Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study aims to reveal the labor exploitation and domination practices in hotels through the labor process theory. For that purpose, a qualitative approach including in-depth interviews with 10 participants was used. In this study, interview texts were analyzed via content analysis. According to the findings, labor exploitation and domination practices are classified within the framework of lack of basic rights, control, consent, and oppression mechanisms. Hotel workers are deprived of basic rights such as leaves, breaks, overtime payment, and severance pay. Their bodies and emotions have been brought under control; their works and behaviors have been standardized. The threat of dismissal, one of the most important domination practices, has a negative impact on the lives of already precarious tourism workers.

Keywords

labor exploitation domination labor process theory hotels tourism industry

Introduction

The tourism industry is a labor-intensive industry (Pizam, 1982). Because services are largely based on human power. Workers in the field of hospitality work for long periods of time at an intense pace by using their physical, mental, emotional (Kim et al., 2012; Wong & Wang, 2009), and esthetic labor (Genc et al., 2020; Tsaur & Hsieh, 2020; Warhurst & Nickson, 2007). The emotional behavior (Hochschild, 1993) of hotel workers resembles a theatrical performance. The workers are kept under surveillance to carry out the work to certain standards and increase efficiency and productivity. In addition, motivation practices are used to adapt workers to working conditions and to get more efficiency from them (Çıvak, 2021); these practices act as a consent mechanism that enables workers to work harder (Burawoy, 1985). It can be stated that Braverman’s (1998) critique of Taylorism also applies to hotel businesses.

Tourism studies are generally carried out on the axis of mainstream positivist studies (Bianchi, 2009; Çıvak & Sezerel, 2018; Riley & Love, 2000). This is also proof that normal science (Kuhn, 1996) persists in the field. Although it is limited in the literature, there are studies such as adverse working conditions (Baum, 1999; International Labour Organization, 2010; Kusluvan & Kusluvan, 2000; Poulston, 2009), uncertain employment patterns (Davidson et al., 2006; Lee et al., 2015), exploitation, domination, and resistance (Çıvak, 2021), surveillance and power relations in the tourism industry (Hollinshead, 1999; Yıldırım, 2021). However, studies on labor process theory are limited. Erköse (2020) states that with the all-inclusive system, the works become routine, the tasks are simplified and devalued, and therefore the workers are unqualified. In addition, it is stated in the study that control mechanisms in holiday villages are shaped by simple forms. Kiril (2020) states that hotel businesses are putting pressure on workers to compete on a global level. In the study focusing on the phenomenon of gender, it is stated that gender has a functional role such as oppression practices, creating surplus-value, preventing inter-class solidarity, and transforming workers into a cheap and flexible workforce. The study by Warhurst et al. (2009) conceptually describes the labor process in the service sector but does not include the exploitation and domination practices it creates. Timmo (1993) similarly describes the characteristics of the service sector and the labor process and states that there is deskilling in the sector, but this cannot be explained in one way. Efthymiou (2010) examines the labor process, workplace control, and resistance in a luxury hotel in Cyprus. In addition, several effects such as employee relations, migrant mobility and labor markets, seasonality, and management attitude are also discussed concerning worker resistance or consent in the study. This study emerged from the need to show how managerial control mechanisms in hotel businesses turn into labor exploitation and domination practices. At this point, a critical analysis was carried out on the axis of labor process theory.

It is expressed in the studies conducted in the field of hotel management that managers monitor and put pressure on workers with simple, technical, and ideological control tools (Efthymiou, 2010; Erköse, 2020; Kiril, 2020). In addition, violence and harassment that harms the physical integrity of the victims (Guerrier & Adib, 2000) indicate physical domination. In addition, control and consent mechanisms that are used to get more efficiency from the workers are exploitation and domination tools according to critical perspective. The basic question to be answered at this point is: How do managerial control mechanisms transform into exploitation and domination practices in hotel businesses? In the study, a critical analysis of managerial control mechanisms is presented based on the labor process theory, which is frequently used in the critical management literature. In this study, the invisible sides of managerial control mechanisms in the hotel businesses are deciphered and important information is presented for both tourism academics and hotel workers. It is thought that the study will especially contribute to the critical tourism literature.

The next section examines the managerial control mechanisms and the environment of exploitation and domination it creates through labor process theory. In the method section, the qualitative study carried out in Eskişehir is explained. The empirical results are categorized under four main themes. The results make a critical presentation by revealing the invisible/unknown aspects of managerial control mechanisms in hotel businesses. The conclusion section includes the results obtained from the findings and theoretical and practical implications.

Theoretical Framework

Labor Process Theory

The origin of Labor Process Theory (LPT) is based on Marx. Braverman’s study “Labor and Monopoly Capital” published in 1974 focused on the organization of work in capitalist businesses (Hassard et al., 2001, p. 339) and brought the labor process back to the agenda. The theory includes the capitalist production relations, the class contradictions of labor and capital and their consequences (Rowlinson & Hassard, 2001); It deals with the nature and transformation of labor-power under capitalist conditions (Thompson, 2010, p. 10), as well as what kinds of control and exploitation mechanisms are created (Adler, 2007; Rowlinson & Hassard, 2001). The theory is based on a series of claims regarding the basic features of the labor process in capitalism (Warhurst et al., 2009) and tries to reveal the antagonistic relations between labor and capital and the effects these relations have on organizations by focusing on work organizations (Tsoukas, 2007, p. 1309). The main implication of the theory is as follows:

The capitalist, studiously choosing the convenient means of production and labor power, produces through using worker’s labor. The labor process, which occurs as the use of labor power by the capitalist, shows two significant characteristics. The worker works under the control of the capitalist. The purpose here is to get the maximum output with the effective use of production means. In other words, the purpose is the prevention of waste. Second, the produced output no more belongs to the worker, but it belongs to the capitalist. The capitalist rents the labor force of the worker daily/hourly and pays accordingly. Within the chartered period, the labor of the worker passes to the use of the capitalist. Starting from the worker’s first step into the workplace of the capitalist, his labor force’s value of use passes to the control of the capitalist (Marx, 1906). In other words, the labor force turns into a commodity (Braverman, 1998, p. 57).

Braverman’s take on the labor process also opened up to the renewal and update of the Marxist perspective. In a sense, it has been instrumental in examining the workplace as an important empirical and theoretical object. (Thompson & Smith, 2000, p. 40). Thus, LPT explores the controversial space in the workplace from a micro perspective (Li & Qi, 2014, p. 428). Until this time, many researchers have addressed LPT. LPT is still the core theory that researchers use to build their theoretical frameworks in their research and has been used as a basic framework in research like the manufacturing sector (Crowley et al., 2020), tourism sector (Efthymiou, 2010; Erköse, 2020; Kiril, 2020), education (Tsang & Kwong, 2017), Gig economy (Gandini, 2019; Wu et al., 2019), and sharing economy (Chai & Scully, 2019) etc.

