Discussion of Sewell

Volume 12(5): 705–710 ISSN 1350–5084 Copyright © 2005 SAGE (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)

A Little Knowledge is Still a Dangerous Thing: Some Comments on the Indeterminacy of Graham Sewell

discussion

Paul Thompson University of Strathclyde, UK

Stephen Ackroyd Lancaster University, UK

Critiques of the over-optimistic claims of theories of the knowledge economy and management are increasing (Thompson et al., 2001; Brown and Hesketh, 2004; McKinlay, 2005) and it is always good to add another to the fold. Graham Sewell’s article in this issue makes a welcome interrogation of the rhetoric of empowerment and commitment associated with knowledge work and points to the persistence of control relations within the management of expert labour. The article rightly focuses on managerial attempts to codify and convert tacit knowledge as central to this process. On the other hand, as a contribution to the consideration of control in contemporary work, Sewell’s analysis is not very adequate from both an empirical and a conceptual point of view. Ostensibly, the conceptual route to this critique is through the ‘not completely exhausted’ resources of labour process theory (LPT), rescuing a focus on control and the indeterminacy of labour, then giving it a twist for the ‘knowledge age’. As contributors to LPT, we should in theory welcome this gallant rescue act but, as the old saying goes, with friends like this, who needs enemies? For, despite its avowed aim, the article does not assess the claims or analytical value of LPT. The only reference is to Braverman (1974), whose work is identified as ‘classical’ LPT and is described in a couple of sentences without direct reference to his work. No other contributions are referenced or discussed, despite, for example, eighteen volumes of papers from the book series associated with the Labour Process Conference. This is bad enough, but Sewell then goes on to produce a shallow misrepresentation of this ‘classical’ canon. He repeats on a number of occasions the argument that LPT is ‘preoccupied’ with the indeterminacy DOI: 10.1177/1350508405055944

http://org.sagepub.com

Organization 12(5) Discussion of physical labour and associates this with the separation of conception and execution, which is how capital seeks to close the gap between labour potential purchased and practised. The consequent ‘obsession with obedience’ and ‘mere bodies’ makes it difficult for LPT to deal with the problems of the appropriation of tacit knowledge in a contemporary economy. Indeed, the terrain has shifted so much that, Sewell argues, the indeterminacy of knowledge is a better concept than the indeterminacy of labour. There is a reason why none of these claims are documented by reference—they are not true. Nowhere in Braverman or leading LPT writers can you find a view that physical labour is the focal point for managerial practice. Summarizing first- and second-wave debates in The Nature of Work, Thompson noted that ‘the general picture built up in the assessment of changes in the labour process is that skill is based largely on knowledge, the unity of conception and execution, and the exercise of control by the workforce’ (1989: 92). Though Taylorism sought to appropriate the tacit knowledge of labour on behalf of management, it was never an uncontested or finished process. It is true that Braverman overestimated the efficacy of Taylorism in this respect, but this view has been so heavily critiqued within the body of LPT that we are surprised that Graham has failed to notice. Second-wave theorizing developed a rich conceptual vocabulary for recognizing the elements of creativity (Cressey and MacInnes 1980), resistance (Edwards, 1979; Friedman, 1977) and consent (Burawoy, 1979) in the labour process, and this has been extended in subsequent research programmes and theorizing, including our own focus on the growth of organizational misbehaviour (Ackroyd and Thompson, 1999). All this renders Sewell’s reference to obsessions with obedience, frankly, crass. Not only do we have a crude stereotype of LPT, but also it is clear that something very like this is present in Sewell’s own work. There are continual references to distinctions between work by head and hand, distinctions that incidentally reproduce the simplistic dichotomy, popular in knowledge economy discourse between the hard, physical nature of the old economy and the cerebral, symbolic characteristics of its supposed replacement. Hence, Sewell’s own analysis appears to be substantially trapped within a mind–body dualism that crudely separates physical labour and cognitive ability and in this respect is every bit as mechanistic as the supposed object of critique. This is implied in the notion that now work is mainly ‘knowledge work’, it is necessary to rethink entirely the strategies of managerial control. By contrast, LPT analysis assumes that even relatively routine work, whether in factory or white collar settings, is never simply ‘manual’ and requires knowledgeability.1 Struggles over the former can and should be treated as one dimension of the latter. Once the usefulness of the mind–body dichotomy is rejected, Sewell’s central argument—that the indeterminacy of knowledge has more utility than indeterminacy of labour—collapses.

