b) Why teamwork fails: Obstacles to workplace change in four manufacturing plants. American Sociological Review68: 223–250.
77.
VallasSP (2006) Empowerment redux: Structure, agency, and the remaking of managerial authority. American Journal of Sociology111: 1677–1717.
78.
VidalM (2007) Manufacturing empowerment? ‘Employee involvement’ in the labour process after Fordism. Socio-Economic Review5: 197–232.
79.
WomackJPJonesDTRoosD (1990) The Machine That Changed The World. New York, NY: Rawson Associates.