While Braverman (1998) criticized Taylorist forms of control, some writers have attacked Braverman for underplaying the potential for worker resistance, some others have defended his analysis as more nuanced and ultimately true to its Marxist inheritance (Smith, 2015). In the second wave of analysis, especially Friedman (1977), Burawoy (1979), and Edwards (1979) suggested that there are also different control mechanisms.

Executive control mechanisms

The issue of managerial control is a chief focus of labor process research (Gandini, 2019, p. 1049) and the approach is the group of practices that were developed for the control of labor about the solution of complex problems in capitalist businesses. Interests of the capitalist are in the foreground, not of labor (Braverman, 1998, p. 59). Indeed, it must be accepted that Taylor’s scientific management approach is effective in the configuration of management practice in businesses. Taylor developed the fundamentals of labor process’ organization and control. This gained a clearer shape with the followers of Taylor and mainstream (functionalist, pragmatist) management studies aroused. Braverman (1998) defined Taylorism as “the science of managing labor under capitalist circumstances.” According to Braverman, Taylor’s purpose was to bring a solution to the problem of controlling the labor force in the best way. The labor process, which is under the control of the workers, completely transferred to the hands of the manager with control mechanisms. Works are designed on a routine and repetitive basis by dividing into the smallest parts with scientific management principles and thus standardization is achieved.

The industrialization of the tourism sector in Turkey begins with the transition to neoliberal policies after the 1980s. The coastal areas have been the pioneers of the industrialization of tourism. As agricultural labor in coastal regions gradually shifted to the tourism sector, a tourism workforce was formed (Aykac, 2010). Later, migrant workers were added to this. However, the all-inclusive system, which became widespread after the 2000s, turned the hotel industry into an assembly line of a factory, resulting in the standardization of services. In this process, the control of works and workers is also significant. In hotel businesses, hierarchical levels work in an integrated manner to ensure that the work is carried out in the determined standards and flow. They aim to increase efficiency and productivity by keeping the workers under surveillance. Hotel workers have been cut off from their qualifications with the simplification of the works (Çıvak, 2021; Erköse, 2020). It means that by transferring the knowledge/understanding from the workers to the managerial layer, the workers are transformed into unthinking and only practicing hands, thus enabling the control of every stage of production by the managers with the business knowledge monopolized by the managerial layer (Braverman, 1998). Therefore, labor turnover became easier.

In hotel businesses, each department has different business procedures. For example, a property management system sets a pattern for how the job is to be done and holds all the necessary information. Hotel workers’ information becomes insignificant because the customer information is in the system (Erköse, 2020). The work process in the service department has become standardized, especially with the transition to the all-inclusive system. The service job has turned into simple tasks such as placing the food on the buffet, removing the empty tables from the tables, and cleaning. Thus, there is no need for qualified service personnel in the field (Çıvak, 2021). It has led to the further devaluation and cheapness of labor power.

Edwards (1979), on the other hand, explains how control mechanisms on the labor process are used. Managers/bosses at the workplace develop practices on how the work is organized, working pace, how workers will work and be controlled. However, these practices are means of exploitation that are established for the maximum utilization of the workers. Edwards expresses that workers put resistance against impositions, too, but employers assert new reactions to this resistance. Employers and workers struggle for balance. Workers can assert their resistance openly or secretly. It is seen that new control forms are developed onto that. Old control forms leave their place for new ones. Edwards (1979, p. 17–21) classifies these control forms as simple, technical, and bureaucratic. Simple control contains directives and inspections about what workers can and cannot do, through hierarchical control. The system works with a supervisor and foreman, transferring instructions taken from above to sub-workers, supervising them, and executing the operation. In technical control, increasing the workers’ efficiency is targeted using technologies that govern the labor process. In addition to that, it includes the supervision of workers about not displaying undesirable behaviors. Digital technologies are used as forms of control over the labor process in various contexts (Moore, 2017). Computer and camera technologies are important tools that increase the supervising power of managers about technical controls. Bureaucratic control is embedded in the social structure of the workplace or the social relations there. Business rules, performance criteria, and carrot-and-stick practices are examples of bureaucratic control (Edwards, 1979).

LPT is very significant to determine the commodification in the hospitality industry and the deepening exploitation and domination conditions. Therefore, showing the function of the control mechanisms in hotels will also reveal the exploitation and domination.

Production of consent

The shortening of work hours and the enactment of an 8-hour workday was hampering for the employer. Thus, new practices were developed by the employer to obtain maximum benefit from the workers in the 8-hour working episode. In addition to control practices, the employer was also preoccupied with how workers could be made work harder through motivation for working. Instead of strict control mechanisms, it was ensured that workers’ resistance is prevented, they remain loyal to the organization, and they consent to control (Tartanoğlu, 2014, p. 41). According to Burawoy (1979, p. 81), who uses the game metaphor, working as a game means that both parties comply with the rules of the game, that is, consent is formed. According to him, it is not possible to participate in the game and question the rules of the game. In this respect, the game metaphor used by Burawoy is similar to the Bourdieu’s (1987) game metaphor.

Today, it is aimed to take workers’ consent via motivating practices, career promises, and discourse of competition. Yıldırım (2021) describes the power relations in the tourism industry and how tourism workers are subordinated to working conditions with a Foucauldian approach. In addition, the study deals with the adaptation-consent and resistance practices of tourism workers in Alanya. Accordingly, it has been stated that factors such as fear of unemployment, being stigmatized as unemployed, the burden of debt, employee relations, poor supervision, job opportunities, and escape plans arising from short-term employment are important for tourism workers to endure adverse working conditions. Çıvak (2021) states that hotel businesses use motivational practices such as career promise, friendly attitudes of managers, bonus system, and staff nights. The career goal and bonus system, which are an illusio (see Bourdieu, 2000) for workers, enable them to keep the workers in the field, to accept the rules of the field without questioning, and to engage with the business goals in their interests.