706

Discussion of Sewell Paul Thompson and Stephen Ackroyd We are not arguing that there are no new conditions underlying the utilization of knowledge in work and therefore no new analytical challenges arising from the consideration of this kind of work. However, Sewell’s article gives us few clues to what the new challenges might be. One of the reasons for this is his basic (mis)understanding of the concept of indeterminacy of labour itself. This is indeed a central concept of LPT but, in Graham Sewell’s conception, it has been stripped of any context in capitalist political economy, and is presented as an abstract control imperative—a battle of wills between under-specified parties with zerosum outcomes. By contrast, LPT proceeds from the basis that market relations and competition between capitals provide the context in which the frontier of control is contested (see Thompson and Smith, 1998). This grounds the need for control in specific circumstances and allows the analysts to say a good deal about the context and character of the control policies that are introduced at any given place and time. Having ignored any need to specify the context, Sewell sets about rewriting this control imperative as a Foucauldian and voluntarist will to power.2 The increased salience of knowledge management is presented as part of an eternal struggle for dominance or access to tacit knowledge, or to resolve the perennial free-rider issue. Although there has always been a generic tension between control and creativity in the management of expert labour, we never really understand throughout Sewell’s article why knowledge management has become such an issue for firms. This requires, amongst other things, an explanation of the changing conditions of competitiveness, and the way that these have exhibited different features and effects in key sectors. Sewell appropriately refers in some detail to the work of McKinlay, but neglects his efforts to identify such factors. For example, in recent work, McKinlay summarizes current competitive pressures as ‘derived from the perpetual innovation demanded of products and services, the compression of product life cycles, and, as a result, the need to extract and mobilize more knowledge from expert labour, ever more rapidly . . . in the context of the instability of contemporary work organizations and daily routines, allied to corporate downsizing and restructuring’ (2005: 247). Despite occasional references to political economy, Sewell’s preference for post-structuralist theoretical resources leads to an overwhelming emphasis on discursive processes and therefore away from changing material contexts. However, without an account of the context, any changes of job requirements and the typical patterns of control regimes themselves remain substantially unexplained. But there are numerous avenues of fruitful research into knowledge work that LPT is being used to explore once the origin of control imperatives is acknowledged. We may only briefly mention three of them here because of limitations of space. First, there are questions concerning the characteristics of knowledge work emerging from economic, political and cultural change. Second, there are questions concerning the types of control practices or

707

Organization 12(5) Discussion combinations of control practices that are used in knowledge occupations and why they are used. Third, there are questions concerning agency— which managerial groups or other power holders are initiating new practices and what kinds of responses are emerging from knowledge workers themselves? Research suggests that there is great deal of variation in patterns of work organization and work control amongst knowledge-based occupations. We have already referred to McKinlay’s (2005) work that shows how scientifically-based expert labour combines an expanded emphasis on new ways of leveraging creativity through what some might call communities of practice, with more traditional forms of hierarchical accountability. In occupations such as that of corporate lawyer, accountants and business consultants, despite huge demand stimulated by corporate change, there remains a distinct preference for professional forms of work organization and, given the choice, the partnership as the appropriate legal structure. Public sector professionals in health and higher education have been made subject to more intensive output controls through audit mechanisms and co-ordination through general management. The newest sector most associated with changing forms of workplace governance—new media and cultural industries—have indeed shown a preference for looser, project-based forms with higher autonomy. However, as firms have grown and adjusted following the new economy ‘crash’ of 2000–1, such models are no longer sustainable (Pratt, 2005), there has been a process of concentration of capital, strengthening of financial controls (the ‘suits’) and a more structured division of labour between the conception, design and implementation work of occupations, such as web designers and software producers (Mayer-Ahuja and Wolf, 2005).

