Abstract

Critics of the organization of industrial work under capitalism have ranged from the “human relations” school to socio‐technical systems theorists and, most vociferously, to advocates of labor process theory (LPT). Their practical influence on management was small as long as production was rolling on and profits rolling in. When competition intensified, however, employers started to question old ideas and, abetted by the needs of new computerized technology, began to broaden jobs, allow workers greater discretion in their performance and involve them in shop floor decision making. LPT, however, has not contributed to this evolution toward more satisfying work. This paper explains why this is so by exploring two major shortcomings of LPT. First and foremost is that LPT has ignored the efficiency of the work process, refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of a tradeoff between work “goodness” and productivity.As a result, LPT has been unable to propose economically viable alternatives to existing job design and work organization. Second, LPT has identified management's goal in organizing work as gaining control of the process, when, in fact, it has been to make the process as economically efficient as possible. Thus, LPT could not see that, under changed circumstances, management might decentralize control toward the shop floor, if that might promote efficiency. LPT's founder, Harry Braverman, and his disciples believed that it was impossible to reform work under capitalism, but experience shows otherwise.