Oppression mechanism

One of the important characteristics of the tourism sector is seasonality. Seasonality results from changes in supply or demand in the tourism industry due to climate, demographics, lifestyle, holidays (public holidays and school holidays), structural and institutional factors. (Baum & Hagen, 1999; Cooper et al., 2005). Seasonality, marketing (tour and accommodation planning, distribution, and pricing), labor market (nature and quality of employment, sustainability of employment); business finance (cash flow, pricing, and attracting investment); stakeholder management (suppliers, intermediaries); and significantly affects the supply of tourism, including operations (Baum, 1999, p. 5). Short-term employment in the sector significantly affects many things (Baum, 1993) and commonly leads to seasonal employment, underemployment, and unemployment (Jolliffe & Farnsworth, 2003). This situation is common especially in the coastal areas of Turkey, due to the 6 to 7 months of the tourism season. At the end of the season, workers are either fired or held unemployed until the start of the next season. The main reason for this is to adapt to fluctuations in demand and to reduce labor costs.

It is seen that there is a flexible and uncertain employment type due to the seasonality of the employment in the tourism sector and that the workers do not have any security (Davidson et al., 2006; Yıldırım, 2021). As Standing (2017) points out, when the employment patterns of tourism workers are considered, there is a complete precariatization in seasonal destinations (Çelik & Erkuş-Öztürk, 2016; Yıldırım, 2021). The precariat is deprived of long-term, stable jobs, union rights, and collective contract rights that the proletariat possesses. They don’t even belong to the middle class because they don’t have a fixed wage, statute, or various rights. These people have temporary positions and don’t have a guarantee. It is easier to control temporary workers via fear. If they do not surrender to what is demanded, their dismissal is a matter of time. They are unable to resist global capital’s advances for various reasons (Standing, 2017). Insecurity makes it difficult for individuals to imagine their future (Gill, 2014) and prevents the tourism precariat from making long plans in their lives. In addition, precarious employment also causes deep social divisions and economic inequalities (Robinson et al., 2019).

High unemployment rates in Turkey strengthen the hands of the employer. Because the tourism worker, who is afraid of being fired, consents to exploitation. Because there are dozens of workers outside waiting for work. Managers use dismissal as a trump card when productivity decreases, or workers show resistance (Çıvak, 2021). Therefore, a new one has been added to the control mechanisms indicated by the LPT. Workers are kept under control not only by control mechanisms but also by unemployment pressure.

Method

The critical perspective has been adopted throughout the research. Those who adopt this view reject the rules and theories imposed by positivism. Critical management studies are the general names of the criticisms of management that include Marxist, critical theory, poststructuralist, and feminist perspectives (Tadajewski et al., 2011, p. 1). Critical management studies question the accuracy of current and common ways of thinking and practices related to organizations (Alvesson et al., 2009). For these reasons, critical researchers/theorists try to reveal related structures, mechanisms, and processes that ensure the continuity of distorted structures (Prasad, 2005). In this perspective, it is seen that generally qualitative research method is preferred (Glesne, 2013).

The qualitative method is used and adopted case study in this research. Qualitative research involves interpreting observations, interviews, and documents (data from qualitative research) to find significantly meaningful patterns and themes (Patton, 2015).

Participants

In qualitative inquiry, a purposive sampling method was used for selecting the participants. In order to explore exploitation and domination practices extensively, the following requirements are set for the population of interviewees. (1) Everyone was willing to contribute to the study; (2) there were workers who work in the front office and housekeeping department; (3) workers who were still working at the hotel were included.

There are different classifications of the authors regarding the purposive sampling methods (Creswell, 2003; Glesne, 2013; Neuman, 2014). However, the ones that are used frequently are; typical case sampling, homogeneous sampling, maximum variation sampling, theoretical sampling, snowball sampling, and easily accessible sampling (Glesne, 2013, p. 61). Snowball sampling was used in this study. Researchers get in contact with the other participants via telephone and told the content of the study in advance. Interviews were held by the researchers with 10 participants in Eskişehir. With 10 participants, 406 minutes of the interview were held in total. Participants were assigned different names instead of their real names. Table 1 summarizes the profile of interviewees. According to Patton (2002), “there is no rule for sample size in a qualitative inquiry. The sample size of a qualitative study is determined by data saturation, which is reached when no new information is discovered” (p. 244).

Table 1.

Participants’ Details.

Name	Age	Gender	Educational background	Marriage	Wage (₺)	Position	Professional time in the business
Interviewee 1	26	Female	Postgraduate	Single	2,200	Receptionist	1 year 8 months
Interviewee 2	25	Male	Graduate	Single	2,200	Night Receptionist	3 years
Interviewee 3	26	Male	Graduate	Single	2,000	Bellboy	1 year
Interviewee 4	25	Male	Associate degree	Single	2,000	Bellboy	2 years
Interviewee 5	24	Male	Associate degree	Single	2,000	Bellboy	1 year
Interviewee 6	34	Male	Graduate	Married	2,200	Receptionist	4 years
Interviewee 7	20	Male	High school	Single	2,000	Bellboy	5 months
Interviewee 8	44	Female	Primary school	Married	2,000	Housekeeper	1 year
Interviewee 9	43	Female	Primary school	Married	2,000	Housekeeper	1 year
Interviewee 10	55	Female	Primary school	Single	2,000	Housekeeper	12 years

Four of the participants were female and six were male. It is seen that women work in the housekeeping department. It can be expressed that there is a distribution of work according to gender. While the education level of the workers in the front office department is pre-graduate and above, the education level of the workers in housekeeping is at the primary school level. As Bourdieu (1987) stated, people with higher education capital work in better jobs; those with low educational capital work in unskilled jobs.

Data Collection

Social scientists who want to explain human behaviors, beliefs, perceptions, and experiences in detail in the context, tend to use the qualitative research method (Rubin & Rubin, 2011). Qualitative researchers describe individuals and events in their natural settings in detail and position the interview as a key factor in research design (Weiss, 1994). For the research, 15 semi-structured questions were composed of the literature (Appendix 1). While preparing the interview questions, it was tried to prepare easily understandable, subject-oriented questions. In particular, the concepts containing guidance were avoided (see Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Patton, 1987). Interview questions were formed by considering the simple, technical, and bureaucratic classification made by Erwards (1979) . In addition, questions about consent mechanisms were extracted from Burawoy’s (1979) study on consent. The questions were compared with similar empirical studies (Efthymiou, 2010; Erköse, 2020; Kiril; 2020) in the literature and their accuracy and differences were tested. Upon this, the questions were sent to two people who the experts in their fields. Corrections were made following the expert opinions. Before the field research, the University’s Ethics Committee reviewed the interview questions and interview details. Ethics Committee Approval was obtained for this study.