Conclusions In most settings, there are several discrete and hybrid control systems in operation, key elements showing much greater continuity with the past than post-struturalist commentators generally allow. Ultimately, the problem with this article is not the indeterminacy of labour or knowledge, but of the author. His article does have some useful critiques of the hollow claims of knowledge work and organizational learning theories and some helpful consideration of the tensions at the heart of knowledge management. But, for all the fine phraseology of new ‘modes of subjectification’, it actually tells us very little about why and how knowledge workers are controlled and even less about what LPT can contribute to such analyses. Ultimately, LPT concepts are utilized only as a ‘grammar or vocabulary’ for countering the optimistic claims of management theory, rather than as part of an analysis of the changing social relations in workplace and

708

Discussion of Sewell Paul Thompson and Stephen Ackroyd society. Graham, if you are determined to rewrite the indeterminacy of labour as ‘an exercise in normative configuration’, it might be better to stick to Foucault.

Notes Online readers: this is a discussion of Sewell (2005) in this issue. 1 This argument, articulated in Thompson et al. (2001) is acknowledged by Sewell, but does not appear to impact on his mind–body dualism, and is not recognized as a contribution from within LPT. 2 This is done partly in line with readings of a ‘postmodern Marx’. Sewell does make reference to ‘political economy’, but only in the context that ‘purports to show how embodied individuals can (or ought to) become useful and productive’.

References Ackroyd, S. and Thompson, P. (1999) Organizational Misbehaviour. London: Sage. Burawoy, M. (1979) Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process under Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Braverman, H. (1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press. Brown, P. and Hesketh, A. (2004) The Mismanagement of Talent: Employability and Jobs in the Knowledge Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cressey, P. and MacInnes, J. (1980) ‘Voting for Ford: Industrial Democracy and the Control of Labour’, Capital and Class 11: 5–33. Edwards, R. (1979) Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century. London: Heinemann. Friedman, A. (1977) Industry and Labour: Class Struggle at Work under Monopoly Capitalism. London: Macmillan. McKinlay, A. (2005) ‘Knowledge Management’, in S. Ackroyd, R. Batt, P. Thompson and P. Tolbert (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Work and Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pratt, A. (2005) ‘New Media: Work Organisation and Place’, paper presented at the International Labour Process Conference, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, March 2005. Mayer-Ahuja, N. and Wolf, H. (2005) ‘Beyond the Hype: Working with the Internet’, Critical Sociology, in press. Sewell, G. (2005) ‘Nice Work? Rethinking Managerial Control in an Era of Knowledge Work’, Organization 12(5): 685–704. Thompson, P. (1989) The Nature of Work: An Introduction to Debates on the Labour Process, 2nd edn. London: Macmillan. Thompson, P. and Smith, C. (1998) ‘Beyond the Capitalist Labour Process: Workplace Change, the State and Globalisation’, Critical Sociology 24(3): 193–215. Thompson, P., Warhurst, C. and Callaghan, G. (2001) ‘Ignorant Theory and Knowledgeable Workers: Interrogating the Connections Between Knowledge, Skills and Services’, Journal of Management Studies 38(7): 923–42.

709

Organization 12(5) Discussion Paul Thompson is Professor of Organisational Analysis, Department of Human Resources and Vice Dean (Research), Business School, University of Strathclyde, Strathclyde, G1 1XT, UK. [email:[email protected]] Stephen Ackroyd is Professor of Organisational Analysis in the Department of Organisation, Work and Technology of Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YX, UK. [email: [email protected]]

710