Face-to-face interviews were held for the collection of data. Data are gathered through making face-to-face interviews with subordinates working in the hotels of Eskişehir (between July 26, 2018 and March 12, 2019). Participants were informed that voice records would be made throughout the interview and their permission was asked. All participants gave consent for the voice record. Statements made by the participants throughout the interview that can steer the interview were noted.

Data Analysis

Each interview was textualized without changing the orders of participants’ expressions. Stage of the analysis, coding, categorization, and grouping under topics and analysis of the data followed that. Interview texts in this research were analyzed through the content analysis method. Content analysis “is a qualitative data analysis technic that provides reaching concepts and relations that can explain the collected data. Through content analysis, it is aimed to define data, and uncloak the truth that may be hidden in it” (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2013, p. 259). Moreover, content analysis enables the researchers to obtain a condensed and broad description of the phenomenon (Tsaur & Lin, 2014, p. 31). For content analysis, three coders (two tourism academicians) read the texts of interviews and each coder individually performed their coding process over the data. As a result of the content analysis, 10 sub-themes under four themes are indicated in Table 2.

Table 2.

Topics and Sub-Topics.

Main topics	Sub-topics
Absence of basic rights	- Wages (monthly salary, overtime wages, etc.)
	- Leave rights (weekly off, break time)
	- Severance payment
	- Union membership
Control mechanisms	- Simple direct control
	- Technical control
	- Bureaucratic control
Consent mechanisms	- Ideological control
Oppression mechanisms	- Unemployment stress and precarity
Oppression mechanisms	- Flexible employment

Validity and Reliability

The credibility of the research is accepted as one of the most important criteria of the research. In qualitative research, while validity means researchers’ control for the accuracy of data via specific processes, reliability is the consistency of the researcher’s attitude even concerning various researchers (Creswell, 2003). According to Beck (1993, p. 264), reliability in qualitative research measures how credible the explanations for the phenomenon are. In this context, a series of steps were followed in the research to ensure validity and reliability:

Long-term interaction: Before starting the interviews, talks were held with the participants at least for half an hour and interviews started afterward. The purpose here is to create an environment of confidence by making the participant closer to the researcher. It is thought that the participants will give more sincere answers by this means.

Deep focus data collection: The researcher examined the convenience of results he gets, by comparing them with the findings in the literature.

Purposive sampling: Purposive sampling methods are used in qualitative research to provide transferability. In this context “snowball sampling” from purposive sampling methods is chosen for this research.

Results and Discussion

In this study, which was designed to explain transformation managerial control mechanisms to labor exploitation and domination practices in hotel businesses, topics and sub-topics were defined via labor process theory. The findings are classified under the headings of the absence of basic rights (1), control (2), consent (3), and oppression (4) mechanisms headings (Table 2).

Absence of Basic Rights

The first theme includes how the basic rights of workers are being exploited and are presented under four sub-themes. Based on the statements of the participants, it was found that wages in the hospitality industry were low, permission rights were not granted or given by arbitrary practices, various pressures were made to avoid severance pay, and tourism workers were not aware of their trade union rights or were afraid to become members.

Wages

First, wages in hotel businesses are at a minimum which is low compared to long working hours, intense working, and responsibilities (Baum, 1999; International Labour Organization, 2010). Nearly all the participants said that wages are low compared to the heaviness of work and responsibilities. The minimum wage in Turkey is 2000₺, which is equal to ₺363. The workers declared that they could find a job in other places for the same wage levels and even that they will change their job when they find the chance because the low wages paid to the workers cause financial difficulty. It is stated that there is a high staff turnover due to low wages in the field (Brien, 2004). Furthermore, while workers are supposed to be paid at least twice of their daily payment when they work on religious and public holidays, it is seen that businesses do not pay this amount.

Interviewee 4: For instance, our front office manager is paid a funny amount, that is 2300 ₺, he is paid this wage as a manager, which is a beginning wage in another sector. He has been struggling with loans since he started working at this hotel. . . We cannot get the amounts and legal rights that we deserve.

Leave rights

According to findings leave rights of the workers are arranged according to work volume and can even be canceled. In addition, hotel businesses give their workers a day off instead of overtime wages. These leaves are used generally at given times which are decided by the business but not by the workers.

Interviewee 1: For example, they load more work to annoy. The hotel doesn’t want to fire him, so let the worker come out on his own so the hotel won’t give him severance pay.

Severance payment

Hotel owners and managers pressure workers not to give severance pay and also burden them with more work. So, the worker is ensured to submit his/her resignation petition. Because the hotel fires a worker, it has to pay compensation by law.

Union membership

Unionization in the tourism sector is very low. With the restriction of the trade union activities after 1980, yellow unionism, which favors employers rather than workers, began to dominate. According to the data of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security (2020), the number of workers registered with the union in the tourism and entertainment business line is 4% in Turkey. Workers are unaware of the existence of unions and union rights. Those who know the situation of the unions are not members of the union, they worry that the business will create difficulties. The statements of the participants show that the entire fate of tourism workers is left to the managers and supervisors of hotels.

Interviewee 2: Obviously, we need to talk about unionization. Those who are members of the union are fired. 12 workers at X hotel applied to DİSK (labor union) because they could not get the increase they were promised, and a solution was not found within the company and therefore they were dismissed.

Control Mechanisms

The second theme includes how pressure is exerted on employees through control mechanisms. It is seen that Taylorist control mechanisms are strictly applied in hotels. The relations of the workers with their supervisors and managers, the working conditions, the standardization of the jobs, the deskilling of the worker prove this situation. The findings are interpreted in three sub-themes.

Simple control

Taylor (1911) indicated that setting standards for work are one of the criteria for success. According to him, works to be done must be planned by the management in advance, the way and duration of the work must be written down and workers’ accordance must be ensured. In hotel businesses, work procedures defined by the management are implemented. Standard rules are trying to be applied in all processes including the way the customers are welcomed as they entered the hotel, how they will be accompanied by the bellboy on the way to their rooms, how to smile, which procedure to be followed in case of a problem. Work procedures in hotel businesses are not much different from Ford’s band technology. Because communication/interaction between workers and customers is standardized. For instance, the way a receptionist should wait behind the reception bank (standing, upright) is permanently told to him. This can be defined as physical control. Besides, managers give directives to workers on how to behave and smile at customers. This is proof of how emotional labor (Hochschild, 1993) is controlled and directed.

Interviewee 3: We wear our mask at the entrance of the hotel, smiling face mask, smiling artificially. At first, I used to welcome through smiling willingly.

Interviewee 1: Of course, you welcome a guest in a pleasant manner, smiling. Routine. . . There are papers in the supervisor’s hands, there are things to do.

The sub-level organizer of Taylorist monitor is the supervisor. They exercise the orders given by upper management levels, execute monitoring on behalf of them. However, from time to time, it is seen that they have arbitrary behaviors (Edwards, 1979). It is seen that managers can’t provide justice among workers, while exhibiting positive manners and behaviors toward the workers they like, they exhibit negative attitudes and behaviors toward workers they don’t like. Arbitrary treatments of the managers are not only limited to that. Some of them swear and insult the workers. Managers’ arbitrary attitudes demonstrate the chaotic tendency of the Kafkaesque bureaucracy (Hodson et al., 2013).

Interviewee 4: A very close friend of our front office manager is the receptionist at the front office. . . Because he likes him, he gives him all legal rights, but it’s not the case with me. . . there is exorbitant injustice.

Interviewee 1: For instance, he can tell them anything he wants (referring to males), not that much to us. . . I mean he swears.

According to findings, the physical, mental, and emotional labor of workers is intensely used. Workers work standing until late hours. This increases physical fatigue. In addition to that, duties and responsibilities given to the workers cause mental fatigue. In addition, break times are arranged by the manager, not according to workers’ consent.

Interviewee 5: Both the wage is bad and there are many responsibilities. . . You go at 10 in the morning at the weekend, rush hour is indefinite. I mean, you cannot leave before 10 hours in that work volume. . . According to the procedure, it is 8 hours of work, normally. Half-an-hour of this is meal break. . . There 15 min of breaks two times afterward. But nobody cares about that procedure.

Generally, cleaning, stewardship, guest welcoming, bellboy service, etc. are simple professions in the hospitality industry. According to Braverman (1998), these kinds of jobs don’t require qualifications. Besides, it can be said that domination is higher on unskilled workers. Because, monitoring, hiring, and firing of these people are easier. Even if it is not written down in the job definition, managers give other works when workers finish their job, which can be defined as drudgery. Participants’ statement shows this clearly:

Interviewee 5: When I first started to work, they said that you are a bellboy. When the general manager changed, they gave me other responsibilities too. Hosing the front of the hotel, irrigating flowers, trees, wiping the walls, snowplowing, etc. For instance, I cleaned the windows of the hotel and washed the boss’s/manager’s car in my previous workplace. It was a 3-star boss hotel. . .

Interviewee 9: I would like to work in a more corporate hotel. It’s not clear what you’re doing or responsible in a small hotel. We do everything here as housekeepers.

Technical control

Businesses utilize technology to control workers and for performance monitoring (Edwards, 1979). In the researched hotels, workers’ behaviors, manners toward customers, and their interaction are monitored by cameras. Bentham’s panopticon is a mechanism that is established for monitoring prisoners in jail (Foucault, 1980). There is a similar situation in hotel businesses. The manager monitors both customers and workers through cameras located everywhere. Workers who know that they are being watched by cameras, control their attitudes and behaviors. Thus, the workers present a theatrical performance in the public domain, as Scott (1992) points out. Another practice of technical control is phone calls records.

Interviewee 4: . . . at three a.m., he watched me from the camera, and told me that he saw me sitting in the lobby, and told me to do something, like wash the hotel windows, etc.. . . He was watching even when he was on vacation. Let me say that he is watching us when he loses sleep, desiring to find out something wrong about us.

Interviewee 1: . . . there were cameras in the hotel. There was a camera continuously controlling the reception. This camera could be followed by the hotel manager or front office manager. When we check our cell phones, he was calling us. . . there are also phone records. In the previous hotel, phone calls were recorded when there was a problem.

Workers are subject to security controls while going into and out of the hotel. With that, workers’ entrance and exit times are recorded and workers sign the signature sheet. In some hotels, workers pass through the toll gate after scanning their personnel id cards to the system. In this way, workers that are late at work can easily be detected. But when the worker stays for overtime work, he is not paid for that.

Interviewee 3: They make us sign papers for the procedure.

Interviewee 1: There is a signature leaf. You sign it. If I come at 8:00, I sign there, I sign it when I leave work, too. That’s the way. In the past, there was a finger system, with fingerprints. It was controlled by security.

There is a service satisfaction survey prepared by the management for customers. Costumers convey their positive-negative experience by the survey. Besides, customers share their complaints and satisfactions with other people through social networks. According to findings, it is seen that surveys, rating scores, and complaints are control mechanisms.

Interviewee 2: Hotel has a survey. After entering the hotel, as soon as you connect to the internet, a survey shows up. People write to TripAdvisor and Booking.com after two months. They complain. . .

Bureaucratic control

As Edwards (1979) indicated, bureaucratic control is composed of job definitions, carrot-stick implementations, rules-procedures. According to findings, there are rules-procedures in the workplace, and also, the workers’ performance is monitored. For example, the front office manager controls the sales performance of receptionists through Property Management System (PMS). On the other hand, there is no premium system in the hotels. The absence of a premium system is striking, despite the existence of defined goals such as high profit and customer satisfaction. Because labor cost is the largest cost item, hotels may not be willing to undertake additional costs caused by the premium system.

Interviewee 1: There are reports in Fidelio. From the user log, they check my sales performance this month. . . ADR (Average Daily Rate), in other words, the average is the important thing.

Consent Mechanisms

Handling the production field with political and ideological dimensions, Burawoy (1985) indicated that production is not only a system based on oppression, but it is also based on gaining the consent of the worker as another way of establishing domination over the worker. Consent mechanisms practiced by employers to make workers work harder are classified under the heading of motivation practices. According to the statements of the workers, there are practices such as staff meetings, cafe breaks, monetary awards, picnic, and employee of the month as motivation practices in hotels. The motivation practices are conducted to undercover heavy working conditions and low wages. But participants expressed that these practices do not motivate them, and wages need to be increased to make them feel motivated.

Interviewee 3: As I said, a personnel meeting, a café-break is organized. Cake, cookies, pie, muffin, coke, fruit juice is enough. It’s like a cruel joke to us. All they seek is making money immediately. Satisfy the customers. When it comes to the personnel, there is nothing.

Interviewee 2: They put 500 £ prices on the idea they like, to make everyone tell their ideas. . . They will organize a picnic next month. They choose the worker of the month. This is done to motivate people. But there is nothing much else. . . I think it is unnecessary, why unnecessary? Because managers will be there.

Oppression Mechanisms

Oppression mechanisms can be given under the title of consent mechanisms or can be evaluated as a distinct category. It is decided that there must be a separate category in classification. Because it was thought that the production of consent can be evaluated with motivation practices at most, and unemployment stress and precarity can be evaluated under oppression mechanisms.

Unemployment stress and precarity

The high unemployment rate in Turkey both creates oppression on workers and performs as a consent mechanism in their submission to exploitation. It can be said that unemployment stress is an impetus for workers’ obedience to exploitation. Thus, fear of unemployment generates an asymmetrical relationship between the employer and worker (Dardot & Laval, 2014). Besides, the state has an indirect share in the exploitation of workers. Because workers’ rights do not be defended by state institutions.

Interviewee 4: . . . Unemployment has driven me here. . . we entered this with inner peace, for not knowing this side of tourism, but. . . I won’t stay, looking for a job right now.

According to the findings, it is seen that the severance allowance is not given to workers. For the avoidance of severance allowance payment, hotel businesses force workers to resign with various kinds of oppression. This subject, which can be evaluated under the title of exploitation of basic rights, is closely related to the precarity concept. It is seen that workers in the hotels of Eskişehir are working unsecured, there is an over the cycle of personnel, and managers are also used to that. Together with this, hotel workers expressed that they don’t see a future in this sector because they don’t have a guarantee. Participants’ expression about the issue is as such:

Interviewee 1: They would say goodbye. . . For instance, they overload extra works to harass. They want the person to quit voluntarily. The hotel doesn’t want to fire. If the person wants to quit, the hotel won’t pay compensation. . .

Interviewee 3: They find someone new after a week and make it a routine. They are used to this, too, we will train someone for a month, this person will work in satisfaction for 6 months, start to cry after 6 months, will work for an additional time of 3-4 months, then will quit. . . There is no guarantee in this profession because this is not a profession. Unemployed people become bellboys, frankly. I got this job because of unemployment. Today, everybody can be a bellboy. . . I don’t trust this tip in a place like Eskişehir. I don’t have the guarantee, I don’t see a future.

The hotel workers don’t have union membership; they don’t also know the existence of tourism unions. Together with that, when they are asked if the business creates difficulties about union membership, they stated that those who applied for worker union membership in the past were fired. Participants’ statements about the issue are as such:

Interviewee 2: There is no unionization in the hotel sector. Because it doesn’t exist, the public sector seems more advantageous. . . because of the absence of a union, people are left insecure. I mean, they can’t apply to anywhere, if they do, they will tackle with courts, financial difficulties likewise.

Interviewee 6: Surely, there is a tourism union, but we do not know. None of the people around me are members.

Flexible employment

Temporary/flexible working forms bring cost advantages to businesses. Because, in addition to low wages of temporary workers, businesses employ workers depending on the work volume, and they get a cost advantage in employment through this way (Standing, 2017). This implementation, which is very profitable for businesses, means labor exploitation for workers. Temporary workers cannot utilize social rights such as the seniority indemnity, because of being employed seasonally. In case of a mistake or resistance against exploitation, it is easier to fire them. This creates oppression on temporary workers. Temporary workers, who already don’t have a chance for a career, have to do given orders. The state has a significant effect on this. Inadequacy in legal regulations and inspections increases exploitation in businesses.

Conclusion

This study shows how managerial control mechanisms turn into exploitation and domination practices in hotel businesses (Figure 1). In addition, the study stated that hotel workers were included in the precarity because they are temporarily-precariously employed. The study contributes to the tourism literature by providing information both on how the labor process works in hotels and on the condition of hotel workers.

Figure 1.

Managerial control mechanisms in hotel businesses.

According to the results, it has been seen that managerial control mechanisms have turned into tools of exploitation and domination. When the worker steps into the workplace of the capitalist, exploitation begin by confiscating the surplus value (Marx, 1906). Taylorist control, which is established for efficiency and productivity, includes strict control to ensure maximum benefit from workers. The simple, technical, and bureaucratic tools in the hotels are proof of this. These mechanisms turn into instruments of domination by putting pressure on workers. One of the most striking examples of simple control is the supervisors’ arbitrary treatments. Managers’ arbitrary attitudes demonstrate the chaotic tendency of the Kafkaesque bureaucracy (Hodson et al., 2013). As technical control, one of the most remarkable is to observe with cameras. This can be defined as the final point that control has reached. Camera systems, which Edwards (1979) described as technical control almost resemble Bentham’s panopticon (Foucault, 1980), and hotel workers are always kept under the surveillance of the power. This is a tool that managers use to discipline workers. Thus, hotel workers’ bodies and emotions are taken under control, their works and behaviors are standardized. Because there are rules of the hotel industry, workers are forced to follow these rules. According to Bourdieu (1987), these specific rules can be expressed as doxa. In addition, each department in hotels corresponds to a micro-field. Each micro-field has its own dynamics. Workers are compelled to abide by the explicit and implied rules of these micro-fields (Çıvak, 2021).

Precarious, uncertain, and flexible forms of employment in hotels cause unemployment pressure on workers; thereby enabling workers to submit to domination and exploitation. Besides, consent mechanisms (Burawoy, 1979) cover up adverse working conditions and domination, enabling the workers to focus on more production. At this point, the collective resistance is prevented by instilling individualization, especially in the hotel workers. The worker of the month and monetary awards are important indicators of this. In addition, one of the important obstacles to collective resistance is the lack of an active mechanism to defend workers’ rights. The lack of state support for union activities and the workers’ ignorance of their legal rights are the biggest obstacles to collective resistance (Çıvak, 2021).

Academic Implications

The theorists who developed LPT (Braverman, 1998; Burawoy 1979; Edwards, 1979; Friedman 1977) detailed the control and consent mechanisms. Unemployment and insecurity are used to control hotel workers. Therefore, it can be used in LPT classification. In addition, labor process theorists define workers as proletariat, but in this study, tourism workers are considered as precariat. Because hotel workers are deprived of many rights including a long-term, stable, definite time job, union rights, and collective contracts. It can be stated that a new class came into existence after the policies practices by states in the axis of post-1970 neo-liberal policies. Policies performed in Turkey after 1980, parallel to the developments in the rest of the world, compose an important turning point in the precariation of workers. At this point, precariation can be interpreted as a new form of domination that will force workers to submit and accept exploitation (Bourdieu, 2017, p. 113).

Managerial Implications

The oppressive regime on the workers will eventually lead to resistance (Scott, 1992). Violent or non-violent, active, or passive resistance will disrupt the efficiency and productivity goals of businesses. Instead of the panopticon mechanism (Foucault, 1980), a democratic regime that has an open, transparent, accountable, participatory management should be introduced (Hodson et al., 2013). Otherwise, while workers present a theatrical presentation to the power in public space, they develop forms of resistance with hidden scenarios in the backside (Scott, 1992). As a matter of fact, studies on the relations of domination and resistance in hotel businesses show that there is resistance in hotels with an oppressive atmosphere (Çıvak, 2021; Efthymiou, 2010; Yıldırım, 2021). In addition, hotel businesses need to abandon flexible and uncertain forms of employment (Standing, 2017). Because workers who are dragged into the precariat class (Çelik & Erkuş-Öztürk, 2016; Çıvak, 2021; Lee et al., 2015; Yıldırım, 2021) will have to struggle with anxiety problems due to unemployment pressure. In addition to all this, giving the basic rights of the workers and abandoning the arbitrary practices in this regard will be important in getting rid of the daily worries of the workers and will enable them to concentrate on their work.

Limitations of the Study and Future Research

The basic limitations of this study are that the sample group only looks at Turkey for the research field. Despite this, it offers a provocative approach to the discussion of labor exploitation and domination practices based on labor process theory. However, the study contains recommendations for future research. Addressing the negative experiences and problems of hotel workers with a critical perspective will contribute to the literature. This study includes the criticism of managerial control mechanisms in the field of hospitality. Therefore, managerial mechanisms in other sub-fields of the tourism sector (food and beverage businesses, travel agencies, recreation businesses, etc.) can be discussed. Although these are sub-sectors of tourism, the labor process varies. We recommend that studies be conducted on the labor problems, power relations, and domination practices of individuals who remain in minority status in terms of ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation in different tourism destinations. Furthermore, the use of different research designs (phenomenology, ethnography, etc.) will contribute to the literature in research focused on domination and exploitation.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440221088850 – Supplemental material for A Critical Analysis of Managerial Control Mechanisms in Hotel Businesses

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440221088850 for A Critical Analysis of Managerial Control Mechanisms in Hotel Businesses by Barış Çıvak and Senem Besler in SAGE Open

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Barış Çıvak

References

Adler

(2007). The future of critical management studies: A paleo-Marxist critique of labour process theory, Organization Studies, 28(9), 1313–1345.

Alvesson

Bridgman

Willmott

(2009). The Oxford handbook of critical management studies. Oxford University Press.

Aykac

(2010). Tourism employment: Towards an integrated policy approach. Anatolia, 21(1), 11–27.

Baum

(1993). Human resource concerns in European tourism: Strategic response and the EC. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 12(1), 77–88.

Baum

(1999). Seasonality in tourism: Understanding the challenges: Introduction. Tourism Economics, 5(1), 5–8.

Baum

Hagen

(1999). Responses to seasonality: The experiences of peripheral destinations. International Journal of Tourism Research, 1(5), 299–312.

Beck

C. T.

(1993). Qualitative research: The evaluation of its credibility, fittingness, and auditability. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 15(2), 263–266.

Bianchi

R. V.

(2009). The ‘critical turn’in tourism studies: A radical critique. Tourism Geographies, 11(4), 484–504.

Bogdan

Biklen

S. K.

(1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Allyn and Bacon.

10.

Bourdieu

(1987). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.

11.

Bourdieu

(2000). Pascalian meditations. Stanford University Press.

12.

Bourdieu

(2017). Karşı ateşler-neoliberal istilaya karşı direnişe hizmet edecek sözler [Contre-feus - Words to serve the resistance against the neo-liberal invasion] ( S.

Canbolat

, Trans.). Sel Yayıncılık.

13.

Braverman

(1998). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. Monthly Review Press.

14.

Brien

(2004). The New Zealand hotel industry: Vacancies increase while applicant numbers and calibre decrease. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 5(1), 87–104.

15.

Burawoy

(1979). Manufacturing consent. The University of California Press.

16.

Burawoy

(1985). The politics of production: Factory regimes under capitalism and socialism. Verso Books.

17.

Çelik

Erkuş-Öztürk

(2016). Role of precariousness and space on class formation process: The case of Antalya’s tourism workers. Capital & Class, 40(3), 419–445.

18.

Chai

Scully

M. A.

(2019). It’s about distributing rather than sharing: Using labor process theory to probe the “sharing” economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(4), 943–960.

19.

Çıvak

(2021). Otel işletmelerinde emek sömürüsü, tahakküm ve direniş ilişkilerine dair niteliksel bir araştırma [A qualitative research on the relations of labor exploitation, domination and resistance in hotel businesses] [Doctoral Dissertation]. Anadolu University.

20.

Çıvak

Sezerel

(2018). Araştırma paradigmaları ve turizm yazını [Research paradigms and tourism literature]. Turizm Akademik Dergisi, 5(1), 1–14.

21.

Cooper

Fletcher

Fyall

Gilbert

Wanhill

(2005). Tourism principles and practice (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.

22.

Creswell

J. W.

(2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

23.

Crowley

Payne

Kennedy

(2020). Manufacturing discontent: The labor process, job ınsecurity and the making of “good” and “bad” workers. In Gorman

E. H.

Vallas

S. P.

(Eds.), Professional work: Knowledge, power and social ınequalities (pp. 221–247). Emerald Publishing Limited.

24.

Dardot

Laval

(2014). The new way of the world: On neoliberal society. Verso Trade.

25.

Davidson

Guilding

Timo

(2006). Employment, flexibility and labour market practices of domestic and MNC chain luxury hotels in Australia: Where has accountability gone? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(2), 193–210.

26.

Edwards

(1979), Contested terrain: The transformation of the workplace in the twentieth century. Basic Books Inc.

27.

Efthymiou

(2010). Workplace control and resistance from below: An ethnographic study in a Cypriot luxury hotel [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Leicester.

28.

Erköse

H. Y.

(2020). The battlefields of leisure: Simple forms of labor control in the Turkish hospitality sector. New Perspectives on Turkey, 63, 4–31.

29.

Foucault

(1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings ( Vintage

C. G.

(Ed.), pp. 1972–1977). Pantheon Books.

30.

Friedman

(1977). Industry and labour: Class struggles at work under monopoly capitalism. MacMillan.

31.

Gandini

(2019). Labour process theory and the gig economy. Human Relations, 72(6), 1039–1056.

32.

Genc

Kozak

M. A.

(2020). Emotional and social competence in the aestheticization of labor in the restaurant industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32, 1201–1225.

33.

Gill

(2014). Academics, cultural workers and critical labour studies. Journal of Cultural Economy, 7(1), 12–30.

34.

Glesne

(2013), Introduction to qualitative research ( A.

Ersoy

Yalçınoğlu

, Trans.). Anı Yayıncılık.

35.

Guerrier

Adib

A. S.

(2000). No, we don’t provide that service’: The harassment of hotel employees by customers. Work, employment and society, 14(4), 689–705.

36.

Hassard

Hogan

Rowlinson

(2001). From labor process theory to critical management studies. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 23(3), 339–362.

37.

Hochschild

A. R.

(1993). The managed heart: The commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.

38.

Hodson

Roscigno

V. J.

Martin

Lopez

S. H.

(2013). The ascension of Kafkaesque bureaucracy in private sector organizations. Human Relations, 66(9), 1249–1273.

39.

Hollinshead

(1999). Surveillance of the worlds of tourism: Foucault and the eye-of-power. Tourism Management, 20(1), 7–23.

40.

International Labour Organization. (2010). Developments and challenges in the hospitality and tourism sector. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_norm/—relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_166938.pdf

41.

Jolliffe

Farnsworth

(2003). Seasonality in tourism employment: Human resource challenges. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(6), 312–316.

42.

Kim

T. T.

Yoo

J. J. E.

Lee

Kim

(2012). Emotional intelligence and emotional labor acting strategies among frontline hotel employees. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(7), 1029–1046.

43.

Kiril

. (2020). Emek sürecinde cinsiyet olgusu: Antalya turizm sektörüne dair bir çözümleme [Gender in the labor process: An analysis on Antalya tourism sector] [Master’s dissertaion]. Pamukkale University.

44.

Kuhn

T. S.

(1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.

45.

Kusluvan

(2000). Perceptions and attitudes of undergraduate tourism students towards working in the tourism industry in Turkey. Tourism Management, 21(3), 251–269.

46.

Lee

Hampton

Jeyacheya

(2015). The political economy of precarious work in the tourism industry in small island developing states. Review of International Political Economy, 22(1), 194–223.

47.

(2014). Labor process and the social structure of accumulation in China. Review of Radical Political Economics, 46(4), 481–488.

48.

Marx

(1906). Capital. A critique of political economy. The Modern Library.

49.

Ministry of Labor and Social Security, (2020). İşkollarındaki işçi sayıları ve sendikaların üye sayılarına ilişkin 2020 ocak ayı istatistikleri hakkında tebliğ [Report on January 2020 statistics on the number of workers in business lines and the number of members of unions]. https://www.ailevecalisma.gov.tr/media/35790/2020-ocak.pdf

50.

Moore

(2017) The quantified self in precarity: Work, technology and what counts. Routledge.

51.

Neuman

W. L.

(2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Pearson.

52.

Patton

M. Q.

(1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. SAGE.

53.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative designs and data collection. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 143, 98.

54.

Patton

M. Q.

(2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. SAGE.

55.

Pizam

(1982). Tourism manpower: The state of the art. Journal of Travel research, 21(2), 5–9.

56.

Poulston

J. M.

(2009). Working conditions in hospitality: Employees’ views of the dissatisfactory hygiene factors. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 10(1), 23–43.

57.

Prasad

(2005). Crafting qualitative research: Working in the postpositivist traditions. ME Shape.

58.

Riley

R. W.

Love

L. L.

(2000). The state of qualitative tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(1), 164–187.

59.

Robinson

R. N.

Martins

Solnet

Baum

(2019). Sustaining precarity: Critically examining tourism and employment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(7), 1008–1025.

60.

Rowlinson

Hassard

(2001), Marxist political economy revolutionary politics, and labour process theory. International Studies of Management & Organization, 30(4), 85–111.

61.

Rubin

H. J.

Rubin

I. S.

(2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. SAGE Publications.

62.

Scott

(1992). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. Yale University Press.

63.

Smith

. (2015). Continuity and change in labor process analysis forty years after labor and monopoly capital. Labor Studies Journal, 40(3), 222–242.

64.

Standing

(2017). The precariat: The new dangerous class. Bloomsbury Academic.

65.

Tadajewski

Maclaran

Parsons

(2011). Key concepts in critical management studies. SAGE Publications.

66.

Tartanoğlu

. (2014). Çağrı merkezlerinde denetim-direniş ilişkileri bağlamında enformel örgütlenmenin koşulları ve sonuçları: Çağrı merkezi çalışanları derneği örneği [The conditions and consequences of informal organization in the context of control-resistance relations in call centres: The case of association of call centre workers] [Doctoral Dissertation]. Uludağ University.

67.

Taylor

F. W.

(1911), The principles of scientific management. Forgotton Books.

68.

Thompson

(2010). The Capitalist labour process: Concepts and connections. Capital&Class, 34(1), 7–14.

69.

Thompson

Smith

(2000). Follow the redbrick road: Reflections on pathways in and out of the labor process debate. International Studies of Management & Organization, 30(4), 40–67.

70.

Timmo

(1993). Employment relations and labour markets in the tourism and hospitality industry. International Journal of Employment Studies, 1(1), 33–50.

71.

Tsang

K. K.

Kwong

T. L.

(2017). Teachers’ emotions in the context of education reform: Labor process theory and social constructionism. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(6), 841–855.

72.

Tsaur

S. H.

Hsieh

H. Y.

(2020). The influence of aesthetic labor burden on work engagement in the hospitality industry: The moderating roles of employee attributes. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 45, 90–98.

73.

Tsaur

S. H.

Lin

W. R.

(2014). Hassles of tour leaders. Tourism Management, 45, 28–38.

74.

Tsoukas

(2007). Introduction to the forum on `the future of critical management studies: A paleo-Marxist view, Organization Studies, 28(9), 1309–1311.

75.

Warhurst

Nickson

(2007). Employee experience of aesthetic labour in retail and hospitality. Work, employment and society, 21(1), 103–120.

76.

Warhurst

Thompson

Nickson

(2009). Labor process theory: Putting the materialism back into the meaning of service work. In Korczynski

Macdonald

(Eds.), Service work (pp. 91–112). Routledge.

77.

Weiss

R. S.

(1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. Simon and Schuster.

78.

Wong

J. Y.

Wang

C. H.

(2009). Emotional labor of the tour leaders: An exploratory study. Tourism Management, 30(2), 249–259.

79.

Zhang

Liu

(2019). Labor control in the gig economy: Evidence from Uber in China. Journal of Industrial Relations, 61(4), 574–596.

80.

Yıldırım

Şimşek

(2013), Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences]. Seçkin Yayıncılık.

81.

Yıldırım

(2021). Tracing the consent, adaptation and resistance practices of an ‘unsustainable’ workforce: The governmentality of workplaces in tourism industry. Tourism Management, 84, 104260.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB