Dimensions of Work 9780803920064, 0803920067, 9780803923973, 080392397X

Citation preview

Dimensions of

WORK

Dimensions of

WORK Richatd H. Hall

SAGE P U B LICATIO N S Beverly Hills London New Delhi

Copyright © 1986 by Sage Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

For information address: SAGE Publications, Inc. 275 South Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, California 90212

SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd. M-32 Market Greater Kailash I New Delhi 110 048 India

SAGE Publications Ltd 28 Banner Street London EC1Y 8QE England

Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hall, Richard H., 1934Dimensions of work.

Includes index. 1. Work. I. Title. HD4904.H32 1985 ISBN 0-8039-2397-X

Third Printing

306'.3685-11925

ftfie.2i70

Contents

Preface 1. The Nature of Work 2. Forms of Work 3. The Individual Dimension

7 9 39

4. The Horizontal Dimension

91 129

5. The Vertical Dimension 6. The Gender Dimension 7. The Age Dimension

153 191 233

8. The Racial and Ethnic Dimension

251 271

9. The Organizational Dimension 10. The Power Dimension 11. The Institutional Dimension

297 315

Name Index

337

Subject Index

347

About the Author

351

•I

I

Preface The analysis of work has always been at the core of sociology. The giants of our intellectual past—Weber, Marx, Durkheim—made work a pivotal point in their analyses. So it is in the present: Work remains central to our understanding of social order and social dynamics. The present volume represents an attempt both to bring the researchbased literature on work together and to extend this literature. The need for such an attempt has become evident to me over the past five years I have served as editor of Work and Occupations: An International Sociological Journal—also published by Sage Publications. My editori­ al responsibilities have led me to the conclusion that there is a clear need for the literature on work to be brought together, integrated, and interpreted—these are the purposes of this particular piece of work. Several colleagues—Glenna Spitze, Russ Ward, and especially Mari­ an Kostecki—provided useful suggestions for several of the chapters, but the product remains my own output. My editors at Sage Publications have been supportive throughout this project. My colleagues in the Department of Sociology have also been very supportive. Joan Cipperly has been invaluable as an editorial assistant. Finally, I would like to thank my family for understanding the sometimes delicate work-family relationship.

—Richard H. Hall Albany, New York

7

THE NA TURE OF WORK What is work? The purpose of this first chapter is to consider what work is and what it is not. As will be seen shortly, work is often a part of many things we do not consider in our casual, contemporary, everyday concep­ tualizations of work. Let me begin by considering a topic that most people would find almost the antithesis of work: skiing—downhill or alpine skiing, to be exact. To skiers and nonskiers alike, skiing would appear to be a form of recreation, whether thought of in terms of danger, hedonism, cold, aprks ski partying, or whatever. I love to ski and in fact think of it as the second best thing in the world, but at times I also think of skiing as work. Here the analysis gets a little more complicated. I am a member of the National Ski Patrol System, Incorporated, of the United States. Ski patrollers are the people who help injured skiers and try to prevent injuries. When I am ski patrolling, I am not paid, although there are paid ski patrollers, particularly at the larger ski areas. At the same time, when—and this is really quite infrequent—I help to bring an accident victim down the mountain on an icy day, it feels like work. I am obliged to be “on duty” certain days and evenings of the week. I also wear a uniform, to set me apart from “civilians” not on the ski patrol. Although the work is volunteer in nature, there is even some slight financial remuneration, as I receive a lift ticket for the next ski season for every time I patrol in this ski season. This ticket can be used by anyone whom I invite to ski. There are other aspects of this activity that resemble the more typical examples of work that come to mind. One of the most obvious is that there is a rather complex division of labor at even the relatively small mountain where I work. There is a ski area management team, fellow workers who are ski instructors (interestingly, at most ski areas, there is some rivalry between instructors and patrollers), lift attendants, snow makers, groomers, cafeteria help, bartenders, ski shop sales personnel, and other workers. There are aspects of patrolling that are completely enjoyable, but there are other aspects that are less enjoyable and that I try to avoid. There are days when I just don’t feel like going to the mountain, and other days when I am eager to get there. There are

10

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

coworkers who are delightful and others who are bores. There are extrinsic and intrinsic satisfactions and dissatisfactions. Being a ski patroller also provides me with a certain status and prestige among skiers (this status and prestige has little or no meaning outside of skiing—a point that is essentially the reverse of the relations among work, status, and prestige in more regular forms of work). As in “regular” work, ski patrolling contains some anomalies that are part of the culture of the work. We are constantly reminded that we are to act “professionally” when carrying out our duties, but no one has really defined “professionally” for us. The hierarchy of authority is sometimes vague and confusing, because there are some patrollers who have more skills than others who hold positions as officers. There are also those who move up through the ranks very quickly and who are on some sort of fast track to the top. Is this achieved through ability or some form of favoritism? This type of analysis could be extended, but the point should be clear. There are many kinds of activities that do not appear to be work when first considered, but that really contain elements found in more typical work situations. The most obvious and common example of work that is often not thought of as work—and that is not counted as work in many official government and scholarly research documents—is housework. As will be demonstrated later, housework has all the essential elements of most other work, except that it is usually not rewarded directly by financial payment. This is despite the fact, of course, that housework has important and high economic value. Thus far, I have purposely avoided defining work. My purpose has been to indicate what some of the dimensions of work are, without going into a great deal of detail. The purpose of this entire book is to examine the dimensions of work. I will try to demonstrate that the dimensions are overlapping, intersecting, and interdependent. For example, the dimen­ sions of age, gender, and race and ethnicity are clear components of any worker or work setting. So too are the horizontal and vertical dimen­ sions of work that will be specified in detail at a later point. The point is not to build a deductive theory of the nature of work, as Blau (1977) has attempted in regard to the social structure. The intent here is to describe and analyze the dimensions of work in different ways and with different emphases from those that have been employed in the past. The first step is to define the nature of work. This is easier said than done, however, because the idea of work is intertwined with a set of other concepts, such as occupation and employment. In the next sec­ tion, I will attempt to develop definitions that can be used throughout this book. In discussing and developing definitions, the multifaceted and complex nature of work will become clear.

The Nature o f Work

11

DEFINITIONS AND M EANINGS In 1973, a report of the Special Task Force to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (Work in America) was published. This report was a response to perceived problems regarding work, such as “bluecollar blues,” “white-collar woes,” “managerial discontent,” problems of young workers and minority workers, issues surrounding women and work, and older workers and retirement. Although this publication was a response to problems, it also triggered a series of popular and scholarly responses to the nature and consequences of contemporary work. The authors of this report began by noting that, all too frequently, work is defined in terms of common measures used to count workers: We measure that which we can measure, and this often means that a rich and complex phenomenon is reduced to one dimension, which then becomes prominent and eclipses the other dimensions. This is particularly true of “work,” which is often defined as “paid employment.” The defini­ tion conforms with one readily measurable aspect of work but utterly ignores its profound personal and social aspects and often leads to a distorted view of society. Using housework as an example, we can see the absurdity of defining work as “paid employment.” A housewife, according to this definition, does not work. But if a husband must replace her services—with a housekeeper, cook, baby sitter—these replacements become workers, and the husband has added to the Gross National Product the many thou­ sands of dollars the replacements are paid. It is, therefore, an inconsis­ tency of our definition of work that leads us to say that a woman who cares for her own children is not working, but if she takes a job looking after the children of others, she is working [Special Task Force, 1973:2-3].

The authors then go on to state that equating work with pay has the unfortunate consequence of implying something about the worth of individuals based on the amount of pay received for work. To get around these problems the Task Force (1973: 3) finally defined work as “an activity that produces something of value for other people.” This sort of definition has several advantages. In the case of house­ work, it does not matter whether the person for whom an individual is working is a spouse or a nonrelative (it is interesting to note that the 1973 report assumed that housework was done by wives only). This definition also encompasses volunteer work, because it too produces something of value. A broader definition of work is provided by Fox and Hesse-Biber (1984: 2), who define work as “any activity, or expenditure of energy, that produces services and products of value to other people.” This

12

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

definition has the advantage of introducing the concept of services into the nature of work. As will be seen in detail later in this book, the provisions of services, rather than products, has become a central component of contemporary work. In any event, as Strauss (1985) has pointed out, work involves a complex array of activities conducted over time and in constant interaction with others. There are other factors that should be included in a comprehensive definition of work. Parker and Smith (1976: 41) consider work in the following terms: To the individual in a modem industrial society, work is usually identified with the means of earning a living. In simpler societies, the relationship between work and such basic necessities as food, clothing, and shelter is a direct one for the individual or a comparatively small group; they con­ sume only what they are able to produce. The evolution of society through various forms of social production and ownership of property progressive­ ly breaks down the direct link between individual productive effort and consumption of goods and services. Hard physical labor is less and less required as machines take over more of the tasks of production. Fewer people are needed to produce the necessities of life, and the goods and services of what are sometimes called the “leisure industries” account for an increasing proportion of total production and employment. It will be noted that we have already used, besides the term work itself, four of its synonyms: production, effort, labor, and employment. Some­ times the adjective productive precedes work, but a highly literal interpre­ tation ofproductive is misleading, since the effort to produce something is work, irrespective of whether a product is the result, and the rendering of services, no less than the production of goods, requires work. The distinc­ tion between the terms work, labor, and employment is even more impor­ tant. Only the last of these terms implies a social relationship, although it is sometimes used in the same nonsocial sense as work, for example, when we say that someone is self-employed. The most common form of employ­ ment consists of an employer (individual or corporate body) hiring the working abilities of an employee during set hours. For the employee, these set hours are equivalent of working time, and it is relatively easy for him to distinguish this from nonworking time, a part or the whole of which may be defined as leisure time. Two other concepts of work and labor. . . have to do with activity rather than time. Both are often equated with employment, but while it is true that all employment implies work of some kind, the reverse is not necessar­ ily so. Employment is work in the narrow sense of income-producing activity, but work has a wider biological and physiological meaning of purposeful and sustained action. Whereas employment may be contrast­ ed with idleness or with work that is economically unremunerative or

The Nature o f Work

13

disinterested, work in its broadest meaning is the opposite of rest [reprint­ ed by permission].

This rather lengthy definitional development has introduced several implications of note. At a later point, I will return to the notion of employment and still later to the historical changes that are noted. The first important implication has to do with the idea that work is purpose­ ful and sustained action. For our purposes here it matters not where the source of the purpose lies—within the individual in some form of intrinsic or extrinsic motivation, or outside the individual in some form of job description or other prescription for action. The key factor here is that work is an activity; it is not rest. In order to complete this line of thought, it is necessary to consider other activities, as Parker and Smith (1976) do. Without going into a great deal of detail, one can identify work-related time, such as that spent grooming oneself for work or traveling to and from work. There are also activities that fall between the cracks of work, leisure, and rest. For example, if I am reading the newspaper at home and come across an article that would be useful for my teaching or research, is this leisure or work? When I cut out the article and take it to my office, this is a work-related activity. This is admittedly a gray area. Equally gray are those times when I am “at work” and drift off into daydreaming about some leisure activity. These points become less sticky when we reconsider other aspects of the definitions that have been considered, such as the provision of goods and services. Work involves those activities associated with the provi­ sion of goods and services of some value. This is not my final definition, however. There is another strong tradition within sociology that is concerned with the meanings people attach to their activities. Miller (1981) provides an excellent contempo­ rary statement of this position. This approach stresses the fact that what people define as reality is based on continuing personal negotiation (social interaction) as they continually define and redefine their own realities. A complete definition of work therefore requires a considera­ tion of the fact that work is what we define it to be. Work is thus a socially constructed phenomenon as well as an objective activity. Based on all these considerations, the definition of work that will form the basis for the rest of this analysis can now be stated. Work is the effort or activity o f an individual performedfor the purpose ofprovid­ ing goods or services o f value to others; it is also considered to be work by the individual so involved. This is an admittedly cumbersome definition, but it does contain those elements identified as important components of work from a

14

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

number of different perspectives. In modern societies, of course, most work is paid or labor-market work and is performed within the setting of an occupation. I will now turn to a consideration of these closely related concepts.

OCCUPATION In an earlier analysis, I noted that “work will be considered the activity performed in the occupational role” (Hall, 1975:5). Although it is overly simplistic in light of the present analysis, this statement does reflect an important aspect of the nature of occupations, namely, the concept of role. Individuals behave in accordance with a set of expecta­ tions—or a “role concept”—in their interaction with other people—an important component of work. The nature of occupation has been defined in a number of ways. Salz (1944:424) states: “Occupation may be defined as that specific activity with a market value which an individual continually pursues for the purpose of obtaining a steady flow of income. This activity also deter­ mines the social position of the individual.” This kind of definition, with its emphasis on continuity and income, is too limited for the purposes of this discussion, but it does emphasize the relationship between occupa­ tion and social position. In fact, occupation is a major source of identity for most people, as one’s occupation is a primary identifying characteristic. One of the most common questions people ask one another when they first meet is “What do you do?” Anyone asking this question does not seek information about a person’s personal habits, but rather about his or her occupation. The answer to the question can take a variety of self-revealing forms. Contrast, for example, the differ­ ence in meanings attached to the alternative responses “I am a physi­ cian” to “I am just a housewife.” Each response contains a wealth of information. The idea of occupation implies social relationships. Everett Hughes, a dominant figure in the analysis of work and occupations, notes: “An occupation, in essence, is not some particular set of activities; it is part of an individual in any ongoing set of activities. The system may be large or small, simple or complex” (Hughes, 1965:445). Hughes emphasizes the social and not the economic side of occupations. Another aspect is emphasized by Roe (1956: 3), who states that an occupation is “whatever an adult spends most of his time doing.. . . the major focus of a person’s activities and usually of his thoughts.” Although we might quibble with the gender identification, the introduc­

The Nature o f Work

15

tion of the idea of adulthood is interesting, because we do, in fact, think of occupations in terms of adults, rather than of children or teenagers. Indeed, as will be seen in the chapter on the age dimension of work, youthful employment has few of the characteristics commonly associat­ ed with occupations. Based on these considerations, in an earlier work I defined an occupa­ tion as “the social role performed by adult members of society that directly and/or indirectly yields social and financial consequences and that constitutes a major focus in the life of an adult” (Hall, 1975:6). Note that this definition is much more limited than that of work presented above. A very similar approach is taken by Fox and Hesse-Biber (1984: 2) when they note that “an occupation is the particular work activity—and social role—that an adult assumes on a regular basis.” The focus of the analysis presented in this book must quite obviously include the notion of occupation, but will also include work that is not commonly thought of solely in terms of occupation, such as “chores” or housework— mowing the lawn, fixing the plumbing, or doing the dishes. The key aspect of the concept of occupation is that it is an identifiable social role that has meanings for both the incumbent and others who interact with that individual. Most of the analysis in this book will focus on work in occupations.

THE LABOR FORCE AN D LABOR M ARK ETS I now turn to another set of closely related concepts that have both precise and controversial meanings. The precision comes in terms of the definition of the labor force. As Tausky (1984: 54-55) states: As defined by the Department of Labor, the labor force includes people sixteen years of age and older who had a particular relationship to work during a specified week: (1) employed or self-employed persons who received pay for full- or part-time work, or who worked at least fifteen hours as unpaid workers in a family business; (2) people who had jobs from which they were absent due to illness, vacation, or strikes; (3) unemployed persons who looked for work during the last four weeks by answering advertisements, checking with friends, writing letters of appli­ cation; and (4) people waiting to be called back to jobs when business picks up, or waiting to start a new job within thirty days. These, then, are the people who are counted in the labor force. As mentioned, if some other rules of classification were used, perhaps includ­ ing housewives or “discouraged” persons who have given up looking for

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

16

TABLE 1.1

Labor Force Participation Rates, 1880-1982 (in percentages)

1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1970 1980 1982

Total Noninstitutional Population, 16 Years or Older (in thousands)

Total Participation Rate

Men

Women

36,762 47,950 82,739 100,147 124,517 139,130 169,886 174,020

47 50 50 53 56 59 64 64

79 80 78 79 79 78 79 77

15 19 21 25 35 42 52 53

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census (1975: 127-128); U.S. Department of Labor (1982: 7-8).

work, the entire labor force would appear larger, and one component of it, the unemployed, would certainly be greater. Be this as it may, “official” labor force data generated by monthly surveys, and once every ten years by the census, provide much useful information, as long as it is kept in mind that the numbers represent specific involvements in the world of work through employment or availability for employment.

This specification, although specific to the United States, is common to most labor force definitions and measurement worldwide. Before moving to a consideration of the related, but more complex, idea of labor markets, let us look at some of the information available about the labor force in the United States, as defined above. The first important point to note about the labor force is that it is growing. Table 1.1 indicates this pattern of growth. The growth is occurring both in terms of absolute numbers and in terms of the propor­ tion of the adult population employed. Two factors contribute to this growth. The first is simply the growth in population size. The second and more interesting factor is the greater labor force participation rate among women. The reasons for this increase in labor force participation rate will be discussed in detail later, but it is important to note here that the participation rate has increased for both married and single women. It is also interesting that the participation rate among married women with children has increased dramatically, as Table 1.2 reveals. Note that these “official” definitions and measurements of the labor force and labor force participation are not benign. As Burawoy (1983) points out, definitions of who is and is not employed and the policies associated with dealing with unemployment have a great deal to do with

The Nature o f Work

17

TABLE 1.2

Married Women’s Labor Force Participation and Children, 1960-1980 (in percentages) Presence and Age o f Children

Wives’ Labor Force Participation Rates 1960 1980

Children under 6 years Children 6 to 18 years No children under 18 years

19 39 35

45 62 46

All wives

31

50

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census (1981: 388).

the source and distribution of workers available for employment, as well as the source and distribution of various forms of unemployment benefits. For the most part, the labor force is a creation of governmental measures of labor force participation. What constitutes the labor force is defined by government. Labor force composition is based upon the categories that governmental units, such as the U.S. Department of Labor or the U.S. Bureau of the Census, so define. This has the potential to create confusion. For example, in most definitions of occupation given above, the notion was limited to adults. However, definitions of the labor force include persons over 16 years of age who are in some way connected to labor. Without arguing whether 16-year-olds are adults, it is clear that the 16-year-old workers at a fast-food restaurant have a different relationship to their work from that of adults who have similar jobs and are the sole sources of support for themselves or their families. The type of labor force definitions used by government agencies also has the real potential to underestimate the participation of some groups in society. Boulding (1980), for example, notes that women are seriously undercounted as part of the agricultural labor force. In a limited study of farm wives in three states, she found that the vast majority of the wives engaged in activities such as driving tractors, caring for kitchen gardens, bookkeeping, and feeding cattle. Rosenfeld’s (forthcoming) analysis from a larger data set largely confirms Boulding’s conclusions. If there is labor force participation, then there is also nonparticipa­ tion, or unemployment. Unemployment is typically viewed asfrictional or structural (Tausky, 1984: 63). Frictional unemployment refers to situations in which people are temporarily out of work while changing jobs or seeking new jobs. Economists believe that an unemployment rate of approximately 3% is unavoidable and normal. In recent years, the unemployment rate has been double or triple the 3% figure. It is well

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

18

TABLE 1.3

Unemployment Rates and Selected Characteristics, 1982 Percentage Unemployed Race, Sex, and Age white, total men: 20 years and over 16 to 19 years women: 20 years and over 16 to 19 years black, total men: 20 years and over 16 to 19 years women: 20 years and over 16 to 19 years

8.1 7.6 21.6 6.7 18.8 17.8 16.8 48.5 14.1 44.0

Education less than high school high school completed college: 1 to 3 years 4 or more years

12.4 8.5 6.2 3.0

Family Status married men, spouse present married women, spouse present women who head families Occupation total white collar professional and technical managers and officials clerical workers sales workers total blue collar foreman and skilled workers semiskilled workers laborers service workers farm workers

6.0 7.8 11.5 4.4 2.7 3.2 6.5 5.3 13.9 9.9 15.3 19.3 10.4 6.0

Type of Workers full-time workers part-time workers

9.2 10.9

Industry goods-producing service-producing

11.4 6.9

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor (1982: 13, 17-18, 2 2 ,2 5 , 32). All data are for April 1982, except education, which shows March 1982 data reported in U.S. Depart­ ment of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, News (August 10, 1982).

documented that unemployment affects different categories of people in various ways. Table 1.3 clearly documents this. Quite obviously, minority group members, the less educated, the young, and blue-collar workers bear the brunt of unemployment, much

The Nature o f Work

19

of which is the structural type to be considered below. At the same time, it must be recognized that frictional unemployment is the result of decisions made within employing organizations. These organizations have what are known as “internal labor markets.” Cornfield (1983) provides an interesting analysis of this process. He notes that economic theories of layoffs are human-capital explanations. They stress the idea that individuals possess human capital in the form of training and experience. Those with more such human capital would, theoretically, be the least likely to be laid off. For the organization, from such a perspective, the time invested is a sunk cost of value to the organization. More highly trained individuals are more difficult to replace. There is thus the supposition that layoffs will take place in a reverse order of seniority—last hired, first fired. Cornfield approaches the matter differently. He suggests that organi­ zational decision making does not really involve individuals, but jobs. When demand for a product decreases, jobs dealing directly with produc­ tion are the most vulnerable. In production jobs, the repetitive manual jobs are even more vulnerable. These are most likely to be subject to layoff and to technological change. However, organizational reorganiza­ tion can place another category of jobs at risk. Jobs that are redundant due to reorganization, such as clerical work, some professional staff positions, and some managerial and administrative positions, could also be highly vulnerable in these situations. Cornfield’s analysis reveals yet another set of variables that have an impact on unemployment. Unions stress the use of universalistic crite­ ria, such as seniority in the layoff process. Nonunion workers are potentially more subject to particularistic criteria, such as personal compatibility. Frictional unemployment is thus the consequence of decisions made within employing organizations. Exactly who is laid off will depend upon the source of the pressure on the organization. Low product or service demand has consequences different from those of reorganiza­ tion. The presence or absence of unions will also affect patterns of layoff. This rather dispassionate approach to frictional unemployment not­ withstanding, the fact remains that the disadvantaged are most at risk in the vast majority of organizational decisions regarding layoff. In later chapters the problems faced by the young, women, and minority group members will be examined in detail. The distinction between frictional and structural unemployment is seemingly quite simple. Tausky (1984: 65) notes: Structural unemployment is more ominous. It refers to long term or permanent unemployment brought about by technological change or

20

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

decline in an industry, leaving some people unable to find work because their skills are not needed. Older workers are especially vulnerable, since they may find it difficult to learn new skills or move to another communi­ ty. Steel, automobiles, furniture, textiles, and railroads are industries that have structural unemployment.

Structural unemployment is ominous indeed, but it is a more com­ plex phenomenon than Tausky suggests. For example, what might appear to be frictional unemployment can actually be structurally based. Consider, for example, the situation described by Portes and Walton (1981: 189): Changing patterns of employment in core countries like the United States cannot be understood from a domestic perspective, most contemporary and parochial sociology notwithstanding. It is not the mixed blessing of progress and postindustrialism that explains the plight of the unemployed electronics worker making ends meet by part-time work in a fast-food franchise. It is instead the long chain of circumstances that link this person to the Taiwanese or Mexican assembly plant w orker. . . through the mechanism of international capitalist development.

Structural unemployment, then, is based on more than just the decline of an industry or technological change, although these are certainly important factors. As capitalist or noncapitalist enterprises seek cheaper or less organized labor, structural unemployment results. This is most strikingly evident in the international situation described by Portes and Walton, where American firms move their production facili­ ties to locations with surplus and inexpensive labor that is not union­ ized. The same consequences result domestically when enterprises move from the Frostbelt to the Sunbelt, with the same motivations as in the international situation. There are other factors to be considered in structural unemployment. Just as was the case in terms of frictional unemployment, organizational decisions, or in some cases nondecisions, can create situations leading to structural unemployment. In the case of the American automobile manufacturers, which have lost a large portion of their share of the market to foreign auto makers, part of the explanation is labor costs. Another part of the explanation, however, lies in organizational pat­ terns that existed among the American auto makers. McNeill and Miller (1980) have documented the manner in which American auto makers did not respond in a timely fashion to the threat of foreign imports. The U.S. firms utilized a short-term accounting system, with a heavy empha­ sis on cost control. This involved an immediate financial return on sales, service, and warranty work. The continued adherence to this form of

The Nature o f Work

21

accounting blinded the industry to the longer-term ramifications of the era ahead, according to McNeill and Miller. Interestingly, this particu­ lar accounting system was a response to earlier environmental pressure on the firms. Another source of structural unemployment is consumer preferences. Using automobiles again as an example, consumers’shifting preferences to smaller cars was, in part, a response to rising petroleum costs and factors associated with perceived quality of the product, but also reflect­ ed consumer preferences, as in the case of the phenomenal early success of the Volkswagen “bug.” The effect here seemed to be a form of reverse snob appeal. Structural unemployment thus has multiple sources. The dominant source is the move by organizations to reduce costs by locating less expensive labor, and through technological change in the form of mecha­ nization, automation, and computerization. There is currently a major debate in regard to the motivation behind these technological changes. The major thrust of the debate is whether these changes are sought for the purposes of controlling the workers or for technological efficiency. We will confront the issues in this debate at a later point. The critical matter here is the consequences of structural unemploy­ ment. Kasarda (1983) captures well a dominant consequence in his analysis of entry-level jobs and migration. He notes that cities in the United States were the destination of waves of European immigrants, southern whites and southern blacks, and rural northerners displaced by changes in the agricultural system. Life for the immigrants was not easy: To be sure, short-term social costs accompanied the longer-term equili­ brating and economic upgrading functions that migration filled. Mi­ grants frequently had to pull up deep community roots, alter their life­ styles, and leave close friends and relatives behind. On arriving at their urban destinations, they were often greeted with scorn and prejudice by other groups that had preceded them to the city. Moreover, despite substantial job expansion occurring at their urban destination, obtaining employment was not easy. Overt discrimination often confronted the new arrivals (for instance the sign that read “No Irish Need Apply”), and when a job was secured it typically entailed long hours under unpleasant (sometimes hazardous) conditions at exploitatively low wages. The fact is, however, that our cities offered growing numbers of jobs. Moreover, until well into this century, the gap between skill requirements for urban employment and skills possessed by disadvantaged migrants was minimal. This afforded immigrants access into the mainstream econo­ my (albeit to the bottom rungs of the socioeconomic ladder), while overall

22

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

growth in city economics created numerous opportunities for social mobil­ ity [Kasarda, 1983: 22].

Unfortunately, dramatic changes have occurred. Modern shifts in transportation, communication, and technology, interacting with na­ tional and international organizational developments, have led to a situation in which there are serious entry-level deficits in the number of jobs available, particularly for disadvantaged residents in older, larger cities. These cities have shifted from goods producing to information processing, with growing education and skill requirements. Since World War II, the older, larger cities have experienced rapid growth in minority resident groups—the new migrants. Because of their educational and skill backgrounds, they are poorly suited for the whitecollar information-processing jobs that are now entry-level positions and that have partially replaced losses in the goods-producing sectors. The figures that document these conclusions are startling. New York City, for example, gained more than 650,000jobs in its information-processing industries between 1953 and 1980. In the same period, it lost approximately 525,000jobs in its manufacturing and construction indus­ tries. The same pattern has been documented for Philadelphia and Boston. In the decade between 1970 and 1980, employment in informa­ tion-processing industries continued to expand, while employment in blue-collar service industries, such as car washes and domestic services, declined considerably. Another way of approaching this is to note, as Kasarda (1983: 25) does, that “in 1953 50% of Philadelphia’s private sector employment was in manufacturing and construction.. . . By 1980, employment in these predominantly blue-collar industries had dropped to 27% of private sector employment in Philadelphia.” Kasarda then goes on to document the structural nature of the unemployment resulting from these shifts. Documentation comes in the form of the educational requirements for entry-level positions. Stated simply, there has been a significant decline in the number of entry-level positions requiring fewer than twelve years of education, while there has been an increase in entry-level jobs requiring fourteen years of education (two years of college). Central-city minority group members are unlikely to have the educational backgrounds required for entry-level positions. This is particularly true in areas outside of the western United States. In the West, although male minority group members still have less educa­ tion than white males, in 1982 more black males had at least one year of college than the number that did not complete high school (Kasarda, 1983: 30).

The Nature o f Work

23

The consequence of all this is a strikingly high level of unemployment and nonparticipation in the labor force. There are large differences between the proportions of whites and blacks who are unemployed and those who are not in the labor force. As in the case of frictional unemployment, it is the people who are disadvantaged on other grounds who are most adversely affected by structural unemployment. Structural unemployment is a major social problem. It is exacerbated by technological change and development. The most striking aspect of structural unemployment is that it appears to be inevitable and irrevers­ ible. Capitalist and noncapitalist enterprises both seek cheaper labor. Technological developments continue apace (for example, the manu­ script for this book was prepared on a word processor, removing the need for secretarial assistance). Massive changes in the educational system might eliminate the inequities among social groups. On the other hand, more education could also contribute to the phenomenon of underemployment, the topic to be discussed next.

UNDEREMPLOYMENT/DESKILLING “Underemployment” has several connotations. Montagna (1977) uses the term to refer to those individuals who suffer intermittent unemployment, those in part-time work who want full-time work, per­ sons working for less than the minimum wage, and persons not counted in the labor force. For purposes of this analysis, this approach mixes too many diverse phenomena. The term “underemployment” will be used to refer to those situations in which people are working in positions for which their qualifications, such as level of education and degree of experience, exceed the job’s demands. In Chapter 3 the discussion will turn to how individuals respond to situations in which they are underemployed. Underemployment can be a consequence of discrimination on the basis of gender, race and ethnicity, age, or another such factor. This form of underemployment will be considered in later chapters. Another source of underemployment is the changing skill levels required of workers. One of the basic and enduring debates in the sociology of work surrounds the issue of skill upgrading or downgrading. Simply put, the debate is whether or not technological change and organizational deci­ sion making have resulted in demands for more or fewer skills on the part of workers.

24

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Probably the best-known proponent of the deskilling or skill degrada­ tion argument is Braverman (1974; for additional arguments from this perspective, see Burawoy, 1979; Clawson, 1980; Heydebrand, 1977; Marglin, 1974). Braverman attempted to show how the capitalist class and management increased their control over workers by altering the production process. The key to this effort was lessening workers’knowl­ edge of the production process. Management was able to do this by promoting the design and development of machinery that would carry out production functions that had once been performed by skilled workers. Work was divided and subdivided into ever simpler and more routine tasks. Taylor’s (1911) vision of scientific management was ful­ filled. According to Braverman, management achieved hegemony over workers as part of the capitalist relations to production. Skill degrada­ tion meant control of the worker. Edwards (1979) approaches this issue in a slightly different manner, tracing the development of technical and bureaucratic control of the work place. His analysis is based on the idea that decisions are driven by the desire for ever greater profits. Control of the worker has shifted from interpersonal relations in the form of exhortation or threats to technical control in the form of the assembly line and bureaucratic control. Bureaucratic control is “embedded in the social and organizational structure of the firm and is built into job categories, work rules, promo­ tion procedures, discipline, wage scales, definitions or responsibilities, and the like” (Edwards, 1979: 131). Worker control can take even subtler forms. In his analysis of work at the Polaroid Corporation, Edwards (1979: 145) notes: The positive incentives, the relief from capricious supervision, the right to appeal grievances and bid for better jobs, the additional job security of seniority—all these make the day-to-day worklife of Polaroid employees more pleasant. They function as an elaborate system of bribes, and like all successful bribes, they are attractive. But, they are also corrupting. They push workers to pursue their self-interest in a narrow way as individuals, and they stifle the impulse to struggle collectively for those same self-inter­ ests. All this elaboration of job titles, rules, procedures, rights, and responsibilities is, of course, neither accidental nor benevolent on Polar­ oid’s part; it is simply a better way to do business. There is no union at Polaroid, despite several attempts to form one.

In Edwards’s view, then, control of the worker for increased profits drives organizations to devise plans and procedures wherein workers do not act collectively for greater control over their work. Braverman and Edwards both argue that the deskilling process is a major component of the control of the worker.

The Nature o f Work

25

The major thrust of the Braverman-Edwards type of argument is directed toward factory work. There is a strong argument that deskilling is also an important feature of office work. The demand for clerical workers and the introduction of the typewriter at the beginning of the twentieth century were critical events in bringing women to work in offices—in “pink-collar” occupations or the “secretarial ghetto” (Benet, 1972). Today, offices are larger and more automated than in the past. Office work is increasingly routinized and repetitive (Glenn and Feldberg, 1977)—“proletarianized” in these authors’ terms. It is interesting to note that Form and McMillen f 1983: 156-157) found that disproportionately more men than women operate machines that permit them to move about, machines that they can move, machines that per­ form multiple operations, and machines that can be humanly controlled. If work alienation results from machine restriction of work control, as most authors contend (Braverman, 1974), then the image of the alienated worker should probably be a woman rather than a man.

This same study found that women also used machines, in general, more than men. It is interesting to note that they also found the aliena­ tion level was, in fact, lower than authors such as Braverman would have predicted. Such evidence will be considered in greater detail in Chapter 3. The deskilling-underemployment idea is not limited to industrial or office workers. Burawoy (1976) argues that for migrant farm workers in California and for South African mine workers, there are political and legal constraints that make assimilation and acculturation impossible. These workers are prevented from moving into mainstream lines of work. The research discussed here so far has largely been in support of the deskilling or skill degradation hypothesis. The evidence these writers have used has come mostly from historical evidence or limited observa­ tions found in case studies. The studies also take a “power perspective” approach to these changes, arguing that management’s motivation is worker control, rather than technological efficiency. Evidence to the contrary, however, is quite compelling. Form (1981) has examined the actual skill distributions for a 100-year period, and reports: I attempted to reconstruct the skill distributions of U.S. manual workers for 1870-1970---- The most striking trend is the slow rise in male skilled workers since 1900 and the rapid decline of unskilled labor. For women, the percentage of skilled, operatives, and laborers has remained stable, but service occupations have increased as domestic workers declined. Since the occupational classification is relatively consistent for this peri­

26

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

od, we can conclude that, contrary to received wisdom, skilled work has not declined for over seventy years. Braverman (1974) insists that semi­ skilled work, which has increased, is not more complex than unskilled labor. If he is correct, the important distinction is between skilled and all other manual labor. The evidence still points to no change over seventy years. To sustain his position, Braverman must prove that today’s skilled workers are less skilled than they used to be. His attempt is not convincing [p. 149].

Form then goes on to examine office work and concludes that office work today is actually more complex than in the past, when the work involved copying records by hand. He concludes his analysis by noting that a recent study (Mueller et a l, 1969) of the ways in which people respond to their machines “confirms what many sociologists do not want to believe, that the large majority of people working with ma­ chines, even those who have little control over them, like their machines and are satisfied with their work. This finding suggests that the alleged link between the spread of machine technology, work routinization, and worker alienation may be a myth waiting to be exposed” (Form, 1981: 155). Kenneth Spenner (1979, 1983) has taken another approach to this issue. In both studies he posits that there are actually three hypotheses in regard to the content of work. The downgrading hypothesis has been the focus here and involves the idea that technology is an instrument of capitalist production that lowers skills, particularly in white-collar work. The upgrading hypothesis, on the other hand, suggests that work is becoming more complex, with less close supervision and greater independence, and that work is requiring more education. Finally, there is the hypothesis of no change, which suggests that some work is down­ graded and other work is upgraded, with the balance yielding no change. In his 1979 work, Spenner concludes that levels of work with data, people, and things have become more complex over the past ten to fifteen years. He also concludes that the overall level of complexity has been upgraded slightly and the number of jobs upgraded has exceeded the number of jobs downgraded (he also notes that the evidence here is not strong). Spenner’s 1983 analysis is more complex. He suggests that testing the three hypotheses requires an analysis of the composition of the labor force. When this is done, some anomalies are revealed. For example, he notes that the occupation of engineer has been somewhat downgraded over time, but that there are many more engineers now than in the past. The occupation in this case is downgraded, but the labor force is upgraded as more people are involved in this more complex kind of

The Nature o f Work

27

work. He notes further that the focus in the upgrading-downgrading controversy must be on the basis of jobs people actually have and not on the basis of their personal qualifications. Massive public education does not mean that the labor force has been upgraded unless the actual jobs people have are also upgraded. Spenner’s 1983 evidence is consistent with his earlier findings, but in 1983 he adds the component of autono­ my and control. This involves whether there is more or less room for a worker to initiate and conclude actions and to control the content, manner, and speed with which a task is done. His findings here suggest that there are more hints of downgrading in terms of autonomy than in terms of complexity. In any event, he does not find massive downgrad­ ing or upgrading. The downgrading-upgrading-no change debate is not settled. In Chapter 3 the ways in which people respond to their work will be examined in detail. In Chapter 4 national and international patterns of the ways people are distributed into various forms of work will be delved into further. It can be concluded that the debate regarding underemploy­ ment and deskilling cannot be resolved with the evidence currently available. There is clear evidence that the amount of unskilled work has sharply decreased, and that organizations do in fact attempt to routinize work to make the work process more predictable. A complete analysis of contemporary work must include historical and comparative analy­ ses of work, and this is what will now be examined briefly.

WORK IN IT S HISTORICAL AND COMPARATIVE CONTEXTS There are many analyses of the history of work. For the sake of brevity, I will follow Tausky (1984; his work contains extensive docu­ mentation of the conclusions quoted below. For another excellent sum­ mary, see Berg, 1979). Tausky concludes: Within a few millenia after hunter-gatherer nomads settled in villages and planted crops, cities arose. About 5,000 years ago in Sumeria and Egypt, kings, nobles, priests, professional armies, and tax-paying peasants were firmly in place. The division of society into rulers and ruled occurred swiftly when agriculture provided the surplus food needed to support urban, administrative centers. From then until well into the 1800’s, the privileged classes, often hereditary, would feel dishonored by performing work other than administration or combat [Reproduced by permission of the publisher, F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., Itasca, Illinois. From Curt

28

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Tausky, Work and Society, copyright 1984, p. 27; subsequent material quoted from this work also appears by permission of the publisher.].

Tausky then goes on to trace the history of work through the Greek and Roman eras, the Middle Ages, and up to the point of the Industrial Revolution. Throughout this long period of time, work basically was divided between serfs/peasants and the wealthy and powerful, aseminal historical fact central to Marx (1967) and his followers. The Industrial Revolution was a true revolution. International rela­ tionships were altered to the extent that we still experience the repurcussions of the development of the industrial order. Again, following Tausky (1984:4M2): England was the homeland of the Industrial Revolution. There, by 1800, the centralized factory was creating the pattern for making goods in greater quantities and more cheaply than ever before. Putting-out could not compete against factories’ steam-powered machines and elaborate division of labor. Transportation also benefited from steam power. The steam-driven loco­ motive transported people and goods swiftly and economically. The development of railroads, canals, and paved roads reduced the isolation of England’s rural areas, facilitated commerce between regions, and made feeding large urban populations possible. Enclosures and dwindling income from putting-out, and the hope for employment in factories, attracted people to cities. When possible, the whole family worked; often, however, the women and children were hired. Cities grew very rapidly, with newcomers crowded into cellars and garrets. Sanitation consisted of the outside privy for all but the grandest houses. In the early 1800’s, wages were low and conditions of life harsh. Gradual­ ly, however, incomes rose and conditions improved. Before the century ended, the middle layers of society had thickened, child labor had nearly been eliminated, unions had become legal, and working men were allowed to vote. By the early 1900’s employers were liable for industrial accidents, a national pension system was in place, and unemployment insurance had come into being. In the span of a hundred years, England was trans­ formed from an agricultural to an industrial society.

In the United States, events roughly paralleled those in England, with industrialization stimulated by the Civil War. Large and complex orga­ nizations grew as competitors were consolidated through horizontal integration and sources of supply and outlets were acquired (Tausky, 1984:53). Union power was late in developing in the United States—the mid-1930s. At the same time, government became a much more active participant in the economy.

The Nature o f Work

29

According to many analysts, we have now moved into the postindus­ trial era (Bell, 1973; Touraine, 1971). Bell’s analysis contains several elements that have already been noted. We have entered an era in which the provision of services has come to dominate the production of goods. Bell also argues that the professional-technical class has become preemi­ nent. According to Bell, current and future developments will be guided by theory rather than by discovery. The Industrial Revolution was based on the important discoveries of steam power, the conversion of iron to steel, and the ability to communicate over long distances by telephone and radio. Postindustrial developments such as computers, lasers, and aerospace technology are guided by abstract theoretical principles. This permits a higher level of planning, with intuition re­ placed by algorithmic problem solving (Bell, 1973: 33). Whether or not we are in the sort of postindustrial era that Bell formulates remains an open, and hotly debated, issue. Heydebrand (1983), for example, argues that the contemporary era is one of “techno­ cratic corporatism,” in which long-term strategies and planning are frequently victims of short-term crises or short-term demands for profits or decisions. There is strong debate in regard to whether or not the professional-technical occupations actually form a class and, if they do or do not, whom they serve. This debate will be addressed at a later point. The important issue here is not whether or not we are in a postindustri­ al era, but that work continues to take new forms. These new forms are “added onto” existing forms. Agricultural work did not disappear with industrialization. Industrial work still exists, but it is less at the core of society. Work has changed through the ages. Materially, workers are better off now than during the serf/peasant or early industrial eras. At the same time, of course, there are workers at the “periphery” of the labor force for whom conditions are little different than they were during some of the more dismal times of the past. The analysis will now shift to a consideration of labor markets.

LABOR M ARKETS In this section I will introduce the concept of labor markets. Here the points to be made are rather elementary, with more detailed analyses to be developed in Chapters 4 and 5 .1 will begin with a consideration of what is called neoclassical economic theory. Montagna (1977: 65-66) provides a good summary of this approach. He states that the basic principle is that the labor market is shaped by economic motivation,

30

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

with people rationally pursuing their own interests in a competitive and fluid market. Workers make investments in their “human capital” through education, training, and experience. Employers adjust their recruitment patterns and wages to achieve maximal efficiency in productivity. This approach is based on an assumption of perfect competition: There is a single labor market in which all workers and all employers interact, with the laws of supply and demand governing levels of wages and productivity. However, economists began to question the assump­ tion of a single labor market. One of the major first steps in this direction was Doeringer and Piore’s (1971) identification of “internal” and “exter­ nal” labor markets. Internal labor markets exist at the level of the individual firm or government agency, which has its own rules and procedures governing personnel policies. The external labor market is composed of all other workers not in a particular organization. Once a person is hired by an organization, he or she is then a part of the internal labor market of that organization. From this type of conceptualization, we can see that upward vertical mobility would be possible only for those already in the organization. Obviously, organizational rules could be used to exclude members of certain groups, such as minority group members, women, or workers over a certain age. A great deal of current research focuses on the internal labor market (see S0rensen, 1983, for a summary of this research). It is now well recognized that firms have different practices in terms of such important issues as pay scales, promo­ tional opportunities, and the like. It is also recognized that organization­ al differences may be partially accounted for by factors such as the industry in which the organization is operating. There is a second important contemporary approach to labor mar­ kets. It is now recognized that the overall labor market can be divided into two sectors. One sector is the core, monopoly, or primary labor market and the other is the periphery, competitive, or secondary labor market. These terms are not strictly interchangeable, but for the pur­ poses of this analysis they will be used as roughly comparable. The core labor market is characterized by stable employment, rela­ tively high wages and salaries, and workers protected by rules of tenure or seniority. The periphery, on the other hand, is seen as one in which jobs tend to be low-paying, with poorer working conditions, little chance for advancement, a highly personalized relationship between workers and supervisors which leaves wide latitude for favoritism and is conducive to harsh and capricious discipline; and with considerable instability in jobs and a high turnover among the labor force [Piore, 1972: 3].

The Nature o f Work

31

There are complex variations on this theme that will not be consid­ ered at this point in the analysis. The purpose here has been to complete the picture of the definitions and meanings of work. From our original efforts to define work, we have moved through considerations of the nature of the labor force, forms of employment and unemployment, the issue of deskilling and underemployment, and now a brief consideration of labor markets. As can be seen in this preliminary development, the nature of work is highly complex.

WORK A CTIVITIES In this section I will examine the range of activities that constitute work. This seems simple at first. Work, after all, is defined in terms of activity involved in the provision of goods and services. Thus the typist typing, the teacher teaching, the assembly-line worker assembling, and the administrator administering all come to mind as people participat­ ing in work activities. Unfortunately, the situation is not that simple. For example, Gronn (1983) points out that school administrators spend much of their time talking and that this talking accomplishes administration. Talk is used to tighten or loosen administrative control. This finding is similar to that of Mintzberg (1979) and Kurke and Aldrich (1979), who found that managers, in this case chief executive officers, spent most of their time in intense verbal communication. These researchers found that manage­ ment work could also be characterized by its brevity, variety, and fragmentation. The picture of management work is one of short and intense verbal interactions over a wide range of subjects. Interestingly, the managers observed in these studies spent very little time in direct supervision. These findings are related to another aspect of work activities. Most work involves a constant dynamic of negotiation and renegotiation among people and work organizations. Rothman (1979) found that the form and content of occupational roles, or work, is emergent and dynamic. It reflects the outcome of interaction among complex social, political, and economic networks. This approach reflects the realization that as people perform work in a wide variety of settings, their interac­ tion patterns are not benign. People attempt to protect and, at times, extend their arenas of action or “turfs.” One of the classic studies of the manner in which workers attempt to control the outcomes of their efforts through negotiation is Whyte’s

32

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

(1946) analysis of waitresses. The restaurant industry is unique in that it is both a production and service organization, with a rather unpredict­ able market. The waitress is under pressure from customers who want food and drink according to their individual specifications. At the same time, the waitress is dependent upon the customers for tips—a major source of income. She must also interact with people working in the rest of the organization, such as those in the pantry, the cooks, the bartend­ ers, and other waitresses. It is interesting to note that the other workers have a great deal of power over the waitress, because if they withhold their products and services, it is the waitress who suffers the rage of the customer over cold soup and warm salad. The real problem for the waitress, however, is the customers. Waitresses must take the initiative and control the interaction with customers. This way, the waitress can move at the pace she sets, rather than being controlled by the customer. A key issue here is the extent of autonomy that a worker or set of workers experiences. Stewart and Cantor (1974, 1982) have examined autonomy in work in terms of its social and cultural, organizational, occupational, and client contexts. Stewart and Cantor (1974:17) consid­ er autonomy to be “whatever discretion is held by occupational groups and roles after other sources of control have operated.” It is thus possible to conceptualize work in terms of varying levels of autonomy. In some forms of work, individuals have a great deal of control over their work activities, and in other cases their actions are almost entirely prescribed by some other control source. The most easily recognized example of the latter is the case in which individuals are almost complete­ ly controlled by the organization in which they work. Job descriptions can be specified in exacting detail, with literally no discretion given to the individual worker. This point will be developed further in Chapter 9. In terms of work activities, the issue here is that work varies in the extent to which individual workers are expected to and do utilize their own initiatives in carrying out their work. There is a continuum between complete discretion on the one hand and being completely controlled on the other. There are work activities that do not fit within traditional conceptual­ izations of work. Miller (1981:134-135) has provided a useful analysis of these under the title of “hustling” and “countercultural” work: Hustling for a living, then, is pervasive in modern society, and many different people and activities are included in this category. The most basic feature of workers who hustle for a living is that they do not have full-time conventional jobs; rather they seek their livings in other ways. Sometimes they may work at low-paying, temporary jobs, but at other times they may do any number of other things to earn income. It is because hustlers do unconventional work that they are typically left out of

The Nature o f Work

33

official accounts of modem work and that outsiders often stress the immorality of their activities. For hustlers, however, a more important factor than their unconventionality is the uncertain nature of their work. They must be alert at all times to opportunities for making a living found in their environments. As a result, their histories reflect frequent job changes, and outsiders often describe them as unstable.

According to Miller, hustling work takes many forms, some of which are relegated to the “nonwork” category in official statistics regarding the labor force. Women prostitutes, for example, often refer to them­ selves as “working girls” (Miller, 1981:133). The moralistic evaluation of prostitution obscures the work aspect of this activity, as it does the work of drug dealers, other racketeers, strippers, thieves, and other persons engaged in crime and deviance, according to Miller. Miller also notes that persons such as welfare or social security recipients and other unemployed persons frequently engage in activities to supplement their income. Thus begging and scavenging are forms of work activities from this perspective. There are still other work activities that can be placed in the category of hustling work. Linder (1983), for example, notes that construction workers turn to self-employment during hard economic times. They attempt to find work outside of paid employment. Yet another example of hustling-type activity is part-time farming (Wimberley, 1983). Parttime farming may be a way into or out of full-time farming, but for the part-timer it is a work activity in addition to other employment. Simpson and Simpson (1983: ix) approach the type of work we are discussing as “peripheral work and workers.” Their use of the term “peripheral” is meant to indicate that this work takes place in the peripheral, rather than the core, labor market. Simpson and Simpson include (1) part-time, seasonal, and moonlighting work; (2) work that is peripheral to the main economy, such as hustling, gambling, and sweat­ shop work; and (3) workers who are outside the normal labor force, such as children, the elderly, and undocumented aliens in their approach to peripheral work. In this analysis the major point is that hustling or peripheral work constitutes work activities for the individuals involved. It might not be counted in official statistics, but it is real for the participants. The final form of work activity to be considered here is countercultur­ al work (Miller, 1981). This is work performed in groups that reject contemporary values and practices, to some extent, and adopt an alter­ native perspective. Examples of countercultural groups are the Israeli kibbutz and the Hare Krishna movement. Countercultural work can involve strong norms of equality of rewards, the fusion of work and leisure activities, and the rejection of traditional notions of careers.

34

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Although work in countercultural groups is not traditional, it is work based on the definitions and distinctions that have been presented here. There is obviously no single form of work activity. The purpose of this section has been to indicate the wide array of activities that consti­ tute work. The discussion now turns to a preliminary consideration of the dimensions of work.

THE DIMENSIONS OF WORK In this section I will introduce the topics that represent the balance of the analysis to be carried out in this book. Before doing so, however, I want to point out what this analysis, unfortunately, cannot do. As noted earlier, Blau (1977) has attempted to develop a theory of the social structure based on a “series of propositions deducible from a parsimoni­ ous set of assumptions and axioms. These propositions deal with a broad range of structural relationships, including the interrelationships between occupational structures and other components of societies” (Messner, 1980: 396). In his attempt to test Blau’s approach, Messner (1980: 421) concludes: In short, we arrive at the rather dismal conclusion that propositions about occupational differentiation in advanced industrial societies must be regarded as untested. The tools at the disposal of the structural analyst are presently inadequate for empirical examination of this problem. Empiri­ cal inquiry must await the construction of an occupational classification which is sociologically meaningful; i.e., which consists of categories coinci­ dental with social positions.

Blau (1980) considers Messner’s conclusion too dismal, but does agree that improved data sources and research procedures are needed. Blau believes that the best data available should be used to test proposi­ tions such as his. One of the major purposes of this analysis is to specify and elaborate on the dimensions of work in hopes that this will contrib­ ute to the development of testable propositions concerning, as well as simply increased understanding of, the phenomena of work. The next chapter, “Forms of Work,” will provide an overview of the types of work traditionally identified in texts dealing with work and occupations. Thus the analysis will include the professions, managerial and professional occupations, white-collar work, skilled blue-collar work, semiskilled blue-collar work, and unskilled work. Housework will also be considered in Chapter 2.

The Nature o f Work

35

The third chapter is concerned with the individual dimensions of work, including work motivation and the meanings people attach to work. The chapter will also include analyses of work commitment, work centrality, and work satisfaction and alienation. The fourth chapter deals with the horizontal dimension of work—the division of labor. Much of the analysis here will be based on the dimensions of work that are currently being considered based on the Dictionary o f Occupational Titles. The idea of occupational situs will be reintroduced into the analysis. This chapter will also contain a more complete consideration of labor market sectors. This will lead into the discussion of the vertical dimension of work. Chapter 5, on the vertical dimension, deals with the topic that has dominated research on the sociology of work, and indeed sociology itself, in recent years (Hall, 1983). The basic relationship between work and social status will first be considered. The chapter will then deal with the voluminous literature on status and income attainment, including considerations of individual or human capital and labor market factors. In Chapter 6, the analysis turns to a consideration of gender and work. Here the main focus will be on status and income attainment, as that is where the bulk of the literature has focused. The related issues of labor markets, career patterns, and promotions will also receive attention. The chapter will include an analysis of the changing patterns of discrimination. The focus shifts to the age dimension in Chapter 7. Much of the literature deals with age and retirement, but in this chapter the focus will be on the life cycle, beginning with materials on youths and work. The analysis will then move to the transition to adulthood, followed by careers and the life cycle. Chapter 8 deals with the racial and ethnic dimension of work. The coverage will be similar to that of Chapter 6 on gender. It will not be identical, however, given important historical differences. Chapter 9 is a consideration of the organizational dimension of work. The chapter contains two thrusts. The first will examine the role of organizations in status and income attainment and labor market segmentation. It will also include recent materials on organizations and the horizontal dimension of work. The second thrust will be a consideration of organizations and the immediate setting of work. Here the discussion will focus on the organizational potentials and imped­ iments to changing the nature of work, such as job redesign, improving the quality of working life, and worker participation alternatives. Chapter 10 is based on the power dimension of work. The chapter will begin with a consideration of worker control. It will then focus on issues

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

36

such as work place democracy and employee ownership. The final topic will be the labor movement, labor unions, and labor-management relationships from the perspective of alterations in power relationships created by worker organization. The final chapter deals with the social or institutional dimension of work. Here the linkages among work and family, education, migration patterns, and health and safety will be considered. The chapter, and the book, will conclude with a consideration of the role of public policy in regard to work. This will include issues such as taxation, training, employment service, regulatory practices, and the control of work. There is an important, even critical, dimension missing from this list of topics—the economic dimension. This is intentional. The purpose is not to deny the importance of economic considerations in regard to work, but rather to emphasize the social. As will be evident, economic considerations make up a major component of each dimension to be considered. The set of dimensions that have been identified here are viewed as intersecting, but not yet mathematically specified, dimensions. They are not intended to be mutually exclusive. REFERENCES Bell, Daniel (1973) The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. New York: Basic Books. Benet, Mary K. (1972) The Secretarial Ghetto. New York: McGraw-Hill. Berg, Ivar (1979) Industrial Sociology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Blau, Peter M. (1977) Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure. New York: Free Press. -------- (1980) “Comments on issues raised by Messner’s research.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 7 (November): 425-430. Boulding, Elice (1980) “The labor of U.S. farm women: a knowledge gap.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 7 (August): 261-290. Braverman, Harry (1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press. Burawoy, Michael (1976) “The functions and reproduction of migrant labor: comparative material from South Africa and the United States.” American Journal of Sociology 81 (March): 1051-1087. -------- (1979) Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process Under Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. -------- (1983) “Between the labor process and the state: the changing face of factory regimes under advanced capitalism.” American Sociological Review 48 (October): 587-605. Clawson, Dan (1980) Bureaucracy and the Labor Process. New York: Monthly Review Press.

The Nature o f Work

37

Cornfield, Daniel B. (1983) “Chances of layoff in a corporation: a case study.” Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (December): 503-520. Doeringer, Peter B. and Michael J. Piore (1971) Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. Edwards, Richard (1979) Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Work Place in the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books. Form, William (1981) “Resolving ideological issues on the division of labor,” in Hubert M. Blalock, Jr. (ed.) Theory and Research in Sociology. New York: Free Press. -------- and David Byron McMillen (1983) “Women, men, and machines.” Work and Occupations 10 (May): 147-178. Fox, Mary Frank and Sharlene Hesse-Biber (1984) Women at Work. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Glenn, Evelyn and Rosalyn Feldberg (1977) “Degraded and deskilled: the proletarian­ ization of clerical work.” Social Problems 25 (July): 52-64. Gronn, Peter C. (1983) “Talk as the work: the accomplishment of school administration.” Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (March): 1-21. Hall, Richard H. (1975) Occupations and the Social Structure. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. -------- (1983) “Theoretical trends in the sociology of occupations. ” Sociological Quarterly 24 (Winter): 5-24. Heydebrand, Wolf (1977) “Organizational contradictions in public bureaucracies: toward a Marxian theory of organizations.” Sociological Quarterly 18 (Winter): 83-107. -------- (1983) “Technocratic corporatism: toward a theory of occupational and organi­ zational transformation,” in Richard H. Hall and Robert E. Quinn (eds.) Organi­ zational Theory and Public Policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hughes, Everett C. (1965) “The study of occupation,” in R. K. Merton et al. (eds.) Sociology Today. New York: Harper & Row. Kasarda, John D. (1983) “Entry-level jobs, mobility, and urban minority unemployment.” Urban Affairs Quarterly 19 (September): 21-40. Kurke, Lance B. and Howard E. Aldrich (1979) “Mintzberg was right! A replication and extension of The Nature o f Managerial W ork” Cornell University, New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, (unpublished) Linder, Marc (1983) “Self-employment as a cyclical escape from unemployment: a case study of the construction industry during the postwar period,” in Ida Harper Simpson and Richard L. Simpson (eds.) Research in the Sociology of Work: A Research Annual. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Marglin, Stephen A. (1974) “What do bosses do? The origins and functions of hierarchy in capitalist production.” Review of Radical Political Economics 6 (Summer): 60-112. Marx, Karl (1967) Capital, Vol. 1 (Frederick Engels, ed.). New York: International. (Originally published in 1867) McNeill, Kenneth and Richard E. Miller (1980) “The profitability of consumer protection: warranty policy in the auto industry.” Administrative Science Quarterly 22 (September): 407-427. Messner, Steven F. (1980) “Blau’s theory of occupational differentiation: problems in empirical examination.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 7 (November): 39S-424. Miller, Gale (1981) It’s a Living: Work in Modern Society. New York: St Martin’s. Mintzberg, Henry (1979) The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper & Row. Montagna, Paul D. (1977) Occupations and Society: Toward a Sociology of the Labor Market. New York: John Wiley.

38

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Mueller. Eva, with Judith Hybels, Jay Schmiedeskamp, John Sonquist, and Charles Staelin (1969) Technological Advance in an Expanding Economy. Ann Arbor, MI: Braun-Brumfield. Parker, Stanley A. and Michael A. Smith (1976) “Work and leisure,” in Robert Dubin (ed.) Handbook of Work, Organization, and Society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Piore, Michael B. (1972) “Notes for a theory of labor market stratification.” Working paper no. 95. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Economics. Portes, Alejandro and John Walton (1981) Labor, Class, and the International System. New York: Academic. Roe, Anne (1956) The Psychology of Occupations. New York: John Wiley. Rosenfeld, Rachel A. (forthcoming) “U.S. farm women: their part in farm work and decision-making.” Work and Occupations. Rothman, Robert A. (1979) “Occupational roles: power and negotiation in the division of labor.” Sociological Quarterly 20 (Autumn): 495-515. Salz, Arthur (1944) “Occupations: theory and history.” Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences XI. New York: Macmillan. Simpson, Ida Harper and Richard L. Simpson [eds.] (1983) Research in the Sociology of Work: A Research Annual. Greenwich, CT: JAI. S0rensen, Aage B. (1983) “Sociological Research on the labor market: conceptual and methodological issues.” Work and Occupations 10 (August): 261-287. Special Task Force to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1973) Work in America. Cambridge: MIT Press. Spenner, Kenneth I. (1979) “Temporal change in work content.” American Sociological Review 44 (December): 968-975. -------- (1983) “Deciphering Prometheus: temporal change in the skill level of work.” American Sociological Review 48 (December): 824-837. Stewart, Phyllis L. and Muriel G. Cantor [eds.] (1974) Varieties of Work Experience. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman. -------- [eds.] (1982) Varieties of Work. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Strauss, Anselm (1985) “Work and the division of labor.” Sociological Quarterly 26 (Spring): 1-19. Tausky, Curt (1984) Work and Society: An Introduction to Industrial Sociology. Itasca, IL: Peacock. Taylor, Frederick W. (1911) Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper & Row. Touraine, Alain (1971) The Post-Industrial Society: Tomorrow’s Social History: Classes, Conflicts and Culture in the Programmed Society. New York: Random House. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1975) Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970. Bicentennial ed., part 2. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. -------- (1982) Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1981. Washington, DC: Govern­ ment Printing Office. U.S. Department of Labor (1982) Employment and Earnings, 29. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Whyte, William Foote (1946) “When workers and customers meet,” in William Foote Whyte (ed.) Industry and Society. New York: McGraw-Hill. Wimberly, Ronald C. (1983) “The emergence of part-time farming as a social form of agriculture,” in Ida Harper Simpson and Richard L. Simpson (eds.) Research in the Sociology of Work: A Research Annual. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

-

2

-

FORMS OF WORK “Unskilled work,” “executive work,” “white-collar work, " “professional work”—these are familiar and meaningful terms to most of us. They represent rather common understandings about differences in forms of work. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the various forms of work in terms of the distinctions that are commonly made in the sociology of work and occupations (for example, see Hall, 1975; Mon­ tagna, 1977; Ritzer, 1977) and in governmental statistics such as those developed by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the U.S. Department of Labor. Before turning to specific forms of work, it should be made clear at the outset that modern work is organizational work. In another context, I note: In contemporary society almost all work is organizational work. [There has been] a rapid decline in self-employment. While agricultural employ­ ment has remained relatively constant, the proportion of the labor force in agriculture has declined dramatically. Moreover, agricultural employ­ ment is increasingly organizational in form, as agribusiness becomes more and more dominant. Work is carried out in organizations. It is also carried out in large organi­ zations. . . . About 5 percent of the organizations account for about 60 percent of the employment. Even more startling is the fact that 3/10 of 1 percent of all organizations employ over 25 percent of the workers. Since most organizations are small, they do not account for much employment [Hall, 1982:4].

Not only is work organizationally based, but it is also based within an industrial/economic context. Singelmanand Browning (1980) note that the decline in agricultural work and the growth of services have contrib­ uted to the growth of high-status occupations, such as professions and management. They further suggest that changes within an industry will also have an impact on the occupational composition of the industry. For example, the decline in farm ownership, as a form of work, has been paralleled by a growth in professional and clerical work, due to the development of agribusiness. As a side issue, Singelman and Browning 39

40

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

also suggest that industrial shifts will diminish, thus also diminishing the development of new structural opportunities for new forms of work. Whether or not this is the case will be proved only by time. This emphasis on the organizational and industrial base of work is contrary to the approach taken by other analysts. For example, Freidson (1973) boldly pronounces that modern work will be guided increas­ ingly by an “occupational principle,” as opposed to an “administrative principle.” Basing his argument on the growth of the professions, Freidson suggested that work is increasingly formulated, controlled, and evaluated by workers, rather than by administrative personnel. Freidson’s image is one of increasing professionalization of the labor force, coupled with a decline of administrative authority. This image, how­ ever, appears to be inaccurate. In an insightful analysis of the medical profession, Starr (1982) has shown that physicians were, in fact, able to develop enormous power and wealth in the health care industry, only to see the power base severely threatened now by the development of health care conglomerates. Although he does not use the term, Starr essentially believes that the administrative or organizational principle is again dominant, at least in the health care area. The approach taken here is that organizational and industrial charac­ teristics are the dominant shapers of the form and content of contempo­ rary work. At the same time, there are important variations in the degree of autonomy found in various forms of work. Some work, such as housework and some individualized professional practice, is carried out virtually free of direct organizational constraints. Most work, however, is carried out in the confines of an organizational setting.

PROFESSIONAL WORK Until very recently, almost half of the articles published about work dealt with the professions (Smigel, 1954; Smigel et al., 1963). My own recent analysis reveals a decline and almost a disappearance of articles on the professions and professionalization (Hall, 1983). Although this shift in emphasis is interesting in its own right, from a sociology of knowledge perspective it is also indicative of where the literature on the professions has moved in recent years. The literature on professional work can quite literally be divided into two phases. The first phase, which corresponds in time to the period when a great deal was being written about professional work, focuses primarily on specifying the attributes of the professions. Various “mod­

Forms o f Work

41

els” of the professions were presented, criticized, and sometimes tested empirically. The second phase of this literature, which arose in the 1970s, approaches professional work from the perspective of power— attempts by occupational groups to obtain power and attempts by recognized professional occupations to maintain their power in the face of threats from other occupational groups, the state, or employing organizations. The power perspective is currently dominant and is receiving little challenge, which undoubtedly accounts, in part, for the decline in the literature on the topic. To understand professional work, however, it is necessary to consider the attribute approach.

Professional A ttributes Numerous authors have attempted to capture the essence of the professions by developing definitions, lists of attributes, or models they believe contain distinctions that separate professional work from other forms of work. The development of these lists of attributes was heavily influenced by images of work that was already viewed as highly profes­ sionalized, such as medicine or law. In this regard, it should be noted that the development of these “established” professions is really quite recent in our history. Starr (1982: 81-82) notes that medicine did not achieve its rather uniform high status (and recognition as a profession) until the beginning of the twentieth century. Carr-Saunders and Wilson (1944) state that the major criterion for professional status is the presence of an intellectual technique that is acquired by special training and that performs a service for society and is unavailable to the laity. Parsons (1959: 547) expands on the idea of intellectual technique by noting: I conceive of a profession to be a category of occupational role which is organized about the mastery of and fiduciary responsibility for any important segment of a society’s cultural tradition, including responsibil­ ity for its perpetuation and for its future development. In addition, a profession may have responsibility for the application of its knowledge in practical situations.

Two features of this concept are noteworthy. The first is the obvious distinction between theory and practice. Parsons is suggesting that professional work contains elements of both, but also that some profes­ sional work is concerned solely with the perpetuation and development of the knowledge base. His reference is to the academic professions and those aspects of fields such as theology, medicine, and law that are

42

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

basically scholarly in nature. The second point is more subtle. In two fields commonly thought to epitomize professional work—law and theology—the emphasis is on past precedent and interpretations thereof. In medicine and science, which are also commonly considered to epitomize professional work, the emphasis is on new discoveries and new interpretations of the phenomena under investigation. The basic idea of a body of knowledge is central to the attribute approach to the professions. This is played out in the ways in which students go to medical schools, law schools, and graduate schools to learn this knowledge and then apply it in practice or for future theoret­ ical development in the laboratory or library. This knowledge base can then also be used to explain why many occupational groups that aspire to be known as professions—such as nursing, teaching, or social work— are increasingly demanding that people in these fields obtain postgradu­ ate degrees. Unfortunately, this last explanation is very questionable, as will be seen shortly. Perhaps the most frequently cited list of attributes of professional work is that of Greenwood (1957), who overtly uses the idea of attribute in his formulation. Greenwood proposes five key professional attri­ butes. First, as might be expected, is the presence of systematic theory. This theory is to be research based. Second is professional authority, in this case authority over the client. The familiar term “doctor’s orders” exemplifies this form of authority. The imagery here is one of the professional working in the best interests of clients who do not have the knowledge or ability to make judgments affecting their own lives. This is a problematic point from two perspectives. The assumption of client ignorance is one to which many clients object, individually and collec­ tively. Further, there are some forms of professional work in which clients are hard to identify. It is difficult to specify exactly who the clients of the scientist at the laboratory bench really are. Nonetheless, professional authority was a key identifying element for Greenwood. His third attribute is formal and informal community sanction of the profession. This is an important attribute. It reflects the fact that many professions are licensed or certified by state agencies. For example, the Rules o f the Board o f Regents in New York State in regard to the field of veterinary medicine specify the nature of professional study that is to be undertaken, licensing examination procedures (including personal con­ duct while taking the exam and the passing grade), and restrictions on advertising (University of the State of New York, 1974). These same types of regulations can also be found for such diverse forms of work as chiropractic, social work, architecture, public accoun­ tancy, medicine, and nursing (law is handled through the court system).

Forms o f Work

43

These regulations are taken seriously. There is currently (1984) a con­ troversial case of a chiropractor who is threatened with losing his license because he practiced chiropractic on some friends' dogs and cats for free. While admittedly odd, this case is anecdotal evidence that members of both the chiropractic and veterinary medicine professions want to protect their territories. Although the regulations noted are state regulations, the actual form they take is determined by the professions themselves, at least in the case of the powerful professions. Fields such as medicine have been able to provide the dominant input into regulations concerned with their prac­ tice. Weaker professions, such as nursing or pharmacy, have not been so fortunate, given that, as Freidson (1972: 79) notes, a field such as pharmacy “is firmly subordinated to medicine.” This type of point lies at the heart of the power approach to the professions. Another aspect of community sanction is professional confidence. Information given by a client to a professional is viewed as privileged. This protects the rights of the client; it also reaffirms the authority of the professional. Greenwood’s fourth attribute is a regulative code of ethics, with the profession itself charged with ensuring ethical standards in interaction with clients and fellow professionals. The final attribute is professional culture. This involves norms governing membership in professional associations, the appropriate sites for practice, and standards and loca­ tions of professional training. It would also include the languages and symbols associated with professional work. Professional culture serves to differentiate professionals from outsiders. Other scholars concerned with the professions have added more attributes. Gross (1958) emphasizes important attitudinal characteris­ tics of professional workers. Professionals are deeply involved with their work and are also closely identified with their fellow professionals. Goode (1957) emphasizes that the professions formed their own com­ munities within the larger community. Goode (1960) also suggests that students in professional schools receive a more far-reaching socializa­ tion process than people in other occupations, and that a professional occupation is more likely to be the terminal occupation for its members than is the case for other workers. There are numerous other attempts to spell out the core attributes of the professions (see, for example, Caplow, 1966; Hall, 1968; Vollmer and Mills, 1966; Wilensky, 1964). Efforts have also been made to determine if the various attributes that have been proposed actually vary together (for example, Wilensky, 1964; Hall, 1968) and how they might be distributed among a set of occupational groups.

44

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

The attempt to develop increasingly refined models of the professions or lists of attributes has now largely been abandoned. In many ways, it became an empty exercise. In a seminal article, Roth (1974) takes Greenwood’s list of attributes and turns it upside down—the knowledge base is viewed as serving professional or graduate school faculty more than the client and little or no relationship between the possession of advanced knowledge and the provision of higher-quality service has been identified; the knowledge base is also viewed as inconsistent, because in fields such as medicine new theories replace old. Professional authority is seen as meaningless because clients are free, after all, to fire professionals such as architects and engineers. Community sanction is viewed by Roth as a completely political matter. The purpose of codes of ethics is seen as solely the mutual protection of fellow professionals, by curbing competition within the profession, with virtually no protective value for clients nor a means of ensuring that all potential clients receive equal levels of service. In terms of a unique culture, Roth claims that this is characteristic of many occupational groups, and not just the professions. Roth’s direct attack on the attribute approach to the professions was developed during the same period that the power approach was being created. That approach will now be considered.

The Power Perspective As an introduction to the power perspective on the professions, it is useful to consider Freidson’s (1972) analysis of the medical profession. In this analysis, Freidson considers the full array of occupations engaged in medical service delivery, such as physicians, nurses, pharma­ cists, optometrists, and dentists. In his examination of the physiciannurse relationship, Freidson (1972: 69) concludes: While it is dangerous to assume too much fixity in organization since, in the United States in particular, many occupations are aggressively seek­ ing to improve their prestige and position, nonetheless the comprehen­ siveness of its scope and the strategic importance of its focus virtually guarantees medicine’s superiority over others. An aggressive occupation like nursing can have its own schools for training, can control licensing boards in many instances, and can have its own “service” in hospital, in this way giving the appearance of formal, state-supported, and depart­ mental autonomy, but the work which its members perform remains subject to the order of another occupation. Legally and otherwise the physician’s right to diagnose, cut, and prescribe is the center around which the work of many other occupations swings, and the physician’s authority and responsibility in that constellation of work are primary. As

Forms o f Work

45

the case of nursing shows, those paramedical occupations that are ranged around the physician cannot fail to be subordinate in authority and responsibility and, so long as their work remains medical in character, cannot gain occupational autonomy no matter how intelligent and aggressive its leadership. To attain the autonomy of a profession, the paramedical occupation must control a fairly discrete area of work that can be separated from the main body of medicine and that can be practiced without routine contact with or dependence on medicine. Few if any of the present paramedical occupations deal with such potentially autonomous area [Copyright © 1970 by Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. Reprinted by permission of Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.].

Before continuing the analysis of the power perspective, it should be noted that Freidson’s use of the term “paraprofessional” is the equiva­ lent of the more commonly used term, “semiprofessional” (Etzioni, 1969). The focus will be on the issue of semiprofessions at several later points in the analysis. Freidson’s analysis goes on to consider several aspects of the attribute approach from a power perspective. He notes that the key aspect of the training of professionals is control over that training (p. 79). In consider­ ing the degree to which an occupation and its members have an orienta­ tion toward professional service, Freidson (1972: 82) concludes: Other occupations may actually have as great a proportion of members with such an orientation—that is not the issue. They may have codes of ethics, oaths, and other institutional attributes reflecting such an orientation—that too is not the issue. The profession’s service orientation is a public imputation it has successfully won in a process by which its leaders have persuaded society to grant and support its autonomy. Such imputation does not mean its members more commonly or more intensely subscribe to a service orientation than members of other occupations [Copyright © 1970 by Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. Reprinted by permission of Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.].

Freidson’s analysis, coupled with other, similar approaches (John­ son, 1972, 1977; Larson, 1977), seems to have reached near closure on the nature of the professions from this power perspective. Klegon (1978: 281-282) summarizes this closure well: “It becomes apparent that the ability to obtain and maintain professional status is closely related to both concrete occupational strategies, as well as wider social forces and arrangements of power. That is, there is both an internal and external dynamic of professionalism.” Thus the key to understanding the nature of the professions is the power they have in relation to other occupations, the organizations in which they are employed, clients, and the state. From this perspective the essence of the professions is their development and maintenance of

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

46

power. This issue is not so simple, however. In commenting on Klegon, I have noted: Klegon does not go far enough in his analysis of internal and external dynamics surrounding the professions. It would appear that the critical question is: who or which parties define the nature and powers of the occupations which are labeled professions? Clearly, occupations try to manipulate their environment in their favor. But there are also “signifi­ cant others” who can become important. Certainly legislators and government regulative offices create their own constructions, at times with the help of the occupation in question. So, too, do constituent groups, as they accept or resist professional “authority."There is also the undifferentiated “public,” which is typically benign in regard to the pro­ fessions, but which somehow can construct its own reality when asked to rank occupations on a prestige hierarchy, at which times occupations typically identified as professions emerge as the most prestigious [Hall, 1979: 124-125].

In other words, the introduction of the power perspective does not go far enough in creating an understanding of the nature of the professions. It is important to comprehend how professions go about carving out their niches and how these niches are protected against external threat. It should be noted that there is a strong tradition in contemporary organizational theory that deals with the manner in which organizations gain, maintain, or lose their niches (see Aldrich, 1979; Kimberly et al., 1980; McKelvey, 1982, for representative statements). This approach has not been applied fully to the professions, but it does indicate possible directions for future analyses. Before the discussion turns to a consideration of factors associated with gaining and maintaining power, it should be noted that nursing, one of the medical semiprofessions included in Freidson’s analysis, appears to be fully aware of the importance of the power issue. The largest of nurses’ professional organizations, the American Nurses’ Association, recently published Professionalism and the Empowerment o f Nursing (1982). The very title is indicative of this professional organi­ zation’s awareness of the power issue. Whether or not nursing will gain in power is obviously not a settled issue, but nursing and other semipro­ fessions are acutely aware of the issues raised by the power perspective.

Gaining and Maintaining Power The process by which occupations gain power and autonomy seems clear enough. The occupation simply convinces legislative and regula­

Forms o f Work

47

tive bodies that it should have the right to self-determination and legislation, or regulations are passed that permit it to exclude non­ members from practice and to set fees or rates of payment—in short, to have a monopoly in its area of activity. The situation obviously is not that simple, because it is not clear why one occupation gains more power than another. Why, for instance, is a teacher of history in college (the professor of history) considered more professional than the teacher of history in high school (the history teacher)? Unfortunately, the answers are not very clear. Although analysts such as Freidson (1972) and Starr (1982) have provided excellent docu­ mentation of the medical profession’s manipulation of the political process, the question still remains—why medicine and not chiropractic? The answers that exist are tentative and will undoubtedly remain that way, as it is impossible to reconstruct the history of the emergence of the professions except by noting that power was gained. One set of clues that does exist involves the manner in which occupa­ tions deal with the public. Grimm and Kronus (1973:74) state: “Occupations are continuously involved in ‘selling’their value systems or ideolo­ gies to government, other occupations, and more distant publics.” Grimm and Kronus also note that occupations that cannot convince the general public or key segments of the public that they actually possess key professional features will fail to achieve full professional status. Stein (1981) argues that a key component in gaining public and political acceptance as a profession is an occupation’s ability to utilize the mass media in its behalf. If the media begin to treat an occupation as if it is a profession, then the battle for professional status is being won. In a related approach to this issue, Abbot (1981) has examined status within a profession and the status accorded a profession by the public. He notes that there is an interesting paradox here. Specialties within a profession, such as the practice of criminal law, that receive high public recognition and status actually have low status within the profession itself. It is well known and documented that various specialties within most professions are systematically ranked in terms of their status within the profession, but that is not our interest here. Abbott (1981: 829) argues that public status is conferred when an occupation deals successfully or effectively with areas of life in which there is a lack of order: Shils (1965) has argued that professionals enjoy high status because of the order-giving power that proceeds from their application of esoteric knowledge. While this power over disorder is most obvious in medicine, psychiatry, law, and the clergy, in fact all professions attempt to tame disorder or to create new order. This ordering has two major properties.

48

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

First, its outcome is not guaranteed. Second, it is accomplished by means of esoteric knowledge, usually acquired by professional training. The professional, then, confronts disorder or nonorder with a system that enables him, most of the time, to control or order it. Even if he does not necessarily succeed, at least he makes effective contact with disorder via his knowledge.

If Abbott is correct, then we can see why there is a difference in the professional status of the history professor and the history teacher. The professor can develop a new order through, for example, the publication of a book showing new understandings of the colonial United States. The history teacher can do the same thing, but is much less likely to, given the demands of the high school teaching job. The professor is expected to publish and thus the occupation of professor is accorded professional status. Knowledge and power thus go hand in hand. Cullen (1978) concludes that task complexity and intellectual sophistication are the major determinants of professionalism, but that an occupational group’s power is also a major explanation of professionalism. Within a social system, then, an organized occupation that has gained power through public recognition of the value and importance of its knowledge is considered a profession. The focus thus far has been on the manner in which occupations gain and maintain power within society. Note that the same processes occur within specific work settings. In a study of architectural firms, Blau (1979) found that knowledge was the key to the power of individual architects, whether they were in management or staff positions. Thus, at the macro and micro levels, knowledge is the basis for the power that is in turn the basis for professional status. This knowledge must be per­ ceived as important by the public, as probably influenced by the media, and as translated into official and unofficial state mandates. Up to this point, the analysis has been essentially unidirectional—the ways in which an occupation can gain power and thus become known as a profession have been examined. The analysis will now follow a different direction. Threats to professional power will be explored.

The Organizational Threat There are two ways in which organizations can be seen as threats to professional work. The first occurs when the work of individual profes­ sionals, especially in terms of their autonomy, is threatened by organiza­ tional policies or actions. There is a rich and interesting research tradi­

Forms o f Work

49

tion here. Daniels’s (1969) analysis of the problems faced by psychiatrists in the military, analyses of scientists in industry and government (Korahauser, 1965; Marcson, 1966; Glaser, 1964; La Porte, 1965), and the interactions of priests and the Roman Catholic church (Ference et al., 1973) exemplify this tradition. The emphasis is on the ways in which organizational goals, control, supervision, incentives, and decision making differ from and come into conflict with professional norms and standards. For the military psychiatrist, for example, good psychiatric practice might be in direct conflict with military needs. As interesting as this research is, it is not the focus here. In this section the concern is with organizations’ actions as threats to forms of professional work in general. Thus the focus is on organizational threats to entire professions or important segments of professions. In an important way, organizations and professions attempt to do the same thing—rationalize knowledge (Ritzer, 1975). Organizations try to increase their control over the flow of events that occur within their boundaries. In some cases, organizations hire professionals to deal with areas of uncertainty. Thus many organizations have huge legal staffs and entire departments devoted to scientific research and devel­ opment. In other cases, organizations use developments in knowledge to reduce their reliance on professionals. Kraft (1979) has shown how computer programming, which began as an occupational offspring of electrical engineering, has become deskilled as a result of the develop­ ment of high-level computer languages, such as FORTRAN, and canned computer programs. Whether or not this is a conscious effort to deskill this occupation is not the issue here. The important thing is that organizations use what to them is the most rational approach in dealing with the computer revolution—more routinized and more predictable computing activities through preprepared program options. Organizations can also absorb some professions. Evans and Laumann (1983) have found that a surprisingly large number of people move out of the professions in which they began their careers (this finding also calls into question the idea that professional work is the terminal occupation for members of the profession—Goode, 1960). Much of this movement occurs in the engineering professions. It is the result of people being promoted out of the ranks of engineers into the ranks of management (engineers can also be laid off or fired, develop­ ments that will be discussed at a later point). Perrucci’s (1969, 1973) earlier work also examined this phenomenon in relation to engineers and suggested that this tendency presents a real limitation to the engi­ neering profession in gaining control over its own destiny. There is also a high level of movement from the legal profession into organizational

50

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

management, but it has not been as great a threat to the already entrenched legal profession. Another organizational threat is that directed toward the semiprofes­ sions, such as teaching, social work, and librarianship. This work is carried out in “heteronomous professional organizations”(Scott, 1965). Instead of having autonomy in their work, the people involved in these semiprofessions are subordinated to administrative systems, such as a school board or a set of public welfare laws and regulations. In such heteronomous settings, power is outside the hands and minds of the semiprofessionals involved, because there are multiple (heteronomous) sources of power and the profession or semiprofession involved is subordinate to this larger system. The heteronomous organization is a form dreaded by organized professions. Medicine has fought, largely unsuccessfully, its inclusion in such larger administrative frameworks. The case of medicine is part of the larger political scene. This will be considered later in the broader context of external threats to professional work. The discussion will turn first, however, to internal threats.

Internal Threats Until now professional work has been treated here as though it were all of one kind within a given profession. This is obviously not the case, and most analyses of the professions have long recognized the wide variations that exist in professional practice. These variations can be based on the location in which the work is performed, such as urban or rural areas; on the type of employment, such as self-employed solo practitioner or salaried staff member of a large corporation; or on the type or degree of specialization required in the work itself, such as general practice or highly esoteric specialty. Heinz and Laumann’s (1983) comprehensive analysis of lawyers in Chicago provides a vivid depiction of the extensive diversity present in the work of lawyers (earlier works by Carlin, 1962, 1966; Ladinsky, 1963; Smigel, 1964, also demonstrated wide variations within the legal profession). The Chicago lawyers can be grouped by type of practice— large corporate (e.g., antitrust defense or securities), regulatory, general corporate (e.g., banking or commercial), political (criminal prosecu­ tion), personal business (e.g., tax or real estate), and personal plight (e.g., divorce or personal injury). Heinz and Laumann also demonstrate that there are major differ­ ences in the type of client served—corporate versus individual. The type

Forms o f Work

51

of client served is linked to the social origins of the lawyers. Social origins, such as the family of origin, have been shown to be important for entry into the legal profession (Erlanger, 1980). The prestige of the law school attended also has consequences for practice and is, of course, linked to family of origin. In a separate study of lawyers, Erlanger (1977) found that those who had had experience in a federal program aimed at providing legal services for people who historically had been denied such services (the OEO Legal Services Program) also had less presti­ gious private practices, less corporate counsel work, and stronger orien­ tations to social reform in their later practices. This high level of differentiation lead Heinz and Laumann(1983:385) to conclude: If the reality is that large cities like Chicago have two legal professions, one recruited from more privileged social origins and the other from less prestigious backgrounds, while yet other social groups are almost entirely excluded, and if the first kind of lawyer serves corporate clients that are quite wealthy and powerful, and the other serves individuals and small businesses that are far less powerful, then the hierarchy of lawyers sug­ gests a corresponding stratification of lawyers into two systems of justice, separate and unequal.

In a review of the Heinz and Laumann study, Heydebrand (1985) suggests that the findings and conclusions of this study actually seriously undermine the idea of autonomy as being central to the con­ ceptualization of professionalization. Heydebrand believes that the evi­ dence presented shows that members of the legal profession actually are subservient to their corporate and state patrons. Lawyers are technical experts who counsel the wealthy and guide their fortunes through times of social and economic change. There is not enough clear empirical evidence to determine whether lawyers are the tool of the corporate structure and individually wealthy or are themselves a part of this elite. It is also not clear whether or not some lawyers serve simply as technical experts. What is clear is that there is extreme differentiation in the legal profession. Such differentia­ tion becomes an internal threat to professional power when it is accom­ panied by the creation of specialist and social-origin-based professional organizations. This internal differentiation condition can be seen vividly in the case of the nursing profession. Nursing is a highly fragmented profession in which the divisions are based on level of education attained. Diploma, associate degree, baccalaureate, and graduate degree nurses practice and advocate the advantages of their own forms of training. There are

52

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

also several national associations for nurses, in addition to state associa­ tions and labor unions that also represent nurses. Moreover, there are also strong associations of nurses engaged in specialized practice, such as operating room nurses, oncology nurses, nurse midwives—up to a total of 52 such specialty groups. There are also professional associa­ tions for men in nursing, and associations in which membership is based on ethnic background, such as those for blacks and for Hispanics. Internal differentiation is viewed by many leaders of the nursing profession as a primary source of the difficulty nursing has experienced in its efforts to achieve full professional status (Styles, 1982). Although a profession such as law may have an equal degree of such differentiation, its original position of power allows it to maintain its power. For an aspiring profession, such differentiation can be a crippling blow. From this consideration of internal threats to professional power, the focus will now turn to an examination of external threats.

External Threats Professional work faces external threats from a variety of directions. The diversity of external threats is such that some writers are now examining deprofessionalization. For example, in his analysis of the legal profession, Rothman (1984) notes that there are shifts in the knowledge base surrounding law. With the advent of do-it-yourself advice in regard to divorces and wills, the public can become more knowledgeable and thus less dependent upon lawyers. In addition, computer-based information storage and retrieval capabilities have made it possible to routinize a great deal of legal research (Haug, 1977). Computers can also generate legal documents and assist in the prelimi­ nary screening of jury lists. There are also changes taking place in the composition of the profes­ sion, with many more women and minority group members becoming lawyers. As will be seen in the next section, women in the professions are seen by some as a kind of threat to professional work. Rothman also identifies new employment patterns, especially the growing organizational employment of lawyers, as an additional reason for deprofessionalization. As noted earlier, organizational employment has the potential to reduce professional autonomy. In the case of law, a study of Department of Justice attorneys found that there were both political and organizational specifications that dictated a good part of the work of these attorneys (Eisenstein, 1978).

Forms o f Work

53

Yet another external threat comes from consumers or clients. It was common during the 1960s and 1970s to hear phrases such as “the revolt of the client” (Haug and Sussman, 1969). Rothman notes that individual consumers, consumer groups, and state and federal governmental bodies have begun to scrutinize the professions and challenge tradi­ tional practices and prerogatives. In the case of the legal profession, a Supreme Court ruling in 1977 (Bates v. State o f Arizona) outlawed that state’s ban on advertising fees for legal services. Similar threats to other forms of professional work have also been identified. The final source of deprofessionalization, according to Rothman, is encroachment on the work of a particular profession from allied profes­ sions. Again using law as an example, other professionals who attempt to take over part of the work of lawyers include accountants, bankers, title insurers, tax consultants, realtors, and underwriters. Rothman points out that these other occupational groups have themselves orga­ nized their professions and seek to expand their areas of practice—in this case at the expense of lawyers. Obviously, lawyers will try to encroach upon other professions, as well. Turning from law to medicine, another external threat to profes­ sional work can be identified. Starr’s (1982) analysis has documented the manner in which this profession rose to a position of high power, wealth, and control of the medical enterprise. Starr concludes his analy­ sis with an examination of the ways in which the power of this profession is being eroded rapidly. The erosion is based on the advent of the corporate invasion of medicine. The corporations are private health insurance firms and hospital conglomerates. Starr (1982:447) does not believe that physicians will become “proletarianized” or lose total control to the corporations, but instead will see themselves as part of “heteronomous” organizations in which the locus of control lies within the corporation. As medicine became profitable, the corporations moved in. The same potential seems evident in areas of education and social welfare. One other external threat is the general state of the economy. Some forms of professional work appear to be particularly vulnerable to economic upturns and downturns. Scientists and engineers in particular are quite likely to be laid off or fired during downturns in the business cycle (Leventman, 1981; Schervish, 1983). Although it has been found that the fear of layoff or firing contributes to changed attitudes toward work and unionization among scientists and engineers (Greenwald, 1978), that is not the point here. If a profession has members who are in and out of the labor force and who must seek alternative forms of

54

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

employment during these periods, the profession itself would appear to be weakened. People who voluntarily leave or who are forced to leave their professional work tend to drop their professional identities and their memberships in professional organizations.

The Gender Threat This is a relatively new threat to the power of professional work. It is based on Simpson and Simpson’s (1969) contention that the large proportion of women in certain professions has actually contributed to lowered autonomy and hence less professionalization of the occupa­ tions. The newness of the threat is based on the rather rapid increase of women entering professions other than the semiprofessions. Data on women in the professions (as summarized in Fox and Hesse-Biber, 1984) indicate that in the established professions of medicine, law, and academia, women are found in the less prestigious specialties and are greatly disadvantaged in terms of salary. Fox and Hesse-Biber (1984: 131) conclude: “It isn’t clear whether women enter low-prestige fields or whether the fields have low prestige because women are located within them.” At a later point the factors that contribute to these position and pay differentials will be considered in more detail; they are mentioned here briefly to establish their existence. The picture within the semiprofessions has already been discussed, but one additional point should be made. In the female-dominated semiprofessions, those men who are in the field are found dispropor­ tionately in administrative positions (for nursing, see Grimm and Stern, 1974; for teaching, see Parelius and Parelius, 1978). Similar findings are reported for librarians and social workers. The tide of women moving into the well-established professions is unlikely to stop. The semiprofessions probably will continue to be dominated by women. The consequence of this cannot be predicted with certainty, but it would appear to be a reduced power of the professions. From the standpoint of social equality, this is not an outcome to be dreaded, unless some other occupational group or organized system moves into a position of dominant power. It is quite possible that as professions become more feminized, they will also be less elite and more equalitarian, both internally and in terms of their relationships with other forms of work. The analysis will now shift to a consideration of another highstatus/high-power form of work—the executive, manager, official, or administrator. First, however, there are two points of linkage between

Forms o f Work

55

the professions and this next form of work that should be highlighted. A recent study by Wuthnow and Shrum (1983) found few ideological differences between the managers and professional workers studied. Thus the next form of work to be discussed contains individuals who share many values with members of the professions. Finally, although much has been made of the characteristics of the professions, common use of the term covers a wide variety of work roles. People are judged in terms of whether or not they are behaving “professionally” in a wide variety of settings, including management (Haga et al., 1974). The analysis will continue with the more limited use of the term, but clearly it will continue to be used in this broader context.

EXECUTIVES, M A N A GERS, OFFICIALS, AND AD M INISTRATO RS The next form of work to be analyzed presents an anomaly. On the one hand: The key occupational group in industrial society is management. Effec­ tive direction of human efforts—whether in the public or private sectors of an economy—is central to the wise and efficient utilization of human and material resources [Campbell et al., 1970: 1].

On the other hand, this form of work does not have the identifying characteristics that have been attached to the professions. There are no “management models” as in the case of the professions. There is actually very little in the way of sociological analyses of the work carried out by people occupying managerial positions—the literature is frankly quite skimpy and not very exciting. There is, however, a great deal of literature regarding the outcomes of managerial behavior. A large portion of this literature was examined in Chapter 1, when the issues of deskilling and structural unemployment were considered. The emphasis here will be on the type of work done by people who are called “executives,” “managers,” “officials,” and “administrators.” These are organizational forms of work. This work is carried out at the very top level of organizations, in the case of executives, or through­ out what is known as the “managerial hierarchy,” in the case of the other titles. This distinction contains an important assumption. For the pur­ poses of this chapter, all organizations are treated as belonging to one type. Thus public and private sectors are combined, so that entities such

56

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

as the State University of New York, the Minnesota Vikings, the Ameri­ can Red Cross, the U.S. Department of Labor, and Apple Computer, Inc., all employ, and, indeed, rely upon people engaged in this form of work. In general, “management” is the term used in the private sector. Organizations in the not-for-profit sector, such as hospitals and muse­ ums, use “administrators,” and government agencies use the term “offi­ cials.” These distinctions are not perfect, but are commonly used. The concept of “executive” is used across sectors. That is how it will be used here, and the term “executive” will refer to people at or near the top of the organization. Most analyses are now using the term “chief executive officer” (or CEO) to refer to the individual at the very top of the organization. For purposes of this discussion, “executives” will refer to this individual and those people (frequently called “vice-presidents”) who report directly to the top executive. Another way to approach the distinctions being made here is through the terminology of “top,” “middle,” and “lower” management. “Top management” is the equiv­ alent of executives for our purposes. Another term, “proprietor,” will be used here to refer to people who own their businesses. Farms, motels, gas stations, grocery stores, and barber and beauty shops— all can be owned and operated by propri­ etors. Indeed, as Chinoy (1955) points out, proprietorship has been a major component of the “American dream.” Proprietorship will be considered only briefly here. The reason for considering it only briefly here is that the types of operations proprietors would typically own and operate are subject to three pressures that make this form of work less viable than it may have been in the past. The first pressure is competition. The very high failure rate among small businesses makes this a very unstable form of work. If a proprietor is successful, the enterprise will probably do one of two things—which accounts for the other two pressures. The first thing it may do is grow, in which case the proprietor becomes an executive, as the very small operation has now become at least a moderate-sized organization. The second likelihood is that the successful enterprise will be purchased by a larger firm. If the proprietor is retained, he or she will serve as a manager or an executive. Small, family-run farms remain proprietorships, but the pressures in other spheres of life are such that proprietorship is increasingly an impossible dream. There is a relatively new form of work that appears to be a proprietor­ ship, but is not. This is the type of work performed by people who hold franchises of large organizations. This can be seen easily in the fast-food industry. It is also found in other areas of retail, such as records and tapes, computers, hardware, and dry-cleaning. Inasmuch as portions and prices are predetermined, the franchise holder is more a first-line ~>UDervisor than a DroDiietor.

Forms o f Work

57

Earlier in this section, I noted that the literature on the work of management is quite skimpy. However, that statement is true only in terms of sociological research on management work. There is a vast literature prescribing how to manage. Indeed, works such as Peters and Waterman’s (1982) In Search o f Excellence ride high on best-seller lists, with their prescriptions of how to be successful managers. Business schools at such prestigious universities as Harvard and Stanford, as well as myriad less well-known institutions, are specifically in the business of turning out managerial personnel. They have carefully devised curricula dealing with management. The problem with the literature on management is that it is highly descriptive and prescriptive. There are classics, such as those written by Taylor (1911), Barnard (1938), McGregor (1960), Likert (1962), and Chandler (1962), and more humorous, but barbed accounts, such as that of Parkinson (1957) and Peter and Hull (1969). Peters and Waterman’s best-seller is a typical example of this approach. Based on their analysis of 43 well-run American companies, they develop the following eight characteristics of well-managed firms: (1) A bias for action—do it, try it, don’t analyze the problem to death. (2) Stay close to the customer and understand the service or product needs. (3) Engage in entrepreneurship and promote autonomy within the organization. (4) Productivity is through people and not technology. (5) Have high values and demand excellence. (6) Stick to the knitting—do what you do best. (7) Keep the staff lean and simple. (8) Have simultaneous looseness and tightness—allow people to be auton­ omous, but at the same time be disciplined. (This summary is from Van de Ven, 1983.)

In another approach to management, Caplow (1983) notes that man­ agers must deal with the issues of authority, communication, productiv­ ity, morale, and change. He also notes that all human organizations resemble each other so closely that much of what is learned by managing one organization can be applied to managing any other organization. Every organization, for example, has a collective identity: a roster of members, friends, and antagonists; a program of activity and a time schedule to go with it; a table or organization; a set of formal rules partly contradicted by informal rules; procedures for adding and removing members; utilitarian objects used for organizational tasks; symbolic objects used in organizational rituals; a history; a special vocab­ ulary; some elements of folklore; a territory; and a method of placing members within that territory according to their relative importance. Every organization has a division of labor that allocates specialized tasks

58

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

to its members and a status order that awards them with unequal shares of authority, honor, and influence [pp. 4-5].

Caplow goes on to note that every organization, except the smallest, has subunits—divisions, departments, branches—that have the same characteristics as the total organization. The manager or executive must establish his or her authority, engage in continuous communications— both vertically and horizontally—to keep the organization together, maintain both productivity and morale (no easy task, as productivity and morale have been shown to vary independently), and react to changes in the external environment. In terms of the actual day-to-day activities of managers, much of the work involves communication. In her analysis of a large industrial firm, Kanter (1977: 57) describes the work of a typical manager: One typical day, a Monday in March in the Midwest, began at 7:30 when the manager arrived at the office. From 7:30 to 9:00 he finished reading his mail, wrote letters, and called headquarters. From 9:00 to 10:30 he met informally with sales people and customer service people to discuss current problems and offer help. From 10:30 to 11:30 he interviewed a job candidate. From 11:30 to 12:00 he returned phone messages, and from 12:00 to 1:00 he had lunch with a sales person in order to conduct an informal performance appraisal before the formal meeting. From 1:00 to 2:00, he read more mail, and from 2:00 to 2:30 he answered phone messages, again from the headquarters office. At 2:30 he received a wire on the state of the business, which he was expected to communicate to the field and receive a response to. He began on this and continued until 3:30. From 3:30 to 4:30 he worked on his quarterly review and at 4:30 left for home. Tuesday and Wednesday were spent out of town visiting another office. Thursday and Friday he returned to his own office, and Friday evening he attended a senior executive dinner from 7:00 to 11:00 p.m. [From Men and Women o f the Corporation by Rosabeth Moss Kanter. © 1977 by Rosabeth Moss Kanter. Reprinted by permission of Basic Books, Inc., Publishers. Subsequent quotes from this source also appear by permission.]

The communication that Kanter describes is the dominant manage­ rial task. The organization that Kanter studied had the characteristics noted earlier by Caplow. This organization was large, complex, and geographically dispersed. The communication had to be rapid and accurate. Given the size and complexity of the organization, the com­ munication had to pass through a variety of channels. Kanter concludes that this communication structure generated a desire for smooth social relationships and hence led to selection of personnel with whom com­ munication would be easiest. What that meant in this case was the selection of white males as managers.

Forms o f Work

59

The selection of white males was based on the idea of trust. Each manager could trust that other managers would have the same experi­ ences and values, and would understand the communication in a com­ mon way. There were pressures for social conformity in this organiza­ tion that increased the homogeneity among this set of managers. An important finding of the Kanter study is that there were no objective criteria for the evaluation of managerial performance. In a similar manner, there are no objective criteria of organizational performance as is commonly seen in organizational analyses. Managers in this organiza­ tion were evaluated in terms of their perceived loyalty. This meant putting the company first, spending long hours at work, being willing to be transferred, and demonstrating total devotion to the work. Kanter’s study contains some other insights about managerial work. A major motivation of the managers was advancement within the firm. Advancement was indicative of doing a good job, even though doing a good job could not be measured concretely. It was the perception of doing the job well that was important. These managers also wanted to gain power within the organization. “Power” in this case means more than official position. Individuals whose careers were seen as being on the “fast track” had more power than those at equivalent levels who were not moving as quickly. There are important variations within managerial work. One such variation involves whether the work is line or staff work (Dalton, 1950, 1959). Staff work involves some kind of expertise, such as personnel management (Ritzer and Trice, 1969), public relations management (Henry, 1972), accounting (Montagna, 1974), or law (Smigel, 1964). Although this form of work could be analyzed from the standpoint of the professions (there are extensive studies of professional work in organizations—see Hall, 1975, for a review of this literature), the key point here is that these managers provide expertise for other managers and executives (Montagna, 1977). Inasmuch as organizations require a great deal of expertise, staff work has grown in importance. Indeed, in high-technology industries, what is typically thought of as staff work, such as engineering or systems design work, actually becomes the line work. As the discussion has implied, line work involves direct management of whatever it is the organization is doing. Obviously, it can involve production and sales management, but it can also involve managing such activities as transportation, communication, or purchasing. Hospi­ tal or museum administrators would be considered line managers from this perspective. It is interesting to note that a major change has occurred since the 1950s, when Dalton was distinguishing between line

60

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

and staff work. At that time it was believed that the line was the route to chief executive positions. This has changed—now staff positions lead to top corporate positions. Priest and Rothman (1985) report that a legal background is now a major route into the executive suite, with top corporate officers holding more legal degrees than advanced business degrees. This actually is not surprising, because legal problems are among the most pressing issues facing the modem corporation, and organizations deal with this form of uncertainty by placing lawyers in top executive positions. The line/staff distinction has the tendency to mask another major variation in managerial work. This variation is based on the level in the organization at which the individual is working. The lower the level, the more specialized the work, whether it is considered line or staff. The lower-level manager is concerned with specifics, such as direct managing for higher productivity or particular legal issues. Parsons (1960:63-69) recognized this in his distinctions among institutional, managerial, and technical levels in organizations. The institutional, or top executive, level is concerned with relating the organization to its external world by ensuring that the organization continues to receive support from its constituency and other organiza­ tions in contact with it. A very common way in which this is done is through the device of the interlocking directorate (Burt, 1980; Pennings, 1980; Useem, 1979). Such interlocks occur when officers of one firm sit on the boards of directors of other firms. Pennings found that only 62 of the 797 largest American firms had no such interlocks. Interlocks were most common in concentrated industries in which near monopolies exist in the first place, with financial firms disproportionately repre­ sented in interlock situations. Interestingly, firms tend to have inter­ locks with other successful firms, thus furthering their own success. Useem’s findings indicate that this level of interlock extends into partic­ ipation on government advisory boards and on the boards of philan­ thropic organizations, colleges and universities, and other major power groups within the social system. Parsons’s managerial level focuses on the internal administration of the organization, and the technical level deals with specific operations. Thus the higher the level in the managerial hierarchy, the more general the work. Executives do not actually execute; it is the lower-level man­ agers, administrators, and officials who do. Lower-level managers are evaluated on the basis of their performance in these more specialized activities, even though, as indicated above, the evaluations are based on heavily perceptual underpinnings. This section will conclude with a consideration of the ways in which top executives are evaluated.

Forms o f Work

61

The Bottom Line For some time there has been an ongoing debate concerning the powers, responsibilities, and orientations of top management. James and Soref (1981: 1) aptly summarize this debate as follows: How has the ascendance of the large corporation transformed the class structures and development patterns of advanced capitalist societies? An influential set of theories contends that a separation of “ownership” and effective “control” has accompanied the proliferation and dispersion of stock ownership in large corporations, with at least two important results. First, some spokesmen (e.g., Parsons, 1970:24) argued that the concept of social class should be divorced “from its historic relation to both kinship and property as such.” In their view, a class of managers and professionals has displaced the capitalist ownership of wealth and productive property (Berle and Means, 1932; Burnham, 1962). While capitalists'power had been based on ownership of productive property, the power of the new professional class was derived from its members’ technical competence (Bell, 1976: 294-95; Parsons, 1971: 104; Galbraith, 1971: 74-84), which qualified them for key administrative positions (Lenski, 1966:352; Dahrendorf, 1959: 256;Giddens, 1973:167-176). According to these theorists, industrial organization is not subordinated to economic imperatives; positions in organizations determine wealth, rather than the reverse. As Galbraith puts it, “The decisive power in modern society is exercised not by capital, but by organization, not by the capitalist, but by the industrial bureaucrat” (1971: xvii).

James and Soref go on to state that the supposed ascendancy of the corporate manager has freed the corporation to pursue goals other than profit maximization. Managers were seen to pursue strategies that benefited management instead of owners. Although writers such as Zeitlin (1974) have argued strongly that a capitalist class remains in control of organizations, the separation of management and ownership has become part of our conventional wisdom. In their study of 286 of the largest 300 industrial firms in the United States, James and Soref (1981) tested these ideas by analyzing the reasons for and frequency with which chief executive officers among these firms were fired in 1965. They found that at least 5% of the firms dismissed their chief executives during that year. Poor profit perfor­ mance, especially changing profit rates, was the major source of these firings. James and Soref conclude that profit remains the major crite­ rion by which performance is measured. They also conclude that the idea of social responsibility among such firms must be subordinate to profit.

62

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

James and Soref appear to miss another conclusion from their find­ ings. Although writers such as Zeitlin (1974) and Useem (1979) write about the capitalist class as though it were united in self-protection, the fact is that family members were as likely to be fired as nonfamily members among the leadership of the firms studied. The class argument is thus not totally substantiated. Thus far in this chapter, professional and managerial work have been examined. Both are characterized by their capability of exercising power in the work setting and by their high status. We now turn to forms of work with less power and status.

WHITE-COLLAR WORK This analysis takes an intentionally limited view of the nature of white-collar work. In common parlance, white-collar work usually includes managerial and professional work. Indeed, Blau and Duncan’s (1967) seminal work, The American Occupational Structure, uses a simple distinction between blue- and white-collar work and notes that this is a major boundary in the occupational structure. For the purposes of this analysis, white-collar work is defined as clerical and sales work. Like managerial work, white-collar work is organizational, but is distinguished from managerial work by lower status and less power. A major distinguishing characteristic of white-collar work is the high concentration of women in this form of work. In discussing women and work, Fox and Hesse-Biber (1984: 98) note: Most likely, however, she holds a white-collar job (42 percent of employed women are in white-collar occupations), and most likely the job is clerical. The majority of women workers are typists, secretaries, book­ keepers, and clerks (the “pink-collar” occupations—white-collar occupa­ tions held predominantly by women). Thirty-five percent of employed women hold clerical positions and women account for more than three fourths of all clerical workers. The other major white-collar occupation for women is sales. Most women in sales work are in the retail trades, where they hold the lower-paying positions; for example as clerks and department-store saleswomen.

It is interesting to note that in department stores the salespeople for the “big ticket” items, such as television and appliances, are predomi­ nantly men, even though women may be the predominant users of these items. Similarly, most car salespeople are also men. These items are the ones that have the potential for earning large commissions. A fascinat­

Forms o f Work

63

ing exception is that of real estate sales, an area in which women are particularly likely to work. White-collar work has not always been dominated by women. C. Wright Mills (1956:191), in a caricature reminiscent of Charles Dickens, portrays an early office worker as an old-young man, slightly stoop shouldered, with a sallow complexion, usually dyspeptic-looking, with black sleeves and a green eye-shade___ Regardless of the kind of business, regardless of their ages, they all looked alike___He seemed tired and he was never quite happy, because. . . his face betrayed the strain of working toward the climax of his month’s labors. He was usually a neat penman, but his real pride was in his ability to add a column of figures rapidly and accurately. In spite of this accom­ plishment, however, he seldom, if ever, left his ledger for a more promis­ ing position. His mind was atrophied by that destroying, hopeless influ­ ence of drudgery and routine work. He was little more than a figuring machine with an endless number of figure combinations learned by heart. His feat was a feat of memory.

Office work has changed since this description of a bookkeeper’s life in the “good old days.” There are two sources of such change. First, there have been important organizational shifts. Organizations have grown larger and more complex, requiring more administrative or coordinating activities (Blau and Schoenherr, 1971). There has also been an explosive growth of information-handling organizations, such as insurance companies, financial institutions, government agencies, and communications firms. The second source of change in clerical work is based on technologi­ cal developments. Shepard (1971: 41-47) has noted four technological stages in office work. The first is “craft accurate work,” which corre­ sponds to the work described by Mills. This includes the fast and accurate shorthand of the secretary, the precise accounts of the book­ keeper, and the neat handwriting of the ledger clerk. The next stage involves “early mechanization,” with the introduction of typewriters, adding machines, and dictating machines. These required skill, but were not the crafts of the earlier era. The next stage was “punched card data processing.”The IBM card became universal, and people were employed as keypunchers, verifyers, and business machine operators. At this point, office work began to resemble factory work more and more. The final stage is that of electronic data processing. Not only are data now electronically processed, but so are words. It should be noted that as each stage developed, it did not totally replace the earlier stage. Some secretaries still take shorthand, some

64

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

firms use typing pools (Kanter, 1977), and data are still entered at a keyboard, albeit onto cards, tapes, or disks. As these changes were occurring, white-collar work was also becom­ ing feminized. The introduction of the typewriter was the key event, as the Remington Company hired women to demonstrate the new machines (Fox and Hesse-Biber, 1984:101). Typing became a “feminine specialty” (Glenn and Feldberg, 1979: 318) and one that did not take over men’s work, because the work had not previously existed. Women also were hired as telephone operators, because they were viewed as “more dextrous and ‘chatty’ than men” (Fox and Hesse-Biber, 1984: 101). This work was attractive to women, because it offered higher pay and status than other work available. With these developments, clerical work became increasingly domi­ nated by women. Women were willing to work for less pay (Fox and Hesse-Biber, 1984:102) and companies could lower their costs by hiring women rather than men. As organizations grew, so did the number of women in clerical positions. The typing job of the past is the wordprocessing job of the present. Clerical jobs are usually dead-end jobs. Seidman (1978) has noted that clerical workers are not linked to other areas of the organization in ways that permit advancement. Fox and Hesse-Biber (1984: 109) pre­ sent data that indicate the ways in which banks and American Tele­ phone and Telegraph have systematically excluded their women clerical workers from advancement. Obviously, the deskilling argument introduced in Chapter 1 can be applied to clerical work. On an objective basis, many clerical jobs are routine and repetitive. At the same time, there is some evidence that clerical work is not necessarily perceived by the workers themselves to be as boring and as alienating as an outside observer might suspect. In a study of Chicago women workers, Lopata et al. (1985) found that women in low clerical and sales positions did not find their work lacking in complexity. Although the tasks performed may not be complex, the social relations that are formed on the job apparently make up for the lack of complexity in the tasks being performed. A flavor of this is captured in Kanter’s (1977: 69-70) depiction of secretaries in the industrial firm she studied: Secretaries added a personal touch to Industrial Supply Corporation workplaces. Professional and managerial offices tended to be austere; generally uniform in size and coloring, and unadorned except for a few family snapshots or discreet artworks. (“Welcome to my beige box,” a rising young executive was fond of saying to visitors.) But secretaries’ desks were surrounded by splashes of color, displays of special events,

Forms o f Work

65

signs of the individuality and taste of the residents; postcards from friends’ or bosses’ travels pasted on walls, newspaper cartoons, large posters with funny captions, huge computer printouts that formed the names of the secretaries in gothic letters. It was secretaries that remem­ bered birthdays and whose birthdays were celebrated, lending a legitimate air of occasional festivity to otherwise task-oriented days. Secretaries could engage in conversations about the latest movies, and managers often stopped by their desks to join momentarily in a discussion that was a break from the more serious business at hand. It was secretaries who were expected to look out for the personal things, to see to the comfort and welfare of guests, to show them around and make sure they had what they needed. And it was around secretaries that people at higher levels in the corporation could stop to remember the personal things about themselves and each other (appearance, dress, daily mood), could trade the small compliments and acknowledgements that differentiated them from the mass of others and from their formal role. In many ways—visually, socially, and organizationally—the presence of secretaries represented a reserve of the human inside of the bureaucratic.

There are two other forms of white-collar work that will be briefly described. The first is the telephone operator. This is another highly feminized occupation. Not surprisingly, it is also one of the less desirable white-collar jobs (Montagna, 1977: 317). Switchboards must be open 7 days a week and 24 hours a day. This means shift work, which is relatively uncommon in white-collar work. There is also close, direct supervision and little freedom of movement. As Montagna notes, the job content of the telephone operator is blue collar, while the social outlook of telephone operators is white collar. Even with the technolog­ ical changes that are occurring in the telecommunications industries, the telephone operator will remain an identifiable form of white-collar work. The final form of white-collar work to be considered is sales work. It is important to point out that we are not considering sales executives here. Sales executives or managers are in the managerial hierarchy. They are able to use their own discretion in terms of deciding issues such as cost per unit and estimated time of delivery. The white-collar sales­ person is not empowered to use that sort of discretion. Like clerical work, sales work is determined by the organization involved. Product or service characteristics and prices are set in advance by others in the organization. Product or service demand is created through marketing and advertising strategies. Sales work is not entirely routinized, of course. Miller (1964) has demonstrated how new-car salespersons attempt to control the cus­ tomer. By controlling the customer, the salesperson enhances the prospect

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

66

of making the sale and also is able to protect his or her own self-concept. Automobile salespersons prefer to have customers they have recruited, rather than people who come in off the street. The person who just wanders in is an unknown, whereas the salesperson’s own “prospects” hold some certainty. The product being sold, of course, cannot be influenced by the salesperson. In a similar fashion, the travel agent—the seller of a service—tries to develop a set of regular clients. In this case the worker is able to exercise some discretion in terms of suggesting routes or accommodations, but is ultimately bound by printed or computer-generated timetables, fares, and regulations. The retail sales worker, as exemplified by the department store clerk, has very limited discretion on the job. Mills (1956) has noted that there is a major status discrepancy between salesclerks and their customers. Salesclerks must “wait on” customers and this, in and of itself, has negative status consequences. Nonetheless, as Mills (1956:174-175) has demonstrated, retail clerks rely on a variety of techniques to sell their products and, where it is possible, earn commissions. Although the clerk has no discretion about the products a buyer buys and cannot dicker in terms of price, some discretion can be exercised. Suggestions can be made in terms of which shirt, perfume, or stove would best suit a particular customer. In addition, retailing is one of the few industries in which a person can move up from the white-collar level into management. Salesclerks can become buyers, although the ten­ dency among larger retail establishments is to hire college graduates and have them work as clerks as part of their management training. None­ theless, the potential for advancement here is not present in most other white-collar work. Saleswork is also one of the last bastions of entrepre­ neurship. Most automobile dealerships have been developed by former auto salesmen, for example. The same phenomenon would appear to be operative in retail fields such as appliances and men’s and women’s clothing. For most sales workers such moves are unlikely. The focus of this discussion will now shift to another major form of work—bluecollar work.

BLUE-COLLAR WORK Blue-collar workers share one major distinguishing characteristic— in one way or another they are involved in products and not services. This can mean anything from extraction of raw materials to the physical

Forms o f Work

67

assembling of a product (which can range from an office building to a silicon chip) to the distribution of that product (work done by truck drivers or railroad engineers). In other words, blue-collar work is indus­ trial work. Industrial work has been the subject of a great deal of scholarly and literary work. Indeed, much of the thrust of Marxism is based on that particular view of the industrial worker. The fields of industrial sociol­ ogy and industrial psychology began with a focus on this form of work. The whole idea of alienation has been developed in reference to indus­ trial workers. In later chapters many of the important issues regarding industrial workers will be addressed, such as alienation, the extent to which there is a working class, unequal pay between genders and among racial and ethnic groups, possible empowerment through unionization, and class identification. The purpose of this brief section is to describe blue-collar work and to indicate that it actually involves a wide range of activities and a surprising degree of differentiation in terms of important variables, such as status and power. We will begin with the “aristocracy of labor” (Mackenzie, 1973)—the skilled worker.

SkUled Work In discussing skilled work, a semantic problem must be settled at the outset. Workers who do skilled work are typically called “craftsmen.” In this case the gender-specific nature of the term is accurate, because the overwhelming majority of workers in this category are men—usually white men. Characteristics of the organization of the workers in this category help to explain this gender and racial segregation. Many types of skilled workers are found in the building trades— carpenters, plumbers, painters, steamfitters, masons, or welders. Oth­ ers, such as tool and die makers, work in traditional industrial settings. Still others, such as long-distance truck drivers, or railroad engineers, are engaged in transporting raw materials and finished products. There are skilled workers whose work borders on the provision of services, such as the auto mechanic, the television repair person, or the computer technician. Inasmuch as the service is performed on a product, it is reasonable to include these forms of work here. Caplow (1954:102-198) argues that crafts share many characteristics of the professions. For example, the occupation (through the union) controls recruitment and advancement. This can create a monopoly and hence increase rewards. It can and does exclude “undesirables,” such as women and minority group members. Membership in a craft also usu­

68

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

ally involves a lifelong commitment, as it does in the professions. The craft is also responsible for evaluating individual workers as they move through the stages of apprentice-journeyman-master. It should be noted that craft control is exercised at the community level, whereas profes­ sional control is exercised at the local, state, and national levels. Further, as Blauner (1964) has shown, skilled workers can have a strong occupational community. According to Stinchcombe (1959), employing organizations (construction firms in this case) recognize this and are organized much like professional organizations. The profession-craft analogy can be carried too far, of course. There are major differences in the content and length of training programs, with professions emphasizing and using theory and crafts emphasizing and using hands-on experience. There are obvious differences in status and power between the groups. There is also the subtle, but important, distinction between “clean” and “dirty” work so eloquently elaborated by Hughes (1958). Craft workers get dirty, which has negative conse­ quences for their status (Reiss, 1961:11). One could argue that surgeons and surgical nurses also get “dirty,” but when they do so their hands and bodies are “protected” by sanitary clothing. The point here has not been to determine whether or not skilled workers are like professionals, but rather to indicate that craft work has characteristics quite different from those of other blue-collar work. Another important difference is that craft workers have the potential to become entrepreneurs. The painter can become a painting contractor, as can other members of crafts in the building trades. If the operation succeeds, the skilled worker joins the ranks of management, a move that may or may not be seen as desirable. It is interesting to note that when skilled workers do become selfemployed, they tend to make more money and have different identities from those of employed workers (Form, 1982). Form studied selfemployed workers such as truck drivers, painters, and construction workers in reaching this conclusion. Skilled workers have been a relatively stable proportion of the labor force. The exact composition of this category changes as technology changes. For example, the craft of printing is dying, but automated printing is emerging as a new craft (Hull et al., 1982), as is the repair of automated typesetting equipment. This is not to suggest a form of equilibrium in which there will also be a certain percentage of skilled workers in the labor force, nor that employing organizations would not like to reduce their dependence on skilled workers (they cost more than less skilled workers). The suggestion being made is that at least until now, the production of physical goods and the maintenance of those goods has required skilled workers and skilled work.

Forms o f Work

69

Supervisory Work The next form of work to be considered is typically grouped with skilled work in Census or U.S. Department of Labor tabulations of the composition of the labor force. Foremen and skilled workers are assumed to be of relatively equal status, and also to be the elite of the blue-collar workers. Again, the gender specification of the word “fore­ man” is generally accurate, because first-line supervisors in production work typically are men. Indeed, even in those cases in which there are both men and women workers, there is a strong tendency for men to be promoted into supervisory positions (see Wolf and Fligstein, 1979; South et al., 1982, for analyses of this pattern). The first-line supervisor’s role is not an easy one. Writing some four decades ago, Roethlisberger (1945: 283) noted that, in theory at least, the foreman should know not only (1) the company’s policies, rules, and regulations and (2) the company’s cost system, payment system, manufacturing methods, and inspection regulations, in particular, but also frequently (3) control, and time and motion study in general. He also has to know (4) the labor laws of the United States, (S) the labor laws of the state in which the company operates, and (6) the specific labor contract that exists between his com­ pany and the local union. He has to know (7) how to induct, instruct, and train new workers; (8) how to handle, and where possible, prevent griev­ ances; (9) how to improve conditions of safety; (10) how to correct workers and maintain discipline; (11) how never to lose his temper and always be “fair”; (12) how to get and obtain cooperation from the wide assortment of people with the shop steward. And in some companies he is supposed to know (13) how to do the jobs he supervises better than the employees themselves. Indeed, as some foreman training programs seems to conceive the foreman’s job, he has to be a manager, a cost accountant, an engineer, a lawyer, a teacher, a leader, an inspector, a disciplinarian, a counselor, a friend, and, above all, an example.

Quite obviously, no one could have all of these skills or possess all of the knowledge required. More important, staff experts at the manage­ rial level have taken over most of the duties listed above (Miller and Form, 1964: 211). The primary duty of the supervisor is supervision. This supervisory role is a complicated one. It is complicated first of all by the origins of the individuals involved. Traditionally, foremen have been promoted from the ranks of workers. There is mixed evidence regarding the extent to which members of the rank and file desire the promotion to foreman. Walker et al. (1952) found that the automobile workers they studied viewed the promotion to foreman as a desirable move. On the other hand, another study of auto workers found that less

70

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

than 10% of the workers would want to take such a position (Chinoy, 1955). A British study found a mixed, but mostly negative, attitude among workers in regard to their possible move to a foreman’s position (Goldthorpe et al., 1970). The major reason the foreman’s role is viewed as less than totally desirable by many workers is their recognition of the difficulty of the role, a topic to be addressed shortly. The other route to the foreman’s position is from outside the imme­ diate work group. When the foreman is brought in from outside, it is typically as part of the training for labor movement up the managerial ladder. Here, the new foreman, typically a college graduate, has not been “one of the boys.” It is at this point that we can begin to see one aspect of the dilemma foremen face. Are they management or are they workers? As first-line supervisors, they are really neither. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that foremen must implement decisions made by people at higher levels in the organization (Wray, 1949). The situation is further compli­ cated by the fact that the foreman is expected to be both an instrumental or task-oriented person and an expressive or socioemotionally oriented person. As Etzioni’s work (1961,1965) has shown, it is next to impossi­ ble to act in both ways at the same time. If the foreman is task oriented, he is likely to behave in ways that threaten his socioemotional ties to his workers, and vice versa. The whole situation is made even more difficult if the work place is unionized, because this further erodes the foreman’s authority (Halpern, 1961). The foreman is thus in an objectively difficult situation, with the basic issue being the degree to which he can be sensitive to workers’ feelings and needs versus meeting managerial expectations in regard to issues such as productivity and following company policy. What does the foreman do? According to Miller and Form (1964), there are four alternatives for the foreman in adapting to this role conflict. He can identify with management, which would be most likely in the case of the foreman brought in from outside and who expects to move into higher management. The second form of identification is with workers, which would be most common among those who have been promoted from the ranks. These two forms of identification are the most common adaptations. Foremen can also attempt a dual orientation, making an effort to identify equally with both groups. This is difficult and is most likely to occur among those who have been recently pro­ moted. This orientation is also likely to last only until there is a crisis and the individual is forced to take a stand. The final form of identification is with other foremen, through foremen’s unions or associations. This, in essence, is a recognition of the marginal status.

Forms o f Work

71

The trend among foremen appears to be in the direction of the management orientation (Grimm and Dunn, forthcoming). As this occurs, the role conflicts experienced by foremen will lessen, according to Grimm and Dunn. This will happen in conjunction with changes in manufacturing technology in which more complex sociotechnical sys­ tems are present and the old boss/ worker split is less severe. At the same time, of course, the position of foreman will cease to be a form of blue-collar work.

Semiskilled Work Semiskilled work is work that is designed so it can be learned in a relatively short time. The most obvious examples of semiskilled work are found in factory work. As Montagna (1977: 345) notes: The large majority of factory workers are semiskilled workers, persons who operate a multitude of different machines. There are filers, polishers, sanders, buffers, punch and stamp press operatives, welders, drill press operatives, lathe and milling machine operatives, textile operatives, grinders and winders, automobile assembly line workers, rubber, chemi­ cal, and paper plant workers, shoe factory workers, and many hundreds more__ operatives in factories are very closely supervised, for their labor is divided into miniscule parts, each worker being responsible for com­ pleting only one or a few of these parts, and worker productivity is carefully measured, with expectations that it should meet a preset stan­ dard of productivity.

The proportion of the labor force performing semiskilled work has declined. In 1950 fully 20% of the labor force in the United States was in semiskilled work, and by 1982 the figure was 13% (Tausky, 1984: 59). This shift is based on three factors. As has been noted, the economy itself is moving in the direction of the provision of services, with the produc­ tion of goods remaining rather constant. In addition, many forms of production have been moved outside of the United States or have been the object of intensive foreign competition. Much clothing production takes place in Third World countries, where labor is cheap and not unionized. The production of automobiles and television sets has obviously been influenced by strong foreign competition. The final factor here is technological change, with the development of robotics and other advanced production techniques that lower the demand for semiskilled work. There are many myths about semiskilled work. These myths will be used to demonstrate the variety of work and workers in this form of

72

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

work. The first myth is that anyone can do semiskilled work. Linhart’s (1981) account of his experience in a French automobile factory is an inadvertent acknowledgment of the fact that semiskilled work cannot be learned by anyone in a short amount of time. Linhart took a job on an assembly line with the intent of politicizing and organizing the workers. He found that the work required dexterity and strength that he did not have, and he was simply unable to accomplish his assigned work in his initial work stations. While Linhart’s work illustrates that at least some semiskilled work is not all that simple (he was basically unsuccessful in his organizing efforts, also), his book also vividly demonstrates the invalidity of the myth that factory work has become relatively safe and easy. The work that Linhart and his coworkers were asked to perform was dangerous and hazardous, involving noxious fumes, sharp pieces of metal, and the inexorable movement of the assembly line threatening the mental and physical well-being of the workers. Perhaps the major myth in regard to semiskilled work is that it is alienating for the workers involved. Here the myth is partially true and partially false—which is probably characteristic of many myths. Allardt (1976), following Marx and Engels (1939), notes that there are two important meanings of the concept of alienation. The first is the private ownership of the means of production and the division of labor. In this case, semiskilled workers are clearly and objectively alienated, except in those cases in which employee ownership has been introduced (see Chapter 10). The second form of alienation is social psychological and involves how workers react to the objective conditions of their employ­ ment. Here the issue is much more sticky. The ways in which people react to their work will be considered in more detail in the next chapter. Here it is enough to conclude that for many semiskilled workers work is alienating, and for others it is not. Blauner’s (1964) study found that technological and organizational variations were related to the degree of alienation experienced by the factory workers studied. Goldthorpe et al.’s (1970: 84) analysis of afflu­ ent British workers concludes: We would therefore suggest that in the view of the majority of our affluent workers they have made a bargain with their firms, in terms of rewards for effort, which provides better than most others available to them for that pattern of rewards which for the time being they wish to pursue; and further, that for all groups in the sample, but most clearly for the semi­ skilled men, this pattern is one in which high-level economic returns are given some priority. Thus, these workers are disposed to define their relationship with their firm more as one of reciprocity and mutual accommodation rather than as one of coercion and exploitation. And in this sense at least they are far from being “alienated.” [This and

Forms o f Work

73

subsequent quotes from this source are reprinted by permission of the publisher, Cambridge University Press.]

The key factor appears to be the expectations people bring to their semiskilled work. For some workers routine and repetitive work is alienating, and for others it is a source of either passive or positive satisfaction (Walker and Guest, 1962). Yet another myth is that the introduction of new organizational arrangements and new work patterns will drastically alter the behavior of semiskilled workers. Programs of job enrichment, quality control circles, and other managerially developed programs to create highcommitment work systems have had mixed success (Walton, 1980). Again, these will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 10. The point here is that there is no set of panaceas that can be applied to semiskilled work to make workers both more productive and more satisfied at the same time. Not all semiskilled work is done in factories. As in the case of skilled work, transportation is another major area of semiskilled work—for example, local truck drivers or taxicab drivers are representative. Davis (1959) provides some interesting insights into the work of the cabdriver. This work is much less structured than that of the factory worker. The driver is dependent upon finding fares. Although there are locations where fares are likely to be found, such as airports, hotels, or entertain­ ment areas, there is almost no predictability about where the fare might want to be taken, or how much the fare will tip the driver. There are few steady customers and thus a great deal of uncertainty. In addition, the cabdriver suffers from the fact that the skills involved in doing the work are usually possessed by the fares themselves, who frequently know exactly where they are going and how to get there. The cabdriver is thus an appendage to his or her machine. The cabdriver is dependent upon tips, but has little control over them. Although cabdrivers develop vocabularies describing different types of fares, their opportunities for developing close relationships with fares is extremely limited. At the same time, developing relationships with other cabdrivers is counter­ productive, because time spent talking is time not spent earning money. Although cabdriving is an interesting occupation, its placement as a form of semiskilled work is indicative of the arbitrariness involved in labeling some work as skilled and other work as semiskilled. The long­ distance truck driver is considered a skilled worker, while the local truck driver or cabdriver is considered semiskilled. The basic distinctions are based on the length of time it takes to learn the job and the earnings potential of the job.

74

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

One of the basic characteristics of most semiskilled work is that workers have their work defined for them by the employing organiza­ tion. Potential employees apply for work, but not for specific jobs. Inasmuch as training times are brief, the assumption of employers is that the workers themselves are interchangeable. This is not to say that semiskilled workers are entirely controlled by their employers. In a perceptive set of articles, Roy (1952, 1954, 19591960) describes the manner in which workers made sure their rates for piecework (a system in which workers are paid by the unit produced) remained high by deliberately restricting their output and slowing down the pace of their work. Collusion among work groups, as well as with foremen, was also found. Roy also demonstrated the ways in which “games” were developed to relieve the boredom and monotony of the work. There were special times each day or every few days for breaks in the monotony of the work. In a related study, Bensman and Gerver (1963) report on a situation in which the work group increased their productivity by using an illegal technique to achieve production quotas. The point here is that, as in office work, informal work groups develop that humanize the work itself. Such informal work groups are found in all forms of work. The development of such work groups, of course, is more difficult when there is a great deal of noise, which inhibits interaction, or where the workers are spatially separated. In later chapters other aspects of semiskilled work, such as technolog­ ical change, the labor movement, and the distribution of such work by gender, will be addressed. Semiskilled work is at the heart of the produc­ tion process in industrialized societies. While the proportion of workers performing such work is decreasing, the centrality of such work in contemporary society cannot be minimized.

Unskilled Work Aside from farm work, unskilled work has declined most rapidly in the United States. In 1900, 13% of the labor force was doing unskilled work, but by 1982 this figure had decreased to 4% of the labor force (Tausky, 1984: 59). The nature of unskilled work and technological change explain this phenomenon. Unskilled work involves physical labor, such as digging ditches, unloading goods from railroad cars, and hauling lumber. The basic requirement for employment in unskilled work is appearing strong enough to accomplish the work. People who engage in unskilled work

Forms o f Work

75

are called “laborers”—a term with strong negative connotations, espe­ cially when it is combined with the modifier “common.” The impact of technological change is always in the direction of saving labor, so that there is an almost inevitable tendency for less and less unskilled work to be available. There is a more subtle form of technological change that also affects unskilled work. The building janitor, for example, is frequently viewed as an unskilled worker who provides services rather than products. Janitorial work has increased in its skill requirements as the materials used in buildings have become more varied and cleaning them has become more complex. Janitors must be able to read labels, for example, to distinguish between cleaning agents used on asphalt tile and those used on marble floors. What was once rather simple labor has become more complex and thus is no longer a form of unskilled work. There is another dimension to unskilled work. According to Caplow (1954:172), a major criterion for defining unskilled work is regularity of employment. People in unskilled work are employed less regularly than are those in other forms of work. There is a great deal of validity to this criterion. In unskilled work hiring is often done on a per-day basis, with workers showing up at hiring or union halls, hoping to find work for the day. The demand for such jobs varies and is affected by such non-workrelated variables as the weather—snow removal jobs are available only when and where there are snow storms. People who do unskilled work have time on their hands when work is not available, and this time can be filled with alcohol or drug abuse. If this is in fact the case, then the substance abuse, irregular employment, and poverty all combine to form a vicious circle. The unavailability of work is out of the hands of the potential workers. This is a major source of structural unemploy­ ment, which was discussed in Chapter 1. An interesting anomaly exists in unskilled work. In New York City, sanitation workers are very well paid. Much of the work is unskilled work, consisting of emptying garbage cans into a truck—the workers simply do physical labor. The high pay is a consequence of a strong union. This form of unskilled work is also much more regular than typical unskilled work. Thus far in this chapter the analysis has moved through a rough hierarchy of forms of work. My intent has been to discuss the various forms of work in a nonhierarchical manner, but a hierarchy has been implicit throughout. The various categories that have been employed are very close to those developed by Edwards (1943) for the U.S. Census. Edwards believed that grouping occupations into the categories would

76

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

yield distinct social groupings. Events occurring since 1943 have prob­ ably blurred some of the distinctions that Edwards believed were pres­ ent. However, the categories he used remain in use in official U.S. statistics, with only minor modifications. To close this chapter, other forms of work that Edwards did not really consider—service work and, a form that was built into his original formulation, farm work—will be examined. An examination of house­ work will conclude the chapter.

Other Work The major form of work, at least in a statistical sense, that has not been discussed yet is service work. According to Tausky (1984: 59-60): The “service workers” category covers a diversity of occupations and includes many jobs on the lowest rungs of an occupational cluster. For instance, in food services, counter workers, waiters, waitresses, and dishwashers are included, as are cooks, but bakers are counted as skilled workers, and food service supervisors are classified as managers. In health services, practical nurses and attendants are counted as service workers while registered nurses appear in the professional, technical category. Also among service workers we find guards, doorkeepers, watchmen, porters, janitors, bootblacks, as well as barbers and beauticians, mid­ wives, firefighters, police, and detectives. Many of these occupations are low skill, minimum wage jobs, so people who can not compete for better work may find themselves in the least desirable of the service jobs.

Tausky’s notation in regard to classification and counting refers to the ways in which official government statistics are kept. These same statistics indicate an increase in service work from 4% of the labor force in 1900 to 12% of the labor force in 1982. The classifications also reveal some interesting anomalies. In food services, for example, the waiter in an exclusive restaurant has a very different job and a very different status from the waiter in the local pizzeria or the counter person at a fast-food franchise. Similarly, there are cooks and there are chefs. Nonetheless, service work, despite its heterogeneity, is a statistically important form of work. As might be expected from Tausky’s reference to competing for better jobs, it is disadvantaged people who make up the service work category. Fox and Hesse-Biber (1984: 98) note that 20% of employed women were in service work in 1979. They also note that the work is concentrated in food services and health and personal services, such as the work of orderlies, hairdressers, and cosmetologists. Private house­ hold work and cleaning are also common forms of service work for

Forms o f Work

77

women. As would also be expected, minority group members are also heavily concentrated in lower-level service work (Tausky, 1984: 61). Most forms of service work involve direct interactions with cus­ tomers or clients. As was discussed in Chapter 1, waitresses attempt to control the interactions with customers. There are some situations in which such control is next to impossible. Hearn and Stoll (1975: 106107), in a study of cocktail waitresses, describe the following situation: In a dimly lighted, escapist atmosphere (i.e., The Shangri-La Club) the function of the waitress is to sell drinks with as much ingenuity, speed, and grace as possible. At the end of the evening she turns in money received from customers according to the reading on the cash register. Money over and above the reading is hers—her tips. The waitress is dependent on tips for her livelihood since this city, as in many others, weak unionization allows management to pay usually no more than one dollar per hour for her services. Since the waitresses feel they must make a total of at least thirty-five dollars to have had a “good” night, it is imperative that the waitress please the customer, which shapes the interaction to the advan­ tage of the customer. In addition, she must please the management or lose her job. A less than cordial relationship with her bartender can also lead to slow service and fewer tips, a situation which highlights her lack of control over the work setting.

The cocktail waitress’s control of her situation is made even more difficult by the fact that most of her customers are men who are drink­ ing. Such customers can become drunk and obnoxious, or can engage in sexual harassment. All service workers who depend on tips or other such discretionary forms of payment (barbers, beauticians, shoe shiners, and the like) attempt to exert control in the limited life space of their interactions with customers. In the case of barbers and beauticians, it is possible to build up a clientele. As this happens, the potential for control is stronger. These forms of personal service have the potential for entrepreneurship, because the capital costs of starting one’s own shop are quite low. Such entrepreneurship would raise an individual’s status and perhaps his or her income as well. The issue of control takes a different and more ominous shape when another type of service work is considered. In a study of airline flight attendants, Hochschild (1983) describes how attendants are trained to behave in their occupational role and to feel the emotion being expressed. The point of Hochschild’s analysis is that emotions are managed for the sake of the employer. The attendants are taught to control interactions, but are themselves controlled in doing so. The airline flight attendant is a relatively high-status service worker. So too are people in police work, which is glamorized by the mass media. For the most part, however, service work is low in power and

78

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

status. This is in large part due to the nature of the act being performed—serving other people—which in and of itself lowers the status of the work.

Farm Work Farm work is in obvious decline as a form of work in the United States. In 1900,38% of the labor force was involved in farming; by 1982 this figure had dropped to 3%. This is not the case worldwide, however. In an analysis of farm women, Boulding (1980) reports that 70% of the female population in the Third World is involved in agriculture. Clearly, farm work is the major form of work in the Third World countries. In the United States and elsewhere, technological change and industrial­ ization have led to the rapid decrease in farm work, with the highly correlated increase in farm work productivity necessary for feeding the rest of the population. There are two basic forms of farm work. The family farm is most typical in the eastern and midwestern United States. According to Friedland (1981: 352), this pattern is different “from the prevailing trends in the far South (Florida), the Southwest (Texas and Arizona), and the West (especially California), where the new pattern of agribusi­ ness, characterized by factory-like production and large-scale farms, is increasingly the norm.” In large farm operations, much of the farm work is farm labor— essentially the unskilled type of labor discussed above. Contrary to popular belief, much of this labor is nonmigratory, as in the case of grape and citrus workers, who migrate very little, if at all (Friedland, 1981: 352). It is interesting that some of the changes taking place in agriculture are encouraging the unionization of farm workers. There are large organizations with rather permanent labor forces, greater homogeneity in terms of ethnicity (with Mexican workers the dominant group, except in Florida, where there is greater heterogeneity), decreased labor costs due to the scope of the operations and mechanization, and a desire on the part of employers to have a more stabilized labor force (Friedland, 1981: 364). This unionization is very different from initial attempts to organize farm workers in California, which were characterized by high levels of conflict. Family farm work is different from almost every other form of work inasmuch as the work is carried out “at home.” Except for very large farms or ranches that are absentee-owned, farmers run their operations

Forms o f Work

79

from home. Both Boulding (1980) and Rosenfeld (forthcoming) have found that housework and farm work are intimately intertwined for farm women. Farm women regularly engage in bookkeeping and main­ taining records, run farm errands, take care of animals, and participate in harvesting. They are less likely than men to work with heavy farm equipment. Farm men are more involved than farm women in the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides—work that is considered hazardous. Rosenfeld reports that the more farm women are involved in farm work, the greater their role in decision making about the farm. Many farm men and women have off-farm jobs. When men have off-farm jobs, their wives handle more tasks and make more decisions about the farm; when farm women have off-farm jobs, their farm roles are diminished accordingly. In farm work, then, there is an interplay of farm roles, off-farm work roles, and family roles. Family farm work is clearly different from the industrialized and postindustrialized forms of work that will occupy most of our attention in the balance of this book. In her small survey of farm women, Bould­ ing (1980: 284-285) captures the differences well: What do the women themselves say about the farming way of life? We asked them what they liked best, and what they liked least, about farming. Togetherness with husband, having the husband around to father the children and be companion and work-partner to the wife, and experienc­ ing family togetherness are the most valued things about farm life. Love of nature and love of independence, not being bossed around by others, are also highly valued, as is the sense of creating something for the future that will endure. Even harvest time, the time when women have to be three places at once for 18 to 20 hour work days, is chosen by three as what they love best about farming. They love the excitement, the bustle. Work with animals is intrinsically enjoyable for many. The list of what farm wives like least is much shorter. A few mentioned specific chores, such as cleaning milking utensils, or heavy lifting jobs, but the majority complain that they cannot get away. Cows have to be milked twice a day, all animals have to be fed daily, and emergencies like sick animals tend to occur whenever a family trip (rare enough at that) is planned. Planning is risky. Some are embarrassed that they always arrive at gatherings late and have to leave early because of chores. Others worry about getting rid of the barn smell in a hurry when they need to go to meetings or out on errands. The women pride themselves on their clothes and appearance when they are off the farm, and set high standards for their wardrobe, which may or may not be handsewn. Some degree of worry about the future of the family farm and its long-run economic viability shows through in all of the interviews, though only for two is it a major form of anxiety. This is a reflection of the farmer’s economic and

80

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

political status in the larger society, not of the experience of family farming as such. Two of the women give housework as their least-liked task—one can be sure they spend most of their time in the fields. The dislike of winter is an understandable choice for the two who give it, in that the interviews took place just after the worst winter in decades. Keeping cattle alive through blizzards is a physically awesome task, and one in which the women were strenuously involved.

The fears of the women interviewed in regard to the future of the family farm appear to be well founded, since the news media are consis­ tently reporting foreclosures on farms at this writing in early 1984. The dislike of housework is another matter; it is to housework that the discussion now turns.

Homework This last form of work to be discussed has become controversial. Feminist authors argue that housework is inherently oppressive for women (see Oakley, 1974, 1980; and Hartmann, 1981). Marxists view housework as a by-product of a larger social conflict (Berk and Berk, 1979; Berk and Shih, 1980). Spokespersons from the “new right,” such as Phyllis Schlafly, would view housework as the most rewarding and moral activity for a woman (see Eisenstein, 1982). The plan here is to attempt to steer a course through these political reefs by first describing the nature of housework and then analyzing who does it under what circumstances. Issues such as the dual-career family and other aspects of the marital relationship will be discussed at later points in the analysis. The focus here is on housework as a form of work activity. The contents of housework vary by the circumstances of the individ­ uals involved. The single person has a different set of activities from that of the family with young children, which is in turn different from the activities of a single parent or the family whose children have moved away from the home. In her analysis of housewives, Lopata (1971: 32-44) has identified several stages in the life cycle of the housewife role. When a woman becomes a housewife, she receives little training for the role, but the role itself has fewer demands than does the next stage—the arrival of children. In this second stage, the expanding circle, role demands increase as child-rearing activities become dominant. In the next stage, the fullhouse plateau, all of the children have been bom, but have not yet left the home. Child-care duties are heavy during this period, but decrease as

Forms o f Work

81

the woman enters the next stage—the shrinking circle. In this stage, children leave the home and, later, widowhood ensues, with each event decreasing the direct housework role demands. Although housework is in no way confined to housewives, the stages in the life cycle that Lopata introduces are relevant for housework as such. The actual content of the housework that Lopata (1971: 116-119) analyzed was composed of cooking meals; washing and putting away dishes; making beds and housecleaning; laundry and clothing care; shopping for food; caring for children; taking care of money, bills, and finances; gardening; and heavy cleaning. This list should be expanded to include chauffeuring, lawn mowing, painting and wallpapering, yard work, and the maintenance of household equipment. These activities have economic value, and various attempts have been made to specify what the exact value of each activity would be if it were purchased in the market (see Montagna, 1977:131-133). The “new home economists” (Becker, 1976, 1981) attempt to explain the allocation of husbands’and wives’time to market wage work and housework in terms of men’s and women’s relative productivity in each market. In discussing the new home economists’ approach to housework, Huber and Spitze (1983: 77) note: The advantage of the theory is that it explains the division of household labor on rational grounds, thus demystifying it. However, the theory has some problems. The New Home Economists have never clarified whether decisions about housework are made sequentially or concurrently, hence it would be difficult to confirm the theory in the absence of information on the actual decision making process. It is just as plausible to suppose that women’s prior assignment to household work makes them less able to compete with men in wage work as it is to conclude that women do housework because their wages are lower than men’s. A worse problem is that, although wage rates straightforwardly measure market productiv­ ity, there is no way to measure household productivity. The New Home Economists simply assume that women’s socialization makes them more productive than men in the home, as Ferber and Bimbaum (1977) point out. Hence, whatever its merits, the theory that differential economic productivity causes the household division of labor is not testable.

Huber and Spitze then go to analyze the division of household work between men and women based on the amount of market work per­ formed. I will return to that issue shortly. Before doing so, however, I would like to address other noteworthy aspects of housework. In an attempt to indicate that both feminist and Marxist approaches to housework are too reductionist in their interpretations, Valadez and Clignet (1984) describe housework in terms of “ordeals of civility” and

82

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

“ordeals of conviviality.” The idea of an ordeal of civility involves the “socially conditioned ways of dealing with domestic life that reaffirm within and across households the boundaries of the culture to which individuals claim to belong” (p. 827). In other works, insiders are distinguished from outsiders, so that judgments have to be made in terms of when it is or is not appropriate to bring outsiders into the house. Is the house clean enough? Will family members behave appropriately? These are common questions that would be raised in this regard. Out­ siders are evaluated in the same manner. Although ordeals of civility take place in relation to outsiders, ordeals of conviviality serve to reinforce the bonds among family members and include such rituals as Thanksgiving and Christmas celebrations (Valadez and Clignet, 1984: 828). Although the word “ordeal” might be misleading here, the point is that housework is historically and culturally relative. It serves important symbolic functions. Housework, like all work, has been affected by technological change. Contrary to popular opinion, however, technological changes in house­ work have not had the effect of reducing the amount of time devoted to housework (Bose, 1979; Bose and Bereano, 1983). Even though such changes as hot and cold running water eliminated pumping, carrying, and heating water, and electricity and gas reduced the need for coal or wood stoves and hence wood chopping, coal carrying, and the stoking and cleaning of stoves, the time saved was apparently shifted to other household tasks. Bose (1979: 298) notes: “Today, not only rising stan­ dards, but also the proliferation of small and medium-sized appliances that are task-extending or -adding rather than task-eliminating have offset many of the original gains made by utilities in decreasing time.” New small appliances, such as food processors or microwave ovens require more elaborate cleaning, create storage problems, and increase the likelihood of maintenance problems. Bose goes on to note that the increase in eating out in restaurants or in fast-food establishments may well be offset by the preparation of more elaborate meals at home as gourmet-type cooking is embraced by more and more people. There may thus be an emphasis on quality rather than quantity of tasks performed, but the time taken has changed very little. Technological change has altered the composition of housework, but not really who does it. Bose and Bereano (1983: 92) conclude: The greatest impacts on housework have come from nontechnological changes—increased labor demand for women, reduced household size, home monotony, aspects of contemporary feminist thought, and the pressures of inflation drawing women to paid work. These in turn, have decreased the time available for housework. Technology has fostered the

Forms o f Work

83

redefinition of housework away from production and toward consump­ tion, transportation, and childcare. This redefinition may have facili­ tated, but not caused, the current distribution of women’s time and effort between paid and unpaid labor. Technology itself does not determine outcomes; the impact is determined by society’s use of it. Thus technology is not an independent variable, but an intervening one that facilitates change processes. Technology allowed individual women’s labor to sub­ stitute for the loss of servants and other primarily female family members’ aid; to raise the standard of living; and to reduce the necessary hours of housework. But its goal was never to decrease male power in the home.

Who, then, does housework? The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that it is women, whether they are working in the labor market or not. Huber and Spitze (1983) present compelling evidence in support of this conclusion. Using a national sample of husbands and wives in the United States, they found that when wives were employed in the labor force, there was a decrease in the amount of time they devoted to housework, but only a slight increase in the amount of time employed husbands spent doing housework. The husbands of employed wives spend little more time doing housework than do husbands of wives not employed, but since the wives spend less time, the relative contribution of the husbands with employed wives is greater (Vanek, 1974; Pleck, 1977). Thus, except for single males, housework is largely women’s work. This is not to imply that all women who are mainly housewives report seething discontent. Indeed, studies such as Lopata’s (1971) indicate that many women are very comfortable in the housewife role and find that it provides them with opportunities to develop and demonstrate their competencies. For other women, housework is boring and monot­ onous, and this is one of the reasons employment outside the home is sought. When both husbands and wives work outside the home, it is the wife who is the primary provider of housework. In this regard, women are disadvantaged.

CONCLUSIONS In this chapter the major forms of work in contemporary society have been examined. In each of the forms discussed, one of the issues that was hinted at, but seldom discussed, was the ways in which individuals in the various forms of work react to their work. In the discussion of house­ work just concluded, it was also clear that individuals bring to their

84

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

work differing expectations. With this in mind, the focus now turns to a consideration of the individual dimension of work.

REFERENCES Abbott, Andrew (1981) "Status and status strains in the professions.” American Journal of Sociology 86 (January): 819-835. Aldrich, Howard E. (1979) Organizations and Environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Allardt, Erik (1976) “Work and political behavior,” in Robert Dubin (ed.) Handbook of Work, Organization, and Society. Chicago: Rand McNally. American Nurses’Association (1982) Professionalism and the Empowerment of Nursing. Kansas City, MO: Author. Barnard, Chester I. (1938) The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Becker, Gary (1976) The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. -------- (1981) A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bell, Daniel (1976) The Coming of the Post-Industrial Society. New York: Basic Books. Bensman, Joseph and Israel Gerver (1963) “Crime and punishment in the factory: the function of deviancy in maintaining the social system.” American Sociological Review 35 (August): 588-598. Berk, Richard and Sarah Fenstermaker Berk (1979) Labor and Leisure at Home. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Berk, Sarah Fenstermaker and Anthony Shih (1980) “Contributions to household labor comparing wives’ and husbands’ reports,” in Sarah Fenstermaker Berk (ed.) Women and Household Labor. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Berle, Adolph A., Jr. and Gardiner C. Means (1932) The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New York: Macmillan. Blau, Judith R. (1979) “Expertise and power in professional organizations. ” Sociology of Work and Occupations 6 (February): 103-123. Blau, Peter M. and Otis Dudley Duncan (1967) The American Occupational Structure. New York: John Wiley. Blau, Peter M. and Richard Schoenherr (1971) The Structure of Organizations. New York: Basic Books. Blauner, Robert (1964) Alienation and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bose, Christine (1979) “Technology and changes in the division of labor in the American home.” Women’s Studies International Quarterly 2: 295-304. -------- and Philip L. Bereano (1983) “Household technologies: burden or blessing,” in Jan Zimmerman (ed.) The Technological Woman: Interfacing with Tomorrow. New York: Praeger. Boulding, Elise (1980) “The labor of U.S. farm women: a knowledge gap.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 7 (August): 261-290. Burnham, James (1962) The Managerial Revolution. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Burt, Ronald S. (1980) “Cooptive corporate action networks.” Administrative Science Quarterly 25 (December): 557-582.

Forms o f Work

85

Campbell, John P., Marvin D. Dunnette, Edward E. Lawler III, and Karl E. Weick (1970) Managerial Behavior, Performance, and Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Caplow, Theodore (1954) The Sociology of Work. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. -------- (1966) “Sequential steps in professionalization,” in Howard M. Vollmer and Donald L. Mills (eds.) Professionalization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. -------- (1983) Managing an Organization. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Carlin, Jerome (1962) Lawyers on Their Own. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. -------- (1966) Lawyers’ Ethics. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Carr-Saunders, A. R. and P. A. Wilson (1944) “Professions,” pp. 476-480 in Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 22. New York: Macmillan. Chandler, Alfred (1962) Strategy and Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Chinoy, Ely (1955) Automobile Workers and the American Dream. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Cullen, John B. (1978) The Structure of Professionalism: A Quantitative Examination. New York: Petrocelli. Dahrendorf, Ralf (1959) Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Dalton, Melville (1950) “Conflicts between staff and line managerial officers.” American Sociological Review 15 (June): 342-351. -------- (1959) Men Who Manage. New York: John Wiley. Daniels, Arlene Kaplan (1969) “The captive professional: bureaucratic limitations in the practice of military psychiatry.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 10 (December): 255-255. Davis, Fred (1959) “The cabdriver and his fare: facets of a fleeting relationship. ” American Journal of Sociology 65 (September): 158-165. Edwards, Alba M. (1943) Comparative Occupational Statistics for the United States, 1870-1940. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Eisenstein, James (1978) Counsel for the United States: U.S. Attorneys in the Political and Legal Systems. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. -------- (1982) “The sexual politics of the new right: understanding the ‘crisis of Liberalism’ for the 1980s.” Signs 7 (Spring): 567-588. Erlanger, Howard S. (1977) “Social reform organizations and subsequent careers of participants: a follow-up study of early participants in the OEO Legal Services Program.” American Sociological Review 42 (April): 233-248. -------- (1980) “The allocation of status within occupations: the case of the legal profes­ sion.” Social Forces 58 (March): 882-903. Etzioni, Amitai (1961) A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: Free Press. -------- (1965) “Dual leadership in complex organizations.” American Sociological Review 30 (October): 688-698. -------- (1969) The Semi-Professions and Their Organization: Teachers, Nurses, Social Workers. New York: Free Press. Evans, Mari ah D. and Edward O. Laumann (1983) “Professional commitment: myth or reality,” pp. 3-40 in Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, Vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Ferber, Marianne and Bonnie Bimbaum (1977) “The ‘new home economics’: retrospects and prospects.” Journal of Consumer Research 4 (January): 19-28.

86

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Ferrence, Thomas P., Fred H. Goldner, and R. Richard Ritti (1973) “Priests and church: the professionalization of an organization,” in Eliot Freidson (ed.) The Professions and Their Prospects. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Form, William (1982) “Self employed manual workers: petty bourgeois or working class?” Social Forces 60 (June): 1050-1069. Fox, Mary Frank and Sharlene Hess-Biber (1984) Women at Work. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Freidson, Eliot (1972) The Profession of Medicine. New York: Dodd, Mead. -------- (1973) “Professions and the occupational principle,” in Eliot Freidson (ed.) The Professions and Their Prospects. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Friedland, William H. (1981) “Seasonal farm labor and worker consciousness,” pp. 351-380 in Richard L. Simpson and Ida Harper Simpson (eds.) Research in the Sociology of Work, Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Galbraith, John K. (1971) The New Industrial State. New York: Mentor. Giddens, Anthony (1973) The Class Structure of Advanced Societies. New York: Barnes & Noble. Glaser, Barney G. (1964) Organizational Scientists: Their Professional Careers. Indianap­ olis: Bobbs-Merrill. Glenn, Evelyn and Rosalyn Feldberg (1979) “Clerical work: the female occupation,” in J. Freeman (ed.) Women: A Feminist Perspective. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Goldthorpe, John H., David Lockwood, Frank Bechhofer, and Jennifer Platt (1970) The Affluent Worker: Industrial Attitudes and Behavior. London: Cambridge University Press. Goode, William J. (1957) “Community within a community: the professions.” American Sociological Review 22 (April): 194-200. -------- (1960) “Encroachment, charlatanism, and the emerging professions: psychology, sociology, and medicine.” American Sociological Review 25 (December): 902-914. Greenwald, Howard P. (1978) “Politics and the new insecurity: ideological changes of professionals in a recession.” Social Forces 57 (September): 103-118. Greenwood, Ernest (1957) “Attributes of a profession.” Social Work 2 (July): 45-55. Grimm, James W. and Thomas P. Dunn (forthcoming) “The contemporary foreman status: evidence from an automobile assembly plant.” Work and Occupations. Grimm, James W. and Carol L. Kronus (1973) “Occupations and publics: a framework for analysis.” Sociological Quarterly 14 (Winter): 68-87. Grimm, James W. and Robert N. Stern (1974) “Sex roles and the internal labor market structures: the ‘Female’ semi-professions."Social Problems 21 (June): 690-705. Gross, Edward (1958) Work and Society. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell. Haga, William J., George Graen, and Fred Dansereau (1974) “Professionalism and role making in a service organization: a longitudinal investigation.” American Sociological Review 39 (February): 122-133. Hall, Richard H. (1968) “Professionalization and bureaucratization.” American Sociolog­ ical Review 33 (February): 92-104. -------- (1975) Occupations and the Social Structure. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. -------- (1979) “The social construction of the professions.” Sociology of Work and Occu­ pations 6 (February): 124-126. -------- (1982) Organizations: Structure and Process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. -------- (1983) “Theoretical trends in the sociology of occupations. ” Sociological Quarterly 24 (Winter): 5-24. Halpem, Richard S. (1961) “Employee unionization and foremen’s attitudes.” Adminis­ trative Science Quarterly 6 (June): 73-88.

Forms o f Work

87

Hartmann, Heidi I. (1981) “The family as the locus of gender, class, and political struggle.” Signs 6 (Spring): 366-396. Haug, Marie R. (1977) “Computer technology and the obsolescence of the concept of profession,” in Marie R. Haug and Jacques Dofny (eds.) Work and Technology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. -------- and Marvin Sussman (1969) uProfessional autonomy and the revolt of the client.” Social Problems 17 (Fall): 153-161. Hearn, H. L. and Patricia Stoll (1975) “Continuance commitment in low-status occupa­ tions: the cocktail waitress.” Sociological Quarterly 16 (Winter): 105-114. Heinz, John P. and Edward O. Laumann (1983) Chicago Lawyers: The Social Structure of the Bar. New York: Russell Sage Foundation and American Bar Association. Henry, Kenneth (1972) The Large Corporation Public Relations Manager: Emerging Professional in a Bureaucracy? New Haven, CT: College and University Press. Heydebrand, Wolf V. (1985) “Review of Chicago Lawyers: The Social Structure o f the Bar, by John P. Heinz and Edward O. Laumann.” Work and Occupations 12 (November). Hochschild, Arlie (1983) The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press. Huber, Joan and Glenna Spitze (1983) Sex Stratification: Children, Housework, and Jobs. New York: Academic. Hughes, Everett C. (1958) Men and Their Work. New York: Free Press. Hull, Frank M., Nathalie S. Friedman, and Theresa F. Rogers (1982) “The effect of technology on alienation from work: testing Blauner’s inverted U-curve hypothesis for 110 industrial organizations and 245 retrained printers.” Work and Occupations 9 (February): 31-58. James, David R. and Michael Soref (1981) “Profit constraints on managerial autonomy: managerial theory and the unmaking of the corporation president.” American Socio­ logical Review 46 (February): 1-18. Johnson, Terrence (1972) The Professions and Power. London: Macmillan. -------- (1977) “The professions in the class structure,” in R. Scase(ed.) Industrial Society: Class, Cleavage, and Control. New York: St. Martin’s. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kimberly, John R., Robert H. Miles, and Associates (1980) The Organizational Life Cycle. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Klegon, Douglas (1978) “The sociology of the professions: an emerging perspective.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 5 (August): 259-284. Kornhauser, William (1965) Scientists in Industry. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kraft, Phillip (1979) “The routinization of computer programming.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 6 (May): 139-155. Ladinsky, Jack (1963) “Careers of lawyers, law practice, and legal institutions.” American Sociological Review 28 (February): 47-54. La Porte, Todd R. (1965) “Conditions of strain and accommodation in industrial research organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 20 (June): 21-38. Larson, Magali Sarfatti (1977) The Rise of Professionalism. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lenski, Gerhard (1966) Power and Privilege. New York: McGraw-Hill. Leventman, Paula Goldman (1981) Professionals Out of Work. New York: Free Press. Likert, Rensis (1962) New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

88

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Linhart, Robert (1981) The Assembly Line (Margaret Crosland, trans.)- Amherst: Univer­ sity of Massachusetts Press. Lopata, Helena Znaniecki (1971) Occupation: Housewife. New York: Oxford University Press. -------- Kathleen F. Norr, Deb Barnewolt, and Cheryl A. Miller (1985) “Job complexity as perceived by workers and experts.” Work and Occupations 12 (November). Mackenzie, Gavin (1973) The Aristocracy of Labor: The Position of Skilled Craftsmen in the American Class Structure. London: Cambridge University Press. Marcson, Simon (1966) Scientists in Government. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univer­ sity Press. Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels (1939) The German Ideology. New York: International. McGregor, Douglas (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. McKelvey, Bill (1982) Organizational Systematics: Taxonomy, Evolution, Classification. Berkeley: University of California Press. Miller, Delbert C. and William Form (1964) Industrial Sociology. New York: Harper & Row. Miller, Stephen J. (1964) “The social bases of sales behavior." Social Problems 12 (Summer): 15-24. Mills, C. Wright (1956) White Collar. New York: Oxford University Press. Montagna, Paul D. (1974) Certified Public Accounting: A Sociological View of a Profes­ sion in Change. Houston: Scholars Book. -------- (1977) Occupations and Society: Toward a Sociology of the Labor Market. New York: John Wiley. Oakley, Ann (1974) The Sociology of Housework. New York: Pantheon. -------- (1980) “Reflections on the study of household labor," in Sarah Fenstermaker Berk (ed.) Women and Household Labor. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Parelius, Ann Parker and Robert Parelius (1978) The Sociology of Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Parkinson, C. Northcote (1957) Parkinson’s Law and Other Studies in Administration. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Parsons, Talcott (1959) “Some problems confronting sociology as a profession." Ameri­ can Sociological Review 24 (August): 547-559. -------- (1960) Structure and Process in Modern Society. New York: Free Press. -------- (1970) “Equality and inequality in modern society or social stratification revisited,” in Edward Laumann (ed.) Social Stratification: Research and Theory for the 1970’s. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. -------- (1971) The System of Modern Societies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pennings, Johannes M. (1980) Interlocking Directorates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Perrucci, Robert (1973) “Engineering: professional servant of power,” in Eliot Freidson (ed.) The Professions and Their Prospects. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. -------- and Joel Gerstl (1969) Profession Without Community: Engineers in American Society. New York: Random House. Peter, Laurence J. and Raymond Hull (1969) The Peter Principle. New York: William Morrow. Peters, Thomas J. and Robert H. Waterman, Jr. (1982) In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies. New York: Harper & Row. Pleck, Joseph (1977) “The work-family role system.” Social Programs 24(April): 417-427. Priest, T. B. and Robert A. Rothman (1985) “Lawyers in corporate chief executive positions: a historical analysis of careers.” Work and Occupations 12 (May): 131-146. Reiss, Albert J. (1961) Occupations and Social Status. New York: Free Press.

Forms o f Work

89

Ritzer, George (197S) “Professionalization, bureaucratization, and rationalization: the views of Max Weber.” Social Forces 53 (June): 627-634. -------- (1977) Working. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. -------- and Harrison M. Trice (1969) An Occupation in Conflict: A Study of the Personnel Manager. Ithaca: New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University. Roethlisberger, Fritz J. (1945) “The foreman: master and victim of double talk.” Harvard Business Review 23 (Spring): 283-298. Rosenfeld, Rachel A. (forthcoming) “U.S. farm women: their part in farm work and decision making.” Work and Occupations. Roth, Julius A. (1972) “Professionalism: the sociologist’s decoy.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 1 (February): 6-23. Rothman, Robert A. (1984) “Deprofessionalization: the case of law in America.” Work and Occupations 11 (May): 183-206. Roy, Donald F. (1952) “Quota restriction and goldbricking in a machine shop.” American Journal of Sociology 57 (March): 427-442. -------- (1954) “ ‘Efficiency and the Fix’: informal intergroup relations in a piecework machine shop.” American Journal of Sociology 60 (November): 255-256. -------- (1959-1960) “ ‘Banana time’: job satisfaction and informal interaction." Human Organization 18 (Winter): 158-168. Schervish, Paul G. (1983) The Structural Determinants of Unemployment: Vulnerability and Power in Market Relations. New York: Academic. Scott, W. Richard (1965) “Reactions to supervision in a heteronomous professional organization.” Administrative Science Quarterly 20 (June): 65-81. Seidman, Ann (1978) Working Women: A Study of Women in Paid Jobs. Boulder, CO: Westview. Shepard, Jon M. (1971) Automation and Alienation: A Study of Office and Factory Workers. Cambridge: MIT Press. Shils, Edward, A. (1965) “Charisma, order, and state." American Sociological Review 30 (April): 199-213. Simpson, Richard L. and Ida Harper Simpson (1969) “Women and bureaucracy in the semi-professions," in Amitai Etzioni (ed.) The Semi-Professions and Their Organiza­ tion. New York: Free Press. Singelman, Joachim and Harley L. Browning (1980) “Industrial Transformation and occupational change in the U.S., 1960-70." Social Forces 59 (September): 246-264. Smigel, Erwin O. (1954) “Trends in occupational sociology: a survey of postwar research." American Sociological Review 19 (August): 398-404. -------- (1964) The Wall Street Lawyer. New York: Free Press. -------- Joseph Monane, Robert B. Wood, and Barbara Randall Nye( 1963) “Occupational sociology: a reexamination." Sociology and Social Research 47 (July): 472-477. South, Scott J., Charles M. Bonjean, Judy Corder, and William T. Markham (1982) “Sex and power in the federal bureaucracy: a comparative analysis of male and female supervisors." Work and Occupations 9 (May): 233-254. Starr, Paul (1982) The Social Transformation of American Medicine. New York: Basic. Stein, Nancy Wendlandt (1981) “Occupational mandate: mediated exchange and the science professions.” Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota. Stinchcombe, Arthur (1959) “Bureaucratic and craft administration of production: a comparative study.” Administrative Science Quarterly 4 (September): 168-187. Styles, Margretta M. (1982) “Society and nursing: the new professionalism,” in American Nurses’ Association, Professionalism and the Empowerment of Nursing. Kansas City, MO: American Nurses’ Association.

90

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Tausky, Curt (1984) Work and Society: An Introduction to Industrial Sociology. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock. Taylor, Frederick W. (1911) Scientific Management. New York: Harper & Row. University of the State of New York, State Education Department (1974) Rules of the Board of Regents and Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. Albany: Author. Useem, Michael (1979) “The social organization of the American business elite and participation of corporate directors in the governance of American institutions.” American Sociological Review 44 (August): 553-572. Valadez, Joseph J. and Remi Clignet (1984) “Household work as an ordeal: culture of standards versus standardization of culture.” American Journal of Sociology 89 (January): 812-835. Van de Ven, Andrew H. (1983) “Review of Thomas B. Peters and Robert H. Waterman, Jr., In Search o f Excellence: Lessons from Am erica’s Best-Run Companies. "Admin­ istrative Science Quarterly 28 (December): 621-622. Vanek, Joann (1974) “Time spent in housework.” Scientific American 231 (November): 116-120. Vollmer, Howard M. and Donald L. Mills [eds.] (1966) Professionalization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. -------- and Arthur Turner (1952) The Foreman on the Assembly Line. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walker, Charles and Robert Guest (1962) “The man on the assembly line.” Harvard Business Review 30 (May/June): 71-88. Walton, Richard E. (1980) “Establishing and maintaining high commitment work sys­ tems,” in John R. Kimberly et al. (eds.) The Organizational Life Cycle. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wilensky, Harold (1964) “The professionalization of everyone?” American Journal of Sociology 70 (September): 137-158. Wolf, Wendy and Neil D. Fligstein (1979) “Sex and authority in the workplace: the causes of sexual inequality.” American Sociological Review 44 (April): 235-252. Wray, Donald E. (1949) “Marginal men of industry: the foremen.” American Journal of Sociology 54 (January): 298-301. Wuthnow, Robert and Wesley Shrumm (1983) “Knowledge workers as a ‘new class’: structural and ideological convergence among professional-technical workers and managers.” Work and Occupations 10 (November): 471-487. Zeitlin, Maurice (1974) “Corporate ownership and control: the large corporations and the capitalist class.” American Journal of Sociology 79 (March): 1073-1119.

THE INDIVIDUAL DIMENSION What does work mean to people? For many, work is a means to an end. The means is the paycheck; the end is “life.” “Life” is off the job. For other people, work is the end in and of itself. Work is life. In this chapter the various meanings and motivations that people attach to their work will be examined. Three assumptions will guide the analysis. First, people vary day to day and hour to hour in their orientations toward work. On some days I am really motivated to get work done. On others, I would rather be skiing or golfing. On some days I am happy with my work, and on others I am frustrated or bored. Most of the studies dealt with here do not take this sort of variation into account; rather, they treat the individual as though he or she has a constant orientation toward his or her work. It will also be noted that orientations change over time. What motivated me when I was young is different from what motivates me as I get older. The second assumption is related to the first. Work varies widely in what it provides the individual. There are some facets of my work that are very enjoyable, such as teaching a good class or writing a good chapter. Other facets of my work are deadly, such as grading exams or answering administrative memos. Here again, many studies treat work as though it were all of one kind, although there is a growing awareness that various facets of work should be the basis for study, rather than work as a whole. The third assumption is that there is no ordering or hierarchy in terms of how people respond to or are motivated to do their work. Extrinsic motivations, such as money, are no less moral or of a “lower order” than more intrinsic motivations such as making maximum use of one’s talents. The plan for this chapter is first to examine the ways in which people respond to their work—are they satisfied, committed, alienated? At the same time, an explanation of why people respond as they do will be sought. The discussion will then turn to the broader issue of what motivates people to work. An explanation of people’s responses to work will provide an informed basis for an approach to the broader question of motivation.

92

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

RESPONSES TO WORK The first response to work to be examined is job satisfaction. The discussion begins here because the topic has been widely researched, and the findings will illuminate many other aspects of the ways in which individuals are involved in their work. As Mortimer (1979: 1) notes: In recent years, considerable attention has been directed to the changing attitudes of the work force. Commentators speak of growing dissatisfac­ tion and malaise, the declining potency of traditional incentives, and escalating demands for fulfillment and self-actualization from the job. According to the finding of a newly released national survey (Quinn and Staines, 1979), there was a pervasive decline in job satisfaction between 1973 and 1977, affecting virtually all segments of the working population.

The issue of whether or not there has been a decline in job satisfaction over time is actually not very clear. Tausky (1984: 97) reports findings indicating that between 80% and 90% of national samples taken between 1958 and 1982 report themselves as being either *Wery satisfied” or “satisfied” with their work, based on their responses to a global question (“All things considered, how satisfied are you with your job?”). Part of the discrepancy between these two sets of findings regarding trends in job satisfaction may be due to the methodological issue of how ques­ tions about job satisfaction are asked. As Strauss (1974) has suggested, people with totally boring jobs may be reluctant to say that their jobs are unsatisfying, because to do so might almost be an admission of failure in life itself. In any event, although the exact proportion of the labor force that is satisfied or dissatisfied is subject to debate, there is little controversy in regard to whether or not the topic of satisfaction is important. It is so important that Locke (1976) found thousands of books, articles, and dissertations on the subject that were written over the past twenty years. The strong interest in satisfaction has been the result of several practical and theoretical concerns. A major concern has been the relationship between satisfaction and productivity, with the assumption being that satisfied workers would be more productive. Fortunately or unfortunately, this relationship appears not to be the case. Lawler and Porter (1967), for example, suggest that good performance and the rewards derived therefrom lead to satisfaction (see also Sheridan and Slocum, 1975). Mortimer (1979) suggests that productivity may be a consequence of the technology employed, availability of materials, productivity norms of the work group, and worker skill levels rather than of satisfaction. Although no one would claim that job satisfaction reduces productivity, seeking

The Individual Dimension

93

productivity gains through improving job satisfaction would be a mistake. There is limited evidence regarding the relationships between satis­ faction and behavioral factors such as absenteeism and turnover. Mar­ tin and Miller (forthcoming) find that job satisfaction is a mediating factor in terms of absenteeism. This means that among workers who are most likely to exhibit absenteeism (young workers, for example), the more satisfied workers will be absent less frequently than the less satis­ fied workers. Price (1977) approached the study of turnover in much the same way. He finds that satisfaction is an intervening variable in terms of the extent of turnover. If a worker is poorly paid and if there are other opportunities available, a low level of satisfaction will contribute to turnover. Another reason for the interest in satisfaction is that some observers believe that job satisfaction generalizes or “spills over” into other spheres of life. The idea here is that those who are satisfied with their work will also tend to be satisfied with the rest of their lives. There is a competing hypothesis in the literature that claims essentially the opposite—that people will compensate in their leisure activities for unpleasant work experiences and will engage in leisure activities that make up for what is missed at work. In a test of these relationships, Bergermaier et al. (1984) found some support for the spillover approach, but no support for the compensatory approach. They also tested a “no relationship” model of the relationships between work and nonwork activities and found some support for this model as well. They suggest that the quality of leisure activities appears to be the key factor in individuals* general well-being and that improving work experiences may not produce improvements in general well-being. The thrust of these arguments is that job satisfaction has not been shown to be a strong predictor of other work and nonwork phenomena. The legitimate question to be asked, then, is why be concerned with satisfaction at all? The answer to this question is deceptively simple: Job satisfaction is important in its own right. If work is the major activity of adult life for most people, then whether or not they are satisfied with what they are doing is important. People’s well-being on the job isjust as important as their well-being off the job. Definition According to Kalleberg (1977: 126), Job satisfaction refers to an overall affective orientation on the part of individuals toward work roles which they are presently occupying. It must

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

94

be distinguished from satisfaction with specific dimensions of those work roles. This conceptualization implies that job satisfaction is a unitary concept and that individuals may be characterized by some vaguely defined attitude toward their total job situation. To say that job satisfac­ tion is a unitary concept, however, does not imply that the causes of this overall attitude are not multidimensional. Obviously, a person may be satisfied with one dimension of the job and dissatisfied with another. The assumption underlying the present view is that it is possible to balance these specific satisfactions against the specific dissatisfactions and thus arrive at a composite satisfaction with the job as a whole.

Kalleberg’s usage of job satisfaction will be followed as a unitary concept although it is recognized that it is legitimate to examine facets of satisfaction within this broader concept. One could examine satisfaction with financial rewards across a variety of work settings or examine satisfaction with the degree to which work is experienced as interesting across different age groups. The advantage to using the unitary concept is that this approach recognizes the fact that work is multifaceted, yet experienced as a whole.

Determinants of Job Satisfaction In the discussion that follows, I will borrow heavily from Mortimer’s (1979) analysis of job satisfaction. Her analysis begins with the follow­ ing considerations: Two broad categories of determinants can be identified—those that are external to the worker and those that are internal. There has been considerable debate regarding the relative importance of these two factors. On the one hand are those who argue that the features of work itself—including occupational as well as organizational char­ acteristics—are of predominant importance as determinants of job satis­ faction. Following this approach, and given the overriding importance of work experiences, the attributes of the individual will make little difference. Within this camp, however, are major controversies regarding which features of work are of greatest importance. On the other side are those who argue that the essence of job satisfaction lies in the “fit” or congruence of the worker and the job. As a result, workers will respond differently to their job experiences, depending on their orientation, the rewards deemed by them to be most important, and their most pressing individual needs. These psychological attributes will vary with the worker’s education, age, stage in the family life cycle, sex, race, and other social characteristics.

The Individual Dimension

95

Job satisfaction has been found to be positively related to a host of work dimensions that may be considered indicative of a “good job”: autonomy and freedom from close supervision, good pay and other economic bene­ fits, job security, promotional opportunities, use of valued skills and abilities, variety and interesting work. Job satisfaction is also related to occupational prestige, with research consistently showing higher satisfac­ tion among professional, technical, and managerial workers, and lower satisfaction in the blue-collar and semi-skilled and unskilled ranks, and among service workers. Those in “middle-level” occupations, that is, lower-level white-collar and skilled blue-collar work, fall in an interme­ diate position in the various satisfaction studies (Quinn et al., 1974). These findings are to be expected, in that occupations of higher prestige generally encompass advantages in all of the dimensions of work asso­ ciated with job satisfaction. However, at the highest prestige levels, these advantages may be partially counteracted by role overload, ambiguity, and conflict, which detract from job satisfaction (Locke, 1976). Controversy among investigators, however, surrounds the relative impor­ tance of various occupational attributes and experiences. Locke (1976) identifies three “schools” in this continuing debate: (1) the “PhysicalEconomic School” of the 1920s, led by Taylor and his associates, empha­ sizing the importance of physical work conditions and pay; (2) the “Human Relations School,” started in the 1930s, featuring the social functions of the work group and good supervisory relations in producing worker satisfaction and dissatisfaction; and (3) the “Work Itself (or Growth) School” of more recent years, placing primary emphasis on the interest and challenge of work (Fein, 1976). Still a major figure in this continuing dialogue is Frederick Herzberg (19S9) who argued that only “motivators,” or the intrinsic features of work, inherent in work experi­ ence, generate job satisfaction. The motivators include achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, and advancement. According to Herzberg, extrinsic features, or “hygienes,” relating to salary, supervi­ sion, interpersonal relations, and working conditions, will produce dissat­ isfaction when they are deficient, but will not generate satisfaction when they are adequate [Mortimer, 1979: 3; reprinted by permission].

The debate regarding the importance of extrinsic versus intrinsic job features has continued, with research evidence supporting both sides of the debate readily available. Support for the importance of intrinsic features can be seen in studies such as Gurin et al.’s (1960) findings from a national sample of male workers. Gurin et al. found that those who were generally satisfied with their work were most likely to mention such intrinsic features as interest, variety, responsibility, and competence. In support of the Herzberg approach, this same research found that those who were dissatisfied were most likely to mention extrinsic features. Additional support comes from Kohn and Schooler’s (1973) study,

96

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

which identified “occupational self-direction” as being the most impor­ tant influence on job satisfaction. The idea of occupational selfdirection is centered on the autonomy and scope of the job. Other research evidence in support of the importance of intrinsic job features for job satisfaction can be found in the works of Kahn (1972), Locke (1976), Seashore and Taber (1975), Shepard (1973), Stone (1976), and Tannenbaum et al. (1974). Although this evidence in support of the importance of intrinsic factors is impressive, there is also strong evidence in support of the importance of extrinsic features of the job (see Locke, 1976; Fein, 1976; Strauss, 1974; Tannenbaum et al., 1974). In a study using data from the 1969 Survey o f Working Conditions, Voydanoff (1978) found that intrinsic job features were not more important than extrinsic features in explain­ ing job satisfaction. Bacharach and Aiken (1979), in a study of 44 Belgian administrative bureaucracies, found that subordinate workers were more satisfied when the rules they were to follow were explicit. Both subordinates and superiors reacted positively to a merit system for advancement. Similar findings are reported by Zeitz (1984), who found that workers in bureaucratic settings responded favorably to welldelineated rules. These same workers also disliked the restricted auton­ omy and the enforcement that accompanied the rules. Oldham and Rotchford (1983) studied the physical characteristics of offices and discovered that many factors, such as their openness, the density of the population housed in them, their accessibility, and their darkness, affected employee reactions. Workers were more satisfied in light and open offices. With evidence available that supports the importance of both extrin­ sic and intrinsic job characteristics, how is the controversy resolved? At least a partial answer can be developed by examining evidence in regard to the nature of the “fit” between the individual and the job. According to Mortimer (1979: 4), “The so-called ‘fit’ hypothesis places major emphasis on the compatibility of ‘external’ work features and the ‘internal’attributes the individual brings to the work situation.” Internal attributes include social characteristics, such as age, education, and stage in the life cycle; values, such as variations in the values placed on intrinsic and extrinsic rewards; and needs, such as for selfactualization, safety, or social affiliations. There are interesting pieces of evidence that support the fit hypothe­ sis. For example, Hulin (1966) found that workers in economically depressed communities expressed satisfaction with their work; the same sort of work was less satisfying for workers in other communities.

The Individual Dimension

97

Apparently, individuals bring a different set of expectations to their work when work is hard to find and there are few job alternatives. There is evidence that education raises worker expectations. More educated workers approach their work with a different set of expecta­ tions than do their less educated counterparts. Seybolt (1976) found that greater rewards in the forms of pay, job variety, and task complexity were required to satisfy more educated workers. This is apparently a common phenomenon. Tannenbaum et al. (1974) report that higher level of education was significantly related to lower satisfaction when other relevant occupational variables were controlled. Thus in all five countries studied by Tannenbaum and his colleagues, the more edu­ cated workers expressed less satisfaction if the relevant characteristics of their jobs were the same as for less educated workers. Glenn and Weaver (1982) report that, in general, education is positively related to satisfac­ tion. More educated workers are able to obtain work that brings them the rewards that they have learned to expect. If they are not able to find such work, the underemployment phenomenon noted in Chapter 1 may result. The educational factor has an interesting twist. Some writers have expressed concern about “overeducation” or the situation in which a person has more education than his or her job is thought to require. Quinn et al. (1974), for example, report particularly low satisfaction among workers who had attended college but had not graduated. The authors believe that expectations and aspirations are raised by college attendance and that when these are not realized, satisfaction suffers. Others have not found this pattern. Wright and Hamilton (1979) and Hamilton and Wright (1981; see also Glenn and Weaver, 1982) report that among manual workers with one or more years of college education, there was no significant relationship between education and satisfaction. They suggest that for these workers, who constitute onefifth of white male blue-collar workers, the “fall” into manual work is not so great. The workers came from working-class or lower-middleclass backgrounds to begin with and had little identification with middle-class values. Burris (1983) comes to a very similar conclusion in his analysis of overeducation. He notes that there is a common assumption that over­ educated or underemployed individuals will be dissatisfied, politically to the left or politically alienated, and oriented toward collective move­ ments for mobility. His evidence indicates little such relationship, except among the highly overeducated, who do lean toward a collective stratification ideology. This ideology would tend to be Marxian. Burris

98

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

also found a slight relationship between high overeducation and dissat­ isfaction, but in general found the overeducation argument to be over­ stated. Nonetheless, the overall relationship between education and satisfaction would appear to hold across broad educational levels. Age is another individual factor that has been shown to be related to satisfaction. Wright and Hamilton (1978) and Quinn et al. (1974) have shown that younger workers are systematically less satisfied with their work than are older workers. Wright and Hamilton attribute this to the fact that younger workers, in the early stages of their careers, have objectively poorer jobs than their older counterparts. Janson and Mar­ tin (1982) also present evidence that links age to satisfaction, but their evidence rejects Wright and Hamilton’s suggestion that better jobs among older workers are the source of this relationship. Janson and Wright suggest that older workers’ jobs are not much improved over those of younger workers, but they also do not offer a strong alternative explanation. The answer may lie in the expectation level of the individ­ uals involved, with younger workers expecting more and receiving less, and older workers expecting less and receiving it, and thus being more satisfied. Gender is another individual characteristic that has been linked to satisfaction. Quinn et al. (1974) report that women place greater empha­ sis than men on interpersonal relationships at work and on what are known as “comfort factors,” such as hours and travel time from home, which make work more compatible with household responsibilities. Miller (1980) also focuses on gender differences, but her findings argue against the fit hypothesis. She does find differences between men and women in terms of the satisfaction they report, but the differences are based on the specific work conditions encountered. Women’s satisfac­ tion is affected by the substantive complexity of the work, the hours worked, the dirtiness of the work, and income levels, and men’s satisfac­ tion is affected by the closeness of the supervision they experience, their job protection, and organizational structural characteristics. Miller also reports that women with more education and urban backgrounds tend to be less satisfied. Miller focuses on the day-to-day conditions of work. The stress here on the objective conditions of work is meant to indicate that gender makes less difference than the findings reported by Quinn et al. would suggest. The analysis of the determinants of job satisfaction has, in essence, come full circle. It began with a consideration of job characteristics themselves and then proceeded to an examination of worker character­ istics as they interact with job characteristics. Although there is good evidence to substantiate the fit hypothesis—that workers bring expecta­

The Individual Dimension

99

tions with them to the job and that these will vary by education, age, and perhaps gender—the evidence is far stronger in support of the idea that the characteristics of the work itself are really the key determinants of satisfaction. Mortimer (1979:6-7) concludes that work experiences have much greater explanatory power than do individual attributes in deter­ mining job satisfaction. There is one final consideration in this analysis of the determinants of job satisfaction. The previous analysis of the fit hypothesis and job characteristics has not included a consideration of the expectations that individuals bring with them to their work. These expectations may not be based on the kinds of considerations contained in the discussion of the fit hypothesis. In his approach to satisfaction, Kalleberg (1977) notes that people have differing values in regard to their work. These values can involve factors such as their intrinsic interest in the work, the convenience of the work, financial rewards, relations with coworkers, career opportunities, and the presence of adequate resources for the job. People’s values toward their work are shaped by their socialization and other life experiences, the nonwork social roles (such as being a father or mother with several dependents) they play, and their work experiences, which shape their valuation of the rewards likely to be available to them. Kalleberg goes on to note that the degree of control over the work situation determines the extent to which work rewards can be obtained. Here the importance of class or socioeconomic status variables comes into play. People in higher status positions are able to obtain the rewards that yield job satisfaction. Positional inequality is thus a double source of differences in job satisfaction. Working-class jobs are less satisfying than upper-middle-class jobs, because they offer fewer financial and intrinsic rewards (Kalleberg and Griffin, 1978). At the same time, people in lower-class jobs have much less control over their work and thus have less opportunity to obtain the rewards they do value. This is not to suggest that working-class people work in misery. As Gruenberg (1980) suggests, people adapt to their circumstances because they have to work. If people believe they can use their training and skills, they will be more satisfied than if they do not believe they can do so (Grandjean and Taylor, 1980). Job satisfaction, then, is a complex mixture of work characteristics, the characteristics and experiences of the individuals involved, the expectations and values of those individuals, and their ability to obtain the rewards associated with those values. Some aspects of satisfaction can be manipulated by the worker, some by the employer, and some perhaps through mechanisms of public policy. Others appear to be impossible to change.

100

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Work Commitment and Centrality The discussion now turns to a consideration of a concept that is closely related to work satisfaction. The focus is the extent to which individuals are committed to or involved with their work. For some people, work is their “central life interest” (Dubin, 1956), while for others their major life interests lie outside the job. Lawler and Hall (1970) add the notion that commitment and centrality are related to the degree to which people’s work is vital to their identities. In general, there is a correlation between work satisfaction and work commitment and centrality (Kraut, 1975). Interestingly, Angle and Perry (1983) found that extrinsic aspects of work satisfaction were more strongly associated with commitment than were intrinsic aspects of satisfaction. This finding was based on a study of unionized blue-collar workers. In this analysis, I agree with Mortimer (1979) that although the concepts of satisfaction and commitment are correlated, it is useful and necessary to keep them distinct. People can be quite satisfied with their work, but have their major commitments elsewhere. In a similar manner, people can be heavily involved with their work, but be quite dissatisfied with it. Revolutions and insurrections, after all, are led by highly committed but dissatisfied people. Work commitment can be oriented toward occupations or organiza­ tions. This distinction is particularly relevant for professional workers (Sheldon, 1971), for whom there may be conflict between their orienta­ tions toward their profession and their employer (Patchen, 1970). Unless there is conflict experienced between occupational and organiza­ tional commitment, the distinction, of course, is academic, because the involvement is with work itself. Mortimer (1979) points out several correlates of high levels of com­ mitment, based on research on the topic. More committed workers are less likely to terminate voluntarily or to quit their work. They may also be more ambitious in terms of seeking upward movement in their work. There is also evidence suggesting that highly involved workers are more likely to perform better. In an interesting finding, Dubin and Champoux (1974) report that although supervisors of blue-collar workers in a telephone company reported that their job-oriented workers were rated highest in terms of initiative, application, cooperation, and quantity of work, the same workers were rated quite low in terms of their adaptabil­ ity. Low adaptability may be one of the costs of high commitment. The same basic pattern, although not statistically significant, was found among a set of clerical workers in the same firm.

The Individual Dimension

101

Carried to its extreme, high involvement in work can lead to “work­ aholism" (Machlowitz, 1981), a condition in which the individual is unable to engage in roles outside of the work place in an effective manner. The opposite extreme at the low involvement end of the con­ tinuum would be extreme apathy and alienation—a topic considered in the next section. There have been several attempts to explain the development of work commitment. One of the most interesting is Becker’s (1960) idea of “side bets.” The basic idea in the side bets approach to commitment is that over time, certain costs and investments accrue that make it difficult for a person to disengage from his or her work. Such costs and investments include a person’s education and marital status. These tend to lock a person into a position, because to move on would create the threat of the unknown to these investments. Length of service on the job is another form of side bet, which is enhanced when supplemented by some form of vested pension plan. Side bets can also involve opportunity structures and friendship networks that develop over time. Sell (1982) suggests that workers agree to be relocated or transferred because of these side bets. Corporate policies have contributed to the growth of the Sunbelt in the United States as workers are relocated to new installations. Such reloca­ tion or migration may not be desired by the individuals involved, except for the commitments brought about by side bets. The side bet concept has been tested with mixed results. In a study of personnel managers, Ritzer and Trice (1969) found no relationship between either organizational or occupational commitment and the side bet factors of age, education, marital status (being married would contribute to higher commitment levels), number of children, and over­ alljob mobility. Alutto et al. (1973) come to a different conclusion. They found positive relationships between organizational commitment and age, education, years of experience, and marital status. They also found a curvilinear relationship among age and years of experience and occu­ pational commitment (oldest and youngest workers and most and least experienced workers were the most occupationally committed). Alutto et al.’s sample was of male and female nurses and teachers. The differ­ ence in findings could be attributed to the different populations studied, together with different measures of commitment. Shoemaker et al. (1977) attempted to clarify some of these issues in an analysis of organizational and occupational commitment among federal and state forest and park rangers. They found that among federal rangers there were significant positive correlations between organiza­ tional commitment and age and length of service, but a negative correla­

102

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

tion with education. Among state rangers, there were significant posi­ tive correlations with education and the number of locations to which the rangers had been assigned. These findings support the side bet hypothesis. At the same time, Shoemaker et al. found some nonsignifi­ cant inverse relationships with other variables. In terms of occupational commitment, mostly negative (but nonsignificant) relationships were found. These authors conclude that they find only partial support for the side bet hypothesis and that this hypothesis is best applied to organizational commitment. They also found that a measure of job satisfaction was the best predictor of both organizational and occupa­ tional commitment. Apparently, individual characteristics and expecta­ tions and the characteristics of the jobs themselves are the major con­ tributors to commitment, with side bets as Becker proposed having only limited applicability. Mortimer (1979: 13) suggests that the alternative to the side bet explanation of commitment can be found in approaches that stress equity or expectancy: According to this approach, workers will be committed to their organiza­ tions to the extent that they perceive the balance of their contributions and rewards to be equitable or just. The relationship between organiza­ tion and employee is conceptualized as one of exchange: The individual will be motivated to remain in, and contribute to, the organization when rewards are judged to be equitable, when rewards exceed costs, and when higher levels of rewards are not available elsewhere.

This approach is vividly demonstrated in Schoenherr and Greeley’s (1974) analysis of the Roman Catholic priesthood in the United States. They note that commitment is a continuing process in which commit­ ment results from a desirable net balance of rewards over costs realized by participating in the priest’s role rather than an alternative feasible role. For priests, the desire to marry is the single most crucial alternative feasible role. Grusky’s (1966) findings are also relevant here. He found that the greater the rewards received by individuals, the greater their commit­ ment to the organization. Organizational rewards are obviously linked to positions in the managerial hierarchy. Grusky also found some evidence that commitment is increased by people's having overcome obstacles on the way to obtaining organizational rewards and by the reference groups that people use in evaluating their success. Support for this approach can also be found in studies of other forms of work. In a study of British actors, Layder (1984) found that as actors move toward the apex of the acting hierarchy, more positive sources of commitment become available to them. Here, obstacles must also be overcome, but as this occurs, the positive commitment sources, such as

The Individual Dimension

103

critical acclaim, being sought for choice parts, and a steady income, are increased. When the focus shifts to a very different form of work—mining—a different pattern is seen. Studies by Fitzpatrick (1980) and Vaught and Smith (1980), although not directly dealing with commitment, neverthe­ less show the ways in which workers in this dirty and dangerous occupa­ tion create forms of solidarity that demand commitment from fellow workers. Fitzpatrick describes the development of an “occupational subculture of danger” among the miners he studied. The miners develop a complex of beliefs, patterns of behavior, norms, and values that serve to provide a sense of security for the workers. Vaught and Smith describe the elaborate games and dramatic performances, including an “initiation ceremony” that involved the greasing of genitals of both male and female workers. The purpose of these games and performances was to increase the level of solidarity among the workers, which in turn would serve as a basis of protection against danger. In the Vaught and Smith study, the initiation ceremonies are an obstacle to be overcome on the way to commitment. They are also a form of side bet, in that once a person has passed through the ceremony, he or she would have paid the price and would thus want to continue receiving the rewards that mining had to offer. To leave mining would mean paying the price but not receiving the benefit.

Changes in Work Satisfaction and Commitment During the 1970s and into the 1980s there has been a great deal of concern about a perceived decline in the quality of working life. Much of this was triggered by the 1973 publication of Work in America (OToole, 1973), which contained analyses of such topics as “blue-collar blues,” “white-collar woes,” and “managerial discontent.” After the publication of this report, the popular media, such as Time and Newsweek, had cover feature stories on the issue of declining quality in the work place. In her comprehensive review of the literature on work satisfaction and commitment, Mortimer (1979: 10) analyzes trends in these areas, concluding: Overall, there is little support in the survey data for the contention that changes in the objective features of work have deteriorated so much that they cause the widespread declines in job satisfaction. It suggests little dramatic change in economic rewards, health and safety hazards, or in the time demand of the jobs___ We know that workers are now less satisfied

104

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

with the intrinsic features of their jobs, but cannot determine whether these have, in fact, changed in character.

The decline in job satisfaction to which Mortimer refers is based on her analysis of survey data, especially from 1973 to 1977. Mortimer later attributes the decline in reported job satisfaction to the rising expecta­ tions of workers, particularly young workers. Inasmuch as there is other evidence that younger workers do express less satisfaction, as indicated in the sections above, this appears to be a consistent pattern. Of course, the young workers of the 1970s are now the middle-aged workers of the 1980s. The available evidence suggests that satisfaction does increase with age. The discontent reported in the 1970s was associated with the “baby boom” phenomenon of the 1950s. The key issue for members of this group now would appear to be the availability of work that meets their expectations at their (approaching) middle-aged life stage. Mortimer’s summary of information regarding changes in levels of involvement in and commitment to work suggests that such involve­ ment may be on the increase. In addition to survey data that supports this conclusion, she also cites Rosow (1978), who notes that broad social forces, such as secularization and mobility, declines in marriage rates (particularly among the young), and increases in divorce, have lessened the importance of non-work-related social organizations in the lives of adults. According to this analysis, people will increasingly turn to the work place as a source of interest, interpersonal relationships, and emotional support, instead of relying on family, church, or other social organizations, and this will increase the centrality of work. Of course, this remains to be seen. So far, satisfaction and involvement, commitment, and centrality have been considered here as though they exist on continua, from high to low. This is a reasonable way to approach the issue. It is easy to conceptualize and experience low satisfaction or low involvement. At the same time, there are additional negative reactions to work that go beyond mere low satisfaction or involvement; it is to these the discussion now turns.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COEN: SOME NEGA TIVE ASPECTS OF WORK The 1970s witnessed the arousal of a great deal of interest in work. Much of this interest was sparked by the publication of popular books

The Individual Dimension

105

that caught the imagination of the public, the politicians, and scholars alike. Books such as Stanley Aronowitz’s False Promises: The Shaping o f American Working Class Consciousness, Studs Terkel’s Working, and Barbara Garson’s All the Livelong Day: The Meaning and Demean­ ing o f Routine Work were read and discussed widely. The titles and subtitles reveal the major themes of these works. Work was viewed as more than dissatisfying—work was seen as alienating. The linkage between work and alienation has an interesting history. Marx (1964: 124-125) wrote: “Work is external to the worker; it is not part of his nature; consequently he does not fulfill himself in his work, but denies himself.. . . In work [the worker] does not belong to himself but to another person.” Marx was concerned with the direct linkage between the worker and the means and ownership of the production process. Most contemporary research on alienation has focused on the social psychological aspects of this phenomenon. This research is based on how people feel about their work. There has thus been a shift in emphasis from being powerless in an objective sense to feeling power­ lessness in a social psychological sense. The prime example of dealing with alienation in social psychological terms is Blauner’s (1964) now classic study of forms of alienation found under different working conditions. He considered four forms of aliena­ tion in four industrial settings. The first form of alienation is powerlessness. A powerless person is an object manipulated and controlled by other people or by some imper­ sonal system, such as technology. Powerless people react rather than act; they cannot modify the conditions of their existence. The opposite of powerlessness is freedom and control over one’s own life. Blauner’s research considered the extent to which people were able to move freely about in their work, their freedom to make choices, to vary the pace of their work, to control the quantity and quality of their work, and their freedom to select their own work techniques and routine. The more freedom, the less powerlessness. Meaninglessness was the next component of alienation considered. This is experienced when people are unable to see a connection between their own work and the completed product or service. As the division of labor increases and work becomes more and more subdivided, meaning­ lessness will be created. The third component of alienation is isolation or social alienation. This is a situation in which people are unable to establish satisfactory and satisfying social relationships on the job. It can occur when the noise level is too great to permit conversation or when people are forbidden to communicate with others while working. It can also occur in situations

106

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

in which one is working with a set of people who start as strangers and remain so. The final component of alienation is self-estrangement. Here the worker is depersonalized and detached. There is no intrinsic satisfaction in the work. Work that is experienced as boring and monotonous would be a typical example of a source of self-estrangement. The work is performed, but the worker is detached from the performance. Blauner did not simply assume that industrial work was alienating. Rather, he included the idea of industrial variation in his research. The first source of variation was the technology employed. One of the industries he studied, the printing industry, was at that time character­ ized by a craft technology that had been affected minimally by techno­ logical change. The next industry to be considered was the textile industry, which had a more advanced technology in the form of machine tending. The third industry studied was the automobile industry, char­ acterized by a more advanced production process and a more standard­ ized product. The automobile assembly line is usually thought of as the epitome of a setting in which work could be alienating. The final setting was the industrial chemicals and petroleum refining industry. Here the work is a continuous process, using highly advanced technologies. The industries studied thus varied from craft technology through increasing mechanization to continuous process work. This research was con­ ducted before the widespread influx of computers and robots. The second source of variation was the division of labor within a particular organization. Work can be highly differentiated into small units or people can be permitted to work on a larger portion of the production process. The way in which a particular industry is socially organized was the third source of variation. For Blauner, this involved the degree to which bureaucratic or professional standards were used in the operations of the organizations studied. Organizations could vary in their emphasis on following rules and procedures and the degree to which they were particularistic or universalistic. Finally, the economic structure of the industry was considered. Blauner believed that economically marginal industries would push their workers harder and would have tighter supervisory practices. Considering this background, Blauner’s findings are not surprising. The printers studied experienced little alienation on any dimension. They could set their own work pace and move about, and had little direct supervision. The product changed constantly and they could see the results of their work. The printers’union was a strong one and there

The Individual Dimension

107

was social involvement. Finally, they had pride in their work and were involved in what they were doing. Textile workers, in contrast, exhibited more alienation. These workers tended from forty to sixty looms. Movement and the pace of work were controlled and supervision was close, so powerlessness was experienced. There was a somewhat low level of meaninglessness, because the finished product was seen and the workers understood their contribution to the whole. Social isolation was not experienced, because the workers studied were from the same small southern town and knew one another. Self-estrangement was also not found; Blauner attributes this to the low educational levels of the workers studied and their minimal emphasis on self-expression. As expected, the auto workers scored high on all four forms of alienation. The assembly line moves inexorably by, with quantity, qual­ ity, and pace determined by others. It is a control mechanism, with the worker unable to choose the order or techniques by which work is done. A high level of meaninglessness exists because one individual worker is a very small part of the whole. The backgrounds of the workers were very heterogeneous, and there was little likelihood of working with friends from outside the plant. The size of the plant made people feel even more like ciphers. The monotony and lack of challenge contributed to self­ estrangement. These auto workers were the classic alienated modern workers, although, as Blauner notes, this sort of work actually repre­ sents a small fraction of all industrial work. When the focus shifts to the chemical operator in the continuousprocess chemical refinery, the picture changes drastically. Here we return to a situation in which the level of alienation is low. Little powerlessness is experienced, because most of the work involves skilled maintenance and workers can set their own paces and places of work. It is largely team work and the workers understand the total process and their contribution to it, so neither meaninglessness nor social isolation is experienced. There is opportunity to experiment with new jobs, and involvement with work is high. Blauner thus found a situation in which the level of alienation was low at both ends of the technological spectrum—in a craft industry and in a continuous-process industry. At the intermediate technological level, the highest levels of alienation were found. This has become known as the “inverted-U” hypothesis. Hull et al. (1982) recently tested this inverted-U hypothesis with data from 110 factories. The theory received moderate support, with the findings generally in the direction of a negative linear relationship

108

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

between technological level and alienation. The more advanced the technology, the lower the alienation. This same article also contains an interesting analysis of printing, a form of work that has undergone significant technological change as the computer has replaced the need for typesetting skills. Hull et al. studied printers at three large newspapers in New York City who had been retrained to use the new automated equipment. In most ways, the retrained printers did not experience an increase in alienation. Some shifts in job attitudes were evident, but a large increase in alienation was not found. In another replication of the Blauner work, Leiter (forthcoming) examined textile workers using 1980 data (Blauner’s data were from a 1947 data set). Leiter’s data indicate that there is increased alienation in the forms of powerlessness, social isolation, and self-estrangement, although these increases have not been very large. There have been many changes in the textile industry in the 33 years between the times the data for the two studies were collected. For example, there has been a shift from local ownership to corporate ownership. There has been an increase in the proportion of black workers. Women workers in the plants Leiter studied were not as traditional in their outlooks as those in the Blauner study. Times have changed for the southern textile workers, in the direction of greater alienation. Further insights into the alienating aspects of contemporary work can be found in Kotin's (1976) analysis of the sources of the subjective experience of alienation. In his analysis, Kohn distinguishes two possi­ ble sources of alienation: The first is the Marxian idea of loss of control over the product of one’s labor; the second involves control over the work process itself, which Kohn also believes is what Marx meant in his development of the idea of alienation. Kohn (1976: 112-113) hypothe­ sizes that aspects of the work process are more important for alienation than the actual product of one’s labor: Work that is “external” to the worker, in which he cannot “fulfill himself,” comes close to being the opposite pole of what Schooler and I have called “self-directed” work—that is, work involving initiative, thought, and independent judgment (Kohn, 1969, pp. 139-140; Kohn and Schooler, 1973). Although many occupational conditions are either conducive to or deterrent from the exercise of occupational self-direction, we see three in particular as crucial—closeness of supervision, routinization, and sub­ stantive complexity. Insofar as workers are free of close supervision, perform a variety of tasks, and do work that is substantively complex, their work is necessarily self-directed. Insofar as workers are closely supervised, are caught up in a repetitive flow of similar tasks, and do work

The Individual Dimension

109

of little substantive complexity, their work does not permit self-direction. Believing that loss of control over the process of work is conducive to alienation, I hypothesize that being closely supervised, doing routinized work, and doing work of little substantive complexity will result in feelings of alienation. I would further predict that, in modern capitalist economy, dominated by large scale enterprise, these occupational condi­ tions will have a greater effect on feelings of alienation than whether one is owner or employee or whether one works in an enterprise having more or less pronounced division of labor.

Kohn finds strong support for his hypothesis in a 1964 national survey conducted in the United States. Later research by Mottaz (1981) confirms the importance for alienation of the degree of control exercised over work activities. In the discussion of his findings, Kohn notes that the time frame in which his data were collected was one of relative economic security. He suggests that in periods of economic uncertainty, factors such as job security might be more important than occupational self-direction. This reinforces the point made earlier that people’s expec­ tations about their work can change over time on the basis of altered life circumstances. Kohn also concludes that neither capitalism nor bureaucracy is the primary source of alienation. When workers are not able to exercise self-direction, they will be alienated. Kohn is careful to limit his conclu­ sions to workers in the United States. There is a lively controversy over whether or not work conditions—especially technology—have similar effects in different societies. Some analysts argue that there is “conver­ gence” in the effects of industrialization and technological change, and others argue that national cultures will moderate the effects of technolog­ ical change (see Shepard et al., 1979, for a summary of this debate). Inasmuch as workers’expectations are crucial in shaping their reactions to work, it would appear that there would be variations across nations in terms of how workers experience their work.

Some Additional Negative Consequences It is well known that work can affect people’s physical and mental health (Kahn, 1981; see also Sutton, 1984, for a recent review of this literature). Katz and Kahn (1978) approach the health issue in a manner consistent with the general argument being presented here. They note that some work roles contain more sources of stress than others, and that stress can contribute to cardiovascular and gastrointestinal prob­ lems, and the like. Particular characteristics of work that contribute to

110

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

ill-being would include role conflicts, role overload, and responsibility. According to Katz and Kahn, these job conditions interact with person­ ality types to yield differing degrees of ill-being. Work conditions have also been linked to behaviors such as drinking (Fennell et al., 1981) and employee theft (Hollinger and Clark, 1982; Clark and Hollinger, 1983). The Hollinger and Clark study found that low job satisfaction was significantly linked to involvement in deviant acts directed against the work organization. These acts included prop­ erty theft, pilferage, and embezzlement as actual crimes against the organization. Other forms of deviance included tardiness, sloppy or slow work, and the use of drugs or alcohol while on the job. Work is thus not a benign event in the lives of workers. Indeed, the work role has been shown to transcend other roles that could dominate the life of the individual. Huffine and Clausen (1979) found that people who were able to develop work competence prior to the onset of mental illness were able to maintain their jobs during the initial stages of their illnesses and were also able to remain occupationally stable in ensuing years despite persistent symptoms. These authors borrow Hughes’s (1949) concept of “master status” in discussing their findings. A master status is exemplified by an age or sex trait that can overpower, in crucial situations, other traits that might run counter to it. Huffine and Clausen (1979: 1060) conclude that mental illness is not such a master status: “The career of a man who was able to establish his competence prior to the initial onset of illness stands a good chance of surviving the ravages of prolonged, even severe, symptoms. Thus, the label 'mental patient’ did not serve as a master status.” They do not take the next logical step, which would be to conclude that a learned work role is such a master status. The positive and negative reactions to work that have been consid­ ered here constitute a major portion of the life of an individual. The analysis will now shift to a consideration of how work roles are learned by the individual.

SOCIALIZATION FOR WORK The topic of socialization is a vast one that occupies the full attention of both sociologically and psychologically based social psychologists. I will not attempt to summarize and integrate all of this literature, because it would fill several volumes in its own right. Instead, the purpose here is

The Individual Dimension

III

to provide an overview of the ways in which people learn their work roles. Socialization has been defined by Mortimer and Simmons (1978: 422) as follows: From the perspective of the individual, socialization is a process of learning to participate in social life. Any structure of social interaction requires minimally stable and predictable behaviors on the part of all participants that must be learned initially or be developed over time. The process does not include all changes in personality and behavior that may occur in response to biological change and decline or to personal idiosyn­ cratic experiences, but only to learning that is relevant to social behavior and/or role enactment.

The focus here is on adult socialization (Mortimer and Simmons provide a concise summary of the linkages and differences between preadult and adult socialization). There is no assumption that preadult socialization makes no difference in terms of individuals and their work. Rather, the assumption is that individuals arrive for their work roles with different skills and values in regard to work, but that these are not linked to work itself nor to training for work. The focus here is on specifically work-related socialization. A conspicuous form of such socialization is the professional school. Such schools, particularly medical schools, have been the subject of a great deal of research. Some of these studies are sociological classics, such as Merton et al.’s (1957) The Student Physician and Becker et al.’s (1961) Boys in White. The thrust of these and other studies of professional schools (exten­ sively reviewed in Mortimer and Simmons, 1978) is that students learn from both faculty and peers, and that socialization is both formal and informal. Students learn the role of student as well as that of the practicing professional. Included in the socialization process are “reality shocks,” as students find that their ideals about their intended profes­ sions are not consistent with the actual work. Most studies of profes­ sional schools have found that students suffer a great deal of anxiety as they confront large amounts of information to be learned, continual evaluation from faculty, and uncertainty in how to deal with clients or patients with their limited knowledge. As students move through the anxiety-laden socialization process in these schools, cohesion with fel­ low students and with the profession itself increases. The analysis of professional work presented earlier indicated that there are two major approaches to the professions—the attribute and

112

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

power approaches. In terms of the attribute approach, professional schools are the settings in which the theoretical backgrounds of profes­ sional practice are learned and in which students learn the components of professional culture. From the power perspective, professional schools are the settings in which solidarity among members of the profession is developed. This solidarity will enhance the ability of a profession to obtain and maintain power over other occupations and in the larger political arena. Although studies of professional schools are interesting, they are concerned with only a limited segment of the labor force and only a small slice of the socialization of professional workers. For purposes of this discussion, the more important aspect of socializa­ tion is what occurs while individuals are actually working. A dominant approach to socialization and work has been the analysis of career stages. Typical of this approach is Feldman’s (1976,1981) three stages of socialization—anticipatory socialization, encounter, and change and acquisition. For Feldman, anticipatory socialization involves forming expectations about an employing organization from job interviews and other information from potential employers. The individual may or may not form a realistic picture of a potential job, but, nonetheless, based on the decision of the individual to take a job and the decision on the part of an organization to offer the job, the person goes into the work situation with a different outcome of anticipatory socialization. The next stage is the actual encounter with the organization. Here the individual must deal with the processes of managing outside-life con­ flicts, such as scheduling; demands from and on family; management of intergroup role conflicts; role definition, in the form of knowing one’s own role within the work group; initiation to work tasks; and integra­ tion into the work group. These processes are strongly interrelated. For example, until a person is integrated into the work group, he or she may not be able to perform work tasks well, because information is withheld from him or her (Becker and Strauss, 1956). The final stage, change and acquisition, is associated with the resolu­ tion of role demands, task mastery, and adjustment to group norms and values. This is an ongoing stage that is continuous throughout a person’s career. A very similar three-stage model has been proposed by Porter et al. (1975), who note that in the third stage the person has changed, acquired a new self-image, and has begun to see him- or herself as a member of the organization. Here, individuals have acquired new relationships and abandoned old ones and have learned new values and modes of behavior.

The Individual Dimension

113

Other examples of career stage models include those developed by Schein (1971), who posits a six-stage model, and Wanous (1980), who utilizes a four-stage model. Both of these approaches look at newcomers and their entrance into and socialization within the organizational context. Both also note that individuals can cycle through the middle stages of their models as they change jobs and organizations throughout their careers. A different approach to career stages and socialization is taken by Dalton et al. (1977), who studied professionals in a variety of organiza­ tional settings. Their focus was not on the socialization of the new­ comer, but rather on performance expectations, the nature of social relationships, and the adjustments a person must make in each stage. The first stage is one of apprenticeship, in which the new professional engages in routine duties under the supervision of an established person in the field. This can be a frustrating experience, because doing routine work is not emphasized in professional schools. The second stage occurs when the individual begins to work independently and has developed a reputation as a competent performer. Most of the social ties developed here are with colleagues. The individual begins to develop independence from the mentor of the first stage. The next stage occurs when the individual becomes the mentor, and begins to take care of and supervise new professionals who are themselves entering the first stage. At this stage, the individual is learning managerial skills, but at the same time must maintain technical competence in the professional field. In the final stage, the individual is removed from day-to-day details and becomes a sponsor of other key people in the organization. Not all professionals will move into the fourth stage, and not doing so does not imply failure. At the same time, those who do move into the fourth stage have more power in the organization. In another examination of professional workers, Hall and Mansfield (1975) linked career stages and age to needs such as self-actualization and security. The first stage here is one in which individuals seek self-actualization and autonomy. Professional workers were found to change jobs or organizations during this trial stage, which lasts until about age 35. The next stage lasts about 15 years, during which individ­ uals seek achievement. After age 50, security becomes the dominant concern, and the need for self-actualization diminishes. A very different view of career stages is reported by Regoli et al. (1979) in their study of correctional workers. Here the focus is on the development and decline of cynicism among these workers. This sort of evidence strongly suggests that the content of career stages will vary widely according to the form of work involved. Still, the concept of

114

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

career stages is useful in that it sensitizes us to the fact that the socializa­ tion process varies at different times in people’s lives. The second major approach to socialization and work is more general and involves models that link individuals and their work setting on the basis of certain key factors. Van Maanen (1977), for example, bases his socialization model on time and space. “Time,” in this context, refers to “social time.” This permits the individual to define present experiences in terms of past experiences and future expectations, and to break long periods of time into psychologically manageable ones. Thus social time can involve the time between coffee breaks, between vacations, or between promotions. The spatial dimension of Van Maanen’s model involves where individuals fit within work groups or organizations and where they stand in relation to objects, events, and people. Individuals thus create cognitive maps of their work settings. Kohn and Schooler (1973,1978,1982) have appoached the socializa­ tion issue from the standpoint of reciprocity between individuals and their work. They suggest essentially that not only does people’s work affect their personalities, but also that people’s personalities affect their work. Using a longitudinal study of American men, they have been able to develop this theme into an elaborate conceptual model. They conclude: Our longitudinal analysis repeatedly demonstrates the importance for personality of occupational self-direction—especially the substantive complexity of work, the job condition most strongly related to social class in our earlier analysis. Jobs that facilitate occupational self-direction increase men’s ideational flexibility and promote a self-directed orienta­ tion to self and to society; jobs that limit occupational self-direction decrease men’s ideational flexibility and promote a conformist orienta­ tion to self and to society. The analysis further demonstrates that oppor­ tunities for exercising occupational self-direction—especially for doing substantively complex work—are to a substantial extent determined by the job’s location in the organizational structure, with ownership, bureaucratization, and a high position in the supervisory hierarchy all facilitating the exercise of occupational self-direction. These findings provide strong empirical support for the interpretation that classassociated conditions of work actually do affect personality. The longi­ tudinal analysis also provides evidence of other job-to-personality effects, the most important being that oppressive working conditions produce a sense of distress. Implicit in all of these findings is the constant implica­ tion that the principal process by which a job affects personality is one of straightforward generalization from the lessons of the job to life off the

The Individual Dimension

115

job, instead of such less direct processes as compensation and reaction formation. The longitudinal analysis demonstrates also that, over time, personality has important consequences for the individual’s place in the job structure. Both ideational flexibility and a self-directed orientation lead, in time, to more responsible jobs that allow greater latitude for occupational selfdirection. Feelings of distress lead to actual or perceived time pressure and uncertainty. We think it noteworthy that so many of the personalityto-job effects—particularly the effects of personality on the most objec­ tively measured conditions of work—are lagged rather than contempo­ raneous. The implication is that job conditions are not readily modified to suit the needs or capacities of the individual worker. Over a long enough time, though, many men either modify their jobs or move to other jobs more consonant with their personalities. Thus the long-term effects of personality on job conditions are considerable. The process of job affect­ ing man and man affecting job is truly reciprocal throughout adult life [Kohn and Schooler, 1982: 1281-1282].

Although Kohn and Schooler are careful to limit their generaliza­ tions to American men, there is evidence that the same findings have more universal applicability. Miller et al. (1979) found basically the same relationships among a sample of employed women. A comparison of men in Poland and in the United States revealed strong similarities in these two countries (Slomczynski et al., 1981). Men with higher posi­ tions were more likely to value self-direction and to have a social orientation consonant with self-direction. This is attributed to the greater opportunities for self-direction that higher positions accord. There were some Poland-United States differences, however. In Poland, lower position was associated with greater self-confidence and less anxiety, and in the United States, higher position was associated with a more favorable self-concept. One issue that the Kohn and Schooler approach cannot answer is whether people are attracted to jobs and selected by organizations on the basis of their attributes or whether their attributes are modified by their work. Using a completely different data set, Oldham and Hackman (1981) conclude that there is more support for the job modifying per­ sonality model than for the personality selecting the job model. They also suggest that a combined model of selection and modification that emphasizes reciprocal effects is the preferable approach. Further light on this issue is shed when the research of Mortimer and her colleagues is considered. Mortimer and Lorence (1979) report, on the basis of a ten-year longitudinal study of University of Michigan

116

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

graduates, that rewarding occupational experiences reinforce the same values that served as the basis for earlier work selection. This research examined intrinsic, people-oriented, and extrinsic work values and linked these to the work dimensions of work-autonomy, social content, and income, respectively. Thus a person who had strong extrinsic work values and who received a good income would have the extrinsic work values reinforced. Lorence and Mortimer (1981) also report that there are relationships between work experiences and work involvement. Work experiences, especially work autonomy, stimulate involvement with work. At the same time, high work involvement prior to actual labor force entry induces work values that promote stability in the early career, which in turn facilitates attainment of income and work autonomy. Here again, reciprocity can be seen. It should be noted that Samuel and LewinEpstein (1979) have argued that occupational situs (roughly equivalent to industrial sector—a point to be discussed in the next chapter) is a better predictor of work value preferences than is work status or back­ ground variables. Lorence and Mortimer (1981), however, argue that earlier values, rather than situs variables, have the most consistent effects on values at a later time. Mortimer’s work, combined with other research on this topic, also provides evidence for the manner in which work values are developed in the first place. Mortimer (1974) presents data that demonstrate that occupational values are transmitted from fathers to sons. Her concern is with values associated with working with data, people, or things. Spenner (1981) finds some support for Mortimer’s results (see Morti­ mer, 1981b, for a comment on this), but also argues that his results indicate that occupational values in the form of both work content and work status are transmitted across generations. The exact nature of the transmission of work values across genera­ tions is not a settled matter. Lueptow et al. (1979) found no relationship between the substantive complexity of the jobs of fathers and sons’ personalities in the subjects they studied. Mortimer and Kumka (1982) argue that these findings may be questionable because Lueptow et al. did not consider socialization orientation and practices in their work. Mortimer and Kumka suggest that fathers’occupational characteristics contribute to fathers’ psychological attributes, which in turn contribute to their socialization orientation and practices. They further argue that when there are close and empathic relationships, occupational values will in fact be transmitted. Clearly, the issue is not settled, but it appears

The Individual Dimension

117

reasonable to conclude that work values are transmitted across genera­ tions for both men and women. It is also reasonable to agree with Spenner that status is also so transmitted. The findings and interpretations reported in the collective works of Kohn and Mortimer and their colleagues lead to the following formulation: parental occupation—parental occupational values—preadult socialization—preadult values and work expectations—-work set­ ting-ongoing and continuing socialization and reactions to work The implication is that this pattern would be recycled across genera­ tions. There is also the major implication that this socialization process would interact strongly with social status, and that social status is a major component and outcome of the socialization process. In general, social status is also associated with positive reactions to work. Another important thrust of these findings is that work that is sub­ stantively complex contributes to the self-direction orientation of indi­ viduals involved in such work. In an earlier work, Kohn (1971) found that such work is more likely to be found in bureaucratized, as opposed to nonbureaucratized, settings. He attributes this to the job protections, income, and substantive complexity of work in such settings. Job pro­ tection leads to accepting personal responsibility and to the use of intellectual talents, according to Kohn. Inasmuch as modem work is increasingly bureaucratized, we would expect that workers would be increasingly self-directed. Unfortunately, the matter is not that simple. In an interesting and rather offbeat study, Walsh (1982) studied job satisfaction and alienation among samples of professors, garbage collectors, parks workers, bartenders, mail carriers, barbers, and teachers. Although our concern here is not satisfaction or alienation, the findings temper an unqualified acceptance of the Kohn thesis. Not surprisingly, Walsh found the least amount of dissatisfaction among the college professors studied. Quite surprisingly, however, the garbage collectors were not significantly different from the professors in terms of their levels of dissatisfaction. Walsh attributes this to the relative freedom garbage collectors experience in their jobs. Another surprising finding from this study is that the relatively high-status teachers and mail carriers reported more dissatisfaction and alienation than did the garbage collectors. Walsh’s interpretation is that the mail

118

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

carriers and teachers were in situations in which the level of bureaucrati­ zation was on the increase, thus leading to discomfort on the part of the workers involved. Walsh’s study does not disconfirm the generalizations presented above, but it does suggest that any comprehensive analysis of socializa­ tion and work must take into account the actual content of work and changes that are taking place in the work settings. It is incorrect to assume that because a form of work has low status, workers will not experience freedom and the capacity for self-direction. Similarly, the work setting must be viewed in a dynamic context, rather than from the standpoint that the level of bureaucratization or any other such charac­ teristic is fixed for all time. Another exception to the work of Kohn and Mortimer is found in Hedley’s (1984) data from four Australian factories. He found that such nonwork aspects of workers’ lives as their social origins and socioeco­ nomic status were more pronounced in their effects on workers’ orienta­ tions than were their immediate work contexts. Socioeconomic status, of course, is part of the work context, but this played a more important role than other aspects of the work. These findings could be attributed to the Australian sample. They can also be interpreted in terms of the expectations people bring to their work. If socioeconomic status, for example, is the most salient aspect of workers’lives, this will have major impact on their orientations to work. As noted at the outset of this section, socialization for work is a continuous process. It is also a process that takes place in continuous interaction with other individuals and with ideas and ideologies asso­ ciated with particular forms of work. This has been portrayed vividly in Becker’s (1974, 1982) analysis of the work of artists. Although it is conventional to think of artists as among the most solitary of workers, Becker shows that artists learn their roles in interaction with other artists, support personnel, and the existing artistic conventions of the day. Even artists who are mavericks learn their maverick roles in inter­ action with artistic conventions, other artists, art critics, and the public. In this section we have examined the factors associated with social­ ization and work. A dominant theme has been the manner in which individuals interact with the work setting and how they are constantly being socialized in evolving work roles. In the last section of this chapter, people’s motivations for work will be considered, as well as the question, Why do people work?

The Individual Dimension

119

MOTIVATIONS FOR WORK I have deliberately used a plural title for this section, because it is my belief that there are many motivations for work. As I write this chapter, I am motivated by a desire for self-expression—I want to say what I mean as clearly as possible. I would also like this work to be recognized as high quality by my peers and students. I would also like this book to sell well, because authors do get financial gain from their work. I also find writing intrinsically enjoyable. These motivations vary in their meaningfulness, but none stands out as better or of a “higher order” than the others. This conclusion is at direct variance with the best-known theories of motivation identified with Maslow (1954), Herzberg (1966), and McGregor (1960). Maslow developed his famous “hierarchy of needs,” in which people aspire through a succession of needs, beginning with basic subsistence, then moving up through safety, belongingness and love, and esteem, finally to self-actualization. Once one need is satisfied it is no longer a motivator and a person is then motivated by the next higher order of need. Herzberg’s approach differs slightly in that he divides factors associated with work motivation into two categories, based on their relationships with work satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The first category contains those characteristics (identified as “satisfiers” by Herzberg) that are a part of the contents of a job—achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, advancement, and growth. The second category (labeled “hygienes”) contains aspects of the work context—company policy and administration, salary, supervision, working conditions, status, job security, and personal life. According to Herzberg, only the characteristics in the first category are motivators. Their presence contributes to satisfaction and their absence to no satis­ faction. Presence of the characteristics in the second category leads to no dissatisfaction, and their absence would lead to dissatisfaction. McGre­ gor posits a similar hierarchy in his Theory X and Theory Y, which are concerned with underlying beliefs about the nature of humans, with Theory Y involving the idea of self-actualization and Theory X involv­ ing the idea that people are motivated only by factors such as financial concerns. Although these theories have a nice humanistic ring to them, they have not stood up well under the test of empirical research. For exam­ ple, Shapiro (1977) found sharp differences between blacks and whites in terms of orientation to intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. Differences

120

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

have also been found in regard to factors such as gender and age in terms of the importance that people place on potential motivators (see Hall, 1975). In his extensive evaluation of these theories, Fein (1976: 500) concludes, “What I have tried to show by various citations and expe­ riences is that the concepts of work-fulfillment proposed by Herzberg and McGregor apply only to an elite minority of workers.” Fein argues that factors such as pay and job security are the real motivators for the majority of workers. He also recognizes that some workers will want to get involved with their work and should be given the opportunity to do so. People work because of a variety of motivations. These motivations change with time and with changing life situations. The young person brings a set of expectations to work that are different from those of the older person. Differences in people’s backgrounds interact with differ­ ences in the characteristics of work, and these interactions yield a continually changing set of motivations. This approach to motivation has been captured in what is known as expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964; Lawler, 1973). Lawler (1973: 49) summarizes the basic premises of this approach as follows: (1) People have preferences among the various outcomes that are potentially available to them. (2) People have expectancies about the likelihood that an action (effort) on their part will lead to the intended behavior or performance. (3) People have expectancies about the likelihood that certain outcomes will follow their behavior. (4) In any situation, the actions a person chooses to take are determined by the expectancies and preferences that person has at the time.

Expectancy, in this formulation, refers to workers’ estimates of the probability that they can accomplish their intended performance. Workers also have expectancies about how their performances will yield particular outcomes. According to Lawler (1973: 51): The model suggests that a person’s motivation to perform in a particular way will be influenced by expectancies about trying to perform in that way, his expectancies about the outcomes associated with performing at that level . . . and the attractiveness of the outcomes involved. These factors combine to produce motivational force to perform in the specified manner.

The Individual Dimension

121

Expectancy theory is not burdened by any assumption about hierar­ chies of needs or higher or lower orders of motivation. According to Tausky and Parke (1976: 548): Motivation, then, involves an assessment of the probability of attaining alternative outcomes, where some outcomes are preferred over others, and an assessment of the likelihood that one is capable of performing adequately to achieve the various outcomes.

People learn their preferences about outcomes (rewards anticipated from their work) from their previous socialization experiences. They also learn about their own capabilities in performing the kinds of work that are likely to yield the preferred outcomes. A great advantage of expectancy theory is that it permits the presence of multiple preferred outcomes. People can prefer both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards and work toward them. I can thus hope to write a good book that sells well. Expectancy theory also explains why some people are not involved with their work. If people are oriented toward advancement and their work does not contain the possibility of advancement, they are likely to be disengaged. In their major study of British industrial workers, Goldthorpe et al. (1970: 184) conclude: As should be evident from the style of analysis which we have followed throughout this monograph, we believe that in industrial sociology what may be termed an action frame of reference could, with advantage, be more widely adopted; that is to say, a frame of reference in which actors’ own definitions of the situations in which they are engaged are taken as an initial basis for the explanation of their social behaviour and relation­ ships. In contrast with approaches which begin with some general and normative psychology (or philosophy) of individual needs in work, or with some conception of the ‘needs’ of the efficiently operating industrial enterprise, an action frame of reference would direct attention systemati­ cally to the variety o f meanings which work may come to have for industrial employees. And this in turn would then compel recognition of the fact that in modern society the members of the industrial labour force form a highly differentiated collectivity—in terms, for example, of the positions and roles they occupy in their non-working lives, in their subcul­ tural characteristics, and in the pattern of their life histories and objectives for the future.

122

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Operating from such a position, the first step must be that of establishing empirically the way in which, in any given case, the wants and expecta­ tions which men bring to their employment, and the interpretation which they thus give to their work, shape the attitudinal and behavioural pat­ terns of their working lives as a whole.

This action frame of reference, of course, is applicable to men and women in all forms of work. This approach to work and work motiva­ tion avoids the pitfalls common to many approaches that start with assumptions about work that may be true only for the individual doing the assuming. Academic scholars, managers, and political analysts from the left and right all too typically look at work and work motivation from their own perspectives and ignore the realities that workers them­ selves construct for their work.

CONCLUSIONS In this chapter, I have tried to review and integrate the literature regarding how individuals react to their work, learn work roles, and are motivated to perform their work. By looking at job satisfaction, work centrality, and alienation from work, the importance of work for indi­ viduals can be seen. People’s socialization experiences and their back­ grounds develop their motivations for and reactions to work. All of this is a dynamic process that continues as the individual moves through life. Many of these considerations will be examined further in Chapter 10, where some programs designed to bring improvements to the quality of working life will be considered. As can be anticipated, any attempts to alter work or working conditions must take workers’ expectations into account. The analysis will now turn to a consideration of the horizontal dimension of work—a dimension that is usually overshadowed by the strong emphasis on the vertical or social status dimension, but one that has already been shown to be important in the analysis of work social­ ization in this chapter.

REFERENCES Alutto, Joseph A., Lawrence G. Hrebiniak, and Ramon C. Alonso (1973) “On operation­ alizing the concept of commitment.” Social Forces 51 (June): 448-454.

The Individual Dimension

123

Angle, H arold L. and James L. Perry (1983) “Organizational commitment: individual and organizational influences.” Work and Occupations 10 (May): 123-146. Aronowitz, Stanley (1973) False Promises. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bacharach, Samuel and Michael Aiken (1979) “The impact of alienation, meaningless­ ness, and meritocracy on supervisor and subordinate satisfaction.” Social Forces 57 (March): 853-870. Becker, Howard S. (1960) “Notes on the concept of commitment.” American Journal of Sociology 66 (July): 32-40. -------- (1974) “Art as collective action.” American Sociological Review 39 (December): 767-776. -------- (1982) Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press. -------- Blanche Geer, Everett C. Hughes, and Anselm L. Strauss (1961) Boys in White: Student Culture in Medical School. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Becker, Howard S. and Anselm L. Strauss (1956) “Careers, personality, and adult social­ ization.” American Journal of Sociology 62 (November): 253-263. Bergermaier, Rene, Ingwer Borg, and Joseph E. Champoux (1984) “Structural relation­ ships among facets of work, nonwork, and general well-being.” Work and Occupa­ tions 11 (May): 163-182. Blauner, Robert (1964) Alienation and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Burris, Val (1983) “The social and political consequences of overeducation.” American Sociological Review 48 (August): 454-467. Clark, John P. and Richard Hollinger( 1983) Theft by Employees in Work Organizations: Executive Summary. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Dalton, Gene W., Paul H. Thompson, and Raymond P. Price (1977) “The four stages of professional careers: a new look at performance by professionals.” Organizational Dynamics 12 (Summer): 19-42. Dubin, Robert (1956) “Industrial workers' worlds: a study of the central life interests of industrial workers.” Social Problems 3 (January): 131-142. -------- and Joseph E. Champoux (1974) “Workers’ central life interests and job perfor­ mance.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 1 (August): 313-326. Fein, Mitchell (1976) “Motivation for work,” in Robert Dubin (ed.) Handbook of Work, Organization, and Society. Chicago: Rand McNally. Feldman, Daniel C. (1976) “A contingency theory of socialization.” Administrative Science Quarterly 21 (September): 433-452. -------- (1981) “The multiple socialization of organizational members. ” Academy of Man­ agement Review 6 (June): 309-318. Fennell, Mary L., Miriam B. Robin, and Glenda K. Kantor( 1981) “Problems in the work setting, drinking, and reasons for drinking.” Social Forces 60 (September): 114-132. Fitzpatrick, John S. (1980) “Adapting to danger: a participant observation study of an underground coal mine.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 7 (May): 131-158. Garson, Barbara (1975) All the Livelong Day: The Meaning and Demeaning of Routine Work. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Glenn, Norval and Charles N. Weaver (1982) “Further evidence on education and job satisfaction.” Social Forces 61 (September): 46-65. Goldthorpe, John H., David Lockwood, Frank Bechhofer, and Jennifer Platt (1970) The Affluent Worker: Industrial Attitudes and Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer­ sity Press.

124

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Grandjean, Burke and Patricia A. Taylor(1980)“Job satisfaction among clerical workers: ‘status panic’ or the opportunity structure of office work.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 7 (February): 33-53. Gruenberg, Barry (1980) T h e happy worker: an analysis of educational and occupational determinants of job satisfaction.” American Journal of Sociology 86 (September): 247-271. Grusky, Oscar (1966) “Career mobility and organizational commitment.” Administrative Science Quarterly 10 (March): 488-303. Gurin, Gerald, Joseph Veroff, and Sheila Feld (1960) Americans View their Mental Health. New York: Basic Books. Hall, Douglas T. and Roger Mansfield (197S) “Relationships of age and seniority with career variables of engineers and scientists.” Journal of Applied Psychology 60 (April): 201-210. Hall, Richard H. (197S) Occupations and the Social Structure. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hamilton, Richard R. and James Wright (1981) T h e college educated blue collar worker,” in Richard L. Simpson and Ida Harper Simpson (eds.) Research in the Sociology of Work, Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Hedley, R. Alan (1984)“Work-nonwork contexts and orientations to work: a crucial test.” Work and Occupations 11 (August): 353-375. Herzberg, Frederick (1966) Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland: World. -------- Bernard Mausner, and Barbara B. Snyderman (1959) The Motivation to Work. New York: John Wiley. Hollinger, Richard and John P. Clark (1982) “Employee deviance: a response to the perceived quality of the work experience.” Work and Occupations 9 (February): 97-114. Huffine, Carol L. and John A. Clausen (1979) “Madness and work: short- and long-term effects of mental illness on occupational careers.” Social Forces 57 (June): 1049-1062. Hughes, Everett C. (1949) “Dilemmas and contradictions of status.” American Journal of Sociology 50 (November): 353-359. Hulin, Charles L. (1966) “Effects of community characteristics on measuring job satisfac­ tion.” Journal of Applied Psychology 50 (April): 185-192. Hull, Frank M., Nathalie S. Friedman, and Theresa F. Rogers (1982) “The effect of technology of alienation from work: testing Blauner’s inverted U-curve hypothesis for 110 industrial organizations and 245 retrained printers.” Work and Occupations 9 (February): 31-57. Janson, Philip and Jack K. Martin (1982) uJob satisfaction and age: a test of two views.” Social Forces 60 (June): 1089-1102. Kahn, Robert L. (1981) Work and Health. New York: John Wiley. -------- (1972) “The meaning of work: interpretation and proposals for measurement,” in Angus Campbell and Phillip Converse (eds.) The Human Meaning of Social Change. New York: Russell Sage. Kalleberg, Arne L. (1977) “Work values and job rewards: a theory of job satisfaction.” American Sociological Review 42 (February): 124-143. -------- and Larry J. Griffin (1978) “Positional sources of inequality in job satisfaction.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 5 (November): 371-401. Katz, Daniel and Robert L. Kahn (1978) The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: John Wiley. Kohn, Melvin L. (1969) Class and Conformity: A Study in Values. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

The Individual Dimension

125

-------- (1971) “Bureaucratic man: a portrait and interpretation.” American Sociological Review 36 (June): 461-474. -------- (1976) “Occupational structure and alienation.” American Journal of Sociology 82 (July): 111-130. -------- and Carmi Schooler (1973) “Occupational experience and psychological function­ ing: an assessment of reciprocal effects.” American Sociological Review 38 (February): 97-118. -------- (1978) “The reciprocal effects of substantive complexity of work and intellectual flexibility: a longitudinal assessment.” American Journal of Sociology 84 (July): 24-52. -------- (1982) “Job conditions and personality: a longitudinal assessment of their recipro­ cal effects.” American Journal of Sociology 87 (May): 1257-1286. Kraut, Allen I. (1975) “Predicting turnover of employees from measured job attitudes.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 13 (April): 233-243. Lawler, Edward E., Ill (1973) Motivation in Work Organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. -------- and Douglas T. Hall (1970) “Relationship of job characteristics to job involve­ ment.” Journal of Applied Psychology 54 (August): 305-312. Lawler, Edward E., Ill, and Lyman W. Porter (1967) “The effects of performance on job satisfaction.” Industrial Relations 7 (October): 20-28. Layder, Derek (1984) “Sources and levels of commitment in actors’ careers.” Work and Occupations 11 (May): 147-162. Leiter, Jeffrey (1985) “Work alienation in the textile industry: reassessing Blauner.” Work and Occupations 12 (November). Locke, Edwin A. (1976) “The nature and causes of job satisfaction,” in Marvin D. Dunnette (ed.) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally. Lorence, Jon and Jeylan T. Mortimer (1981) “Work experience and work involvement.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 8 (August): 297-326. Lueptow, Lloyd B., McKee J. McClendon, and John W. McKeon (1979) “Father’s occupation and son’s personality: findings and questions for the emerging linkage hypothesis.” Sociological Quarterly 20 (Autumn): 463-475. Machlowitz, Marilyn (1981) Workaholics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Martin, Jack K. and George A. Miller (forthcoming) “Organizational, individual, and job related correlates of job satisfaction and absenteeism.” Work and Occupations. Marx, Karl (1964) Early Writings (T. B. Bottomore, trans. and ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Maslow, Abraham (1954) Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row. McGregor, Douglas (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. Merton, Robert K., George C. Reader, and Patricia Kendall [eds.] (1957) The Student Physician: Introductory Studies in the Sociology of Medical Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Miller, Joanne (1980) “Individual and occupational determinants of job satisfaction: a focus on gender differences.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 7 (August): 337-366. -------- Carmi Schooler, Melvin L. Kohn, and Karen A. Miller (1979) “Women and work: the psychological effects of occupational conditions. ” American Journal of Sociology 85 (July): 66-94. Mortimer, Jeylan T. (1974) “Intergenerational occupational movement.” American Jour­ nal of Sociology 79 (March): 1278-1299.

126

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

-------- (1979) Changing Attitudes Toward Work: Highlights of the Literature. Work ' s American Institute Studies in Productivity. New York: Pergamon. -------- (1981a) “Comment on Samuel and Lewin-Epstein.” American Journal of Sociol­ ogy 87 (November): 708-714. -------- (1981b) “Comment on Kenneth Spenner’s ‘Occupations, role characteristics, and intergenerational transmission.’ ” Sociology of Work and Occupations 8 (February): 113-117. -------- and Donald Kumba (1982) “A further examination of the ‘occupational linkage hypothesis.’ ” Sociological Quarterly 23 (Winter): 3-16. Mortimer, Jeylan T. and Jon Lorence (1979) “Work experience and occupational value socialization: a longitudinal study.” American Journal of Sociology 84 (May): 1361-1385. Mortimer, Jeylan T. and Roberta Simmons (1978) “Adult socialization,” pp. 421-454 in Ralph H. Turner et al. (eds.) Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 4. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc. Mottaz, Clifford J. (1981) “Some determinants of work alienation.” Sociological Quar­ terly 22 (Autumn): 515-529. Oldham, Greg R. and J. Richard Hackman (1981) “Relationships between organizational structure and employee reactions: comparing alternative frameworks.” Administra­ tive Science Quarterly 26 (March): 66-83. Oldham, Greg R. and Nancy L. Rotchford (1983) “Relationships between office charac­ teristics and employee reactions: a study of the physical environment.” Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (December): S42-556. OToole, James [ed.] (1973) Work in America: Report of a Special Task Force to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. Cambridge: MIT Press. Patchen, Martin (1970) Participation, Achievement, and Involvement on the Job. Engle­ wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Porter, Lyman W., Edwa>d E. Lawler III, and J. Richard Hackman (1975) Behavior in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill. Price, James L. (1977) The Study of Turnover. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Quinn, Robert P. and Graham L. Staines (1979) The 1977 Quality of Employment Survey. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research. -------- and Margaret R. McCullough (1974) Job Satisfaction: Is There a Trend? Manpower Research Monograph 30. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration. Regoli, Robert M., Eric O. Poole, and Jeffrey L. Schrink (1979) “Occupational socialization and career development: a look at cynicism among correctional institution workers.” Human Organization 38 (Summer): 183-187. Ritzer, George and Harrison Trice (1969) “An empirical study of Howard Becker’s side-bet theory.” Social Forces 51 (June): 475-478. Rosow, Jerome M. (1978) “Changing attitudes to work and life styles.” Presented at the symposium “Work in America: The Decade Ahead,” cosponsored by the work in America Institute, Inc., and the National Center for Productivity and Quality of Working Life, Chicago, October. Samuel, Yitzhak and Noah Lewin-Epstein (1979) “The occupational situs as a predictor of work values.” American Journal of Sociology 85 (November): 625-639. Schein, Edgar H. (1971) “The individual, the organization, and the career: a conceptual scheme.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 7 (December): 401-426.

The Individual Dimension

127

Schoenherr, Richard A. and Andrew M. Greeley (1974) HRole commitment processes and the American Catholic priesthood.” American Sociological Review 39 (June): 407-426. Seashore, Stanley E. and Thomas D. Taber (1975) “Job satisfaction indicators and their correlates.” American Behavioral Scientist 18 (January/February): 333-368. Sell, Ralph R. (1982) UA research note on the demography of occupational relocation.” Social Forces 60 (March): 859-865. Seybolt, John W. (1976) “Work satisfaction as a function of the person-environment interaction.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 17 (October): 66-75. Shapiro, E. Guy (1977) “Racial differences in the value of job rewards.” Social Forces 56 (September): 21-30. Sheldon, Mary E. (1971) “Investments and involvements as mechanisms producing com­ mitment to the organization.” Administrative Science Quarterly 16 (June): 143-150. Shepard, Jon M. (1973) “Specialization, autonomy, and job satisfaction.” Industrial Relations 12 (October): 274-281. -------- Dong I. Kim, and James G. Hougland, Jr. (1979) “Effects of technology in industrialized and industrializing societies.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 6 (November): 457-481. Sheridan, John E. and John W. Slocum, Jr. (1975) “The direction of the causal relation­ ship between job satisfaction and work performance.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 14 (October): 159-172. Shoemaker, Donald J., William E. Snizek, and Clifton D. Bryant (1977) “Toward a further clarification of Becker’s side-bet hypothesis as applied to organizational and occupational commitment.” Social Forces 56 (December): 598-603Slomczynski, Kaziemierz M., Joanne Miller, and Melvin L. Kohn (1981) “Stratification, work, and values: a Polish-United States comparison.” American Sociological Review 46 (December): 720-744. Spenner, Kenneth I. (1981) “Occupations, role characteristics, and intergenerational transmission.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 8 (February): 89-112. Stone, Eugene F. (1976) “The moderating effect of work-related values on the job scope-job satisfaction relationship.” Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor­ mance 15 (April): 147-167. Strauss, George (1974) “Workers: attitudes and adjustments,” in Jerome M. Rosow (ed.) The Worker and the Job: Coping with Change. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Sutton, Robert I. (1984) “Job stress among primary and secondary schoolteachers: its relationship to ill-being.” Work and Occupations 11 (February): 7-28. Tannenbaum, Arnold S., Bogdan Kavcic, Menachem Rosner, Mino Vianello, and Gorg Wieser (1974) Hierarchy in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tausky, Curt (1984) Working and Society: An Introduction to Industrial Sociology. Itasca, IL: Peacock. -------- and E. Lauck Parke (1976) “Job enrichment, need theory, and reinforcement theory,” in Robert Dubin (ed.) Handbook of Work, Organization and Society. Chi­ cago: Rand McNally. Terkel, Studs (1974) Working. New York: Pantheon. Van Maanen, John (1977) “Experiencing organization: notes on the meaning of careers and socialization,” pp. 15-45 in John Van Maanen (ed.) Organizational Careers: Some New Perspectives. New York: John Wiley.

128

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Vaught, Charles and David L. Smith (1980) “Incorporations and mechanical solidarity in an underground coal mine.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 7 (May): 159-187. Voydanoff, Patricia (1978) “The relationship between perceived job characteristics and job satisfaction among occupational status groups.” Sociology of Work and Occupa­ tions 5 (May): 179-192. Vroom, Victor (1964) Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley. Walsh, Edward J. (1982) “Prestige, work satisfaction, and alienation: comparisons among garbagemen, professors, and other work groups.” Work and Occupations 9 (November): 475-4%. Wanous, John P. (1980) Organizational Entry: Recruitment, Selection, and Socialization of Newcomers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Wright, James D. and Richard F. Hamilton (1978) “Work satisfaction and age: some evidence for the ‘job change’ hypothesis.” Social Forces 56 (June): 1140-1158. -------- (1979) “Education and job attitudes among blue-collar workers.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 6 (February): 59-83. Zeitz, Gerald (1984) “Bureaucratic Role Characteristics and member affective response in organizations.” Sociological Quarterly 25 (Summer): 301-318.

THE HORIZONTAL DIMENSION The subject of this chapter—the division of labor—has been a central focus of social theorists. Classical writers such as Emile Durkheim (1933) and Adam Smith (1937) utilized the division of labor as the cornerstone of their analyses (see Gibbs and Poston, 1975, for a comparision of Durkheim’s and Smith’s approaches to the division of labor). Peter Blau’s (1977) theory of social structure considers the division of labor and the distribution of power as the two most important forms of social differentiation in society. These seminal theorists’ emphasis on the importance of the division of labor would lead one to believe it would be a dominant issue in research on work. Such is not the case, however. The dominant emphasis is on the vertical dimension of work. Based on a content analysis of articles in major sociological journals over a seven-year period, I concluded: “Status and income attainment research almost blinded the sociology of work and occupations to the fact that there are important ‘nonvertical’ (Mortimer, 1974) dimensions to work” (Hall, 1983:14). The reasons for the heavy emphasis on the vertical dimension are many and will not be of concern here. In this chapter I hope to bring the nonvertical or horizontal dimension to the fore. I also hope to show how the horizontal is linked to the vertical, leading to a more complete understanding of each dimension and of work itself.

THE NA TURE OF THE HORIZONTAL DIMENSION The easiest way to understand the horizontal dimension is to compare it with the vertical dimension of work. The vertical dimension is one of hierarchy and differential status or other means of ranking forms of work or workers. The horizontal dimension is concerned with the nonstatus aspects of work, such as its degree of complexity or the extent to which work involves dealing with people, data, or objects. It is thus possible to compare forms of work in terms of the degree to which 129

130

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

they involve complexity or any other basis of comparison. Hypotheti­ cally, any aspect of work could constitute part of the horizontal dimension. For the purposes of this discussion, the concentration will be on distinctions that appear to bear particularly useful fruit for the understanding of work. Thus the situs approach, the job content approach, and the labor market sector approach will be considered.

THE SITUS APPRO A CH In 1944, Benoit-Smullyan suggested that there is a conceptual difference between the horizontal dimension of situs and the vertical dimension of stratum. A stratum is a category of individuals or positions placed above or below other categories in a hierarchical rank. This is based on differential, comparative evaluations. A situs does not have this hierarchical ranking. Instead, it is a category of individuals or positions placed on a level with other categories without evaluation. Hatt (1950) attempted to develop a set of occupational categories that were equally evaluated. In his work he attempted to develop what he called “parallel status ladders,” so that each situs would contain occupations that had the same level of evaluation. According to Morris and Murphy (1959), Hatt did not succeed, primarily because his situs categories were not truly equally evaluated. Hatt, for example, included situses of both professional and manual work, which would operate against any possible equal evaluation. In Morris and Murphy’s (1959) own approach to the situs idea, they attempted to develop a set of situses that would contain equal status differences within all situses. In doing so, they developed a set of situses based on the societal functions performed in the situs. They thus developed a set of situses such as legal authority, manufacturing, finance, and so on. These are indicated in Figure 4.1. To test their ideas, Morris and Murphy had a sample of undergraduate students place a set of occupations into both situs and status (occupational prestige) categories as shown in Figure 4.1. The particular findings here are not important, but the basic idea is. As will be seen, some contemporary work on industrial sectors is moving in the direction of multiple sectors that closely resemble the situs idea. In addition, the situs idea or one closely related to it consistently reappears in the literature. For example, Samuel and Levin-Epstein (1979) found that situs was a better predictor of work value preferences, as compared with status and a number of personal background

The Horizontal Dimension

131

characteristics. Although Mortimer and Lorence (1981) criticize this research on the basis that Samuel and Levin-Epstein did not consider earlier work values in their analysis, the fact remains that situs factors were more important than status factors in their study. In their study of occupational status in preindustrial London, Burrage and Cory (1981) suggest that it would be useful to use occupational families or status orders in such research. Their findings were that occupational status orders were quite fixed over the threecentury period they studied. They did not use the situs concept, but it would appear to fit nicely with their findings. The situs concept has not been a dominant one in the conceptualiza­ tion of the horizontal dimension. In my opinion, this is a mistake. As will be indicated, some of the ideas from this concept can be merged with other aspects of the horizontal dimension and can make what appears to be good sense. THE JOB CONTENT APPRO A CH The job content approach to the horizontal dimension is based on the growing utility of the Dictionary o f Occupational Titles (DOT) published by the U.S. Department of Labor (1939,1949a, 1949b, 1965a, 1965b, 1977). In their analysis of the DOT, Cain and Treiman (1981) note that occupation has been the dominant variable in stratification research, but that it has been used in a rather constrained manner. They go on to point out: Recently, however, there has been an increasing interest in expanding the repertory of occupational variables to include dimensions other than prestige and status. This interest derives from several sources: recognition that other hierarchical dimensions such as power and authority are implicated in status attainment; a greater concern with structural features of inequality, often informed by Marxian or segmentation perspectives; and increasing interest in the intrinsic content of occupational roles. These concerns have led to several recent attempts to measure additional occupational characteristics.. . . Unfortunately, efforts to construct new occupational measures are frequently hampered by the lack of appropriate data. To date, the major source of occupational data has been the U.S. Census, which since 1940 has published summary measures of the characteristics in each of what are now about 500 detailed occupational categories__ Although enormously useful, these data pertain only to the characteristics of workers in each occupation and not to the content of their jobs.

132

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

S O U R C E : Morris and M u rp h y (1 9 5 9 : 2 3 7 ). © 1959 b y the Am erican Sociological Association. Reprinted b y permission.

Figure 4.1 Theoretical Situs Location of Selected Occupations and Empirical Lo­ cation Made by Sample of Student Raters

Another major source of data of potentially great use to sociological researchers is the Dictionary o f Occupational Titles (DOT), created and published by the U.S. Department of Labor. Originally published in 1939 as a reference manual for use in local offices of the newly established U.S. Employment Service, the DOT has gone through three subsequent editions, issued in 1949,1965, and 1977. Although designed as a tool to aid the matching of applicants with jobs—the major function of local Employment Service offices—the DOT contains a wealth of occupational information that makes it valuable for many other purposes. The DOT has been used heavily in vocational education and career counseling. Only recently, however, and still to a very limited extent, has the DOT been exploited by academic social science researchers, mainly using data from the third edition.. . . In December 1977 the fourth edition of the DOT was published, containing descriptions of 12,099 occupations. Also available, on com­ puter tape, are scores for each occupation on 44 characteristics— measurements of the complexity of work, the education and training required, the aptitudes, interests, and temperaments appropriate for the occupation, the physical demands of the occupation, and the physical conditions under which the work is performed. In contrast to most occupational information, which is based on worker self-reports or which

The Horizontal Dimension

133

measures characteristics of workers rather than of jobs, the DOT data are based on extensive on-site observations of jobs as they are actually performed and index job content rather than worker characteristics [Cain and Treiman, 1981: 253-254].

It should be noted that the 12,099 occupations listed in the DOT are considered to be aggregations of jobs. Cain and Treiman (1981: 254) note that there are several million specific jobs held by members of the U.S. labor force. The U.S. Census groups all these jobs into 441 occupational categories. For the sake of clarity, jobs represent the type of activity that people perform when they are employed, with occupation representing the positions filled, as defined in Chapter 1. Each of the 12,099 occupations listed in the DOT is represented by a nine-digit number code, such as 781 684 030. In this code, the first three digits are meant to reflect, with increasing specificity, the kind of work performed. In this example, the 7 represents the category of “benchwork.” The 8 represents the division of “laying out, marking, cutting, and punching occupations, not elsewhere classified.” The 1 represents the group of “occupations in fabrication and repair of textile, leather, and related products” (from Miller et al., 1980:21). The next three digits are our major concern here. They represent the extent and manner in which each occupation is concerned with data, people, and things. Relatively simple tasks are given high numbers and more complex tasks are given lower numbers, although the DOT notes that the arrangement in the people hierarchy is somewhat arbitrary and is “a hierarchy only in the most general sense” (U.S. Department ofLabor, 1977:1369). Figure 4.2 indicates the contents of the data, people, and things categories. The final three digits have “no substantive referent” (Miller et al., 1980:21). They are designed to assist record keeping, because the use of only a six-digit code was insufficient to distinguish among specific occupations in many instances. The DOT is not without its problems. Miller et al. (1980: 191-193) state that there are many more production process occupations analyzed than clerical, sales, and service occupations, based on the number of individuals who work in these occupations. For example, some seventy kinds of “sewing machine operators, garment” were analyzed, but only six kinds of secretaries were analyzed within the same six-digit code (Cain and Treiman, 1981: 260). In addition, some occupations were analyzed many times and others were not analyzed at all. The data also do not contain information on matters such as career ladders or transfer routes within the occupations. At the same time, it was noted that the fourth edition of the DOT does not undervalue occupations held mainly by women, as did the third edition.

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

134

Explanation of Data, People and Things M uch of the inform ation in this publication is based on the premise that every jo b requires a w orker to function in some degree to Data, People and Thin g s. These relationships are identified and explained below . T h e y appear in the fo rm of three listings arranged in each instance from the relatively simple to the com plex in such a manner that each successive relationship includes those that are simpler and excludes the m ore com plex.3 T h e identifications attached to these relationships are referred to as w o rk er functions, and provide standard term inology fo r use in summarizing exactly w hat a w o rk e r does on the jo b . A job's relationship to Data, People and Th in g s can be expressed in terms of the lowest num bered function in each sequence. These functions taken together indicate the total level of com plexity at w hich the w o rk e r performs. T h e fo u rth , fifth and sixth digits of the occupational code numbers reflect relationships to Data, People and Things, respectively.b These digits express a jo b ’s relationship to Data, People and Things b y identifying the highest appropriate function in each listing as reflected b y the follow ing table: D A T A (4th digit)

P E O P L E (5th digit)

T H I N G S (6th d igit)

0 Synthesizing 1 Coordinating

0 Mentoring

0 Setting-Up

2 A n a lyzin g

1 Negotiating 2 Instructing

1 Precision W orking 2 Operating-Controlling

3 Com piling

3 Supervising

3 Driving-Operating

4 C om puting

4 Diverting

4 Manipulating

5 C opying

5 Persuading

6 Com paring

6 Speaking-Signaling

5 Tending 6 Feeding-Offbearing

7 Serving

7 Handling

8 Ta kin g InstructionsHelping

Definitions of Worker Functions D A TA : obtained

Info rm a tio n , knowledge, and conceptions, related to data, people, or things, b y observation, investigation, interpretation, visualization, and mental

creation. Data are intangible and include num bers, w ords, sym bols, ideas, concepts, and oral verbalization. 0 Synthesizing: Integrating analyses of data to discover facts and/or develop k n o w l­ edge concepts or interpretations. 1 C oordinating: Determ ining tim e, place, and sequence of operations o r action to be taken on the basis of analysis of data; executing determ ination and/or reporting on events. 2 A n a lyzin g: Exam ining and evaluating data. Presenting alternative actions in rela­ tion to the evaluation is frequently involved.

Figure 4.2 Definitions of the Worker Function Scales Represented in the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Digits of the D O T Code

The Horizontal Dimension

135

3 C om p ilin g: Gathering, collating, o r classifying inform ation about data, people, or things. Reporting and/or carrying out a prescribed action in relation to the infor­ m ation ii frequently involved. 4 C o m p u tin g : Perform ing arithmetic operations and reporting on and/or carrying out a prescribed action in relation to them . Does not include counting. 5 C o p yin g : Transcribing, entering, o r posting data. 6 C om paring: Judging the readily observable functional, structural, o r composi­ tional characteristics (whether similar to or divergent fro m obvious standards) of data, people, o r things. P E O P L E : H um an beings; also animals dealt w ith on an individual basis as if they were human. 0 M entoring: Dealing w ith individuals in terms of their total personality in order to advise, counsel, and/or guide them w ith regard to problems that may be resolved b y legal, scientific, clinical, spiritual, and/or other professional principles. 1 Negotiating: Exchanging ideas, inform ation, and opinions w ith others to for­ mulate policies and programs and/or arrive jo in tly at decisions, conclusions, or solutions. 2 Instructing: Teaching

subject matter to others, or training others (including

animals) through explanation, demonstration, and supervised practice; o r making recommendations on the basis of technical disciplines. 3 Supervising: Determ ining or interpreting w ork procedures for a group o f workers, assigning specific duties to them , maintaining harmonious relations among them , and prom oting efficiency. A variety of responsibilities is involved in this fun ctio n . 4 Diverting: Am using others. (Usually accomplished through the m edium of stage, screen, television, or radio.) 5 Persuading: Influencing others in favor of pro duct, service, or point of view . 6 Speaking-Signaling: Ta lkin g w ith and/or signaling people to convey o r exchange inform ation. Includes giving assignments and/or directions to helpers or assistants. 7 Serving: A tten d in g to the needs or requests of people o r animals or the expressed o r im plicit wishes of people. Immediate response is involved. 8 Taking Instructions-Helping: Helping applies to "non -lea rn in g" helpers. N o variety of responsibility is involved in this function. T H I N G S : Inanimate objects as distinguished fro m human beings, substances or materials; machines, tools, equipment and products. A thing is tangible and has shape, form , and other physical characteristics. 0 Setting-U p: Adjusting machines or equipment by replacing or altering tools, jigs, fixtures, and attachments to prepare them to perform their functions, change their performance, o r restore their proper functioning if they break d o w n . Workers w ho set up one or a num ber of machines for other workers or w h o set up and person­ ally operate a variety of machines are included here. Figure 4 .2

C on tinued

{continued)

136

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

1 Precision W orking: Using b od y members and/or tools o r w o rk aids to w o rk , move, guide, o r place objects or materials in situations where ultim ate responsibility for the attainm ent of standards occurs and selection of appropriate tools, objects, or materials, and the adjustment of the tool to the task require exercise of consid­ erable judgm ent. 2 O perating-C ontrolling: Starting, stopping, controlling, and adjusting the progress of machines or equipm ent. Operating machines involves setting up and adjusting the machine or material(s) as the w o rk progresses. Controlling involves observing gauges, dials, etc., and turning valves and other devices to regulate factors such as temperature, pressure, flo w of liquids, speed of pum ps, and reactions of mate­ rials. 3 Driving-O perating: Starting, stopping, and controlling the actions of machines or equipm ent for w hich a course must be steered, or w hich must be guided, in order to fabricate, process, and/or move things o r people. Involves such activities as observing gauges and dials; estimating distances and determ ining speed and direc­ tion of other objects; turning cranks and wheels; pushing o r pulling gear lifts or levers. Includes such machines as cranes, conveyor systems, tractors, furnace charging machines, paving machines and hoisting machines. Excludes manually powered machines, such as handtrucks and dollies, and pow er assisted machines, such as electric wheelbarrows and handtrucks. 4 M anipulating: Using b od y members, tools, or special devices to w o rk , m ove, guide, o r place objects or materials. Involves some latitude for judgm ent w ith regard to precision attained and selecting appropriate tool, object, o r material, although this is readily manifest. 5 Te n d in g : Starting, stopping, and observing the functioning o f machines and equipm ent. Involves adjusting materials or controls of the machine, such as chang­ ing guides, adjusting timers and temperature gauges, turning valves to allow flo w of materials, and flipping switches in response to lights. Little judgm ent is involved in making these adjustments. 6 Feeding-O ff bearing: Inserting, throw ing,

dum ping, o r placing materials in o r

removing them from machines or equipment w hich are autom atic o r tended o r operated b y other workers. 7 Handling: Using b od y members, handtools, and/or special devices to w o rk , move or carry objects or materials. Involves little o r no latitude for judgm ent w ith regard to attainment of standards or in selecting appropriate to o l, object, or material.

S O U R C E : U .S . Department of Labor (1 9 7 7 ). a. As each of the relationships to people represents a wide range of co m p le x ity, resulting in considerable overlap among occupations, their arrangement Is somewhat arbitrary and can be considered a hierarchy o n ly In the most general sense. b. O n ly those relationships that are occupationally significant In terms of the require­ ments of the job are reflected In the code numbers. T h e Incidental relationships that every worker has to data, people, and things, but that do not seriously affect success­ ful performance of the essential duties of the jo b , are not reflected. Figure 4 .2

C ontinued

The Horizontal Dimension

137

Despite these complications and others reported by Cain and Treiman, the “DOT is indisputably a rich and unique source of occupational data” (Cain and Treiman, 1981: 273). These authors further explore this rich source by examining the interrelationships among the 44 different measures for each job. These measures include the complexity of the relationship to data, people, and things; two measures of training time required for the job (both general education and specific vocational preparation); eleven aptitudes, such as motor coordination or finger dexterity; ten temperaments or personal traits, such as the ability to deal with people or to perform under stress; five interest factors, such as preference for concrete versus abstract work; six physical demands of the job, such as strength or ability to see things; and seven working conditions, such as presence of noise or extreme heat. Table 4.1 displays the whole range of variables included in the DOT fourth edition. Using a 10% sample of the DOT occupations, Cain and Treiman performed a factor analysis to determine if there were underlying dimensions among these 44 variables. The results are presented in Table 4.2. Not surprisingly, substantive complexity, which has entered this analysis at several points, emerged as the strongest factor. It has some overlap with Factor 4—management. The second factor reflects motor or sensory skills required. The third factor, which explains 10% of the shared variance, is based on strength and brawn, as opposed to motor skills. The fourth factor involves organizational or administrative skills. The fifth factor contains items related to working with feelings and ideas and influencing people and dealing with their social welfare. The final factor distinguishes occupations with undesirable working conditions. Cain and Treiman correctly caution that these results are dependent on the occupations included in the DOT and the factor-analytic technique used. Nonetheless, the results provide us with a strong component in the development of the horizontal dimension of work. The use of the DOT as a basis for developing the horizontal dimension is confounded by the fact that it includes aspects of the vertical dimension, such as the amount of training required and career paths. It also represents a major step in the development of the horizontal dimension. Parcel and Mueller (1983), using data from the third edition DOT, also used a factor-analytic technique to derive dimensions of occupation­ al differentiation. They derive seven interpretable factors that are quite comparable to those presented by Cain and Treiman. Parcel and Mueller’s factors are called the “cognitive” dimensions of complexity, clerical aptitude, uncertainty, and interpersonal relations and the

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

138

TABLE 4.1

DOT Occupational Characteristics, Fourth Edition Variable Label Worker functions DATA PEOPLE THINGS Training times GED SVP Aptitudes INTELL VERBAL NUMER SPATIAL FORM CLERICAL MOTOR FINGDEX MANDEX EYEHAND COLORDIS Temperaments DCP FIF INFLU SJC MVC DEPL REPCON PUS STS VARCH Interests DATACOM SCIENCE ABSTRACT MACHINE TANGLBLE

Descriptiona

Scoring

complexity of function in relation to data complexity of function in relation to people complexity of function in relation to things

O to 6 b 0 to 8 b 0 to 7b

general educational development specific vocational preparation

1 to 6 1 to 9

intelligence verbal aptitude numerical aptitude spatial perception form perception clerical perception motor coordination finger dexterity manual dexterity eye-hand-foot coordination color discrimination

1 to 1 to 1 to 1 to 1 to 1 to 1 to 1 to 1 to 1 to 1 to

direction, control, and planning feelings, ideas, or facts influencing people sensory or judgmental criteria measurable or verifiable criteria dealing with people repetitive or continuous processes performing under stress set limits, tolerances, or standards variety and change

0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1

communication of data vs. activities with things scientific and technical activities vs. business contact abstract and creative vs. routine, concrete activities activities involving processes, machines, or techniques vs. social welfare activities resulting in tangible, productive satisfaction vs. prestige, esteem

Physical demands lifting, carrying, pulling, pushing STRENGTH climbing, balancing CLIMB stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling STOOP

-1 -1 -1 -1

to to to to

4 b>c 5b 5b 5b 5b 5 5b 5b 5b 5b 5b •

•

ld ld ld ld

- 1 to l d

1 to 5 0/1 0/1

The Horizontal Dimension

139 TABLE 4.1 Continued

Variable Label

Descriptiona

REACH reaching, handling, fingering, feeling TALK talking, hearing seeing SEE Working conditions outside working conditions LOCATION COLD extreme cold extreme heat HEAT wet, humid WET NOISE noise, vibration hazardous conditions HAZARDS ATMOSPHR fumes, odors, dust, gases, poor ventilation

Scoring 0/1 0/1 0/1 1 to 3 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1

SOURCE: Cain and Treiman (1981: Table 1). Copyright 1981 by the American Sociological Association. Reprinted by permission. a. Descriptions are from U.S. Department o f Labor (1977). b. High scores correspond to low values. c. Level 5 is not assigned on this aptitude because it is assumed that every job requires at least a “4.” d. Interest variables are sets of bipolar contrasts: 0 corresponds to the presence of neither interest in the pair; - 1 corresponds to the presence of the second interest in the pair; 1 corresponds to the presence of the first interest in the pair.

“noncognitive” dimensions of physical activity, physical dexterity, and pleasantness of working conditions. The overlap here is quite obvious. Parcel and Mueller’s study contains an additional important element. They examined the relationship between their occupational differen­ tiation factors and measures of socioeconomic status and prestige. They found that these vertical dimensions were highly correlated with their complexity factor. The relationship is so strong that Parcel and Mueller conclude that complexity is in fact a vertical dimension of work. They argue that complexity is the most important objective determinant of status. The relationship between complexity and the vertical dimension is a strong one, to be sure, but, in my opinion, complexity remains a major horizontal dimension, although I recognize that it is highly associated with the vertical side of work. There is an additional component of work content that is not captured in the derivations from the DOT. This is the element of power. Obviously, power is closely associated with the vertical dimension, but it can also be distinct from it. For example, Mechanic (1962) found a strong potential for high power among university departmental secre-

140

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

TABLE 4.2

Factor Analysis of DOT Occupational Characteristics, Items and Loadings for Six Factors Factor 1: SUBSTANTIVE COMPEXITY1 GED SVP ISTELL DATA REPCON NUMER VERBAL ABSTRACT MVC CLERICAL SPATIAL PEOPLE FORM TALK DCP VARCH DATACOM

49.3%b

general educational development specific vocational preparation intelligence0 complexity of functioning with datac repetitive or continuous processes numerical aptitude0 verbal aptitudec abstract and creative vs. routine, concrete activities measurable or verifiable criteria clerical perception0 spatial perception0 compexity of functioning with people0 form perception0 talking direction, control, and planning variety and change communication of data vs. activities with things

.86 .86 .83 .81 -.8 1 .78 .76 .68 .64 .64 .55 .47 .46 .44 .43 .42 .41

Factor 2: MOTOR SKILLS 22.6% FINGDEX MOTOR MANDEX THINGS FORM SPATIAL SEE REACH STS MACHINE

finger dexterity0 motor coordination0 manual dexterity0 complexity of functioning with things0 form perception0 spatial perception0 seeing reaching set limits, tolerances, or standards activities involving processes, machines vs. social welfare

.69 .68 .67 .66 .52 .47 .43 .42 .37 .33

Factor 3: PHYSICAL DEMANDS 9.9% LOCATION STOOP EYEHAND CLIMB STRENGTH

outside working conditions stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling eye-hand-foot coordination0 climbing, balancing lifting, carrying, pulling, pushing

.67 .53 .52 .49 .48

Factor 4: MANAGEMENT 5.4% DEPL DCP PEOPLE TALK TANGIBLE SCIENCE DATACOM DATA

dealing with people direction, control, planning complexity of functioning with people0 talking activities resulting in tangible satisfaction vs. prestige scientific, technical activities vs. business contact communication of data vs. activities with things complexity of functioning with data0

.78 .74 .70 .64 -.6 3 -.5 7 .49 .44

The Horizontal Dimension

141

TABLE 4.2 Continued FactorS: INTERPERSONAL SKILLS 4.9% sensory or judgmental criteria feelings, ideas, facts influencing people activities involving processes, machines vs. social welfare

SJC FIF INFLU MACHINE

.51 .41 .41 -.3 7

Factor 6: UNDESIRABLE WORKING CONDITIONS 2.9% HAZARDS ATMOSPHR HEAT

hazardous conditions fumes, odors, dust, poor ventilation extreme heat

.52 .42 .37

SOURCE: Cain and Treiman (1981: Table 8). Copyright 1981 by the American Sociological Association. Reprinted by permission. a. This title is borrowed from Kohn (1969), who uses it to describe a conceptually similar but not operationally identical occupational dimension. b. Percentage of common variance explained. c. Sign reflected on this variable.

taries. He argued that by becoming expert in something not available to superiors, exerting effort and interest, being attractive in the eyes of superiors, being in a central position in the organization, and partici­ pating in the correct coalitions, secretaries can become powerful and even indispensable within the organization. In a related vein, Blau (1979) found that among the architects she studied, expertise increased the power of staff architects above and beyond what their formal positions would have predicted. Although these examples could be viewed as idiosyncratic, there is a more general component here. In work settings in which the power distribution is not absolutely fixed by the employing organization—and this would include the vast majority of organizations—some kinds of work permit the acquisition or loss of power above and beyond that contained in the formal position. This would be the case particularly in many instances of professional work. Power and the vertical dimension are closely intertwined to be sure, but they are analytically distinct. Spaeth (1979) has argued that both complexity and authority (as a major form of power) are components of the vertical differentiation among occupations. I would argue that both are strongly associated with the vertical, but should also be considered as components of the horizontal dimension, because there can be more or less power or complexity in particular work settings without vertical differentiation. Spenner’s (1983) analysis provides a way of combining both com­ plexity and an aspect of power in a manner that is most relevant to the

142

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

horizontal dimension. His focus is on skill levels of jobs and he notes that there are two components that should be conceptualized and measured. First is substantive complexity, which is based on the level, scope, and integration of mental, interpersonal, and manipulative tasks in a job. The second is called “autonomy-control” and is based on the idea that there is a certain amount of leeway for a worker to initiate and conclude action and to control the content, manner, and speed with which a task is done. This nice combination of complexity and autonomy-control appear to be at the heart of the horizontal dimension. As in the case of substantive complexity, of course, autonomy-control is linked to the vertical dimension. In an additional consideration of complexity, Baron and Bielby (1982) examined the relationship between people and the machines with which they work. They note that this relationship exists along several dimensions, such as skill and variety, physical mobility, diversity, integration or technical interdependence, control over the work pace, and intensity. These person-machine relationships interact with labor market conditions, with the disadvantaged having less variety, diversity, interdependence, and control on their jobs. Baron and Bielby conclude that even for workers who do not use machines, the skill and variety, interdependence, and control facets are related to labor market segmentation. As will be discussed in the next section, it is necessary to include labor market sector considerations in a comprehensive view of the horizontal dimension. Complexity has emerged in these various studies as a major component of the horizontal dimension. It is interesting that workers may perceive their work at different levels of complexity than might be the case if complexity were rated by outside observers. In a study of women between the ages of 25 and 54, Lopata et al. (1985) found that those whose jobs had low task complexity (as indicated by the DOT) actually enjoyed some dimensions of their work—such as independence, responsibility, and opportunity—enough to see the end-product as “above average.” Lopata et al. attribute this to the fact that these women were evaluating their whole social role, rather than simply taking a task perspective. Complexity remains a key to the horizontal dimension.

THE LABOR MARKET SECTOR APPROACH The job content approach to the horizontal dimension is explicitly concerned with the horizontal dimension of work. The labor market

The Horizontal Dimension

143

sector approach is explicitly not concerned with this dimension, but provides a means by which our earlier discussion of the situs approach can be joined with the job content approach to yield a potentially definitive approach to horizontal differentiation. The labor market sector approach is fundamentally concerned with the vertical dimension of work, given that it has emerged from the literature on status and income attainment that is linked to analyses of dual economies and dual labor markets. In their review of the development of this literature, Zucker and Rosenstein (1981: 869) conclude: Investigations of labor market processes have emphasized the impact of individual attributes on attainment outcomes. . . . In reaction to these individualistic models of status attainment, sociologists have recently adopted more structural approaches . . . , in many cases borrowing directly from the economics literature. Structural arguments in eco­ nomics have taken two forms: dual economy theory, which focuses on differences between firms and/or industries . . . ; and dual labor market theory, which focuses on the consequences of labor market segmentation while largely ignoring industrial differentiation. The emerging structural approach in sociology rests primarily on the dual economy perspec­ tive . . . , with some aspects of the dual labor market approach loosely borrowed.

There are a number of ways in which the dual economy and dual labor market have been described. A straightforward and typical description is provided by Bluestone et al. (1973: 28-29), who note: The core economy includes those industries that comprise the muscle of American economic and political power. . . . The firms in the core economy are noted for high productivity, high profits, intensive utilization of capital, high incidence of monopoly elements, and a high degree of unionization. Workers who are able to secure employment in these industries are, in most cases, assured of relatively high wages and better than average working conditions and fringe benefits.. . . Beyond the fringes of the core economy lies a set of industries that lack almost all of the advantages normally found in center firms. . . . The periphery industries are noted for their small firm size, labor intensity, low profit, low productivity, intensive product market competition, lack of unionization, and low wages. Unlike core sector industries, the periphery lacks the assets, size, and political power to take advantage of economies of scale or to spend large sums on research and development.

Bluestone et al.’s distinction contains the key elements of most such distinctions, with the core sometimes labeled the “monopoly sector” and the periphery sometimes labeled the “competitive sector.” Zucker and

144

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Rosenstein (1981: 870) observe that there is frequently an implicit or explicit linkage of this dual economy approach to a dual labor market approach, which distinguishes between a primary labor market with high-wage jobs, good working conditions, and internal labor markets and a secondary labor market with low-wage jobs, poor working conditions, and an absence of internal labor markets. To illustrate this approach, I will follow Zucker and Rosenstein, who compared the placement of industries in different sectors in four major studies: Beck et al. (1978); Bibb and Form (1977); Hodson (1977), who added a state sector; and Tolbert et al. (1980). Table 4.3 indicates where these studies placed various industries in terms of the core and periphery (and state) sectors. These findings are interesting in their own right, because they indicate both a great deal of agreement for many industries and sharp differences among others. Clearly, each taxonomy proceeds from different assump­ tions and no overall single taxonomy is available. As Zucker and Rosenstein (1981: 880) note, these taxonomies have served heuristic purposes in the early phase of dual economy investigations. One seldom-noted aspect of the industrial sectors that have been identified in discussions of dual economies and dual labor markets is that significant shifts of entire sectors can occur. For example, the American automobile industry and the auto worker labor market were in some real danger of shifting from core to periphery until new products, new marketing, and protectionist regulations were put into place in the early 1980s. There have been insufficient analyses of such shifts, even though a great deal of attention has been paid to the issue of the overall upgrading or downgrading of skills within the total labor force, as was discussed in Chapter 1. The analysis thus far has revealed that there are industrial sectors, but this has not taken us very far in terms of the horizontal dimension. The next step can be taken when the work of Kaufman et al. (1981) is considered. These authors attempt to “defrock” dualism, by suggesting that the core-periphery dual economy approach is too simplistic. They develop a complex factor analysis based on a set of clusters from ten dimensions such as size, concentration, and capital or labor intensity. From this analysis they derive the following industrial sectors: (1) oligopoly (high values on all dimensions, such as IBM or General Motors) (2) core (manufacturing) (3) wholesale (4) periphery (services, some manufacturing) (5) small shop (retailing, physicians and dentists)

145

The Horizontal Dimension

TABLE 4.3

Industry Group Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries Mining metal mining coal mining crude petroleum and natural gas nonmetalic mining and quarrying Construction Durable m anufacturing lum ber and w ood products furniture and fixtures stone, clay, and glass products metal industries machinery, except electrical electrical machinery, equipm ent, supplies transportation equipm ent professional and photographic equipm ent ordnance miscellaneous durable m anufacturing Nondurable m anufacturing food and kindred products tobacco m anufacturers textile mill products knitting dyeing and finishing textile floor coverings yarn, thread, and fabric mills miscellaneous textile mills apparel and other fabricated textiles paper and allied products printing, publishing, and allied industries chemicals and allied products petroleum and coal products rubber and miscellaneous plastic products rubber products miscellaneous plastic products leather and leather products tanned, finished footwear leather products, except footwear n o t specified nondurable m anufacturing

Beck, Horan, and Tolbert Bibb-Form (1977) (1978)

Hodson (1977)

Tolbert, Horan, and Beck (1980)

periphery

excluded

periphery

periphery

core core core core corec

core core core core core

core core core periphery core

core core core core core

periphery periphery core core core core

core core core core core core

periphery periphery core core core core

periphery periphery core core core core

core core

core core

core core

core core

core periphery

core core

core core

core periphery

periphery periphery periphery

periphery periphery periphery

core core periphery

core core

periphery core core

periphery periphery periphery

periphery core periphery

core core core

core core core

core core core

periphery core periphery core periphery periphery core core core core

core periphery periphery

periphery

periphery

periphery

periphery

periphery

periphery core periphery periphery

(continued)

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

146

TABLE 4.3 Continued

Industry Group T ransportation railroads and railway express service street railways and bus lines taxicab service trucking service warehousing and storage w ater transportation air transportation petroleum and gasoline pipelines services incidental to transportation Comm unications radio broadcasting and television telephone (wire and radio) telegraph (wire and radio) Utilities and sanitary services electric light and power gas, steam, and supply systems electric-gas utilities w ater supply sanitation services other not specified utilities Wholesale trade m otor vehicles and equipm ent drugs, chemicals dry goods and apparel food and related products farm products electrical goods hardware, etc. machinery and equipm ent metals and minerals petroleum products scraps and waste materials alcoholic beverages paper and its products lum ber and construction wholesalers n.c.c. no t specified Retail trade Finance and insurance real estate Business and repair services Personal services E ntertainm ent and recreation services

Beck, Horan, and Tolbert Bibb-Form (1977) (1978)

Hodson (1977)

Tolbert, Horan, and Beck (1980)

core core core core core core core core core

core core core core core core core core core

core periphery periphery periphery periphery periphery core periphery periphery

core periphery periphery core core core core core periphery

core core core

core core core

periphery core core

core core core

core core core core core core core

core core core core core core periphery

state state state periphery periphery periphery periphery

core core core periphery periphery periphery

periphery core core periphery periphery periphery

periphery periphery periphery periphery periphery periphery

periphery periphery periphery periphery periphery periphery

periphery core periphery core periphery core periphery core core periphery periphery core periphery periphery periphery periphery periphery core periphery periphery periphery periphery

The Horizontal Dimension

147

TABLE 4.3 Continued

Industry Group Professional and related services offices o f physicians/dentists hospitals/convalescent institutions legal services educational services museums, etc. religious organizations welfare services nonprofit organizations engineering and architectural accounting, auditing, bookkeeping miscellaneous professional Public adm inistration

Beck, Horan, and Tolbert Bibb-Form (1977) (1978) core

core

periphery

core

Hodson (1977)

Tolbert, Horan, and Beck (1980)

periphery

state

core periphery core periphery periphery periphery periphery periphery core core core core

SOURCE: Zucker and Rosenstein (1981: 880-882). Copyright 1981 by the American Sociological Association. Reprinted by permission.

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

core utilities and finance peripheral utilities and finance core transport peripheral transport local monopoly (health services and construction) education and nonprofit agricultural

They also identify four single-industry sectors. Although subsequent analyses might identify additional such sectors—logic would suggest there are core and peripheral sectors in sports and entertainment (Smith, 1983, found core and peripheral labor markets for college football and basketball coaches), and core and peripheral sectors in government (some local government operations, such as sheriffs deputies or town assessors seem to be clearly at the periphery)—this industrial sector approach comes surprisingly close to an empirically based specification of situses, without some of the questionable assumptions that entered the original development of that approach to the horizontal dimension. With the addition of a peripheral sector containing hustling and illegal work, we would then have a horizontal dimension approximating that depicted in Figure 4.3. With such a scheme it would be possible to place the industries displayed in Table 4.3 in the appropriate sector. It would also be possible to place particular

148

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Z> X

Figure 4.3 Labor Market Sectors

occupations, such as those included in Figure 4.1 (in the discussion of situs), in the appropriate labor market sector. To complete the picture for the horizontal dimension, I would then add the perspective of the job content approach, particularly the dimensions dealing with substantive complexity and autonomy-control. Additional specification from the job content approach, such as complexity in terms of data, people, and things, could be further added if such specificity were desired. Thus, within each sector, work would vary in terms of job content, as depicted in Figure 4.4. With the combination of labor market sector and job content approaches, it is possible to place any form of work or occupation at the appropriate point on the horizontal dimension. The results of such placement would reveal much more about the nature of work than simple knowledge of an occupational title. For example, it has been demonstrated that the practice of law takes place in a wide variety of settings (Smigel, 1964; Carlin, 1962; Heinz and Laumann, 1982). The solo practicing lawyer who relies on finding accident victims (the ambulance chaser) in order to develop suits for damages would be in the small-shop periphery sector, with moderate-to-low substantive complexity and autonomy-control. The partner in a Wall Street law firm, on the other hand, would be in the

The Horizontal Dimension

149

high

low

high

low

Substantive Complexity OLIGOPOLY

Autonomy Control S E C T O R S

to

HUSTLING ILLEGAL

Substantive Complexity Autonomy Control

Figure 4.4 With in-Sector Differentiation

same sector, but he or she would be in the core, with much higher complexity and autonomy-control ratings. The lawyer who is employed by General Motors would be placed in the oligopoly sector. It is interesting that Evans and Laumann (1983) found sharp differences among the professions in terms of placement within the job content DOT categories. The use of the horizontal dimension as developed here permits much more revealing distinctions to be made in regard to the actual nature of work. In concluding this analysis of the horizontal dimension, it should be noted that horizontal (and vertical) aspects of work are not fixed for all time. Just as industries or firms can shift from core to periphery and vice versa, particular jobs can shift within a sector. Wallace and Kalleberg (1982) have shown how declining profits in the printing industry contributed to changing technology, with the advent of computerization, more routinized tasks, and a decline in the skill requirements of the work. If profits were to decline too much, the industry itself would shift

150

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

to the periphery, but that is not the issue here. Wallace and Kalleberg state that this change was affected by the social relationships present in this particular setting. The union representing the printers was able to secure guarantees for its members and they then welcomed the technological change for its contribution to efficiency. Another example of a shift in skill requirements in a single sector is seen in Finlay’s (1983) analysis of longshoremen, whose work was affected greatly by the development of containerized cargoes and cargo ships. The result was the development of two labor markets, with that of the crane operators for containerized cargoes benefiting and the market for other longshoremen at a disadvantage.

CONCLUSIONS In this chapter I have attempted to develop an approach to the horizontal dimension of work that is consistent with current theoretical and empirical developments in the field. I have also attempted to develop an approach that will yield insights into the ways in which work and workers are distributed across the horizontal dimension. Work that is substantively complex in the educational sector is different from that which is substantively complex in the manufacturing sector. It is not certain that the sectors identified are those that would ultimately serve as the best bases for understanding horizontal differentiation, but it appears that they offer a promising start in that direction. A major advantage of the approach suggested here is that it can be linked directly to the vertical dimension. Both aspects from the job content approach—substantive complexity and autonomy-control— have been shown to be closely related, in many instances, to the vertical dimension. The development of the labor market sectors arose from attempts to understand status and income attainment processes along the vertical dimension. Despite these relationships, the horizontal dimension remains an independent dimension of work.

REFERENCES Baron, James N. and William T. Bielby (1982) “Workers and machines: dimensions and determinants of technical relations in the workplace." American Sociological Review 47 (April): 175-188.

The Horizontal Dimension

151

Beck, E. M., Patrick M. Horan, and Charles M. Tolbert II (1978) “Stratification in a dual economy: a sectoral model of earnings determination. ” American Sociological Review 43 (October): 704-720. Benoit-Smullyan, Emile (1944) “Status, status types, and status interrelations. ” American Sociological Review 9 (April): 151-161. Bibb, Robert and William Form (1977) “The effects of industrial, occupational, and sex stratification on wages in blue collar markets.” Social Forces 55 (June): 974-9%. Blau, Judith R. (1979) “Expertise and power in professional organizations.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 6 (February): 103-123. Blau, Peter M. (1977) Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure. New York: Free Press. Bluestone, Barry, William M. Murphy, and Mary Stevenson (1973) Low Wages and the Working Poor. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations. Burrage, Michael C. and David Cory (1981) “At sixes and sevens: Occupational status in the City of London from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century.” American Sociological Review 46 (August): 375-393. Cain, Pamela S. and Donald Treiman (1981) “The Dictionary o f Occupational Titles as a source of occupational data.” American Sociological Review 46 (June): 253-278. Carlin, Jerome (1962) Lawyers on Their Own: A Study of Individual Practitioners in Chicago. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Durkheim, Emile (1933) The Division of Labor in Society (George Simpson, trans.). New York: Free Press. Evans, M ari ah D. and Edward O. Laum ann (1983) “Professional commitment: myth or reality,” pp. 3-40 in Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, Vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Finlay, William (1983) “One occupation, two labor markets: the case of longshore crane operators.” American Sociological Review 48 (June): 306-315. Gibbs, Jack P. and Dudley L. Poston (1975) “The division of labor: conceptualization and related measures.” Social Forces 53 (March) 468-476. Hall, Richard H. (1983) “Theoretical trends in the sociology of occupations.” Sociological Quarterly 24 (Winter): 5-23. Hatt, Paul K. (1950) “Occupations and social stratification.” American Journal of Sociology 45 (May): 533-543. Heinz, John P. and Edward O. Laumann (1982) Chicago Lawyers: Professions of the Bar. New York: Basic. Hodson, Randy D. (1977) “Labor force participation and earnings in the core, periphery, and state sectors of production.” M.A. thesis, University of Wisconsin—Madison. Kaufman, Robert L., Randy Hodson, and Neil D. Fligstein( 1981) “Defrocking dualism: a new approach to defining industrial sectors.” Social Science Research 10 (March): 1-31. Kohn, Melvin L. (1969) Class and Conformity: A Study in Values. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. Lopata, Helena Z., Kathleen F. Norr, Deb Bamewolt, and Cheryl A. Miller (1985) “Job complexity as perceived by workers and experts.” Work and Occupations 12 (November). Mechanic, David (1962) “Sources of power of lower participants.” Administrative Science Quarterly 7 (December): 349-364. Miller, Ann R., Donald J. Treiman, Pamela S. Cain, and Patricia A. Roos [eds.] (1980) Work, Jobs, and Occupations: A Critical Review of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

152

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Morris, Richard T. and Raymond J. Murphy (1959) “The situs dimension in occupational structure.’’ American Sociological Review 24 (April): 231-239. Mortimer, Jeylan T. (1974) “Patterns of intergenerational occupational movement: a smallest space analysis.” American Journal of Sociology 79 (March): 1278-1299. -------- and Jon Lorence (1981) “Comment on Samuel and Lewin-Epstein.” American Journal of Sociology 87 (November): 708-714. Parcel, Toby L. and Charles W. Mueller (1983) “Occupational differentiation, prestige, and socioeconomic status.” Work and Occupations 10 (February): 49-80. Samuel, Yitzhak and Noah Lcvin-Epstcin (1979) “The occupational situs as a predictor of work values.” American Journal of Sociology 85 (November): 625-639. Smigel, Erwin O. (1964) The Wall Street Lawyer. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Smith, Adam (1937) The Wealth of Nations. New York: Random House. Smith, D. Randall (1983) “Mobility in professional occupational-internal labor markets: stratification, segmentation, and vacancy chains.” American Sociological Review 48 (June): 289-305. Spaeth, Joe L. (1979) “Vertical differentiation among occupations.” American Sociologi­ cal Review 44 (October): 746-762. Spenner, Kenneth I. (1983) “Deciphering Prometheus: temporal change in the skill level of work.” American Sociological Review 48 (December): 824-837. Tolbert, Charles M., II, Patrick M. Horan, and E. M. Beck (1980) “The structure of economic segmentation: a dual economy approach.” American Journal of Sociology 85 (March): 1095-1116. U.S. Department of Labor (1939) Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. -------- (1949a) Dictionary of Occupational Titles (2nd ed.), Vol. I: Definitions of Titles. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. -------- (1949b) Dictionary of Occupational Titles (2nd ed.), Vol. II: Occupational Classification and Industry Index. Washington DC: Government Printing Office. -------- (1965a) Dictionary of Occupational Titles (3rd ed.), Vol. I. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. -------- (1965b) Dictionary of Occupational Titles (3rd ed.), Vol. II. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. -------- (1977) Dictionary of Occupational Titles (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Wallace, Michael and Arne Kalleberg (1982) “Industrial transformation and the decline of craft: the decomposition of skill in the printing industry.” American Sociological Review 47 (June): 307-324. Zucker, Lynne G. and Carolyn Rosenstein (1981) “Taxonomies of institutional structure: dual economy reconsidered.” American Sociological Review 46 (December): 869-884.

THE VERTICAL DIMENSION In this chapter the discussion turns to the topic that has been implicit in almost all of the previous analyses and will continue to be an important consideration in the chapters to follow. Before delving into the subject matter, one caveat is required. In this chapter I will not deal with the gender issue, because that is the topic of the next chapter. My intent is to make the present discussion as “genderless” as possible. This is made difficult by the fact that many of the studies cited were conducted with men only, so that we do not know if the findings are in fact generalizable to both genders. The same problem exists in terms of race and ethnicity, because in most cases the men studied were white. Here again, there is a separate chapter on the racial and ethnic dimension. In spite of this caveat, and based on the evidence available, the vertical dimension to be discussed here is in fact generalizable to the total population. Before I present the analysis, one further clarification is necessary. The vertical dimension is itself composed of multiple and overlapping components. These include social class, status variables, and prestige. Each will be considered as a component of the vertical dimension, and no assump­ tion will be made that any particular component of the vertical dimension holds primacy over the others.

THE BASIC RELA TIONSHIP: WORK AND SOCIAL STA TUS In the discussion of the horizontal dimension, there were inevitable references to the vertical dimension. One reason for this is that the relationship between the kind of work people do (or their occupations) and their social (vertical) status is extremely strong. Blau and Duncan (1967: vii), in one of the most influential books on this topic, note: “In the absence of hereditary castes or feudal estates, class differences come to rest primarily on occupational positions and the economic advan­ tages and powers associated with them.” Reiss (1961:83-84) approaches 153

154

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

the matter from a different standpoint, but comes to the same basic conclusion: Both individual income and educational attainment, which are used as measures of socio-economic status, are known to be correlated with occupational ranks; both can be seen as aspects of occupational status, since education is a basis for entry into many occupations, and for most people income is derived from occupation.

Measurement There have been systematic attempts to calibrate or measure this strong relationship between occupations and social status. A major effort has been in the direction of measuring occupational prestige. Prestige is accorded to an occupation or anything else. No person or occupation “has” prestige. It is given only by other people. According to Haller and Bills (1979), efforts to measure occupational prestige date back to the 1920s. The most influential attempt to measure occupational prestige was a study published in 1947 known as the North-Hatt or NORC (National Opinion Research Center) scale (see Reiss, 1961, for a comprehensive overview of the development of this scale). This study was designed to determine the standards of judgment people use in evaluating occupa­ tional status. It was also concerned with the standards used in determining the relative desirability of various occupations. Most important, the study was also designed to determine the way in which a national sample would rate the relative prestige of a wide range of occupations. The prestige ratings for approximately ninety occupations were obtained in this study. It is interesting that the reasons the respondents gave for ranking an occupation highly contained the same mix of intrinsic and extrinsic factors that might have been expected from our analysis of the individual dimension (for example, pay, security, service to humanity, ability to use intelligence). In the interim since the publication of the North-Hatt study and scales, several other major attempts have been made to develop occupational prestige scales that would include a wider range of occupations than was contained in the original study. These include Hodge etal.(1964,1966) and Siegel (1971). A separate prestige scale for women—the Bose Index (Bose, 1973; Bose and Rossi, 1983)—has also been developed. Treiman’s (1977) work is particularly interesting, as it represents an attempt to develop a scale that has universal applicability in any society.

The Vertical Dimension

155

In their review of Treiman’s work, Haller and Bills (1979:722) suggest that the main reason occupational hierarchies in general and occupational prestige hierarchies in particular have interested sociologists. . . is. . . the possibility that they would yield a simple, easy-to-use, index of one’s position in a stratification system. To the extent that they remain constant over time they offer a basis for comparing variations in the status of persons across generations, across age cohorts, and throughout indi­ vidual careers. To the extent that they measure or index all those variations in resources and rewards that are summed up by words such as “power,” “privilege,” “wealth,” “prestige,” “class,” “status,” etc., they promise to provide a single variable by which to locate each person at his proper level in the stratification system. Among countries, to the extent that occupational prestige hierarchies everywhere are similar to each other, they offer a comparable measure of stratification position which would be valid regardless of the different cultures, economies, technologies, and political structures which distinguish one country from another.

Treiman developed the Standard International Occupational Pres­ tige Scale (SIOPS), based on his conclusion that there is a single, worldwide, occupational prestige hierarchy. In their review of the Treiman research, Haller and Bills reanalyze the data that went into SIOPS. Their analysis reveals that there is not the single scale that Treiman suggests. They find that the nonsocialist industrial nations and the urban sectors of the nonindustrial nations did, in fact, share such a hierarchy, but that the socialist industrialized nations of Europe and rural nonindustrial nations had different hierarchies. The difference between socialist and nonsocialist nations was noted earlier by Penn (1975), who found clear differences between the prestige hierarchies of Czechoslovakia and the United States. Thus prestige hierarchies apparently vary according to the type of regime in a nation. One wonders if the hierarchy of a nation such as Austria would be more like nonsocialist West Germany or socialist Hungary, both of which have had strong relations with Austria. We have seen evidence of a great deal of similarity in the prestige hierarchies of most industrialized nations. The vertical dimension of work is thus quite stable over space. There is indirect evidence that such stability also exists over time. Although they were not using prestige ratings, Tyree and Smith (1978) found that there was very slow change in the occupational hierarchy of Philadelphia from 1789 to 1969. They used 1789 tax data and later census data to develop their conclusions. Prestige scales are one of the major ways in which the vertical dimension is conceptualized and measured, but not every analyst is

156

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

satisfied with this approach. One of the simpler alternatives is the use of U.S. Census categories. These are very close to the various forms of work discussed in Chapter 2—professionals; proprietors, managers, and officials; clerks and kindred workers; and so on. Edwards (1943) believed that these categories formed unique groupings, with different political, economic, and social points of view. The categories also represent economically distinct standards of life. Although these census distinctions can serve as gross indicators of socioeconomic status, there are too many possibilities for inaccuracies and misleading placements to permit use of such an approach in most cases. For example, the corporate chief executive would be placed lower on the vertical dimension than would a nurse. As a more rigorous measure than the census categories, and as one that does not rely on subjective judgments as the prestige scales do, many analysts have come to favor the “socioeconomic index” (SEI) originally developed by Duncan in 1961 (in Reiss, 1961). The SEI is an “objective” indicator of status in that it links education and income into a single status measure for each occupation. Education prepares people for the occupations from which they receive their incomes. The SEI was developed by using census information and developing age-adjusted scores for education and income in terms of the proportion of members of that occupation possessing education and incomes above a specified level (see Duncan, in Reiss, 1961: 120-124, for details). The SEI was originally developed as an extension of the NORC work. The SEI is highly correlated with both the original NORC prestige scale and the more recent one developed by Siegel (1970; Duncan et al., 1972). According to Haller and Bills (1979: 723): “Certain more recent writers (Featherman and Hauser, 1978) now view the SEI of occu­ pations as the basic stratification variable, a summary of resources (education) and rewards (income). They see prestige as no more than an imperfect index of SEI.” Those who are oriented toward prestige, of course, could note that the SEI is but an imperfect index of prestige, but that is not the issue here. Approached from either the more subjective prestige route or the more objective SEI type of formulation, different occupations have clearly different placem ents on the vertical dimension.

Education Although few would dispute the strong relationships among educa­ tion, occupation, and earnings, the relationships are not one to one. As will be seen in the later discussion of status and income attainment,

The Vertical Dimension

157

research has distinguished carefully among these phenomena. Research has also shown that the relationship between education and work is more complex than simply the number of years of schooling a person has had yielding particular forms of work or a particular occupation. For example, Faia(1981) has questioned the utility of using the number of years of schooling completed as a relevant variable in stratification research. His preferred alternative would be to use academic certi­ fication—degrees or specialized certificates. The basis for his argument is that research has demonstrated that blacks and women receive less economic return from their schooling than do white males when school­ ing is measured by the number of school years completed. He argues that if actual certification were to be used in such research, education might well be shown to be a greater influence on earnings than the data now available indicate for these groups of workers. The issue of certification itself is complex. Stolzenberg (1978) found that the effects of employees’ schooling on their earnings and their occupational status increased with increased organizational size. Edu­ cation had a greater return in larger organizations. According to Stolzenberg (1978: 816), a major reason for this is as follows: The greater the extent to which hiring and remuneration decisions in an organization are standardized, the greater the extent to which these decisions must be based on data which lend themselves to standardized procedures. Since years of schooling is widely accepted in the U.S. as a standard (if crude) measure of cognitive ability, and information about employees’ years of schooling is available to the employer at no cost, employees’ years of schooling is particularly well-suited for use in procedures concerning hiring and remuneration. Therefore we hypothe­ size that the greater the extent of standardization in an organization, the greater the effect of years of its employees’schooling on their earnings and occupational achievement, other things being equal. And since standard­ ization is strongly affected by the logarithm of organizational size, we hypothesize that the effects of workers’ length of schooling on their earnings and occupational attainment varies according to the logarithm of the size of the organization which employs them, ceteris paribus.

These hypothesized relationships were in fact found in the data analyzed. Another possible explanation offered by Stolzenberg is based on the notion of “credentialism” (Miller, 1968) or the “great training robbery” (Berg, 1970). This argument suggests that the number of years of schooling is only remotely related to work performance, and that the use of educational credentials serves to exclude minorities and others who have limited access to education. Because of standardization, linked as it is to organizational size, credentialism is more likely to be

158

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

found in larger organizations. Whichever explanation is accepted— elements of truth seem to exist in both—the findings strongly support the importance of organizational size for the education-status linkage. As Stolzenberg notes in his conclusion, the fact that organizations tend to become larger means that education will play an increasingly important role in this relationship. Any analysis of the relationship between education and the vertical dimension must recognize the multifaceted nature of education. Kerkhoff et al. (1982) claim that there are multiple dimensions in education, such as whether a school is public or private, Ivy League or non-Ivy League; the type of degree one may earn; and the number of years of schooling. The multiple dimensions of education have effects on similarly multiple occupational dimensions, such as earnings, authority, or control. An MBA degree from an Ivy League school thus has an earnings potential greatly different from that of a BA in English from a small state college. In this regard, Monk-Tumer (1983) reports that community college entrants suffer an occupational penalty when compared with four-year college entrants, even when the number of years of schooling eventually completed is controlled for. Not only are there between-school differences in regard to the outcomes for work, but there are also differences within schools that are important (Griffin and Alexander, 1978). These within-school dif­ ferences are known as tracks. The importance of high school tracks is seen vividly in Rosenbaum’s (1975) analysis of a high school in the Northeast. The social class composition of this school was quite homogeneous because most children of affluent parents attended a nearby private school and most children of the least affluent parents, dropped out of school, leaving the high school used in the study composed largely of white, working-class students. There were five distinct tracks in this school. Students in the upper tracks generally experienced increases in their scores on IQ tests between the eighth and the tenth grade, and students in the lower tracks tended to have reduction in IQ scores. Tracking begins before high school. In their analysis of the tracking phenomenon, Alexander et al. (1978; see also Persell, 1977; Rosen­ baum, 1976) note that proponents of tracking suggest that by grouping students on the basis of perceived abilities, more able students will benefit from the more advanced materials to which they are exposed. They will also be aided by the faster pace at which they can move (because they are not held back by the less gifted) and by the support provided by peers, counselors, and teachers. Less able students are purported to benefit from the presentation of materials that will be

The Vertical Dimension

159

relevant to their futures and at a pace they can handle and from not having to suffer in competition with the more able. Critics of tracking (following Alexander et al.) note that it provides greater resources for precisely the students who need them least. Critics also note that tracking leads to a high school status system in which those in the lower track are looked down upon as somewhat stupid. In addition, those in the lower tracks are denied access to teachers and curricula that would allow them to compete with the more privileged members of their cohort. Alexander et al.’s own data do not resolve these issues, but rather highlight them. They found that the students they studied were tracked on the basis of their academic attainments in junior high school, and that these are associated with background characteristics of the students. Higher-status students are “streamed disproportionately” into college-preparatory curricula (Alexander et al., 1978: 65). Education thus contributes to and perpetuates inequality, as Bowles and Gintis (1976) have argued forcefully. Tracking does not end with high school. Students in lower tracks, if they pursue additional education at all, are much more likely to matriculate to a community college. Even at a university with an open admissions policy, a form of tracking persists. Lavin et al. (1981) examined the City University of New York’s (CUNY) experiment with an open admissions policy. This policy was successful in terms of bringing large numbers of minority students to the campuses of CUNY. However, minority group members were much more likely to be enrolled in the two-year schools and much less likely to be enrolled at the more elite senior campuses. Minority students at the two-year schools were also more likely than whites to be enrolled in vocational curricula, which reduces their chances of eventually entering four-year schools. The Lavin et al. research reaches a paradoxical conclusion. The advantages of open admissions did reach the targeted groups—the minorities—but at the same time white students actually benefited more from the open admissions policies, as more whites entered the system at all levels. The relationships between education and the vertical dimension are thus very complex, and the analysis here only touches the surface. The nature of the education that people receive has a clear effect on their placement on the vertical dimension; however, it is not the only determinant. Tinto (1984) has shown that for children of elite families who possess a high level of resources, college education has little impact on occupational attainment. For nonelite families, colleges may play an important role in subsequent occupational attainment. Although the

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

160

focus is not on attainment here, the point is that education should not be construed as the sole determinant of placement on the vertical dimension.

EXPLAINING THE RELATIONSHIP, 1: WHY DO OCCUPATIONS VARY ON THE VERTICAL DIMENSION? The issue to be discussed in this section represents one of the most enduring debates in sociology: How does one explain social stratifi­ cation? The basic debate is between those who espouse the functional model and those who favor the conflict model. Recent analysts have developed a structural model that may, over time, come to incorporate the most insightful aspects of the earlier alternatives. The clearest way to understand the issues involved is to trace the development and criticism of the functional model.

The Functional Model The roots of the functional model in American sociology can be traced back almost fifty years (Parsons, 1940), with its clearest articulation of the model found in the work of Davis and Moore (1945). The basic argument is that for society to exist, it must have a variety of tasks performed. Individuals must be motivated to fill the positions reponsible for performance of these tasks. Motivation to perform the tasks must be based on the differential rewards linked to the various positions. Differential rewards would be unnecessary if all tasks were equally important, equally pleasant to perform, and equal in their requirements of ability and talent. Such is not the case, however, and hence the existence of differential rewards and the resultant strati­ fication. Davis and Moore (1945: 242-243) note that the rewards can involve intrinsic enjoyment, feelings of accomplishment, or material rewards. Differential rewards are necessary so that less essential positions do not compete with more essential (functionally important) positions for personnel. Another component of the basic argument is that there is a “differential scarcity of personnel.” The more scarce the personnel and the more difficult and important the position, the higher the rewards

The Vertical Dimension

161

must be. The ability to fill a position can be acquired through either heredity or training. The Davis and Moore approach thus involves considerations of the differential importance of positions in society, variations in the requirements of the positions, and differences in the kinds of abilities necessary to fill the positions. The positions are thus differentially rewarded in order to ensure their occupancy by competent personnel. The differential rewards lead to a stratified society [Hall, 1975: 258].

This formulation led to a long-standing debate and dialogue among Davis (1953) and Moore(1963a, 1963b) and Tumin (1953,1963), which is chronicled in Hall (1975). The thrust of the debate centered around issues such as how the differential functional importance of various positions is to be determined, the potential for existing social class distinctions to prevent the development of talent, and the necessity for high levels of rewards to compensate people who undergo extensive training for difficult positions. In regard to the last point, the functional theory suggests that high reward levels are necessary to induce people to undergo difficult and extensive training periods, as in colleges and universities and professional schools. But, as Tumin (1953: 390) notes: What tends to be completely overlooked, in addition, are the psychic and spiritual rewards which are available to the elite trainees by comparison with their age peers in the labor force. There is, first, the much higher prestige enjoyed by the college student and the professional-school student as compared with persons in shops and offices. There is, second, the extremely highly valued privilege of having greater opportunity for self-development. There is, third, the psychic gain involved in being allowed to delay the assumption of adult responsibilities such as earning a living and supporting a family. There is, fourth, the access to leisure and freedom of a kind not likely to be experienced by the persons already in the labor force.

The lives and times of college and professional school students have changed since Tumin prepared these comments, but Davis’s (1953:396) reply remains relevant—that not everyone is willing or able to undergo the difficulties of studying for access to the highly rewarded positions. There are other aspects of the functional theory that the most casual of observers would note. The extremely high salaries of sports stars or rock music stars are frequently cited as a clear contradiction of this approach. These highly visible roles have notoriety, but not eminence, according to Hope (1982). If, however, one were to take the average salaries of all, say, basketball players in colleges and professional

162

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

basketball leagues, or all rock musicians, the salary figures would be much lower. On the other hand, those who support the functional theory have a hard time explaining why some college football coaches are paid more than the presidents of the colleges for which they coach. Similarly, the seemingly exorbitantly high salaries of some corporate executives seem to fall outside the explanatory power of this approach. The functional theory will not be proved or disproved with words, however, because it is verification through empirical research that is needed. Unfortunately, such empirical testing has been quite rare. This is due to the difficulties involved in developing the necessary controls to permit adequate testing. In addition, as Borgatta (1960) has noted, the functionalist view of society is a dynamic one, with the stratification system a constantly emerging process. From a strict point of view, it would be necessary to anticipate the future in order to determine what the differentiated rewards of today should be, and no one has yet been able to do that. Given these limitations, most attempts to test the functional approach have used historical data. Abrahamson (1971) examined patterns of military pay during periods of war and peace. If the functional theory is correct, military pay should rise during times of war, given that the military are more important at those times. Abrahamson’s data essentially confirmed this hypothesis. Broom and Cushing (1977) examined executive compensation in large U.S. business firms as indicated by their place in a Forbes magazine directory. They found a limited relationship between the magnitude of executive responsibility (as an indicator of functional importance) and executive compensation. Also, executives of large corporations were paid more than executives of small corporations. These findings tend to support the contentions of functional theory, but this support is eroded when additional evidence from the same study is considered. No relationship was found between company performance and executive compensation. Even more puzzling are the findings that executives in “essential” industries, such as ethical drugs, food, steel, and textiles, were paid less than executives in less essential industries, such as beer, cosmetics, soft drinks, and tobacco. Here again the elusiveness of the concept of functional importance becomes even more clear. Additional limited support for the functional theory can be found in the work of Cullen and Novick (1979), who examined prestige and income (as rewards) and the required talent, training, agreeability, and

The Vertical Dimension

163

perceived importance of 267 occupations from U.S. Census data. They found the following: The results supported the major propositions. Required talent, training, and perceived importance all significantly increased both prestige and income. One aspect of disagreeability, physically demanding work, negatively affected prestige, but not income. Another aspect, outside work, positively affected income. From an economic perspective, it seems that required talent, disagreeability, and training serve to limit the supply of labor and in turn result in higher rewards. In the case of physical demands, sufficient income is awarded to fill the positions, but prestige is low, possibly because of a bias against manual labor [Cullen and Novick,

1979: 1435], In a further discussion of their results, Cullen and Novick report that both training and required talent made greater contributions to rewards than did perceived importance. In Grandjean’s (1975) terms, the supply factors of required talent and training are more elastic than the demand factor of importance. Thus talent and training necessarily explain more of the variance. Cullen and Novick conclude their article by noting that there must be other important determinants of occupational position. In a later piece of work, Cullen (1985) presents evidence that begins to get at the issue of other determinants of occupational position. In this study Cullen used the same set of occupations and found that task complexity and education were significant predictors of occupational earnings, as functional theory would predict. He also found that some occupational groups were able to derive additional earnings by influ­ encing the extent of their educational attainment. Here we see the introduction of the power approach to the professions, because it is professional occupations that have the power to influence legislation requiring specific levels of education. Taken a step further, this also serves as a transition to the conflict approach, because occupational groups that have the power to influence educational requirements also then have power over their means of production. The functional approach has been neither proved nor disproved. Some limited support can be seen for some of the propositions derived from the approach, but large flaws and inconsistencies in the logic and application of the approach are also apparent. It must be recognized that some of the debate the functional approach has generated has been political in nature. Many writers view the functional approach as highly individualistic and conservative (Horan, 1978). An alternative to the

164

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

functional approach is the conflict approach, to which the discussion now turns.

The Conflict Approach The conflict approach to explaining social stratification has deep historical roots, traceable back to the writings of Karl Marx (1867), with his emphasis on the control of economic conditions. More recently, Dahrendorf (1959) argued that it is the control of power in the work place, rather than ownership, that determines class position. The most recent comprehensive theoretical statement of the conflict perspective is found in the work of Wright (1979; see also Wright, 1978; Wright and Perrone, 1977), and it is his approach that will be followed here. The key to the conflict approach is the idea of class. According to Wright (1979: 4): At the risk of some oversimplification, the diverse definitions of class can be analyzed in terms of three nested theoretical dimensions: (1) Whether class is fundamentally understood in gradational or in relational terms; (2) if class is understood in relational terms, whether the pivotal aspect of class relations is seen as located in the market or in production (3) if class relations are primarily located within production, whether production is analyzed above all in terms of the technical division of labor, authority relations, or exploitation.

Wright’s approach emphasizes that classes are relational, located within production, and should be analyzed on the basis of exploitation. He argues that classes are relational because of the dynamic social forces that determine and transform the distribution of power and wealth among classes. He then goes on to stress that social relations in the production process are more critical than relations in the exchange or market systems, because the presence of markets is possible only in capitalist systems. Exploitation is the key to the analysis for several reasons. It refers to the capability of people in the dominant class to appropriate the surplus labor of people in subordinate positions. Wright (1979: 11) comments: Why is the capacity to appropriate surplus labor of such significance that it can be considered the core of the definition of class relations? Several reasons can be given. First, the capacity of a dominant class to control the surplus makes it possible for members of that class to consume without producing (or at least to consume far in excess of anything they produce).

The Vertical Dimension

165

The control over the surplus product. . . is thus one critical basis for the distribution of income across classes. Secondly, the control over the surplus product gives the dominant class substantial social and political power beyond purely economic concerns, both because it provides material resources for political activity and because it shapes the economic framework within which social practices take place. Ultimately this implies that control over the social surplus product gives the dominant class the capacity to shape the direction of social change and social development. This is most obvious in the case of material development, since such development comes directly out of the use of the surplus (i.e., investments). But it is also true for political and cultural development, since the use of the social surplus directly and indirectly constrains their possible directions of development as well.

Wright then states that the technical division of labor and authority relations are incorporated within the exploitation perspective. The division of labor is shaped by the dominant class and control is exerted in the work place. Classes are thus "common positions within the social relations o f production, where production is analysed above all as a system of exploitation” (p. 17). This formulation yields a system in which there are three basic class locations and three contradictory class locations. Contradictory class locations are between the basic class locations and are essentially what are called “middle-class” positions in non-Marxian analyses. According to Wright, the social class structure looks like that presented in Figure 5.1, with the percentages in each class based on Wright’s estimates. This formulation is based on whether or not a class location has (1) economic ownership with control over investments and the accumu­ lation process, (2) possession in the form of control over the physical means of production, and (3) possession in the form of control over the labor power of others (Wright, 1979: 27). In an extension of Wright’s approach, Schervish (forthcoming) adds a dimension of control over human capital. Schervish also suggests that control is more complex than is indicated in Wright’s formulations. Wright uses a simple presence versus absence of control, but Schervish argues that each form of control varies from full control, through partial and then minimal control, and finally to no control whatsoever. From the conflict perspective it is easy to see why the dominant classes would want to see work deskilled, since deskilling of many forms of work increases the controls the dominant classes enjoy. In the discussion of deskilling in Chapter 1, it is noted that Edwards (1979) argues that control of workers is sought because it is profitable. Control

166

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Capitalist M ode of Production

Sim ple C om m odity Production

r ---------------— ---------------------------- - i

i SOURCE:

I Contradictory Locations Within Class Relations Wright (1 9 7 8 ). © by N ew Left Books. Reprinted b y permission.

Figure 5.1 The Relationship of Contradictory Class Locations to Basic Classes in Capitalist Society

of workers in the work place has been transformed from interpersonal control to technical and bureaucratic control. Technical control (Ed­ wards, 1979: 112) “involves designing machinery and planning the flow of work to minimize the problem of transforming labor power into labor as well as to maximize the purely physically based possibilities for achieving efficiencies.” Bureaucratic control “is embedded in the social and organizational structure of the firm and is built into job categories, work rules,

The Vertical Dimension

167

promotion procedures, discipline, wage scales, definitions of responsi­ bility, and the like” (Edwards, 1979: 131). Both technical and bureau­ cratic control are rooted in class positions, according to Edwards (1979: viii).

Lest this line of reasoning be accepted uncritically, it should be noted that Form (1981, 1983) has argued persuasively with interesting data that the evidence of deskilling is quite inconclusive and that control of work has not really been achieved. In addition, Cagliani (1981) has argued that middle-layer workers have not lost any control, because their jobs did not exist in the past. As in the case of functional theory, empirical evidence in support of or opposed to the conflict approach is mixed. An underexplored aspect of the conflict approach is the social psychological issue of class consciousness. Giddens (1973) has argued that the relationship between class and class consciousness is among the least clear of the Marxist positions. In an attempt to rectify this, McNamee and Vanneman (1983) compared the importance of social relations of production with job complexity as sources of individuals’ class placements. They found good support for the importance of social relations of production (work authority, ownership-self-employment, and mental versus manual work) and the classes in which individuals placed themselves. Basically, those in positions of authority placed themselves in the middle class. Job complexity, or an aspect of our horizontal dimension, was unrelated to such class placement. Form (1982) found that self-employed manual workers, such as construction workers, painters, and truck drivers earn demonstrably more than their counterparts employed by others. He also found that the self-employed workers did not identify with the working class and were more politically conservative. The relations to production are important here again. An interesting twist to class consciousness can be found in Russell’s (1983) analysis of taxi drivers in Boston. He found that among the taxi drivers who leased their cabs, there was a tendency toward bourgeoisification. The lessees were no longer employees and did not regard themselves as such. Leasing provided advantages for the cab fleet owners as well, given that they could avoid workers compensation, unemployment insurance, and social security costs. The drivers had the advantage of not having to report all their fares. There are two additional aspects of class consciousness that should be noted. First, in their major study of affluent industrial workers in Great Britain, Goldthorpe et al. (1969) found minimal evidence of class consciousness but ample evidence of “commodity consciousness.”

168

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Although the affluent workers did not experience embourgeoisement, which was the focus of the study, the class issue was not salient. When times turn bad, the class consciousness issue might become more important, especially when the workers are no longer able to buy commodities. The final aspect of class consciousness to be noted is a strong affirmation of the conflict approach. There is compelling evidence (Mills, 1957; Domhoff, 1967, 1971; Useem, 1982) that a strong class consciousness exists among business elites in the United States and Great Britain. This class consciousness contributes to collective political and economic activity in an ironic upside-down twist of traditional Marxian notions of class consciousness. In this attempt to explain the relationship between occupations and their placement on the vertical dimension, the functional and conflict approaches have been juxtaposed. Both explanations have strong explanatory power, but both have also received less than full empirical support. Some analysts recently have begun to work along lines that would bring these positions together, with the hope that explanatory power would be enhanced. Kalleberg and Griffin (1980) have noted that class and occupation actually are conceptually distinct positions. Class involves the control of some positions over others in a production system. Occupation, on the other hand, involves the fractional differentiation of positions in a technical division of labor, with technology being a major determinant in the differentiation. According to this formulation, class and occu­ pation have independent effects on economic and noneconomic re­ wards. Approached in this way, the rewards associated with occupation can at least be understood partially in terms of a functionalist perspective, with those that are more complex and require more skills receiving more rewards. Fligstein et al. (1983) use a similar approach in their attempt to explain income determination. They argue that income is determined by two factors. The first is the sociotechnical structure of production, which involves the now-familiar degree of complexity of data, people, and things. Incumbents of more complex positions receive higher incomes. The second factor is the position within the social relations of production and exchange. Here, class position is the second determinant. This joining of the class and sociotechnical or occupational ap­ proaches appears to be a major step in the right direction in developing explanatory power. This appears to be evolving into a structural approach to understanding the vertical differentiation of work.

The Vertical Dimension

169

The Structural Approach What I am calling the “structural” approach to the placement of occupations on the vertical dimension has emerged from research on the placement of individuals in terms of their earnings or status attainment and from the research on industrial sectors. The latter topic was the subject of the previous chapter, and the placement of individuals will be the next topic to be handled in this chapter. The basic argument of the structural approach is simple: Positions within work organizations are structured in a hierarchical way. As S0rensen (1977) has noted, the distribution of inequality is fixed. There are set numbers of positions at particular levels, with usually a single presidency, a set number of vice-presidencies, and so on down through almost all organizations. When a person resigns, retires, or dies, a vacancy is created that presents a mobility opportunity for another person. This creates what is known as a “vacancy chain” (White, 1971). As people move up in an organization, the vacancy moves down and is filled and moves down again. Although for the moment the focus is not on the movement of individuals in an organization, it should be noted that Rosenbaum (1979) has provided a very useful way of describing how people move up through organizations in these vacancy chains. Building on the work of Turner (1960), Rosenbaum concludes that there are several types of mobility possible. In “contest” mobility, there is complete freedom for all participants to move up. In contrast, in “sponsored” mobility, those people who are to move up are selected and sponsored from the outset. These distinctions are from Turner and were designed to represent the educational systems in the United States and Great Britain, respectively. Rosenbaum introduces the idea of “tournament” mobility. The idea is analogous to a basketball tournament—if you win in the first round, you are eligible for the second round; if you win there, you are eligible for the third round; and so on. If you don’t win, you are no longer eligible to move ahead. Thus educational level determines the particular tournament in which an individual will compete. After beginning the competition, the person involved will compete for an upward move. If he or she loses, that particular vacancy is gone forever. Grandjean (1981) has approached the issue in a slightly different manner. In his analysis of civil service organizations, he notes that there are “ports of entry” that lead to job clusters, each with its own career lines. People are hired into entry-level jobs at the clerical or managerial levels and within administrative units that will probably be their home

170

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

for the duration of their careers. In such a system, of course, bureaucratic procedures, such as seniority rules, will determine how an individual will move. For purposes of this discussion, the key element is the idea of clusters of jobs linked to particular ports of entry. These job clusters are structured. Grandjean’s analysis also contains another idea that is useful here. He notes that the expansion or contraction of government agencies is linked to external events, which is a point well supported by organizational theory. The election of a conservative or liberal president, international crises, or labor union negotiations can lead to contraction or expansion of an agency or to new work rules within it. The same basic point would hold in the private sector. Here competition would alter the nature of the employing organization. Even the presence of oligopolies would have the effect of not altering the distribution of positions. Bibb and Form’s (1977) examination of the wages received by bluecollar women is also supportive of the structural approach. They found that the lowest incomes were in economically weak sectors with unorganized occupational groups—the periphery. These settings con­ tain disproportionate numbers of women. Bibb and Form urge the use of a structural model that would include the stratification of industries and occupations within industries (as well as the stratification of sexes). The structural approach focuses primarily on internal labor markets, but this seems appropriate given the organizational nature of contem­ porary work. When people change jobs, they move from one internal labor market to the other. There is clearly inequality among internal labor markets, just as there is within such markets. The strength of the structural approach lies in its capacity to utilize ideas from both the conflict and functional perspectives. From the conflict perspective it borrows the explanation for maintenance of huge gaps between the top of large organizations and the bottom. The conflict perspective also helps explain differences between core and peripheral work and core and peripheral industries. The functional perspective contributes an explanation for the sometimes highly elaborate pay scale that some organizations develop. These represent attempts to develop rational schemes for appropriately rewarding highly differentiated work. Thus, as S0rensen (1983) has noted, the class argument of Wright (1983) is almost impossible to distinguish from internal labor market theory, if a shift in focus is made. Instead of dealing with the need to

The Vertical Dimension

171

control, as Wright does, one can deal with efficiency gains through the use of incentives, as internal labor market theory stresses. The structural approach appears to hold the most promise as a comprehensive explanation of why there is such a strong relationship between an occupation and its placement on the vertical dimension. The number of positions and their relative status are fixed at a point in time. The reasons for the fixedness lie in both attempts to maintain and gain power and to be rational. Over time, the arrangement of positions will be altered as power is exerted, politics are played, and the market operates, but the alterations will be slow and slight, as the evidence from studies of individuals and their placement on the vertical dimension indicates.

,

EXPLAINING THE RELA TIONSHIP 2: HO W DO PEOPLE GET PLA CED ON THE VERTICAL DIMENSION? The question of how people get placed on the vertical dimension is one of the most fundamental questions about society. The question has intrigued scholars throughout recorded history. It currently receives major attention from sociologists, economists, philosophers, biologists, and even theologians. Within sociology it has been the dominant issue for almost twenty years, spurred largely by Blau and Duncan’s (1967) landmark study of occupational mobility. The study of various forms and meanings of mobility virtually took off in response to that research. The purpose of this analysis is to develop further the conceptuali­ zation of the vertical dimension through an examination of the mobility studies. In doing so, I hope to do more than scratch the surface of the literature that is available, but I do not intend to delve into every conceptual and technical nuance in the vast literature available on this subject.

Continuities and Comparisons By and large, there have not been important shifts in mobility patterns in the United States. Starting with Rogoffs (1953) study of

172

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

white men in Indianapolis in 1910, 1940, and on through the 1970s, consistent and minimally changing patterns have been found (Baron, 1980; see also Lane, 1975). Hauser and Featherman (1977: 169), two major scholars in this area, conclude: In this century, there has been essentially no trend in the relative mobility chances of American men whose fathers held differing occupations. To put the matter crudely, but correctly, there has been no change in the odds that a man of low-status origin will achieve high rather than low occupational standing relative to the odds that a man of high-status origin will achieve high rather than low occupational standing. This striking lack of trend has been documented in log-linear analyses of intergenerational mobility tables for the period from about 1910 to 1970__ The same result holds throughout men’s work careers, and it holds whether occupations are classified in as few as 3 or as many as 12 categories.

Even though the patterns of relationships between the occupation of a father and that of his son have remained unchanged, Hauser and Featherman (1977) and Featherman and Hauser (1978) report that upward mobility appears to have increased and downward mobility decreased, at least until the mid-1970s. The apparent anomaly with their earlier conclusion is resolved when the fact that the occupational structure has changed is introduced. There are fewer low-status (such as unskilled work) and more high-status (such as professional work) occupational positions. Economic growth and technological change have affected the expansion of the service economy, jobs have been bureaucratized, and there has been a growth of high-status occupations, according to Pampel et al. (1977). A related approach to the same issue is taken by Singelman and Browning (1980), who analyze industrial shifts, such as the decline in agriculture and the increase in services. These shifts contributed to the increase in managerial and professional jobs. Interestingly, some of the shifts have had counteracting effects, such as when agriculture declines, there are fewer owners, but more professional and clerical workers due to the growth of agribusinesses. Thus, although mobility chances have not increased, there has been a general shift in the social system. Singelman and Browning, Pampel et al., and Hauser and Featherman note correctly that unless the total occupational system continues to change in an upward manner, the rate of upward mobility will slow and that of downward mobility will increase (see Robinson, 1984, for additional analysis of temporal shifts).

The Vertical Dimension

173

When the focus is shifted from temporal considerations to national comparisons, some interesting patterns emerge. Hauser and Featherman (1977) report findings that indicate strong similarities between Australia and the United States. In a comparison of Canada and the United States, McRoberts and Selbee (1981) found no trend in mobility in either country and no difference in the mobility patterns. A comparison between Great Britain and the United States (Treiman and Terrell, 1975) revealed that the British stratification system is somewhat more closed, with less intergenerational mobility. In this study it was also found that despite large differences in the educational systems, the role of educational attainment in occupational mobility is highly similar in the two countries. The pattern is quite different when a comparison is made between the United States and Poland. Meyer et al. (1979) found that father-to-son occupational mobility was considerably less in Poland than in the United States. This is attributable primarily to the large traditional agricultural sector in Poland, because when farmers’sons were excluded from the analysis, patterns similar to those present in the United States were found. Polish educational attainment had much larger effect on occupational attainment than education in the United States. In Poland, the educational system has stronger allocative powers, is more highly selective, and is more differentiated both in terms of type of school and in terms of clear distinctions being made between levels of school. The Polish school system thus has tracks that are much more rigid than those in the United States. The vertical dimension is present in all societies. Its form will vary over time and space. The studies of mobility considered make possible a determination of the openness or rigidity present in a social system. In the next section some important aspects of the process of mobility will be examined.

The Status A ttainment Process Research on status attainment got its major impetus from Blau and Duncan’s (1967) study. They were concerned with the process by which a man’s occupational status was determined. They used Duncan’s SEI, which was described earlier, as their measure of occupational status. Their basic findings are presented in Figure 5.2. This indicates that a

174

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

S O U R C E : Reprinted w ith permission of T h e Free Press, a Division of Macmillan, Inc., from T h e Am erican Occupational Structure b y Peter M . Blau and Otis D u dley D uncan. C opyright © 1967 by Peter M . Blau and Otis Dudley Duncan.

Figure 5 2

Path Coefficients in Basic Modal of the Process of Stratification

man's occupational status in 1962 was determined by his father’s occupation and its contribution to his education and his first job, together with the contribution of the father’s education to his education, which then also has a direct link to his first job and his 1962 occupational status. There have been spin-offs of this basic model that have taken a number of directions. For example, Goyder and Curtis (1975) added grandfathers to the model and found that there is a son-fathergrandfather congruence in occupational status, particularly when farmers are excluded from the analysis. This is difficult to do, of course, given the agricultural basis of the society two generations ago, but, nonetheless, occupational status inheritance is very high. In a similar vein, Beck (1983) found that both the paternal grandfather and mother’s occupation have a significant association with the son’s occupation. The association with the father’s occupation remains the strongest. Hout (1984): 1402) has added components to this basic model: Occupational mobility is a multidimensional process. Status is central to mobility, but the opportunity for self-direction on the job is also important. Men whose fathers ran their own businesses, professional practices, and farms are themselves more likely than other men to enter occupations that promise a degree of autonomy. The complementary assertion is equally true. Men whose fathers worked on an assembly line

The Vertical Dimension

175

or in a closely supervised white-collar position tend toward occupations that are closely supervised but promise a degree of job security in return.

Hout also found that occupations with the greatest requirements for specialized training were the ones that exhibited the least mobility. The combination of the father’s knowledge, network ties, and clout give the son great advantage in these situations—the sons of lawyers are more likely to become lawyers themselves, and so on. Hout’s work also illustrates a point that has been made here repeatedly—it is impossible and unwise to disentangle the vertical and horizontal dimensions. His findings in regard to work autonomy reflect both dimensions. The critical role of education in the status attainment model has served as the basis for another major research tradition in its own right—the “Wisconsin model.” This label is applied because the University of Wisconsin was the home of most of the research on this model. This model is schematically presented in Figure 5.3. This approach includes social psychological factors, such as the encourage­ ment of teachers and parents, the plans of friends, and individuals’ aspiration levels (see Sewell and Hauser, 1975; Sewell et al., 1976; Alwin, 1974; Haller et al., 1974; Alexander et al., 1975; Porter, 1974; Yuchtman [Yaar] and Samuel, 1975). It also includes mental ability and intelligence, which are mediated by significant others in shaping both school performance and educational and occupational aspirations. The Wisconsin model does not question the basic link between parents’ occupational level and sons’educational and occupational attainments; rather, it seeks to refine the explanation of the relationship and improve the predictive power of the explanation. The relationships shown in Figure 5.3 should not be viewed as invariant. As Lin and Yauger (1975) have shown, at certain stages of societal development, differential expansion in the educational and occupational spheres may reinforce the significance of social origins, and may suppress the influence of education as an intervening mechanism of status transmission. In early industrialization, for example, there may not be enough jobs requiring high levels of education, so that the effects of educational attainment could be reduced. Another important tradition in status attainment research has been the work of Jencks and his associates (1972, 1979). This research documents the importance of family advantages and disadvantages for status attainment. One of the primary mechanisms by which this is accomplished is through schooling, with the children of the affluent staying in school longer. In the 1979 book, Who Gets Ahead?, the important conclusion that it is the level of schooling that makes a

176

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

S O U R C E : Sewell and Hauser (1 9 7 5 : 9 2 ). Reprinted b y permission. N O T E : Variables are as follows: V = father's education; M = mother's education; X = father's occupational status; I = parents’ average Income (In tens of dollars); Q = mental a b ility; G = high school grades; T = teachers’ encouragement; P = parents' encouragement; F = friends’ plans; E = college plans; J = occupational aspiration; U = educational attainm ent; W = occupational status In 1964; Y = earnings, 1967,

Figure 5.3 A Social Psychological Model of Post-High School Achievment

difference is offered. This means that the completion of college is much more critical than attending college. This research also introduces the issue of personality factors, which are also shaped in the family. Unfortunately, there is no clear explanation of how personality traits, such as leadership, which is associated with earning higher wages, are developed. Both the 1972 and 1979 studies identify luck as an important ingredient in status attainment, with the 1979 volume documenting that luck means that people with identical backgrounds can end up with quite different status placements in the labor market. The status attainment literature has dealt with many other issues, the most important of which are gender differences and racial and ethnic factors. These will be dealt with in separate chapters. The next issue to be considered here is whether or not the basic status attainment model operates in a similar fashion in different types of locations. Mueller (1974) found that there were homogeneous processes in socioeconomic achievement in large U.S. cities, which is contrary to the expectations of Blau and Duncan and the research findings of Lane (1968) and Logan (1976, 1978). Apparently outmigration and inmigration operate to

The Vertical Dimension

177

match city opportunity structures with population characteristics. Semyonov (1981), on the other hand, found that the communities have opportunity structures that play an important role in status attainment. This was an Israeli sample of more heterogeneous communities than the U.S. cities studied by Mueller. In a study of Japanese regional differences, Grusky (1983) found important differences between family background and status attainment. The weight of the evidence thus appears to be on the side of those who argue for locational differences in the status attainment process, because variations in the opportunity structure appear to be crucial. There is another strand of the status attainment literature that should be noted. Lin et al. (1981a, 1981b) have examined the importance of social ties in the attainment process. Building on Granovetter’s (1973) notion of “weak ties,” or social linkages that are beyond the individual’s own social circle, Lin et al. find that the occupational status of persons used in the job search itself is an important additional predictor of a person’s status attainment above and beyond family background and educational achievement. By understanding the nature of the contacts that are used in job search behavior, it is possible to predict status attainment more accurately. This section began with a consideration of Blau and Duncan’s (1967) findings, which have served as the benchmark from which status attainment research has developed. This study was based on 1962 data. In a replication using 1973 data, Hauser et al. (1975) and Featherman and Hauser (1978) found that there was a weakened relationship between fathers’ and sons’ occupations. This was due to changes in the occupational structure that have resulted in increased upward and decreased downward mobility. As was noted in an earlier section, if the occupational structure changes so that there are fewer opportunities for upward mobility and more opportunities for downward mobility, the basic status attainment process will continue to operate, but with consequences that are much more socially damaging. The status attainment approach that has been outlined is largely an individualistic, human-capital type of formulation. Individuals acquire human capital through their family, their education, and their social ties and move into the marketplace. As might be expected from the discussion of industrial sectors and the structural approach, the status attainment model has been criticized as relying too heavily on individual socialization. Kerkhoff (1976) has argued that an “allocation” model be used that would emphasize the manner in which societal forces identify, select, classify, process, and assign individuals. The optimal status

178

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

attainment model would probably be one in which both socialization and allocation were utilized.

The Structural Approach and the Placement of Individuals As research on the status attainment processes developed at a rapid pace, various other researchers began to be dissatisfied with the basic Blau and Duncan and Wisconsin models, perceiving them to be based too heavily on human-capital considerations. As we have already noted, Bibb and Form (1977) found that human-capital explanations did not account for the discrepancies between the wages paid to women and men—women received disporportionately less with equivalent human capital. They argue for a structural model that considers the strati­ fication of industries, occupations, and sexes. A related approach is taken by Beck et al. (1978), who used a dual economy approach in the determination of differential earnings. They found sectoral differences in earnings, between the core and the periphery, that could not be explained by labor force composition considerations. They argue that there are sectoral variations in the way that worker characteristics are rewarded. Real dollar returns were greater in the core sector for the biological factors of race and sex, and for human capital considerations. In Chapter 4, the argument was made that the core-periphery distinction is not really fine enough for a complete understanding of the horizontal dimension. The same conclusion is necessary here. In his analysis of the determinants of income, D’Amico (1982) found that although the capital sector is a significant and strong determinant of log hourly wages, it is not relevant in predicting individual log hours worked. The core-periphery distinction is too crude, according to D’Amico, because both hours worked and hourly wages are deter­ minants of income. If some sectors within the core or periphery demand more hours of work than others, the incomes earned will be higher when wages are held constant. D’Amico’s work also contains a social policy consideration worth noting. Emphases on education and vocational training, which have characterized “manpower” policies of most recent administrations in the United States, may well be misguided, as they ignore the demand side of the equation. As D'Amico (1982: 412) notes: Specifically, we need to examine the ways in which structural charac­ teristics of the labor market may constrain or facilitate the achievements

The Vertical Dimension

179

of workers, some of whom may possess virtually identical human capital portfolios.

Kalleberg (1983) provides some interesting insights into the mecha­ nisms by which people are allocated within industrial sectors. Starting with the premise that there are industrial sectors, Kalleberg also notes that there are important differences among actual work organizations in terms of (1) their division of labor or internal task differentiation, (2) their promotional ladders or internal labor markets, and (3) their control mechanisms or the supervisory hierarchies by which workers are directed, evaluated, and rewarded. The idea of promotional ladders or internal labor markets has received substantial attention in recent years. Individuals have careers within the organization. “Career” refers to “any unfolding sequence of jobs” (Thompson et al., 1968:7). Spilerman (1977) has pointed out that careers lines are shaped by industry structures. These structures involve the occupational distribution within an industry, the mode of recruiting for top positions (Are people hired from outside or are they promoted from within?) and by the institutional demography of the labor market (the mix of industry types), with some industries contracting and others expanding. Spilerman finds that individual human capital variables, such as education and family background, have variable effects. The human capital variables have a strong effect on some careers, but only weak effects on others once entry is gained into the work organization. The returns to individuals of their human-capital investments depend on the “port of entry” into core or peripheral industries, and then the “branches” or opportunity structures are linked to that port of entry. The person with a college degree enters the organization within an industry at a different entry port than the person with a high school degree and the branches that follow from the entry are also different. Careers and labor markets within organizations have received increasing attention in recent years. Rosenbaum (1979) examined promotional chances in a corporation during periods of growth and decline. He first points out that promotions are a dominant form of mobility in people’s careers because so much work is carried out in organizational settings. Rosenbaum uses a variation of the functional approach to stratification when he notes that promotions are used by the organization in terms of efficiency, as the organization needs to recruit for higher levels. Promotions are viewed by individuals as rewards and they provide hope and motivation. Rosenbaum found that the promotion rate declines with age—the older a person, the less promising his or her promotional chances. Education increases the rate of promotion and extends the age at which promotional opportunities

180

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

are available. The promotion of non-college graduates is based on efficiency considerations, with a preference shown for youths to move up to positions of responsibility and fewer promotional chances at later ages. For college graduates there is a more linear decline of oppor­ tunities over time. Rosenbaum also finds that industry and corporate rates of growth and decline affect promotion chances. Even in periods of decline, college graduates in the 30-34 age group are minimally affected. For both college and non-college graduates, an early promotion is required if one is to receive any further promotions. Stewman and Konda (1983) have pursued a similar line of reasoning. They suggest that although it is generally held that an individual’s career prospects decline as he or she rises in an organization, in many cases this is not true. They identify four microstructures that can affect career prospects. The first of these is the grade ratio within the organization. This involves the number or proportion of people at each grade. In organizations that have many people or a large proportion of the work force at high grade levels, as would be the case in many professionalized organizations, the opportunity structure is greater than in a more bottom-heavy organization. The nature of the vacancy chains used by an organization is the second microstructure (see Stewman, 197S). The third such microstructure is the managerial selection processes used, with insiders versus outsiders as the critical factor here. Finally, cohort size is important. This involves the number of people at an eligible stage for promotion. If cohort size is small, promotional opportunities are greater. Extrapolating from this, promotional opportunities will be fewer for people of the “baby boom” generation than for the sur­ rounding generations. Similarly, individuals in occupations that are in short supply will have strong promotional opportunities, as was the case with people with computer skills in the initial phase of computerization. Stewman and Konda also identify two “triggering mechanisms” that affect the promotional opportunity structure. These are the growth rate of the organization or industry and the exit rates of the personnel involved. If there are many exits, promotional opportunities increase. On the other hand, if everyone stays in the organization, promotional opportunities are limited. A final factor considered by Stewman and Konda that has been noted elsewhere is whether the individual has been identified as a star (In the case of the Roman Catholic church, such an individual is known as a “crown prince” [Peterson and Schoenherr, 1978]; in this system the basic relationships remain the same, except that seniority is the strongest predictor of career patterns.) Such identi­ fication enhances promotional opportunities for an extended period of

The Vertical Dimension

181

time. Despite these considerations, of course, the basic structure of careers is one of declining opportunity with age. Baron (1984; this work has an excellent bibliography on internal labor markets) provides a useful overview of the role that organizations play in determining career patterns. He suggests that organizations impinge on career outcomes in two ways. First, the division of labor among jobs (internal labor market) and among organizations generates a distribution of opportunities and rewards that is often logically and temporally prior to the incumbents. Second, organizational procedures for matching workers to jobs affect the distribution of rewards and opportunities within and across firms, influencing the likelihood of career success. Organizations can thus be viewed as independent contributors to career patterns and social mobility. In a different approach to career patterns, Tolbert (1982) examined the degree to which men shifted between the core and the periphery and found that in later stages of careers, the barriers between the sectors become relatively impermeable. Tolbert’s later (1983) research revealed that over half the men studied were in the same sector as their fathers. Of those that did change sectors, over two-thirds made the shift from periphery to core. Sectoral or horizontal location is thus linked to placement on the vertical dimension—or, said more accurately, the horizontal and the vertical continually intersect in the placement of individuals on either dimension. This conclusion is strengthened by D’Amico’s (1985) findings that the industry of workers’ first jobs after school is a significant and strong predictor of earnings and occupational SEI for workers late in their career. Once a person is placed within an industry, the career patterns appear to be quite well set, depending upon port of entry. Industry is thus added to organizations as an important career determinant. Kalleberg (1983: 254-256) provides a most useful summary of the structural approach that will serve to bring these various strands together: These structural approaches can be summarized by four major concepts: organization, industry, class, and occupation. Organizations are the basic units of analysis, as they are the places where work is structured for the vast majority of persons in industrial societies and where inequalities are directly generated. Moreover, organizations vary in ways emphasized by the other three approaches such as in their market power, size, authority structures, and job ladders. Organizations can be grouped in various ways. One way is into industries that refer to those characteristics shared by firms producing similar

182

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

products and to interrelations among those firms (e.g., product market characteristics and technology). Industries are distinct units of analysis for organizations; firms within the same “theoretical” industry could differ widely in their structural forms. Another key grouping of organi­ zations is into interlocks and other networks. These organizations frequently crosscut industries and have been the focus of growing literature that seeks to explain how such linkages among organizations affect their structure and processes. Class positions (e.g., capitalists, managers, workers) are social relations within organizations. Classes act “for themselves” when they develop organizations that link similar positions in different firms, such as industrial unions or trade associations. Occupations refer to work activities that are transferable between employers and often between industries. Unlike classes, occupations refer to technical activities and not to social relations; this distinction generally holds except for those occupations that are defined inherently in terms of relations of authority and control (e.g., manager). Like classes, occupa­ tional groups may engage in collective action, such as attempting to attain and maintain control over the supply of their skills through licensing arrangements or occupational associations. The individual unit of work structure—the work role or job—may be defined as the intersection of all these structures in that it is a particular class and occupational position within a given organization in a specific industry. A job is conceptually and analytically distinct from the individual worker although the two are often confounded in practice. The individual level of analysis is used in most quantitative studies of workrelated inequalities. However, studies differ in their assumptions about which of the four key work structures is primarily responsible for inequalities among individuals. The economic segmentation approach compares work outcomes across different industries that are assumed to differ in their market concen­ tration, assets, economic scale, capital intensity, and so on. Furthermore, the dual economy model often assumes that these industrial charac­ teristics are closely associated with organizational (size, market power, job ladders) and occupational differences. These assumptions may often be inappropriate. The key insights of the economic segmentation approach are its explanations of industrial differentiation and trans­ formation. Any correspondences between product market and techno­ logical characteristics on the one hand and organizational, occupational, and class differences on the other should be treated as empirical questions and not assumed a priori. The labor market segmentation approach emphasizes occupational and firm differences in careers, mobility, and job rewards. Industrial charac-

The Vertical Dimension

183

teristics are important here, but only insofar as they are related to occupational and organizational differences in job opportunities (e.g., due to technological changes or business conditions). Key questions concern the nature of inequalities associated with labor markets and the differentiation of occupations and organizations in terms of labor market segments. Organizations are extremely useful foci for investigations of work structures, but those using an organizational approach to explain inequalities often neglect the other three structural contexts. This occurs, for example, when one studies a particular firm without recognizing its uniqueness and its structural contexts. To assume firms are the key units of analysis for studying work and its organization does not imply that industry, class, and occupational dimensions are irrelevant; these have important effects on work structure and inequality above and beyond the effects of organizations. The class approach is the most macro perspective on work structures and inequalities; it aggregates all similar positions in the social relations of production. A major motivation behind this perspective is the study of change and class struggle. Therefore, a central problem is how classes develop organizations that span both firms and industries. Class alone is incomplete as an explanation of inequality, as in any of the work structures taken singly.

There are two points in regard to Kalleberg’s fine summary that require amplification. First, his use of industry is largely dichotomous— core and periphery. This is a wholly vertical approach and is at variance with my analysis of the development of labor market sectors in the discussion of the horizontal dimension, in which “labor market sector” has a broader meaning than the more simple division into the core and periphery. The second point is in regard to his introduction of the class concept. Although class has been shown to be important in the assignment of occupations on the vertical dimension, there has been little research on class effects on the placement of workers. An exception here is D’Amico’s (1984) research on the effects of forms of union membership on labor mobility. He finds that members of industrial unions are significantly more likely to experience moves through a firm’s internal labor market than nonunion members. They are also generally less likely to change employers. Members of craft unions are less likely to change jobs because of their occupational attachment. As would be expected from the earlier discussion, these union effects diminish as workers get older, as there are fewer job shifts of any sort among older men.

184

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

The Vertical Dimension and the Individual In this section the relationship between the vertical dimension and individuals’ reactions to their work will be considered briefly. In a not surprising set of findings, Kalleberg and Griffin (1977) state that working-class jobs are less satisfying, and offer fewer financial and intrinsic rewards. Variations in job satisfaction are generated by differential position in the technical and social division of labor. Thus, according to Kalleberg and Griffin, differences in job satisfaction are in and of themselves a major form of social inequality. A more surprising set of findings is reported by Seeman(1977). Many analysts believe that upward or downward mobility will generate sharpened attitudes of ethnic prejudice, social isolation, and political radicalism (in the case of downward mobility) or conservatism (in the case of upward mobility). Using samples of male workers in Paris and Los Angeles, Seeman found extremely limited effects from objective social mobility. In addition, there was a strong similarity in the findings from samples in France and in the United States, despite the fact that there is a presumed sharper discontinuity in the class structure in France. Seeman concludes that sociologists may assume too much status orientation on the part of workers in both countries, a point that clearly needs additional research.

CONCLUSIONS This chapter has had several purposes. The first was to establish the tight linkage between work and the vertical dimension as expressed in terms of the relationship between occupations and social status. Included in this relationship are the strong interrelationships among education, earnings or income, and social status. Next, an explanation of these relationships was attempted through an examination of the functional, conflict, and structural approaches. Insights were gained from each, but the structural approach emerged as the most powerful explanation. The chapter then turned to a consideration of the ways in which people are placed on the vertical dimension through their work. Here it was noted that the processes and outcomes are quite consistent over time and space. Next the process of status attainment as it has been analyzed in recent years was examined. Finally, the

The Vertical Dimension

185

structural approach to the placement of individuals was considered, including discussion of its emphasis on the importance of organiza­ tional, industrial, occupational, and class factors. Almost all of the studies cited in this chapter were based on data from white males. This was intentional in most of the studies in the interest of theoretical development. In the next chapter, a major focus will be on women and the vertical dimension, thus providing continuity with the present chapter (Chapter 8 will deal with race and ethnicity), but nonvertical aspects will be addressed as well.

REFERENCES Abrahamson, Mark (1971) “The functional theory of stratification: an assessment.” American Journal of Sociology 78 (March): 1235-1246. Alexander, Karl L., Martha Cook, and Edward McDill (1978) “Curriculum tracking and educational stratification: some further evidence.” American Sociological Review 43 (February): 47-66. Alexander, Karl L., Bruce K. Ekland, and Larry J. Griffin (1975) “The Wisconsin model of socioeconomic achievement: a replication.” American Journal of Sociology 81 (September): 324-342. Alwin, Duane F. (1974) “College effects on educational and occupational attainment.” American Sociological Review 39 (April): 210-223. Baron, James N. (1980) “Indianapolis and beyond: a structural model of occupational mobility across generations.” American Journal of Sociology 85 (January): 815-839. ----- (1984) “Organizational perspectives on stratification,” in Ralph Turner (ed.) Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 10. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Review Press. Beck, E. M., Patrick M. Horan, and Charles M. Tolbert II (1978) “Stratification in adual economy: a sectoral model of earnings determinations.” American Sociological Review 43 (October): 704-720. Beck, Scott H. (1983). “The role of other family members in intergenerational occupational mobility.” Sociological Quarterly 24 (Spring): 273-285. Berg, Ivar (1970) Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery. New York: Praeger. Bibb, Robert and William Form (1977) “The effects of industrial, occupational, and sex stratification on wages in blue-collar markets.” Social Forces 55 (June): 974-996. Blau, Peter M. and Otis Dudley Duncan (1967) The American Occupational Structure. New York: John Wiley. Borgatta, Edgar F. (1960) “Functionalism and sociology.” American Sociological Review 25 (April): 267. Bose, Christine E. (1973) Jobs and Gender: Sex and Occupational Prestige. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Metropolitan Planning and Research. -------- and Peter H. Rossi (1983) “Gender and jobs: prestige standings of occupations as affected by gender.” American Sociological Review 48 (June): 316-330. Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis (1976) Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic Books.

186

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Broom, Leonard and Robert G. Cushing (1977) “A modest test of an immodest theory: the functional theory of stratification.” American Sociological Review 42 (February): 157-169. Cagliani, Giorgio (1981) “How many working classes?” American Journal of Sociology 87 (September): 259-285. Cullen, John B. (1985) “Professional differentiation and occupational earnings.” Work and Occupations 12 (August). -------- and Shelley M. Novick (1979) “The Davis-Moore theory of stratification: a further examination and extension.” American Journal of Sociology 84 (May): 1424-1437. Dahrendorf, Ralf (1959) Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Societies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. D'Amico Ronald (1982) “Explaining the effects of capital sector for income deter­ mination.” Work and Occupations 9 (November): 411-439. -------- (1984) “Industrial feudalism reconsidered: the effects of unionization on labor mobility.” Work and Occupations 11 (November): 407-437. -------- (1985) “The effects of career origins in subsequent socioeconomic attainments.” Work and Occupations 12 (August). Davis, Kingsley (1953) “Reply.” American Sociological Review 18 (August): 394-3%. -------- and Wilbert E. Moore (1945) “Some principles of stratification.” American Sociological Review 10 (April): 242-249. Domhoff, G. William (1967) Who Rules America? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. -------- (1971) The Inner Circles. New York: Vintage. Duncan, Otis Dudley, David L. Featherman, and Beverly Duncan (1972) Socioeconomic Background and Achievement. New York: Seminar. Edwards, Alba (1943) Comparative Occupational Statistics for the United States: 18701940. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Edwards, Richard (1979) Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Work Place in the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books. Faia, Michael A. (1981) “Selection by certification: a neglected variable in stratification research.” American Journal of Sociology 86 (March): 1091-1111. Featherman, David L. and Robert M. Hauser (1978) Opportunity and Change. New York: Academic. Fligstein, Neil, Alexander Hicks, and S. Philip Morgan (1983) “Toward a theory of income determination.” Work and Occupations 10 (August): 289-306. Form, William (1981) “Resolving ideological issues on the division of labor,” in Hubert M. Blalock, Jr. (ed.) Theory and Research in Sociology. New York: Free Press. -------- (1982) “Self employed manual workers: petty bourgeois or working class?” Social Forces 60 (June): 1050-1069. -------- (1983) “Sociological research and the American working class.” Sociological Quarterly 24 (Spring): 163-184. Giddens, Anthony (1973) The Class Structure of Advanced Societies. New York: Harper & Row. Goldthorpe, John H., David Lockwood, Frank Bechhofer, and Jennifer Platt (1969) The Affluent Worker in the Class Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goyder, John C. and James E. Curtis (1975) **A three-generational approach to trends in occupational mobility.” American Journal of Sociology 81 (July): 129-138. Grandjean, Burke (1975) “An economic analysis of the Davis-Moore theory of strati­ fication.” Social Forces 53 (June): 543-552.

The Vertical Dimension

187

-------- (1981) “History and career in a bureaucratic labor market.” American Journal of Sociology 86 (March): 1057-1092. Granovetter, Mark (1973) “The strength of weak ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78 (May): 1360-1380 Griffin, Larry J. and Karl L. Alexander (1978) “Schooling and socioeconomic attainment: high school and college influences.” American Journal of Sociology 84 (September): 319-347. Grusky, David B. (1983) “Industrialization and the status attainment process: the thesis of industrialization reconsidered.” American Journal of Sociology 48 (August): 494-506. Hall, Richard H. (1975) Occupations and the Social Structure. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Haller, Archibald O. and David Bills (1979) “Review of Occupational Prestige in Comparative Perspective, by Donald J. Treiman.” Contemporary Sociology 8 (September): 721-734. Haller, Archibald, O., Luther B. Otto, Robert F. Meier, and George W. Ohlendorf(1974) “Level of occupational aspiration: an empirical analysis.” American Sociological Review 39 (February): 113-121. Hauser, Robert M., Peter J. Dickinson, Harry P. Travis, and John N. Koffell (1975) “Structural changes in occupational mobility among men in the United States.” American Sociological Review 40 (October): 585-598. Hauser, Robert M. and David L. Featherman (1977) The Process of Stratification: Trends and Analyses. New York: Academic. Hodge, Robert W., Paul M. Siegel, and Peter H. Rossi (1964) “Occupational prestige in the United States: 1925-1963.” American Journal of Sociology 70 (November): 286-302. Hodge, Robert W., Donald J. Treiman, and Peter H. Rossi (1966) “A comparative study of occupational prestige,” in Reinhard Bendix and Seymour Martin Lipset (eds.) Class, Status, and Power: Social Stratification in Comparative Perspective. New York: Free Press. Hope, Keith (1982) “A liberal theory of prestige.” American Journal of Sociology 87 (March): 1011-1031. Horan, Patrick M. (1978) “Is status attainment research atheoretical?” American Sociological Review 43 (August): 534-541. Hout, Michael (1984) “Status, autonomy, and training in occupational mobility.” American Journal of Sociology 89 (May): 1379-1409. Jencks, Christopher, Susan Bartlett, Mary Corcoran, James Crouse, David Eaglesfield, Gregory Jackson, Kent McClelland, Peter Mueser, Michael Olneck, Joseph Schwartz, Sherry Ward, and Jill Williams (1979) Who Gets Ahead? The Determinants of Economic Success in America. New York: Basic Books. Jencks, Christopher, Marshall Smith, Henry Acland, Mary Jo Bane, David Cohen, Herbert Gintis, Barbara Heyns, and Stephen Michelson (1972) Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America. New York: Basic Books. Kalleberg, Arne (1983) “Work and stratification: structural perspectives.” Work and Occupations 10 (August): 251-259. -------- and Larry J. Griffin (1977) “Positional sources of inequality in job satisfaction.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 5 (November): 371-401. -------- (1980) “Class, occupation, and inequality in job rewards.” American Journal of Sociology 85 (January): 731-768.

188

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Kerkhoff, Alan C. (1976) “The status attainment process: socialization or allocation.” Social Forces SS (December): 368-381. -------- Richard T. Campbell, and Jerry M. Trott (1982) “Dimensions of educational and occupational attainment in Great Britain.” American Sociological Review 77 (June): 347-364. Lane, Angela (1968) “Occupational mobility in six cities.” American Sociological Review 33 (October): 740-749. -------- (1975) “The occupational achievement process, 1940-1949: a cohort analysis.” American Sociological Review 40 (August): 472-482. Lavin, David E., Richard D. Alba, and Richard Silberstein(1981) Right Versus Privilege: The Open Admissions Experiment at the City University of New York. New York: Free Press. Lin, Nan, Walter M. Ensel, and John C. Vaughn (1981 a) “Social resources and strength of ties: structural factors in occupational status attainment.” American Sociological Review 46 (August): 393-405. Lin, Nan, John C. Vaughn, and Walter M. Ensel (1981b) “Social resources and occupational status attainment.” Social Forces 59 (June): 1163-1181. Lin, Nan and David Yauger (1975) “The process of occupational status attainment: a preliminary cross-national comparison.” American Journal of Sociology 81 (November): 543-562. Logan, John R. (1976) “Industrialization and the stratification of cities in suburban regions.” American Journal of Sociology 82 (September): 333-348. -------- (1978) “Growth, politics, and the stratification of places.” American Journal of Sociology 84 (September): 404-416. Marx, Karl (1967) Capital, Vol. 1. New York: New World. (Originally published in 1867) McNamee, Stephen J. and Reeve Vanneman (1983) “The perception of class: social and technical relations of production.” Work and Occupations 10 (November): 437-469. McRoberts, Hugh A. and Kevin Selbee (1981) “Trends in occupational mobility in Canada and the United States: a comparison.” American Sociological Review 46 (August): 406-421. Meyer, John W., Nancy Brandon Tuma and Krzysztof Zagorski (1979) “Education and occupational mobility: a comparison of Polish and American men,” American Journal of Sociology 84 (January): 978-986. Monk-Tumer, Elizabeth (1983) “Sex, educational differentiation and occupational status: analyzing occupational differences for community and four-year college entrants.” Sociological Quarterly 24 (Summer): 393-404. Miller, S. M. (1968) Breaking the Credentials Barrier. New York: Ford Foundation. Mills, C. Wright (1957) The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press. Moore, Wilbert (1963a) “But some are more equal than others.” American Sociological Review 28 (February): 13-18. -------- (1963b) “Rejoinder.” American Sociological Review 28 (February): 26-28. Mueller, Charles W. (1974) “City effects on socioeconomic achievement: the case of large cities.” American Sociological Review 39 (October): 652-667. Pampel, Fred C., Kenneth C. Land, and Marcus Felson (1977) “A social indicator model of changes in the occupational structure of the United States: 1947-74.” American Sociological Review 42 (December): 951-964. Parsons, Talcott (1940) “An analytical approach to the theory of social stratification.” American Journal of Sociology 45 (November): 841-862.

The Vertical Dimension

189

Penn, Roger (197S) “Occupational prestige hierarchies: a great empirical invariant?”

Social Forces 54 (December): 352-364. Persell, Caroline (1977) Education and Inequality: The Roots of Stratification in America’s Schools. New York: Free Press. Porter, James N. (1974) “Race, socialization, and mobility in educational and early occupational attainment.” American Sociological Review 39 (June): 303-316. Reiss, Albert J., Jr. (1961) Occupations and Social Status. New York: Free Press. Robinson, Robert V. (1984) “Structural change and class mobility in capitalist societies.” Social Forces 63 (September): 51-71. Rogoff, Natalie (1953). Recent Trends in Occupational Mobility. New York: Free Press. Rosenbaum, James E. (1975) “The stratification of socialization processes.” American Sociological Review 40 (February): 48-54. -------- (1976) Making Inequality: The Hidden Curriculum of High School Tracking. New York: John Wiley. -------- (1979) “Organizational career mobility: promotion chances in a corporation during periods of growth and contraction.” American Journal of Sociology 85 (July): 21-48. -------- (1979) “Tournament mobility: career patterns in a corporation.” Administrative Science Quarterly 24 (June): 220-241. Russell, Raymond (1983) “Class formation in the workplace: the role of sources of income.” Work and Occupations 10 (August): 349-372. Schervish, Paul (forthcoming) “On the road: conceptualizing class structure in the transition to socialism.” Work and Occupations. Seeman, Melvin (1977) “Some real and imaginary consequences of social mobility: a French-American comparison.” American Journal of Sociology 82 (January): 757-782. Semyonov, Moshe (1981) “Effects of community on status attainment.” Sociological Quarterly 22 (Summer): 359-372. Sewell, William H. and Robert M. Hauser (1975) Education, Occupation, and Earnings: Achievement in the Early Career. New York: Academic. -------- and David L. Featherman (1976) Schooling and Achievement in American Society. New York: Academic. Siegel, Paul M. (1971) “Prestige in the American occupational structure.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Chicago. Singelman, Joachim and Harley L. Browning (1980) “Industrial transformation and occupational change in the U.S., 1960-1970.” Social Forces 59 (September): 246-264. S0rensen, Aage B. (1977) “The structure of inequality and the process of attainment.” American Sociological Review 42 (December): 965-978. -------- (1983) “Sociological research on the labor market: conceptual and methodological issues.” Work and Occupations 10 (August): 261-287. Spilerman, Seymour (1977) “Careers, labor market structure, and socioeconomic achievement.” American Journal of Sociology 83 (November): 551-593. Stewman, Shelby (1975) “Two warkov models of open system occupational mobility: underlying conceptualizations and empirical tests.” American Sociological Review 40 (June): 298-321. -------- and Suresh L. Konda (1983) “Careers and organizational labor markets: demo­ graphic models of organizational behavior.” American Journal of Sociology 88 (January): 637-685.

190

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Stolzenberg, Ross M. (1978) “Bringing the boss back in: employer size, employee schooling, and socioeconomic achievement.” American Sociological Review 43 (December): 813-828. Thompson, James D., Robert W. Avery, and Richard O. Carlson (1968) “Occupations, personnel, and careers.” Educational Administration Quarterly 4 (March): 6-31. Tinto, Vincent (1984) “Patterns of educational sponsorship to work: a study of modes of early occupational attachment from college to professional work.” Work and Occupations 11 (August): 309-330. Tolbert, Charles M., II (1982) “Industrial segmentation and men’s career mobility.” American Sociological Review 47 (August): 457-477. -------- (1983) “Industrial segmentation and men’s intergenerational mobility.” Social Forces 61 (June): 1119-1137. Treiman, Donald J. (1977) Occupational Prestige in Comparative Perspective. New York: Academic. -------- and Kermit Terrell (1975) “The process of status attainment in the United States and Great Britain.” American Journal of Sociology 81 (November): 563-583. Tumin, Melvin (1953) “Some principles of stratification: a critical analysis,” American Sociological Review 18 (August): 387-394. -------- (1963) “On equality.” American Sociological Review 28 (February): 19-26. Turner, Ralph (1960) “Models of social assent through education: sponsored and contest mobility.” American Sociological Review 25 (December): 855-867. Tyree, Andrea and Billy G. Smith (1978) “Occupational hierarchy in the United States: 1789-1969, Social Forces 65 (March): 881-899. Useem, Michael (1982) “Classwide rationality in the politics of managers and directors of large corporations in the United States and Great Britain.” Adminstrative Science Quarterly 27 (June): 199-226. White, Harrison C. (1971) System Models of Mobility in Organizations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wright, Erik Olin (1978) Class, Crisis, and the State. London, New Left. -------- (1979) Class Structure and Income Determination. New York: Academic. -------- and Luca Perrone (1977) “Marxist class categories and income inequality.” American Journal of Sociology 85 (January): 731-768. Yuchtman (Yaar) Ephraim and Yitzhak Samuel (1975) “Determinants of career plans: institutional versus interpersonal effects.” American Sociological Review40(August): 521-531.

THE GENDER DIMENSION This chapter focuses on women in the labor force, a complicated subject to analyze. The complications spring from many sources. The enormous political and philosophical battle that raged and continues to rage over the Equal Rights Amendment in the United States is indicative of the emotionality people of many persuasions feel about women in the labor force. Another, related, complication springs from the linkage among women, the family, and childbearing and rearing, which in turn are linked to tradition. It is also difficult to disentangle the dimensions of age and race and ethnicity, because work for young black women is different from work for middle-aged white women. I hope to keep this chapter as uncomplicated as possible. The first topic to be discussed is the rate of women’s participation in the labor force. I will then turn to a consideration of the factors affecting that participation, and then to the social psychological inputs and outcomes of participation. The chapter will then turn to an analysis of women and the vertical dimension, because the previous chapter dealt primarily with data obtained from studies on men only. The next topic will be segregation and discrimination as these phenomena apply to women and work. The final topic will be women in nontraditional work.

WOMEN'S LABOR FORCE PARTICIPA TION RA TE Women have always worked. Huber and Spitze (1983) provide an excellent analysis of the history of women’s work dating back to hunting and gathering societies. Inasmuch as the focus here is on the contem­ porary situation, the analysis will not be concerned with this long history, but rather will focus on factors associated with women’s labor force participation (WLFP). The key here is the concept of “labor force.” As was pointed out in Chapter 1, it has a specific meaning and in this context it means we are discussing women and paid work. Figure 6.1 indicates the pattern of WLFP. 191

192

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

S O U R C E : Fo x and Hesse-Biber (1 9 8 4 : 1 4 ). © 1984 by Mayfield Publishing C o . Reprinted by permission. Prepared from data In U .S . Department of Labor (1 97 9 : 1; 1980: 8 ). N O T E : Pre-1945 data Include wom en 14 years of age and over; other years Include wom en 16 years of age and over.

Figure 6.1 Percentage of Women in the Paid Labor Force, 1890-1980

Several points stand out in Figure 6.1. First, both World War I and World War II were periods of increased WLFP, but the increase was very dramatic during World War II. In her analysis of World War I patterns, Greenwald (1980) notes that although the numerical increase in women workers was slight, women shifted from domestic work to office and factory work as industries became mechanized and routinized. After World War I, things returned to “normal.” The period of World War II was one of profound changes for women and work. The large influx of women into the labor force was due to increased wartime productivity needs and the absence of men. Anderson (1981) observes that there were high wage and job opportunities for women during this period. A key factor during World War II was the fact that it was older married women who were employed most often. Prior to World War II, women who were in the labor force were predominantly young and single. After World War II, there was tremendous pressure on these working wives to return to their homes

The Gender Dimension

193

and resume their “proper” role as housewives (Fox and Hesse-Biber, 1984). As can be seen in Figure 6.1, there was a slight decline in WLFP, but an increase developed again and the pattern of increase continues. According to Fox and Hesse-Biber, the group primarily constituting the increase has been married women. Through 1960, the increase was due to older married women returning to the labor force or entering it for the first time. The 1960s and 1970s saw more and more younger women with or without children entering and staying in the labor force. Currently (1980) 51% of married women are in the labor force. It would appear that this pattern of increase will continue, but probably at a somewhat reduced rate. At a later point we will examine the distribution of women in various kinds of work. For the remainder of this section, we will consider some broader national and international aspects of WLFP. At the national level within the United States, Stolzenberg and D’Amico (1977) report that there is little difference among cities in the United States in their occupational distribution by gender. Internationally, Schwartz (1979) and McAuley (1981), though not directly concerned with WLFP, report that Soviet women workers remain subordinate to men, despite their greater representation in all sectors of work. Izraeli (1979) found very similar patterns between Israel and the United States. The level of economic development is related to WLFP. In a study of 162 countries, Nuss and Majka (1983) found that higher levels of economic development were related to greater integration of women into the labor force, at least in certain sectors, such as clerical, transportation, and communications. Peil’s (1979) analysis of eight West African towns revealed that there was considerable variation in WLFP based on both local values and the opportunity structure. Here, married women were less likely to work. There is an additional aspect of the international situation that is relevant to WLFP. Business firms in fully industrialized countries in some industries are turning to export processing or runaway shops (Safa, 1981) to find and use cheap labor. There are several consequences of this for WLFP. In the locations where the cheap labor is found, there will be an increase in WLFP, because it is frequently women who will take jobs that offer low wages. This creates an industrialized underclass in these locations. At the same time, this pattern could decrease WLFP in industrialized nations such as the United States, because women have been much more able to enter the peripheral sector of the economy (Snyder et al., 1978), where this work is found domestically.

194

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

FA CTORS AFFECTING WLFP In Chapter 3 the issues of socialization and motivation for work were considered. These issues are the same for women and men. There are important differences, however, in the content of the socialization process. There are also important differences in the adult experiences of women, particularly in terms of events surrounding marriage and fertility. In this chapter we will focus on these differences as they affect WLFP. The differences in socialization begin early in life. White and Brinkerhoff (1981) examined both family chores and paid employment for people from 2 to 17 years old and found sharp differences in “boys' work” and “girls’ work.” Family structure and background made little difference in the assignment of things like basic family chores, and the gender division of labor occurred at a very early age. These differences continue through schooling with clear distinctions found in terms of basic vocational counseling and training and apprentice programs (Roby, 1981). After an extensive review of the research on the subject of socializa­ tion, Fox and Hesse-Biber (1984: 67-68) conclude: Of all the groups that socialize the sexes for different roles, two of the most important institutions are the family and the school. Almost immediately after birth, parents sex-type their children and respond differently to boys and girls. They regard daughters as softer, quieter, and more delicate, and sons as stronger, bolder, and more active. Although parents and others clearly characterize girls and boys in different ways, it is more difficult to determine the actual behavioral differences between male and female children, because differences can be specific to certain age periods and subject to the social context in which they occur. Researchers agree on only two items about early sex differences: girls are more verbal and boys are more aggressive. Some persons would take this a step further and argue that these differences indicate early female inclinations toward people-oriented occupations and male inclinations toward more task-oriented occupations. This brings us then to the long-debated argument over origin of sex differences as a function of (1) nature or biology or (2) nurture or experience. From our examination of these major perspectives, we conclude that biological differences between the sexes are just a starting point in the development of sex-role differences and their occupational consequences. Biology may influence certain tendencies, but these differences are strengthened by the social environment of the child. In addition, the “cognitive perspective” on development stresses that the

The Gender Dimension

195

children themselves play an active part in their development by selecting, organizing, and acting on the messages they receive about sex-appropriate and sex-inappropriate behavior and occupational roles. The family is the earliest socializing experience. But the schools soon join in and, in certain ways, intensify the process of socializing males and females and influencing their occupational outcomes. The schools influence the destinies of females compared to males through a variety of social arrangements and processes, including 1. The segregation, tracking, and funneling of boys and girls into different groups, activities, classes and courses 2. The imagery of books, texts, and readers depicting boys and men as the doers, goers, and makers of ideas, places, and things, and women and girls as spiritless observers 3. The schools’ structure of power and authority in which children see males in superordinate and females in subordinate positions 4. The teachers’ preference for male students in spite of girls’ good behavior; and teachers’ more active interaction with boys, not just in reprimands, but also in instruction, careful listening, and opportunities for response 5. The guidance staffs covert and overt reinforcement of traditional, cultural definitions of masculinity and femininity Each of these educational processes and arrangements operate toward the following final outcomes. First, they lower women’s esteem and depress confidence so that as they progress through school, girls become less confident about their accomplishments and the adequacy of their whole gender group. Second, they form self-defeating attributions of success and failure. Third, they inhibit the development of growth and potential so that between adolescence and adulthood, when men’s I.Q.’s are still rising, women are making few gains. Fourth, they restrict development, particularly, of the mathematical, technical, and scientific skills on which are based 75 percent of the majors in higher education, and 75 percent of all well-paying jobs.

These socialization patterns then interact with the opportunity structure to yield traditional “feminine-type” jobs offering low pay and little opportunity for advancement. It should be noted that both the family and the school will continue to operate in these ways because both institutions are highly resistant to change. Even a reduction in the sex-typing in texts and readers would take a generation to have any impact. Socialization involves more than the institutions of the family and the school. There is also strong peer pressure to behave in traditional sex-role fashion. Any parent knows that attempting to urge a child to

196

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

move in directions opposite to peer pressures is essentially a losing battle. Such pressures involve the conventionality of the times and such conventionality contains clear sex-typing. Youth socialization is only part of the picture. For better or worse, most women and men marry. Being married used to reduce the likelihood of WLFP, but this pattern has declined (Ericksen and Klein, 1981). At the same time, high husband’s income has been found to reduce the likelihood of a woman working (Spitze and Spaeth, 1979) in a study using 1961 college graduates. Parenthetically, it should be noted that the vast bulk of studies on WLFP have been forced to use data from the 1960s. These data do not reflect the sweeping changes that appear to have occurred in the past decade. D’Amico (1983) examined the issue of whether or not wives’ labor force participation would be reduced if it places them in competition with their husbands (Parsons, 1974) or if it would be increased if participation would enhance the status of the family (Oppenheimer, 1977). D’Amico found that the closer the wife’s wage potential was to that of her husband, the more likely it was that she would work, and the more time she would spend at work. He also found that wives tended to be underemployed, given their human-capital potential. He concludes that this may reflect a desire not to compete overtly with the husband. Interactions in the family setting also appear to affect WLFP. For example, Chenoweth and Maret (1980) found that husbands’ attitudes toward their wives’ working were more important than the wives’ own attitudes in determining whether they would work or not.These research­ ers also found that the wives’ previous earning experience and the number of children they had were also important determinants. We will turn to the number of children issue shortly. The husband’s income is not the only element of his work that influences the wife’s decision on whether or not to work. Mortimer et al. (1978) argued that factors such as the husband’s career patterns, the amount and type of time demands on the husband (shift work or overtime work), and geographical mobility requirements all could have an impact on the decision of the wife to take a job or not, other things being equal. Certain types of husbands’ jobs simply make it more difficult for wives to work. For example, the husband may not be available for household work if he works constantly changing shifts or moonlights with two or more jobs. Similarly, a husband’s job that requires absence from home for long periods of time makes it difficult for wives to work if there is housework to do and other alternatives are not available.

The Gender Dimension

197

The geographical mobility issue is rather complicated. Duncan and Perrucci (1976) found that the higher the husband’s occupational prestige, the greater are the demands to migrate as a result of better employment opportunities elsewhere in the country. The probability of the whole family moving is thus greater when the husband has high occupational prestige. In this study it was found that the wives’ work role characteristics had no effect on family migration, with wives’ continued employment obviously hampered by family migration. Interestingly, some wives who had previously been unemployed were able to work as a result of migration. In a study of work in a federal agency, Markham et al. (1983) found that migration was important to career advancement—a phenomenon true in the public and private sectors. This study found that women were less likely to move and less likely to be willing to do so. Those women who saw themselves as the primary providers for themselves or their families were as willing as men to migrate. The presence of a husband has a strong impact on WLFP and thus on careers. One of the key factors associated with WLFP has been the presence of small children, which is closely, but not perfectly, related to the marriage issue. The presence of small children was a major inhibitor of WLFP, but this pattern appears to be changing. Waite (1976) found a decline in the importance of the presence of children under 6 years old for the period 1940-1960. Waite and Stolzenberg (1976) report that the labor force plans of women at age 35 have a substantial effect on the number of children they plan to bear in their lifetime. This pattern is the same for both married and never-married women. According to Waite and Stolzenberg, labor force participation and fertility plans are developed simultaneously and reciprocally. This line of reasoning is carried further by Huber and Spitze (1983), who argue that fertility will continue to decline. They argue that the costs of childbearing will be coupled with the costs of staying home, to reduce fertility behavior. In addition, the rising divorce rate, the decreased economic rewards from having children, and the fact that psychological benefits are now harder to realize because children leave the home at adulthood will be additional factors associated with a decline in fertility. Though all of this does appear to be true, the fact remains that the presence of small children reduces labor force participation (SmithLovin and Tickameyer, 1978), despite long-run trends. Smith-Lovin and Tickameyer’s data source was women who had already had children. They conclude that the presence of small children was

198

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

incompatible with work for their respondents. The difference of these findings with the Waite and Stolzenberg findings is basically that Waite and Stolzenberg reported on plans for fertility, and Smith-Lovin and Tickameyer reported on actual behavior. Cramer (1980) suggests that the seeming incompatibility of these findings can be explained by noting that in the short run, fertility does have a strong impact on wives’ employment. Over the longer run, however, employment plans and behavior will have an impact on fertility. Cramer also states that the importance of the presence of small children decreases as a child nears school age, so that if women have fewer children, the impact of fertility on employment will decrease over time, because less time will be spent out of the labor force. Although this discussion is not about earnings or income, there are two additional points to be noted in the fertility and WLFP linkage. Coverman (1983) finds that time spent in domestic labor and child care reduces both male and female income. She also finds that domestic labor time decreases non-working-class women’s wages more than those for working-class women. More income is lost by non-working-class women. Sandell and Shapiro (1978) report that there is “depreciation” of human-capital resources while women are out of the labor force, although it is not as great as some writers have suggested. When women are out of the labor force, they not only lose income, they also lose some of their human capital investment, at least relative to others (women and men) who remain in the labor force. Up to this point we have been considering the impact of socialization of women and their marital/fertility status on the supply of women in the labor force. Here the focus will shift to a consideration of the reasons that women give for their labor force participation. Fox and HesseBiber (1984) report the results of a 1980 Roper Organization survey that asked the following question: Are you working primarily to support yourself, to support your family, to bring in extra money, or for something interesting to do?

The results from the answers to this question are shown in Figure 6.2. Economic factors reign supreme, with 46% reporting that they work to support themselves or their family and an additional 43% working to bring in extra money. Only 14% replied that they were working because they wanted something interesting to do (not a bad motivation in its own right). The economic contribution to the family by working wives is significant. Fox and Hesse-Biber (1984: 31) report that among wives

The Gender Dimension

199

QUESTION: Are you working primarily to support yourself, to support your family, to bring in extra money, or for something interesting to do? ANSWERS:

For something interesting to do

Don’t know (1 %)

S O U R C E : Fo x and Hesse-Biber (1 9 8 4 : 3 0 ). © 1984 by Mayfield Publishing Co. Reprinted by permission. Adapted from Roper Organization (1 9 8 0 : 3 7 ). N O T E : Percentages sum to more than 100 percent because of rounding.

Figure 6.2 Women's Reasons for Working, 1980

who work full time, year around, their contribution to the family income approaches 40% of total family income. For single women or divorced or separated women, work is the means of support. In the latter case, changed marital laws and provisions have drastically reduced the likelihood of alimony and child support payments being sufficient for total support. And, since the divorce rate continues to climb, especially among young women, this economic motivation and necessity will continue to increase. The focus so far has been primarily on factors affecting the supply of women in WLFP. We know less about the demand for such participa­ tion aside from the dual and segmented labor market theories and their insights into the demand for inexpensive labor. An exception here is Szafran’s (1984) analysis of data from 24 large U.S. banks. Szafran was concerned with the managerial and professional labor forces within the three largest banks in eight major U.S. cities in terms of their female and minority employment patterns.

200

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Szafran’s findings reveal several interesting patterns. First, employ­ ment patterns in 1971 were strong predictors of employment patterns in 1975 for managerial workers, but not for professional workers. Banks that had an integrated labor market for managers in 1971 continued to do so in 1975. Szafran attributes the difference in patterns between managers and professionals as due to the lower turnover rate among the management personnel. In a similar way, growth in size of the banks was associated with greater utilization of female managerial personnel, but not in the professional category. Factors external to the banks did make a difference in the employ­ ment patterns of female professionals. A low unemployment rate was related to higher levels of female professional employment, but banks in areas with higher unemployment had fewer female professionals. Community values, as reflected in the vote for the Democratic political party, were associated with both female professional and managerial employment. Szafran attributes this to the fact that the Dem­ ocratic/ non-Democratic split as being a proxy for racial and sexual attitudes regarding employment in the community. It is dangerous to generalize from this study conducted in one sector, but several patterns do seem evident. First, prior experience would seem to be a key issue in the demand for WLFP. Once an employing organization has moved beyond the employment of only token women (Kanter, 1977b), it will probably continue to hire women at all levels of its internal labor market. The labor markets within which organizations operate will also affect their demand for WLFP. If the labor market contains increasing numbers of highly qualified women, their demand for such women will increase. Epstein (1981) has documented the almost startling increase in the proportion of women lawyers in Wall Street law firms. These firms were male bastions of the first order only a short time ago. Although the women in these law firms face many problems, ranging from difficulties in advancement to problems in love relation­ ships, the fact remains that their numbers and proportions have in­ creased dramatically, at least in part due to the labor markets in which the law firms operate. Many of the top law school graduates are now women. This same pattern would appear to be emerging in other forms of professional and managerial work, although strongly entrenched patterns of discrimination and segregation remain, as shall be docu­ mented below. Up to this point the focus has been largely on structural factors and their impact on WLFP. Another major consideration will be the

The Gender Dimension

201

orientations or inclinations of the people involved and it is to orientations that we now turn.

ORIENTATIONS TOWARD WLFP Orientations toward WLFP range the whole spectrum from “a woman’s place is in the home” through “equal pay for equal work” to “all power to all women.” Staid economists write of “taste for housework” (Cain, 1966) or “taste of women for market work” (Sandell, 1977). From whatever basis, it is widely recognized that orientations toward WLFP have a variety of bases, interact with both experience and opportunity, and also have a variety of outcomes. In this section we will examine these orientations as they influence and are influenced by WLFP. Like most orientations, those shown toward work begin in the home. Traditional sex-role orientation contributes to girls’ lower and more traditional occupational orientations (Rosen and Aneshensel, 1978). Fox and Hesse-Biber (1984: 50) note that among daughters as young as kindergarten age and as old as college age, girls and women with employed mothers have less traditional views of marital and sex roles. They also see women as more competent than do daughters of nonemployed mothers and they view women’s accomplishments more positively. Women with employed mothers are more likely to plan to work themselves, particularly if their mothers have enjoyed their work. Epstein (1973) found that among black women who attained highstatus occupations, the model of work, activity, and energy shown by their mothers was something they valued highly. At the same time, Macke and Morgan (1978) found negative modeling among black girls whose mothers had blue-collar jobs. For both blacks and whites and for a wide variety of ethnic groups, the same factors appear to influence orientations toward work and WLFP more generally (Carliner, 1981). The development and shaping of orientations toward WLFP do not stop at childhood. Mason et al. (1976) found that higher education and recent employment experiences were associated with less traditional sex-role attitudes. Ferree (1980) studied working-class women and found that those who were employed were more feminist in their attitudes than were full-time housewives. She attributes this to the fact

202

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

that employed women and housewives have different social networks. For women who are employed, work is a context in which dissatisfac­ tions can be given a political interpretation. The interaction between orientations and experience is complex. Spitze and Waite (1980) argue that sex-role attitudes respond to, rather than affect, early work experiences. However, they also suggest that strong tastes for market work may create patterns of early labor force behavior in which the benefits of long-term employment would be maximized and that would influence the timing of work and child­ bearing. There is clearly reciprocity between orientations and ex­ perience (Waite and Stolzenberg, 1976). In addition to experience, perceptions about the structural avail­ ability of job opportunities in the future have been shown to affect women’s aspirations for traditional career rewards among academic career aspirants (Fox and Faver, 1981). It has also been observed that expectations about the future affect the extent to which women will invest in their future through higher education (Ferber and McMahan, 1979). Ferber and McMahan believe that high expectation levels, high investments in education (especially in formerly male-dominated fields), increasing labor force participation, and decreased fertility will re­ inforce each other and contribute to a reduction of the male-female earnings gap. This, of course, remains to be seen. From these various pieces of research we can conclude that orientations toward WLFP are a consequence of early socialization, ongoing experiences, and perceived future prospects. Orientations are also affected by the more general political and attitudinal climate. Spitze and Huber (1980) found dramatic changes in the proportion of males and females willing to vote for a woman presidential candidate and supporting women’s employment between 1938 and 1978. Shaw (1985) found changes between 1966 and 1976 in the proportion of women in their late 30s who exhibited a strong attachment to the labor force. The proportion with a strong commit­ ment increased faster than the proportion expressing a weak commit­ ment. Among white women, this was attributed to lessened family responsibilities, increased previous work experiences, and changing attitudes toward women’s roles. Among black women the sources were also lessened family responsibilities, but they expressed a desire for increased educational attainment and better health as well. Shaw also found that increasing rates of unemployment lessened the degree of attachment to the labor force that might have been observed if employment had remained high. She concludes that economic condi­ tions are more important than attachment in overall WLFP.

The Gender Dimension

203

Thus far we have been proceeding as if sex-role attitudes and orientations toward WLFP were essentially equivalent. Bielby and Bielby (1984) point out that this is not the case. They find that sex-role attitudes are empirically distinct from work commitment. They also find that work commitment is stable over time, even when work behavior is adjusted to the requirements of child rearing. Their data base was a 1961 study and they urge correctly that more recent data be used in such studies. We clearly need strong data bases from the 1980s for women and men. Before leaving the topic of orientations toward WLFP, we will briefly examine some evidence in regard to the social psychological outcomes of such participation. Miller et al. (1979) found that job conditions that encourage self-direction were related to effective intellectual function­ ing and an open, flexible social orientation, which is basically the same pattern as that found among men. Grandjean and Taylor (1980) report a related finding that perceived opportunities for training and the full use of one’s skills were strongly associated with job satisfaction among a group of female clerical workers. There have been several studies concerned directly with comparisons of female and male job satisfaction. Miller et al. (1975) found that women experienced less job satisfaction than men, and more isolation and work strain. Miller et al. attribute these findings to men’s advantages in realizing their vested interests. Miller (1980) also studied job satisfaction and found that day-to-day work conditions were linked directly to satisfaction for both men and women. A study of industrial workers in Israel revealed a similar pattern in that country (Mannheim, 1983). However, Miller did find slight differences in the conditions that were important for men and women, and men were more affected by closeness of supervision, organizational structure, their position, and job protection; women were more affected by the substantive complexity of their work, the dirtiness of it, the number of hours worked, and their income. Women with more education and urban backgrounds were found to be more likely to be dissatisfied, probably as a consequence of not having their skills and training fully utilized. The importance of the specific work setting can also be seen in Mandelbaum’s (1978) study of medical students. This training setting had consequences for the personality of women medical students, who were found to be more dominant, independent, and active as compared with women educated in other fields. The women medical students also exhibited different personality traits from male medical students. In another study comparing women and men, very little male-female

204

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

difference was found in a study of Catholic secondary school teachers (Grandjean and Bemel, 1979). These researchers found little difference in career commitment, no difference in the concern with intrinsic characteristics of work, and no difference in submissiveness to author­ ity. Women were found to value interpersonal relationships on the job more than men. The point here is not to highlight female-male differences, of course, but rather to point out that the specific work setting is critical for both men and women. A final outcome of WLFP for women is mental health. Gove and Geerken (1977) found that married women tend to be in poorer mental health than married men. Married employed women have more demands on them than do married men. Interestingly, this research found that wives who are not employed have even more demands placed on them. These demands come from children and home work. Employed men and women with no children experience essentially an equal number of demands. This research also found that employed men expressed the lowest levels of loneliness and expressed the least desire to be left alone. Married employed women expressed higher levels of these feelings and married unemployed women expressed the highest levels of all these feelings. Even though it would seem that married employed women have more demands placed on them than unemployed women, Gove and Geerken suggest that it is the kind of demands experienced that make the difference. Apparently demands from children and the home are such that mental health is adversely affected. We have been examining WLFP as it is related to the orientations of women. Such participation also has an impact on men. South et al. (1983), in a study of federal workers, found that as the proportion of women in work groups increased, the social solidarity among male workers decreased and that male workers received greater social support from female workers. The somewhat surprising finding of lowered solidarity among males was apparently the result of more frequent interaction with females. Huber and Spitze (1981, 1983), in a study of husbands and wives, found that wives’ current employment, their attachment to their work, and their earnings had an impact on husbands’ perceptions of the decision-making process in the family. The husbands perceived that their wives’ decision-making power had increased. Up to this point we have essentially been treating WLFP as a dependent variable. We have examined the factors that appear to affect such participation and those that affect orientations of people toward such participation. At this point we will shift the focus to WLFP as an

The Gender Dimension

205

independent variable as it relates to outcomes in regard to the vertical dimension.

WLFP AND THE VERTICAL DIMENSION Conceptualization and Measurement At first glance there would appear to be no issue involved in considerations of the gender dimension and the vertical dimension. As was indicated in Chapter S, there has been extensive and rather conclusive research and conceptualization in regard to the linkages among prestige, status, education, and income. It is unfortunate, in terms of both equalitarian values and conceptual clarity, that the conceptualization and measurement of women and the work they do cannot simply be placed on the vertical dimension in the same manner as was done with men. The complicating factor is that gender interacts with occupation in the prestige and status ratings of occupations. For example, Powell and Jacobs (1984a) examined the effects of identifying the gender of the incumbent in an occupation in terms of the consequences for the prestige ratings obtained from a sample of college students. The sample was asked to indicate the prestige ratings for both male and female nurses, architects, construction workers, and so on. They found that men in traditionally “male” occupations received higher prestige scores than their female counterparts. At the same time, women in traditional­ ly “female” jobs, such as nursing, secretarial work, and elementary school teaching received higher scores than men in the same jobs. In a companion study, Powell and Jacobs (1984b) report that male and female incumbents in the same job were given different prestige scores. Males were given higher scores in occupations in which men pre­ dominate, but women were given higher scores in occupations in which more of the incumbents are generally women. They also report that in situations of sex-atypicality—women in male-dominated occupations or men in female-dominated occupations—the gender composition of the occupations involved had a significant effect on the prestige of sex-atypical incumbents. The income and educational requirements of the occupation were the most significant determinants of the prestige given to the incumbents.

206

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Using a broader sample of respondents (college students and household respondents) and a wider array of occupations rated, Bose and Rossi (1983) found that occupation, rather than gender, explains most of the variance in the scores given to occupational incumbents, although there were some differences by gender of incumbents. This research also found that the average prestige scores for female jobs are lower than for male jobs, and that the maximum achievable prestige for traditionally female jobs is much lower than that for traditional male jobs. The gender of the person rating occupational prestige proved to be interesting. Males tended to give male occupations a lower rating than did females, and females rated female occupations higher among the household respondents. Among college students neither the gender of the rater nor the gender of the incumbent made a difference in their ratings. Bose and Rossi’s research, like that of Powell and Jacobs, examined the subjective aspect of prestige. Bose and Rossi note that the results might be quite different if the focus were on a factor such as income. In her examination of the comparison between men’s and women’s occu­ pational prestige scores, England (1979) notes that many studies have found that women and men have rather similar occupational prestige distributions, but she calls these findings “vacuous” in that they mask wide differences in income between men and women. Bose (1973) also found that income and prestige were not related for women as they were for men. There seems to be ample evidence that occupations that include predominantly women incumbents receive lower prestige scores than do male occupations and that the income differentials are even sharper. At the same time, as Bose and Rossi (1983) point out, most prestige studies have included only highly stereotypical female occupations. Until we achieve a situation of gender-neutrality, the extent to which an occupation is “male” or “female” will continue to make a difference in its prestige and income. Research does seem to indicate, however, that occupation is the strongest predictor of prestige. It is also the strongest predictor of income. A more direct comparison of men and women and the vertical dimension will now be considered.

Comparing Women and Men In this section the outcomes of WLFP will be examined in terms of the similarities and differences between women and men in their returns

The Gender Dimension

207

from employment. Status and income attainment and career lines as they are affected by gender will be explored. Most of the research to be utilized has shown strong differences in the experiences of men and women, but there are some hints that the differences may be decreasing as a result of affirmative-action policies and changing patterns of WLFP itself. One area in which similarities have been found is the socioeconomic achievement process. Featherman and Hauser (1976) found that the patterns of socioeconomic achievement were the same for women and men, with education more central for women and social origins less important. They also found that for both men and women, there were improvements in socioeconomic status between 1962 and 1973, al­ though female earnings dropped slightly during that period. The Featherman and Hauser research utilizes the basic Wisconsin model of status attainment. In a departure from that model, Halaby (1982) uses a career life-cycle model in examining the job mobility experiences of management personnel in a large corporation. He found that the rate of job shifts for men and women are similar in form. He also found that the job shifts for women did not yield the rate of return or reward that they did for men. There are several explanations for this that will be developed later in this chapter. Halaby also found that level of schooling is an important contributor to job shifts for both genders. Another finding of similarity between women and men is reported by Wolf and Rosenfeld (1978). They found that women and men attain the same mean level of occupational status. They also found that men’s status levels increased over their work lives, with most of the increases coming in the early years of their careers. Women stay at the same level in clerical and semiprofessional occupations. This is a key point, because these traditionally female occupations do have higher status than many traditionally male blue-collar occupations. At the same time, Wolf and Rosenfeld note that job shifts within the female occupationbased labor market do not raise women’s status, but job shifts outside of this market have the potential to do so. Findings of similarities between women and men in terms of socioeconomic achievement have been criticized on several grounds. Fligstein and Wolf (1978) suggest that the findings of similarity may be affected by the fact that the samples of employed women used in these studies contain an overrepresentation of successful women. Women who can afford not to be in the labor force will stay out unless they can find jobs commensurate with their education. If these women entered the labor force, they would not achieve occupational statuses in keeping with their education, and thus the similarity in pattern would not be

208

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

found. Marini (1980) makes a similar point in her analysis of data from a follow-up study of Coleman’s (1961) analysis of adolescents. Marini used data from fifteen years after the original Coleman study and found that although occupational attainment was similar at the time of entry men experience greater upward mobility after entry and many women drop out of the labor force. Rosenfeld (1979,1980) has also documented the greater continuity of men’s employment and their greater tendency to move upward during their careers. She also reports the interesting finding that men achieve their highest status more slowly than women, because they take more career steps along the way. Even at the same prestige level, there are task differences that vary by sex identification, according to McLaughlin (1978). These task dif­ ferences on the horizontal dimension are such that Mmale”job tasks have greater earnings potential. If, for example, aggressiveness is highly rewarded and males are more aggressive, their rewards will be higher. However, it must be recognized that characteristics that are valued and rewarded can shift over time. If, as many observers are suggesting, we are moving toward a more androgynous society, it may well be that the affiliative skills of women will prove to be an alternative route to achievement, as Kaufman and Richardson (1982) have suggested. Differences between men and women at the same basic prestige level have been examined in several studies of college and university faculty members. It has been found repeatedly that women are more likely to be found in lower tenure track ranks or in nontenured positions (Rosen­ feld, 1981) and are also likely to receive lower salaries (Fox, 1981,1985). There are many reasons for these differences, including less continuous employment, greater unwillingness to make geographical moves, sex segregation by discipline, and intra-university differences in salary and other reward structures. In addition, Fox (1985) finds that males receive greater returns on their attainments, such as obtaining advanced degrees. Some of these patterns do appear to be changing as a consequence of affirmative action and attitudinal changes on the part of both men and women (Rosenfeld, 1981; Ferber etal., 1978), but colleges and universities remain places where discrimination and segregation exist. Halaby (1979) has examined the sources of pay differences between men and women, with his data coming from a study of a large company. He finds support for the hypothesis that pay practices are such that women receive unequal pay for equal work, and for the hypothesis that employment practices, in terms of placement on jobs and promotion practices, result in gender segregation. In Halaby’s study, the actual

The Gender Dimension

209

employment practices were more important than the pay practices, but both were operative. There was segregation in terms of job and ranks. Discrimination and segregation are thus key factors in terms of women’s place on the vertical dimension—a topic that will be dealt with in more detail later. Male-female differentials are not limited to the United States. Roos (1983) and Treiman and Roos (1983) find substantial differences in earnings between men and women in their studies of industrialized nations. Roos’s (1983) research revealed that never-married women were more like men than were ever-married women in terms of their occupational attainment patterns, but that never-married women also did not fare much better than married women in actual occupational attainment.

Factors Associated with Location on the Vertical Dimension This section will examine the factors that have been studied in regard to the location of women on the vertical dimension. The examination will of necessity be somewhat inconclusive, because the literature on the topic has this characteristic. The factors to be considered are the role of women’s mothers, the importance of education, labor force experience, and the labor market sector in which women are employed. The conclusion that we will come to is that both individual explanations, such as mothers’ roles, education, and experience and structural explanations, such as industrial sector, are required for a complete understanding of placement on the vertical dimension (Rosenfeld, 1979). The first factor to be considered is the role of mothers for women’s location on the vertical dimension. Rosenfeld (1978a) found that analyses of women’s intergenerational mobility were characterized by comparing daughters’ occupations with those of their fathers. This was consistent with analyses of males’ intergenerational mobility. Not surprisingly, research in this tradition found stronger relationships between father-son mobility than father-daughter mobility. Rosenfeld’s (1978a) research included mothers’ occupations in her analysis of daughters’ occupational outcomes. She argued that there were three reasons for doing so. First, if the mother worked, this had an impact on the socioeconomic status of the family. Second, mothers are important role models for daughters. There is extensive evidence that

210

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

when the mother has been employed, the daughter will be more likely to be employed and do so in less typically female occupations. Finally, because women are concentrated in relatively few occupations, adding mother’s occupation into the analysis will improve the prediction of where daughters will be located in the occupational system. Rosenfeld’s research findings support these arguments. She concludes: M other’s occupation is a significant dimension of women’s intergenerational occupational mobility. Whether or not the mother worked outside the home and what occupation she held, given that she was employed, affect daughter’s location. When only those cases are considered in which the mother had been employed at the time the daughter was IS, the effect of mother’s occupation is relatively more important than that of the father in predicting daughter’s occupational destination. In other words, mother’s work matters for daughter’s occupational location. The same conclusion has been reached with respect to girls’ and young women’s occupational aspirations and with respect to the occupational attainment of certain selected subgroups (primarily college graduates). The findings here allow generalization to the occupational mobility process for adult women [Rosenfeld, 1978a: 45].

Rosenfeld goes on to note that as more and more women are working outside the home, the importance of the mother’s occupation may well increase and may also be important in terms of understanding the son’s occupational locations. In a later study, Stevens and Boyd (1980) found patterns similar to those found by Rosenfeld. Stevens and Boyd also used housework as a possible occupational origin. This also proved to be a predictor of the subsequent occupational locations of daughters. The role of education in women’s location on the vertical dimension is complex. Treiman and Terrell (1975), like other research that has been cited, found that the process of occupational attainment for women and men is essentially similar. Educational attainment is the most critical factor for both men and women. This research also revealed that the mothers’ education and occupation had a stronger effect for women than did the fathers’ education and occupation for men. Single women received a higher return on education in terms of income than did married women. As a bottom line to their research, Treiman and Terrell also found that women earn much less than men with comparable characteristics. McClendon (1976) found patterns essentially similar to those of Treiman and Terrell, but also found no evidence that the education of like-sex parents was a stronger predictor of educational attainment than the education of opposite-sex parents. Inasmuch as the

The Gender Dimension

211

educational level of parents is quite likely to be very similar, this particular distinction is not very critical. Further insights into the importance of education are provided by Sewell et al.’s (1980) analysis. They were concerned with the effects of post-high school education. Their initial finding was that post-high school education has a greater effect among men than among women and that the first job has a greater effect on the current job than does education. Subsequent analyses revealed that the first job status of women was higher. When this first job status was controlled, the continuing influence of schooling on subsequent status attainment was higher among women than among men. This means that men’s posthigh school education is an important determinant of their first job, which in turn is an important determinant of their current job. For women, post-high school education is a weaker determinant of first job placement, but the effects of this education will continue to be exerted on eventual occupational location. For example a woman with a college degree might obtain a job as a secretary as her first job but then be able to move into a managerial position over time. A man with similar credentials would move into the managerial level at the outset. An interesting twist to the role of education is provided by Felmlee’s (1984) analysis of job shifts. She finds that, unlike men, whose job shifts involve full-time jobs, for women job shifts frequently (more than one-fourth of the cases) involve shifts in or out of part-time employ­ ment. Felmlee finds that education is an important factor for women in obtaining full-time employment after part-time work, but that education does not have a significant effect on women’s full-time to full-time job shifts. This is apparently linked to the absence of career opportunities and progressions for many women in jobs that are essentially dead-end. The labor force experience of women has also been shown to be related to their location on the vertical dimension. Rosenfeld (1978b) found that women with less extensive and less continuous employment experience have fewer opportunities to move to higher positions and less gains in occupational rewards over the work life. Work experience is thus an investment in human capital. Felmlee (1982) found that seniority and job-specific resources are related to upward job shifts within firms, even though the benefits received are relatively low and relatively few women receive them. At the same time, certain forms of work experience can have negative consequences for women. Roos (1981) found that a nontrivial portion of the earnings gap between men and women was based on women’s concentration in jobs that are low paying and heavily female and in which there is less ability to exercise

212

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

authority and control the means of production. Apparently, work experience outside the heavily female jobs will yield returns in terms of location on the vertical dimension, but experience in typically female jobs has the opposite effect. The labor market sector in which women are employed has also been posited to be important in the location of women on the vertical dimension. Lorence (forthcoming) reports that there are separate and distinct labor markets for men and women. Other research, such as Bibb and Form’s (1977), has found women concentrated in economically weak sectors. Bridges (1980) undertook a more detailed analysis of industrial sectors and found women to be underrepresented in some core industries, such as wholesale trade, transportation, communication, and utilities, in which males have high earnings. On the other hand, women are overrepresented in some service industries that are hardly marginal. Part of the difference in these findings is based on the fact that Bibb and Form were considering blue-collar workers only. Although location in core or peripheral sectors affects vertical dimension location for both women and men, if there is differential location by gender and women are located in the periphery, their location on the vertical dimension would suffer even further. Inasmuch as the labor market is now characterized by a concentration in services, finer distinctions of the sort that Bridges suggests are needed, because we do not know if women are in the core or periphery in terms of services. We do know that women are concentrated in particular occupations in the core sector. Interestingly, Ward and Mueller (1985) found that women were more likely to achieve higher authority positions in peripheral sectors and that human-capital variables were more pre­ dictive for women in those sectors. At least in some peripheral sectors there is apparently less force of tradition. There is no single determinant of women’s location on the vertical dimension. It would appear that having mothers who have worked contributes to women working in nontraditionally female occupations. In most cases, educational requirements for such positions will be rather high. If this is the case, education should have a continuing and strong influence on location, because then she would have some prospect of upward mobility. Higher education should also be related to more intensive and continual experience in the labor force. Labor market sector location will probably continue to be influenced by the existing gender composition of the sectors. There is yet another aspect related to the location of women on the vertical dimension that must be included and this is the aspect of

The Gender Dimension

213

marriage. Some early research on the status attainment of women found little difference between men and women in terms of intergenerational occupational mobility (DeJong et al., 1971; see also comments by Havens and Tully, 1972; Rogoff Ramsey, 1973; and replies by DeJong et al., 1972, 1973). Subsequent research has shown that much of the similarity in patterns of intergenerational mobility is due to “marital mobility” (Tyree and Treas, 1974; Glenn et al., 1974; Chase, 1975; Hauser and Featherman, 1977). Marital mobility refers to the situation in which women marry men who tend to have the same status as their own fathers. For women who marry, their locations on the vertical dimension are thus a consequence of the occupations of their husbands. This is obviously so for women not in the labor force, but also apparently true for women in the labor force. The data on which these studies are based are from the 1960s, when WLFP was not as widespread as it is today. Thus when women were in the labor force their status was more likely to be different from that of their fathers. Data from the 1980s might well show weaker patterns of marital mobility and stronger father-daughter as well as motherdaughter patterns of similarity. There is another facet of marital mobility that should be noted. Glenn et al. (1974; see also Chase, 1975) note that the resources that are important for marriage are different from those that are important for occupational attainment. The charm and physical attractiveness of both women and men is more randomly distributed across the population than are the social origins and educational attainments that go into the status attainment process. Since people do marry for love, there is a greater likelihood for mobility through marriage than through oc­ cupational attainment. When the occupational status of working husbands and wives are compared, a great deal of similarity is found (Hout, 1982). Hout’s research found strong boundaries in terms of farm versus nonfarm and manual versus nonmanual regarding the location of the occupations in which spouses worked in two-earner families. Despite these similarities in location, Ritter and Hargens (1975) found that working wives do not derive their class positions and identifications exclusively or pre­ dominantly from the occupational positions of their husbands. While similarities in location are evident, they do not necessarily result in similarities in outlook. Marriage has an additional impact on the location of women on the vertical dimension. Felmlee (1984) found that being married and husband’s income reduced the likelihood of job changes for a woman. Higher income on the part of the husband and the simple fact that the

214

DIMENSIONS OF I ORK

husband is working make it less likely that a woman will change obs, because changing jobs frequently involves changing place of resid nee. There is some evidence of growing reciprocity here, as husband ; are unwilling to accept job changes in the form of new jobs or job trans: irs if this is to affect the jobs of their wives. Unfortunately, we do nc I yet know if there is full reciprocity. It would appear that the husband’s. ob is still dominant in most two-earner families.

DISCRIMINA TtON AND SEGREGA TION This section is being written the day after (July 13, 1984) Geraldine Ferraro was named the vice-presidential candidate of the Democ ratic party in the United States. The outcome of the election itself will be known by the time this book is published, but the array of reactions expressed to the possibility of a woman nominee is symbolic (in a reverse way) of the topic of this section. But vice-presidents, Supreme Court justices, executives, or professors are not the heart of the matter—a point well captured by Fox and Hesse-Biber (1984: 97-99): W H O IS T H E O R D IN A R Y W O M A N W O R K ER ?

The ordinary working woman is typically a working mother in her thirties; she attended and probably graduated from high school. She has little or no college experience, and therefore does not work in those higher-paying professional, technical, or managerial occupations that require college degrees and specialized training. She works, for example, in the typing pool of a large corporation, on the assembly line of a manufacturing firm, or she is a file clerk in an insurance company. She is the woman who waits on you when you shop for clothing—or she is the woman who stitched the clothing. She is also the woman who serves you at your favorite restaurant, cashes your check at the bank, answers your telephone call for information, or washes and cuts your hair at the beauty parlor. Most likely, however, she holds a white-collar job (42 percent of employed women are in white-collar occupations), and most likely the job is clerical. The majority of women are typists, secretaries, bookkeepers, and clerks (the “pink-collar” occupations—white collar occupations held predominantly by women). Thirty-five percent of employed women hold clerical positions, and women account for more than three-fourths of all clerical workers. The other major white-collar occupation for women is sales. Most women in sales work are in the retail trades, where they hold

The Gender Dimension

215

the lower-paying positions; for example as clerks and department-store saleswomen [as a footnote here, my 17-year old son just broke the sex barrier as a cashier at the local Woolworth’s store—R H H ].. . . The next largest occupational category for women is the services field (20 percent of employed women in 1979), where, again, women outnumber men. Within the services occupations, women work mostly in the foodservices Held as waitresses or in the health- and personal-services field as nurses’ aides, orderlies, attendants, hairdressers, and cosmetologists. Cleaning and private-household work is also common. Blue-collar occupations, where male workers predominate, account for only about 15 percent of employed women. Most blue-collar women workers hold the lower-paying operative jobs; they are the assemblers, inspectors, wrappers and packers, or operators of machinery (such as sewing machines). Few women are employed in the more lucrative bluecollar craft jobs. Although the occupations of “ordinary” women workers are quite diversified, they share some important characteristics. They are highly segregated by sex—most women are employed in occupations that are dominated by women. Furthermore, the skills or attributes required by their work are usually considered “female traits,” and such beliefs guide the hiring practices of employers. For example, women in blue-collar occupations are hired as operatives because women are believed to have greater manual dexterity than men. Women are sewers and stitchers because they are believed to be better suited to do “fine detail” work. Similarly, most typists are women because it is said that their “superior” manual dexterity allows them to type faster than any man. (The belief that women have greater manual dexterity than men is supported by some research. However, manual dexterity is certainly as important for surgery, for example, as for sewing or typing, but we hear little argument that surgery is therefore “women’s work.”) Another characteristic shared by these diverse occupations is that they tend to be dead-end positions that are unstable and among the lowest paid. Within white-collar, blue-collar, and service categories women earn about three-fifths the wages paid to men in the same occupational groups. . . . and women’s unemployment rates are higher. Women’s jobs also provide little opportunity for advancement in the organizational hi­ erarchy. And it is rare that a woman’s job requires that she supervise male workers [Reprinted by permission of Mayfield Publishing Co.].

The argument to be presented here is that the patterns that Fox and Hesse-Biber describe so well are a consequence of discrimination and segregation. Sex-role socialization, discussed earlier in this chapter, undoubtedly is a contributor to women’s disadvantaged position on the

216

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

vertical dimension. The evidence that will be examined, however, makes it clear that discrimination and segregation are much more powerful explanations. Discrimination and segregation frequently tend to be lumped together, even though they have distinct meanings. Discrimination refers to “institutional arrangements whereby certain categories of people are either excluded from or disadvantaged in the distribution of power, property, or satisfaction** (Alvarez et al., 1979: x). Segregation, according to Halaby (1979), involves employment practices in which there are disparities in the allocation of jobs and promotional op­ portunities. Halaby examined discrimination in pay and segregation in employment. Discrimination thus can involve unequal pay or other rewards for equal work, but segregation involves placement in unequal work, with presumably equal amounts of human-capital resources. Discrimination is the broader concept, since discriminatory hiring practices lead to segregation on the job. Patterns of discrimination and segregation begin early in work careers. Greenberger and Steinberg (1983) found that the first jobs of tenth and eleventh graders were significantly segregated by sex. There are boys’jobs and girls’jobs. Girls work fewer hours and typically earn lower wages. As a “harbinger of things to come,”job types dominated by girls receive less pay. As noted earlier in this chapter, discrimination and segregation have been part and parcel of the school system, and boys and girls are treated differently. There appear to be some changes taking place in these patterns, but the force of tradition here is difficult to overcome. These patterns persist into professional schools. In a U.S. nationwide study of medical schools, Bourne and Wikler (1978) found little overt, “action­ able” discrimination, but did find a “discriminatory environment” that existed on the basis of understandings of commitment and success that were based on male sex-role stereotypes and family roles. This contributed to channeling into particular specializations within medi­ cine. In a study of law schools, Spangler et al. (1978) found that when women were a small minority or “tokens” (Kanter, 1977a) there were performance pressures, social isolation, and role entrapment. This pattern was modified when more people in the student body were women. Once educated, people have to be hired. Analyses of the hiring process reveal some interesting patterns, particularly in light of equal employment opportunity and affirmative action laws. Dubeck (1979) examined the recruitment practices of a large manufacturing firm in terms of their hiring for managerial training positions. Her analysis is

The Gender Dimension

217

based on the criteria used in deciding to whom offers would be made. She found that for men, the criteria (in order of priority) were (1) perceived qualifications, (2) leadership experience, (3) job interest, and (4) academic performance. For women, the criteria were (1) job interest, (2) academic performance, (3) race, and (4) perceived qualifications. The key point here is the differential ordering of the criteria. For women, the first priority of job interest reflected a concern on the part of the company that women might leave employment for family roles. The use of such differential criteria is clearly discriminatory. A different set of findings is reported by Hitt et al. (1982). These investigators sent dummy job-applicant resumes to the personnel directors of 200 business firms. The resumes were varied by indications of the race and sex of the dummy applicants. Indications of being black generated more replies to the applications, but fewer positive replies. No significant effect of sex variation was found; in fact, there was a slight pattern of reverse discrimination. Although neither of these studies can be viewed as conclusive, it is probably accurate to surmise that the extent of discrimination in hiring has decreased dramatically in recent years (see Beller, 1982). The real test now in terms of discrimination is in terms of promotion and advancement in positions in which this is possible. For managerial personnel and professionals, the coming decade will be the time of testing, because the large number of women recruited into entry-level managerial and professional positions will be ready for promotion, partnerships, tenure, and the like. The key factor here is access to power, and the evidence is that women have not had that access (Kanter, 1977a, 1977b, 1979; Wolf and Fligstein, 1979a, 1979b). Kanter’s work contains the consistent theme that this will remain the case so long as women remain a small proportion (tokens) in particular occupational settings. Despite apparent reductions in discrimination, segregation by gender is still very prevalent. Blau and Hendricks (1979) found that segregation actually increased between 1950 and 1969 as predominantly female clerical and professional jobs grew in relative size. The 1960-1970 period was one of a modest drop in segregation as men moved into clerical work and women entered male sales and clerical positions. Blau and Hendricks see little likelihood of major reductions in segregation in the near future. As a disadvantaged group in the labor market, women tend to have jobs with less variety, diversity, interdependence, and control both within and across employing organizations (Baron and Bielby, 1982). Contrary to popular impressions, proportionately more women than men operate machines in their work (Form and McMillen, 1983). These

218

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

are simple handtools or machines that perform repetitive tasks and restrict mobility. According to this research, women are thus exposed to machines that have potentially alienating effects because of their lack of control over the machines. Women are also more likely to suffer from the negative effects of technological change. Despite these differences, Form and McMillen found little difference between men and women in terms of their attitudes toward technology, technological change, and job satisfaction. Interestingly, they found that both women and men liked their machines. There is widespread agreement (and widespread dismay) that women are paid less than men (see Treiman and Hartman, 1981). There is growing agreement that this is based on the fact that women are concentrated (segregated) in jobs that are heavily female (England and McLaughlin, 1979; England, 1982, 1984; Halaby, 1979b; Roos, 1981). Even in a situation in which wage discrimination has been virtually eliminated by law, as is the case in Australia, occupational segregation, coupled with discontinuous career patterns and part-time work, con­ tinues to depress the earnings of women (Jones, 1983). There is strong evidence that the female-male pay differentials are not based on choices made by women. England’s (1982,1984) research has refuted arguments from neoclassical economic theories. The theories tested argue that women have lower-paying work because they choose occupations in which there is little depreciation in their earnings if they work in the labor force on an intermittent basis, or they choose work with high starting wages but low wage appreciation. England concludes that women’s wages are higher if they work in predominantly male occupations. Economic explanations based on the impact of high rates of turnover also have been found wanting as explanations of the wage differential. Ragan and Smith (1981) found that women received lower pay when the turnover rates of males and females were controlled. An additional economic explanation that posits that differing levels of pay are based on differing levels of productivity has also been found to be inadequate (Brown et al., 1980). Thus these economic theories of choice, costs of turnover, and consequences of productivity do not explain the differentials. As will be shown, economic factors are certainly impor­ tant, but not on the basis of these traditional economic theories. Although the major factor in the lower pay of women is their segregation into female-dominated occupations, the matter is more complex than this. England and McLaughlin (1979) found that when the nature of the tasks performed, as measured by the DOT, was held constant, women still received lower pay than men. This type of finding

The Gender Dimension

219

has led to the development of a drive for comparable worth. As Steinberg (1984: 15) notes: Equal pay for work of equal value, more commonly known as com­ parable worth, represents the newest development in the evolution of policy to achieve labor market equality for women. It concerns whether work done primarily by women is systematically undervalued because it has been and continues to be done primarily by women. The con­ sequences of systematic undervaluation is that the wages paid to women and men engaged in women’s work are artificially depressed relative to what the wages would be if the jobs were being performed on the free market by white men.

Obviously, determining comparable worth is a formidable task, because myriad factors have to be considered. With the continual refinement of instruments such as the DOT, the task will become easier. The opposition to comparable worth will remain strong, however, for economic, political, and social reasons. These same reasons would seem to explain the existing patterns of discrimination and segregation. An abundant number of explanations regarding discrimination and segregation are available. These range from Marxian analyses of women as part of the oppressed and exploited class controlled by capitalists (Quick, 1977) to blaming the victim, by arguing that women bring discrimination and segregation on themselves because of their dis­ continuous work patterns and high turnover rates. As in the case of most such arguments, the best explanations appear to be on a more middle ground. Sokoloff (1980) argues that both patriarchy and capitalism explain women’s positions. According to this argument, women’s labor market position cannot be understood without simultaneously considering women’s position in the home, and the political and economic conditions in which these work places are embedded. It is to the advantage of employers, capitalist or otherwise, to pay as low wages as possible and thus maintain the status of low-paying occupations. There is also a tradition of patriarchy some men and some some women wish to maintain through economic and political pressures. The evidence is less than compelling that both industries and men are united in opposition to lessening the levels of discrimination and segregation. Bridges’s (1982) analysis revealed that in industries with a high degree of market power in which a few firms controlled the market, there was more segregation. However, the presence of unionization reduced segregation, which leads Bridges to question whether or not the

220

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

intransigence of privileged men is in fact the main stumbling block in reducing segregation and discrimination. Bridges also found that mea­ sures of “classical capitalism” in terms of massed labor with repetitive work processes were unrelated to measures of occupational segregation. We are thus left with inconclusive explanations for segregation and discrimination. Certainly patriarchy and capitalism play a role. So too does tradition. Also to be considered is the political arena surrounding the passage of laws, including the Equal Rights Amendment. It is clear that various federal and state legislative acts and regulations have reduced discrimination and segregation. Whether comparable worth advocates will be able to convince legislators and others to enact legal means enforcing comparable worth requirements is at present unknown. To do so threatens the interest of those favoring the present arrange­ ments and one can find employers and men and women on both sides of this particular issue.

NONTRADITIONAL WORK There is ample evidence that more and more women are entering and staying in occupations that were traditionally male, and that men are entering and staying in occupations that were traditionally female. In the last section of this chapter, we will consider orientations toward nontraditional work, careers and advancement within such work, and the particular problems faced by people in nontraditional work. The focus will be primarily on women, but men in traditionally female occupations will also be considered where relevant.

Orientations As noted earlier in this chapter, the likelihood of women’s participa­ tion in the labor force is influenced by their education and the working experience of their mothers. Mason et al. (1976) found that higher levels of education, together with recent employment experience, were asso­ ciated with less traditional outlooks toward work. The exposure to alternatives to traditional work appear to be key factors in developing a taste for such work. The answer cannot be found simply by examining women’s educational levels, however. Lyson (1984) found that men in traditionally female curricula and women in traditionally male curricula

The Gender Dimension

221

in colleges were more like their sex peers than their curricular mates in terms of their work values; men were more concerned with extrinsic values and women were more concerned with intrinsic values. Macke (1981), in a related study, found that gender was a more salient factor in opposite-gender-dominated occupations and that occupational com­ petencies were more salient in same-gender occupations. Both the Lyson and the Macke findings can be interpreted in terms of the number or proportion of men and women in nontraditional work (Kanter’s [1977a] idea of tokenism). When there are relatively few women, for example, in traditionally male occupations or curricula, gender will be more important and more noticed. In addition to the number or proportion of women in men’s jobs, the time spent on the job appears to be an important consideration. In a study of women in nontraditional skilled and semiskilled work, Mcllwee (1982) found that during their first year of work on these jobs, the women studied were concerned with the challenge of surviving and succeeding. New skills had to be learned, self confidence had to be developed and the women had to get along with frequently troublesome male coworkers. For the women who remained in the work for a second year, the areas of concern changed to more traditional concerns for skilled and semiskilled workers—the nature of the work itself, working conditions, and relationships with management. Quite similar findings are reported by Schreiber (1979) in her study of men and women in nontraditional work. Schreiber's work is interesting in that it documents not only the orientations of both men and women in such work, but also the women and men who were in the traditional occupations in the first place. Both traditional women and men (traditional in the sense that they were in traditional men’s and women’s work) were concerned about the arrival and behavior of the newcomers. Both women and men were also concerned about matters such as their own and the newcomers’ appearance, their language (could they swear?), and other interpersonal interactional aspects. Sexuality does become an issue in situations of nontraditional work.

Careers The career prospects of people in nontraditional work are affected by the number of people involved and the strength of the female and male traditions. DeFleur (1985), in an analysis of a military service academy, found that women have been accommodated, but not assimilated. She

222

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

found that the opportunity structure and the power system were strongly characterized by the prevalence of a male value system that limits women’s military role. In a very different male bastion—truck driving—Lembright and Reimer (1982) found that male sponsorship from a husband or boyfriend reduced problems of low pay and harassment for women truckers. In both situations, the forces of tradition were strong influences. Epstein’s (1980, 1981) research on women lawyers reveals a very different pattern. She found truly dramatic changes in the numbers and proportions of lawyers in government work and in major Wall Street law firms. These law firms are among the most prestigious and powerful in the United States. Epstein attributes these changes to the Civil Rights * Act of 1964, law suits, the actions of law school personnel in the recruitment process, and changing attitudes toward women’s com­ petence and equality. The result of all this is the presence of women in specialties formerly reserved for men, such as litigation and corporate work. At the same time, the women lawyers also still faced problems of access to some specialties, some resistance from clients and concerns about promotion to partnership (similar findings have been reported for England; Podmore and Spencer, 1982). They also experienced real problems with their personal lives, particularly in terms of marriage and children, with a sizable number making the painful choice to forgo one or both sets of interpersonal relationships. This same problem with marriage and interpersonal relationships is also noted in studies of women in business management (Brown, 1979). Brown’s analysis reveals that although large business firms employ more women, the chances of rising to top management may be greater in small firms. This is consistent with Ward and Mueller’s (1985) findings in regard to the success of women in the peripheral sector. The possibility of women’s movement into top management positions is influenced by the attitudes and actions of the people (men) with whom they work. Kaufman and Fetters (1983) come to the conclusion that many male executives do not perceive women as “ready” for the managerial climb. This attitude will unfortunately continue to be an impediment to women wherever it is prevalent. One of the major sources of segregation that was noted earlier is the lack of access by women to positions of power and authority. When such access is gained, career problems still plague women. Mayer (1979) finds that women in nontraditional positions of authority over men and women evoke reactions on the part of subordinates different from men in equivalent positions. Authority positions can also involve clear

The Gender Dimension

223

breaks with traditional family and sex roles that can be resisted by both women and men. In their study of male and female supervisors in a federal bureaucracy, South et al. (1982) initially found that the female subordinates of female supervisors reported less job satisfaction, lower group morale, and a perception of the supervisors’ behavior as controlling and particularistic in comparison with the responses ex­ pressed toward male supervisors. When they examined the data more closely, these researchers found that when the actual power of the supervisors was controlled, the differences between male and female supervisors was significantly reduced. When men and women super­ visors had equivalent status in the organization, similar voice in decision making, and equal amounts of autonomy there was little difference in the perceptions of the subordinates. Empowerment (Kanter, 1977a) in supervisory positions is required. Again, as more women enter super­ visory positions, the perceived differences between women and men will probably be reduced.

Problems in Nontraditional Work People in nontraditional work face a number of problems. When their numbers are small there is likely to be social isolation and even ostracism. Career advancement may be hindered or blocked. For women, work time demands may be so great that marriage and child care suffer. Their performance may have to be well above average in all spheres of life (Superwoman) in order to be perceived as adequate. These same problems are faced by people who are in a weakened minority position regarding their age or race and ethnicity. On the gender dimension, there is the unique problem of sexual harassment. Although there are instances of women harassing men, men harassing men, and women harassing women, the dominant problem observed is that of men harassing women. Such harassment can take the form of expecting or demanding sexual favors in exhange for a promotion, a course grade, making a sale, or retaining a job, or it can take the form of continued unwanted sexual advances, such as being touched or pinched or otherwise made to feel like a sex object (see Fox and Hesse-Biber, 1984, for a complete discussion of harassment). The key to harassment is power, which explains a good part of the direction of harassment activities. Women with the least power are the most likely to be harassed overtly (Gruber and Bjom, 1982). Harass­ ment is found throughout the occupational hierarchy, but tends to take

224

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

more subtle forms at higher levels. As would be expected, women who have been harassed are less satisfied with their work in general (O’Farrell and Harlan, 1982).

CONCLUSIONS This chapter has examined women and work (I did not touch upon unemployment and underemployment, which may well have more serious implications for women than for men). Much of the analysis has been hampered by the absence of recent data that would reflect the changes of the past decade. Even though massive changes have taken place, many aspects of women and work appear unchanged and are perhaps unchangeable. People involved in childhood socialization will probably continue to treat boys and girls differently. Women will retain primary child-rearing responsibilities, even though there may be alternatives available for child care. It will take at least a generation for entrenched attitudes to be changed in any significant manner. Men in powerful positions will use their power to maintain their positions. Despite these inertial tendencies, the fact that there have been major changes suggests that additional changes will follow. We can expect continued movement to reduce sex-role stereotyping and training in educational institutions. We can also expect continued movement toward hiring, promotional, and pay practices that are more equitable. We can probably also expect to see employment practices develop that will facilitate merging work and family obligations. The gender dimension is thus the scene of change, as is the age dimension, to which we now turn.

REFERENCES Alvarez, Rudolfo, Kennneth G. Luttennan and Associates (1979) Discrimination in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Anderson, Karen (1981) Wartime Women: Sex Roles, Family Relations, and the Status of Women During World War II. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Baron, James N. and William T. Bielby (1982) “Workers and machines: dimensions and determinants of technical relations in the workplace.” American Sociological Review 47 (April): 175-188.

The Gender Dimension

225

Beller, Andrea H. (1982) “Occupational segregation by sex: determinants and changes.” Journal of Human Resources 17 (Summer): 371-392. Bibb, Robert and William Form (1977) “The effects of industrial, occupational, and sex stratification on wages in blue-collar markets.” Social Forces SS (June): 974-9%. Bielby, Denise Del Vento and William T. Bielby (1984) “Work commitment, sex role attitudes, and women’s employment.” American Sociological Review 49 (April): 234-247. Blau, Francine D. and Wallace E. Hendricks (1979) “Occupational segregation by sex: trends and prospects.” Journal of Human Resources 14 (Spring): 197-210. Bose, Christine E. (1973) Jobs and Gender: Sex and Occupational Prestige. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Metropolitan Plannning and Research. -------- and Peter H. Rossi (1983) “Gender and jobs: prestige standing of occupations as affected by gender.” American Sociological Review 48 (June): 316-330. Bourne, Patricia G. and Norma J. Wilder (1978) “Commitment and the cultural mandate: women in medicine.” Social Problems 25 (April): 430-440. Bridges, William P. (1980) “Industry marginality and female employment: a new appraisal.” American Sociological Review 45 (February): 58-75. -------- (1982) “The sexual segregation of occupations: theories of labor stratification in industry.” American Journal of Sociology 88 (September): 270-295. Brown, Linda K. (1979) “Women and business management.” Signs 5 (Winter): 267-288. Brown, Randall S., Marilyn Moon, and Barbara S. Zoloth (1980) “Incorporating occupational attainment in studies of male-female earnings differentials.” Journal of Human Resources 15 (Winter): 1-28. Cain, Glen (1966) Married Women in the Labor Force. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Carliner, Geoffrey (1981) “Female labor force participation rates for nine ethnic groups. ” Journal of Human Resources 16 (Spring): 286-293. Chase, Ivan D. (1975) “A comparison of men’s and women’s intergenerational mobility in the United States.” American Sociological Review 40 (August): 483-505. Chenoweth, Lillian C. and Elizabeth Maret (1980) “The career patterns of mature American women.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 7 (May): 222-257. Coleman, James S. (1961) The Adolescent Society. New York: Free Press. Coverman, Shelley (1983) “Gender, domestic labor time, and wage inequality.” American Sociological Review 48 (October): 623-637. Cramer, James C. (1980) “Fertility and female employment: problems of causal direction.” American Sociological Review 45 (April): 167-190. D’Amico, Ronald (1983) “Status maintenance or status competition? Wife’s relative wages as a determinant of labor supply and marital instability.” Social Forces 61 (June): 1186-1205. Defleur, Lois B. (1985) “Organizational and ideological barriers to sex integration in military groups.” Work and Occupations 12 (May): 206-228. DeJong, Peter Y., Milton J. Brawer, and Stanley Robin (1971) “Patterns of female intergenerational mobility: a comparison with male patterns of intergenerational occupational mobility.” American Sociological Review 36 (December): 1033-1042. -------- (1972) “ Reply to Havens and Tully.” American Sociological Review 37 (December): 777-779. -------- (1973) “Patterns of female intergenerational mobility: response to Ramsoy.” American Sociological Review 38 (December): 807-809.

226

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Dubeck, Paula J. (1979) “Sexism in recruiting managerial personnel in a manufacturing firm,” in Rudolf o Alvarez et al. (eds.) Discrimination in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Duncan, E. Paul and Carolyn Perrucci (1976) “Dual occupation families and migration.” American Sociological Review 41 (April): 252-261. England, Paula (1979) “Women and occupational prestige: a case of vacuous sex equality.” Signs 5 (Winter): 252-265. -------- (1982) “The failure of human capital theory to explain occupational sex segregation.” Journal of Human Resources 17 (Summer): 358-370. -------- (1984) “Wage appreciation and depreciation: a test of neoclassical economic explanations of occupational sex segregation.” Social Forces 62 (March): 726-749. -------- and Steven D. McLaughlin (1979) “Sex segregation of jobs and income dif­ ferentials,” in Rudolfo Alvarez et al. (eds.) Discrimination in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Epstein, Cynthia Fuchs (1973) “Positive effects of the multiple negative: explaining the success of black professional women.” American Journal of Sociology 78 (January): 912-935. -------- (1980) “The new women and the old establishment: Wall Street lawyers in the 1970’s.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 7 (August): 291-316. -------- (1981) Women in Law. New York: Basic. Ericksen, Julia A. and Gary Klein (1981) “Women’s employment and changes in family structure.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 8 (February): 5-23. Featherman, David L. and Robert M. Hauser (1976) “Sexual inequality and socio­ economic achievement in the U.S., 1962-1973.” American Sociological Review 41 (June): 462-483. Felmlee, Diane H. (1982) “Women’s job mobility processes within and between employers.” American Sociological Review 47 (February): 142-151. -------- (1984) “The dynamics of women’s job mobility.” Work and Occupations 11 (August): 259-281. Ferber, Marianne A., Jane W. Loeb, and Helen M. Lowry (1978) “The economic status of women faculty: a reappraisal.” Journal of Human Resources 13 (Summer): 385-401. Ferber, Marianne and Walter W. McMahan (1979) “Women’s expected earnings and their investment in higher education.” Journal of Human Resources 14(Summer): 405-419. Ferree, Myra Marx (1980) “Working class feminism: a consideration of the consequences of employment.” Sociological Quarterly 21 (Spring): 173-184. Fligstein, Neil and Wendy Wolf (1978) “Sex similarities in occupational status attainment: are the results due to the restriction of the sample to employed women?” Social Science Research 7 (June): 197-212. Form, William and David Byron McMillen (1983) “Women, men, and machines.” Work and Occupations 10 (May): 147-178. Fox, Mary Frank(1981)“Sexsegregationandsalarystructurein academia. "Sociology of Work and Occupations 8 (February): 39-60. -------- (1985) “Location, sex-typing, and salary among academics.” Work and Occupa­ tions 12 (May): 186-205.

------- and Catherine A. Faver (1981) “Achievement and aspiration: patterns among male and female academic career aspirants.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 8 (November): 439-463. Fox, Mary Frank and Sharlene Hesse-Biber (1984) Women at Work. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.

The Gender Dimension

227

Glenn, Norval D., Adreain A. Ross, and Judy Corder Tully (1974) “Patterns of intergenerational mobility of females through marriage.” American Sociological Review 39 (October) 683-699. Gove, Walter and Michael R. Geerken (1977) “The effect of children and employment on the mental health of married men and women.” Social Forces 56 (September): 66-76. Grandjean, Burke and Helen Hazunda Bemel (1979) “Sex and centralization in a semiprofession.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 6 (February): 84-102. Grandjean, Burke and Patricia A. Taylor (1980) “Job satisfaction among clerical workers: ‘status panic’ or the opportunity structure of office work.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 7 (February): 33-53. Greenberger, Ellen and Laurence D. Steinberg (1983) “Sex differences in early labor force experience: harbinger of things to come.” Social Forces 62 (December): 467-486. Greenwald, Maurine Weiner (1980) Women, War, and Work: The Impact of World War I on Women Workers in the United States. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Gruber, James E. and Lars Bjorn (1982) “Blue-collar blues: the sexual harassment of women auto workers.” Work and Occupations 9 (August): 271-298. Halaby, Charles N. (1979a) “Sexual inequality in the workplace: an employer-specific analysis of pay differences.” Social Science Research 8 (March): 79-104. -------- (1979b) “Job-specific sex differences in organizational reward attainment: wage discrimination versus rank segregation.” Social Forces 58 (September): 108-127. -------- (1982) “Job-shift differences between men and women in the workplace.” Social Science Research 11 (March): 1-29. Hauser, Robert M. and David L. Featherman (1977) The Process of Stratification: Trends and Analyses. New York: Academic. Havens, Elizabeth M. and Judy Corder Tully (1972) “Female intergenerational mobility: comparison of patterns?” American Sociological Review 37 (December): 774-777. Hitt, M. A., W. G. Zikmund, and B. A. Pickens (1982) “Discrimination in industrial employment: an investigation of race and sex bias among professionals.” Work and Occupations 9 (May): 217-231. Hout, Michael (1982) “The association between husbands’ and wives’ occupations in two-career families.” American Journal of Sociology 88 (September): 397-409. Huber, Joan and Glenna Spitze (1981) “Wives’ employment, household behavior, and sex-role attitudes.” Social Forces 60 (September): 150-169. -------- (1983) Sex Stratification: Children, Housework, and Job. New York: Academic. Izraeli, Dafna N. (1979) “Sex structure of occupations: the Israeli experience.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 6 (November): 404-429. Jones, F. L. (1983) “Sources of gender inequality in income: what the Australian census says.” Social Forces 62 (September): 134-152. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss (1977a) Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books. -------- (1977b) “Some effects of proportions on group life: skewed sex ratios and responses to token women.” American Journal of Sociology 82 (January): 965-990. -------- (1979) “Differential access to opportunity and power,” in Rudolfo Alvarez et al. (eds.) Discrimination in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kaufman, Debra and Michael L. Fetters (1983) “The executive suite: are women perceived as ready for the managerial climb?” Journal of Business Ethics 2 (June): 203-212. Kaufman, Debra R. and Barbara L. Richardson (1982) Achievement and Women: Challenging the Assumptions. New York: Free Press. Lembright, Muriel Faltz and Jeffrey W. Reimer (1982) “Women truckers’ problems and the impact of sponsorship.” Work and Occupations 9 (November): 457-474.

228

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Lorence, Jon (forthcoming) “Gender differences in occupational labor market structure.” Work and Occupations. Lyson, Thomas A. (1984) “Sex differences in the choice of a male or female career line: an analysis of background characteristics and work values.” Work and Occupations 11 (May): 131-146. Macke, Ann Statham (1981) “Token men and women: a note on the salience of sex and occupation among professionals and semiprofessionals. ” Sociology of Work and Occupations 8 (February): 25-38. -------- and William R. Morgan (1978) “Maternal employment, race, and work orientation of high school girls.” Social Forces 57 (September): 187-204. Mandelbaum, Dorothy R. (1978) “Women in medicine.” Signs 4 (Autumn): 136-145. Mannheim, Bilha (1983) “Job satisfaction, work role centrality and work place prefer­ ences of male and female industrial workers.” Work and Occupations 10 (November): 413-435. Marini, Margaret M. (1980) “Sex differences in the process of occupational attainment.” Social Science Research 9 (December): 307-361. Markham, William T., Patrick O. Macken, Charles M. Bonjean, and Judy Corder(1983) “A note on sex, geographic mobility, and career advancement.” Social Forces 61 (June): 1138-1146. Mason, Karen Oppenheim, John L. Czajka, and Sara Arber (1976) “Change in U.S. women’s sex-role attitudes, 1964-1974.” American Sociological Review 41 (August): 573-596. Mayer, Sharren S. (1979) “Women in positions of authority: a case study of changing sex roles.” Signs 4 (Spring): 556-568. McAuley, Alastair (1981) Women’s Work and Wages in the Soviet Union. London: George Allen & Unwin. McClendon, McKee J. (1976) “The occupational status attainment process of males and females.” American Sociological Review 41 (February): 52-64. Mcllwee, Judith S. (1982) “Work satisfaction among women in nontraditional occupa­ tions.” Work and Occupations 9 (August): 299-335. McLaughlin, Steven D. (1978) “Occupational sex identification and the assessment of male and female earnings inequality.” American Sociological Review 43 (December): 909-921. Miller, Joanne (1980) “Individual and occupational determinants of job satisfaction: a focus on gender differences.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 7 (August): 337-366. -------- Carmi Schooler, Melvin L. Kohn, and Karen A. Miller (1979) “Women and work: the psychological effects of occupational conditions. ” American Journal of Sociology 85 (July): 66-94. Miller, Jon, Sanford Labovitz, and Lincoln Fry (1975) “Inequities in the organizational experiences of women and men.” Social Forces 54 (December): 365-381. Mortimer, Jeylan, Richard Hall, and Reuben Hill (1978) “Husbands’ occupational attributes as constraints on wives’employment.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 5 (August): 285-313. Nuss, Shirley and Lorraine Majka (1983) “The economic integration of women: a cross­ national investigation.” Work and Occupations 10 (February): 29-48. OTarrell, Brigid and Sharon L. Harlan (1982) “Craftworkers and clerks: the effect of male co-worker hostility on women’s satisfaction with non-traditional jobs.” Social Problems 29 (February): 252-265.

The Gender Dimension

229

Oppenheimer, Valerie K. (1977) “The sociology of women’s economic role in the family.” American Sociological Review 42 (June): 387-406. Parsons, Talcott (1974) “The social structure of the family,” in Ruth Anshen (ed.) The Family: Its Functions and Destiny. New York: Harper A Row. Peil, Margaret (1979) “Urban women in the labor force.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 6 (November): 482-501. Podmore, David and Anne Spencer (1982) “Women lawyers in England: the experience of inequality.” Work and Occupations 9 (August): 337-361. Powell, Brian and Jerry A. Jacobs (1984a) “The prestige gap: differential evaluations of male and female workers.” Work and Occupations 11 (August): 283-308. -------- (1984b) “Gender differences in the evaluation of prestige.” Sociological Quarterly 25 (Spring): 173-190. Quick, Paddy (1977) “The class nature of women’s oppression.” Review of Radical Political Economics 9 (Fall): 42-53. Ragan, James R., Jr., and Sharon Smith (1981) “The impact of differences in turnover rates on male/female pay differentials.” Journal of Human Resources 16 (Summer): 343-365. Ritter, Kathleen V. and Lowell L. Hargens (1975) “Occupational positions and class identification of married working women: a test of the asymmetry hypothesis.” American Journal of Sociology 80 (January): 934-938. Roby, Pamela (1981) Women in the Workplace: Proposals for Research and Policy Concerning the Conditions of Women in Industrial and Service Jobs. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman. Rogoff Rams0y, Natalie (1973) “Patterns of female intergenerational mobility: a comment.” American Sociological Review 38 (December): 806-807. Roos, Patricia A. (1981) “Sex stratification in the workplace: male-female differences in economic returns to occupation.” Social Science Research 10 (September): 195-223. -------- (1983) “Marriage and women’s occupational attainment in cross-cultural perspec­ tive.” American Sociological Review 48 (December): 852-864. Roper Organization (1980) The 1980 Virginia Slims American Women’s Opinion Poll: A Survey of Contemporary Attitudes. Storrs: University of Connecticut, Roper Center. Rosen, Bernard C. and Carol S. Aneshensel (1978) “Sex differences in the educationaloccupational expectation process.” Social Forces 57 (September): 164-186. Rosenfeld, Rachel, (1978a). “Women’s intergenerational occupational mobility.” Amer­ ican Sociological Review 43 (February): 36-46. -------- (1978b) “Women’s employment patterns and occupational achievements.” Social Science Research 7 (March): 61-80. -------- (1979) “Women’s occupational careers: individual and structural explanations.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 6 (August): 283-311. -------- (1980) “Race and sex differences in career dynamics.” American Sociological Review 45 (August): 583-609. -------- (1981) “Academic men and women’s career mobility.” Social Science Research 10 (December): 337-363. Safa, Helen L. (1981) “Runaway and female employment: the search for cheap labor.” Signs 7 (Winter): 418-433. Sandell, Steven H. (1977) “Attitudes toward market work and the effect of wage rates on the lifetime labor supply of married women.” Journal of Human Resources 12 (Summer): 379-385.

230

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

-------- and David Shapiro (1978) uAn exchange: the theory of human capital and the earnings of women: a reexamination of the evidence.” Journal of Human Resources 13 (Winter): 103-117. Schreiber, Carol Tropp (1979) Changing Places: Men and Women in Transitional Occupations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Schwartz, Janet S. (1979) “Women under socialism: role definitions of Soviet women.” Social Forces 58 (September): 67-88. Sewell, William H., Robert M. Hauser, and Wendy C. Wolf (1980) “Sex, schooling, and occupational status.” American Journal of Sociology 86 (November): 551-583. Shaw, Lois B. (1985) “Determinants of the increasing work attachment of married women.” Work and Occupations 12 (February): 41-57. Smith-Lovin, Lynn and Ann R. Tickameyer (1978) “Nonrecursive models of labor force participation, fertility behavior, and sex role attitudes.” American Sociological Review 43 (August): 541-557. Snyder, David, M arkD. Hayward, and Paula M. Hudis (1978) “The location of change in the sex structure of occupations, 19SO-1970: insights from labor market segmentation theory.” American Journal of Sociology 84 (November): 706-717. Sokoloff, Natalie J. (1980) Between Money and Love: the Dialectics of Women’s Home and Market Work. New York: Praeger. South, Scott J., Charles M. Bonjean, Judy Corder, and William T. Markham (1982) “Sex and power in the federal bureaucracy: a comparative analysis of male and female supervisors.” Work and Occupations 9 (May): 233-254. South, Scott J., Charles M. Bonjean, William T. Markham, and Judy Corder (1983) “Female labor force participation and the organizational experiences of male workers.” Sociological Quarterly 24 (Summer): 367-380. Spangler, Eve, Marsha A. Gordon, and Ronald M. Pipkin (1978) “Token women: an empirical test of Kanter’s hypothesis.” American Journal of Sociology 84 (July): 160-170. Spitze, Glenna and Joan Huber (1980) “Changing attitudes toward women’s nonfamily roles.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 7 (August): 317-335. Spitze, Glenna and Joe L. Spaeth (1979) “Employment among married female college graduates.” Social Science Research 8 (June): 184-199. Spitze, Glenna and Linda J. Waite (1980) “Labor force and work attitudes, young women’s early experiences.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 7 (February): 3-32. Steinberg, Ronnie J. (1984) “From laissez-faire to a fair wage for women’s work: a technical fix to the labor contract.” Contemporary Sociology 13 (January): 15-16. Stevens, Gillian and Marchia Boyd (1980) “The importance of mother: labor force participation and intergenerational mobility of women.” Social Forces 59 (September): 186-199. Stolzenberg, Ross M. and Ronald J. D’Amico (1977) “City differences and nondifferences in the effect of race and sex on occupational distribution.” American Sociological Review 42 (December): 937-950. Szafran, Robert (1984) “Female and minority employment patterns in banks: a research note.” Work and Occupations 11 (February): 55-76. Treiman, Donald J. and Heidi I. Hartman [eds.]( 1981) Women, Work, and Wages: Equal Pay for Jobs of Equal Value. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

The Gender Dimension

231

Treiman, Donald J. and Patricia A. Roos (1983) “Sex and earnings in industrial society: a nine-nation comparison." American Journal of Sociology 89 (November): 612-6S0. Treiman, Donald J. and Kermit Terrell (1975) “Sex and the process of status attainment: a comparison of working women and men.” American Sociological Review 40 (April): 174-200. Tyree, Andrea and Judith Treas (1974) “The occupational and marital mobility of women.” American Sociological Review 39 (June): 293-302. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1979) Women in the Labor Force: Some New D ata Series. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. -------- (1980) Perspectives on Working Women: A Databook (Bulletin 2080). Washing­ ton, DC: Government Printing Office. Waite, Linda J. (1976) “Working wives: 1940-1960.” American Sociological Review 41 (February): 65-80. -------- and Ross M. Stolzenberg (1976) “Intended childbearing and labor force participa­ tion of young women: insights from nonrecursive models.” American Sociological Review 41 (April): 235-252. Ward, Kathryn B. and Charles M. Mueller (1985) “Sex differences in earnings: the influence of industrial sector, authority hierarchy, and human capital variables.” Work and Occupations 12 (November). White, Lynn K. and David B. Brinkerhoff (1981) “The sexual division of labor: evidence from childhood.” Social Forces 60 (September): 170-181. Wolf, Wendy G. and Neil Fligstein (1979a) “Sex and authority in the workplace: causes of social inequality.” American Sociological Review 44 (April): 235-252. ----- —(1979b) “Sexual stratification: differences in power in the work setting.” Social Forces 58 (September): 94-107.

THE A GE DIMENSION The relationship between age and work appears obvious—young people do not work because they are in school, and older people do not work because they are retired. Fortunately and unfortunately, the matter is not that simple. Although young people may not be working, what they are doing has a crucial impact on their future work lives. People who are retired are vitally affected by the kind of work they did in terms of their economic situations after retiring, their outlook on life, and their social relationships. In addition, many older people continue to work. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the factor of age as it intersects with the other dimensions that are being considered and in terms of the unique contributions of age itself to the understanding of work. The analysis has already dealt with age implicitly. In Chapter 3, for example, socialization for work was considered. Skills and values are transmitted to youths, with the process continuing through their lifetimes. In Western societies, this activity is formalized in schooling, which is the dominant activity of most youths. For the young, much of life constitutes socialization for work. Age was also a consideration in Chapter 5 when intergenerational social mobility was considered— daughters and sons are (obviously) younger than their parents. In the chapter on gender, it was observed that age becomes important when one realizes that it is only women over a certain age whose work activities may be affected by childbearing.

PERSPECTIVES ON THE AGE DIMENSION Ward (1984) has identified several perspectives on aging, two of which are useful here. The first perspective is that of age stratification (Riley, 1971; Riley et al., 1972), which focuses on the way age is a dominant criterion by which people are placed in the social structure. Age stratification can be seen in work such as that of the professional athlete. It can also be seen in terms of age qualifications for political 233

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

234

office. Mandatory retirement practices constitute another form of age stratification. Age stratification can also be related to age discrimination. In this case age is used as the major criterion for personnel actions rather than other qualifications. Examples here would include situations in which people over or under a certain age are precluded from being considered for a job regardless of other qualifications. I recently had a conversation with a business executive who is just over 50 years old. He headed one of the international divisions of a major office-equipment company. This particular company had just adopted a policy of not promoting anyone into the top level of corporate management who was not in his or her 40s, thus precluding the further advancement of the person with whom I had the conversation. In this case, the policy was informal, because a formal, published policy such as this would probably be illegal. Age stratification appears to be related to the horizontal dimension. Both younger and older workers are more likely to be found in periph­ eral sectors. Casual observation suggests that sectors that contain industries such as microcomputers would be heavily staffed by younger adult workers at all levels. Sectors that contain less rapidly changing organizations and technologies, such as insurance or banking, appear more likely to be staffed by older personnel. The other major perspective is that of the life course (Hareven, 1978; Elder, 1981). Biological, psychological, and social aspects of aging are recognized in the course of a person’s lifetime. As Ward (1984: 133) points out, work itself is a dominant event in the life course. The life course approach can include various phases or stages in work histories. For the sake of simplicity here, we will deal with young workers, adult workers, and older workers.

YOUNG WORKERS Although there are official definitions of young workers to which we will turn shortly, it is evident that a lot of work is performed by young people who are not yet part of the official labor force. Household chores, babysitting, lawn mowing, paper routes, farm work, and elite athletic competition are widespread (except the last form) work activi­ ties performed by many youths. Others engage in various forms of hustling work, including drugs, prostitution, and thievery of various sorts. None of these forms of work is counted in official counts or measures of the labor force.

The Age Dimension

235

TABLE 7.1

Unemployment Rates by Age and Race, 1984 Percentage Unemployed White men, total 16 to 19 years 20 to 24 years White women, total 16 to 19 years 20 to 24 years Black men, total 16 to 19 years 20 to 24 years Black women, total 16 to 19 years 20 to 24 years

6.7 16.4 10.5 6.3 15.4 8.7 17.7 41.4 295 15.0 44.6 26.9

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor (1984: 15-16, Table A-4).

As was noted in Chapter 1, in the United States the labor force is defined in terms of people 16 years of age or older who are in paid full- or part-time work and also includes people who are absent due to illness, vacations, or strikes; unemployed persons looking for work; and people waiting to be called back to a job or waiting to start a new job within thirty days. The 16-year-old bottom limit is necessarily arbitrary. As Ginzberg (1981) points out, more youths are in school until age 18 than are in the labor force and many youths younger than age 16 have part-time jobs while in school and have full-time jobs in summers. A U.S. National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statis­ tics decided in 1979 that there were enough young people over age 16 in the labor force to justify that this was the age at which their experience should be monitored. Ginzberg (1981:13) notes that for the purposes of labor market analyses, youth is defined as “young people between the ages of 16 and 24, but with special focus on those between 16 and 19 years of age.” The dominant characteristic of young workers is their high rate of unemployment. Table 7.1 indicates the high unemployment rates of young workers in the labor force in April 1984. These data reveal strikingly higher levels of unemployment for the youngest segment of the labor force, and even more striking white-black differentials. The reasons for these patterns are well known—low educational levels, low skill levels, and by definition, low experience levels. As human capital in

236

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

these areas is acquired, the unemployment rate goes down as cohorts age. The kinds of work that young people do is quite differentiated. As noted in the previous chapter, Greenberger and Steinberg (1983) found clear differences between the jobs that male and female tenth and eleventh graders had, with girls working fewer hours and typically at lower wages than boys. In a related study, Greenberger et al. (1982) found that adolescent work was not unidimensional. They found people working in food service (such as fast-food outlets), retail sales and cashier work, clerical positions, manual labor, semiskilled and skilled labor, and cleaning work. These jobs vary widely in opportunities for initiative and autonomy and in rates of interaction with other people. Little difference was found in the opportunities available for learning, and the jobs the youths had provided few such opportunities. The developmental significance of such work thus varies.

THE TRANSITION TO AD U LT WORK The transition from young worker to adult worker takes place when people leave school and attempt to enter the full-time labor force. Clearly, this can cover a wide age range, because some people enter the labor force directly from high school and others delay their entrance until after college, or graduate or professional school, or service in the military. Mare et al. (1984) have demonstrated that schooling and the military compete with employment for young workers’ time. When young workers leave school or the military they also are not absorbed immediately into the labor force, as the transition is disruptive. Miller and Form (1964) have provided a useful conceptualization of how this transition process forms part of a person’s overall career. The preparatory stage occurs in the family and school in which work rele­ vant behaviors and attitudes are developed. The initial phase occurs as the individual engages in part- or full-time work while in school. The jobs are viewed by both the employee and employer as temporary. The next phase is the trial phase, in which the person is out of school. During this phase individuals may change jobs several times as their career orientations and expectations are shaped. The final phases are stable work and then retirement. The trial phase is the transition stage and can vary widely in terms of its duration and the degree of flux experienced.

The Age Dimension

237

Ginzberg (1981: 72) has pointed out that this trial phase can take several patterns: The Straight Pattern. Those who make the transition with little or no difficulty because they have the qualifications that employers seek and have family support to draw on. The Interrupted Pattern. Those who are unable or unwilling to move directly from school to work because they have not acquired the necessary credentials, because they are undergoing emotional turmoil, or because they are confused about their aims and goals. They need time to sort out their feelings, conflicts, and goals. The Disturbed Pattern. Those who, because of poor preparation, aliena­ tion, minority status, or police records, are not acceptable to most employers and who find getting and holding a job unrewarding and frustrating. As an alternative this group often drifts into illicit activities.

This transition phase is a major turning point in the life of the individual, because it typically contains several important life events, such as the end of schooling, a first real job, and marriage. Several writers (Elder, 1974, 1978; Neugarten et al., 1965) have noted that there are “normal” or “appropriate” times when events such as these take place. There is also a normative ordering of such events, with schooling to be completed prior to marriage. Hogan (1980) has examined this normatively prescribed ordering and the impact of deviations from this for later careers. His findings, for white males, indicate that nonnormative ordering, such as early or late marriage or marriage prior to the completion of schooling, was associated with lower earnings at later career stages in terms of return to education. Occupational attainment was not affected. Hogan notes that as more and more men attend college, graduate, and professional schools, there will be increasing instances of nonnormative ordering, since there is also pressure to marry prior to the completion of schooling. Those who marry prior to comple­ tion of schooling earn less. Hogan (1980: 275) concludes: Thus, the scheduling of events (timing, spacing, and sequencing) by which American males make the transition from adolescence to adulthood has lasting consequences for career attainment in the later life course.

This notion of orderliness of the transition is also applicable to women, for whom the life event of having children is very important. If a woman has children at a young age, this is detrimental to her transition to adult work both because it is viewed as nonnormativb and because of

238

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

the absence of child care facilities. For both men and women work as an adult is the norm.

AD U LT WORKERS Young workers face discrimination and other work problems because of their age. The transition to adult work, however, does not mean that the age dimension becomes meaningless. Adult workers are differentially located in the labor force by age. Kaufman and Spilerman (1982: 833) have identified five types of occupational-age distributions: (1) Occupations in which young workers are overrepresented. These should include entry-level positions in job sequences and occupations organized around emergent technologies. (2) Occupations in which middle-aged workers are concentrated. We expect senior positions in job sequences (supervisors, foremen, managers) to fall into this category. (3) Occupations in which the elderly are overrepresented. These should be primarily the sorts ofjobs which permit a worker flexibility in setting his rate of work and scheduling hours of employment. We also expected contracting occupations to be in this category. (4) Occupations with a uniform age distribution. We expect to find the free professions and craft occupations here, since affiliation with these posi­ tions tends to be of a long duration, spanning much of an individual’s work life. (5) Occupations with a U-shaped age distribution. This category should contain jobs of low desirability, having poor advancement prospects.

Kaufman and Spilerman go on to present data (1970 U.S. Census for males over 17 years of age) that by and large confirm their expected patterns. Occupations in which younger workers are overrepresented include a cluster that involves heavy physical labor, such as electrical line workers, stock handlers, and warehouse workers. Another cluster contains entry-level occupations, such as assemblers, bank tellers, and draftsmen. These occupations lead to later advancement. Police officers were also found in the younger set of occupations, as were computer service workers and programmers. The computer workers represent the importance of the effects of the industry in which an occupation is located. Occupations in which middle-aged people were found in dispropor­ tionate numbers were dominated by work involving supervisory and

The Age Dimension

239

middle-level tasks—school administrators, sales managers, vocational counselors. These occupations are reached by promotion. Airline pilots were also a middle-aged occupational group, because long training is required and health and retirement policies restrict the number of older workers. The occupations of middle-aged people were characterized by their position in promotional sequences and entry credential and retirement requirements. Occupations with concentrations of older workers included those involving self-employment, such as barbers, tailors, and taxi drivers. Occupations that permit flexible time schedules also characterized this category, such as real estate sales people, cleaners, and guards and watchmen. There was also an industry effect here, with railroad and apparel workers found in this category. These industries have suffered declining employment and seniority rules protect older workers. The expected flat age-distributions were found among people in craft occupations, such as carpenters, electricians, and typesetters. Those working in free professions, such as dentists, doctors, and lawyers, also had flat age-distributions, with some slight overrepresentation of older workers because of the physical ease with which the work can be done and because of self-employment; an underrepresentation of younger workers can also be found because of the training requirements. The U-shaped distribution was also substantiated, and people with occupations such as food service workers and elevator operators were found here in addition to gardeners and counter clerks. In these occupa­ tions pay is low and there are really no promotional prospects. Kaufman and Spilerman also found important industry effects in the occupation-age distribution. Contracting industries reduce their per­ sonnel through layoffs in reverse order of seniority (for a discussion of seniority, see Gersuny, 1984). People who leave voluntarily are not replaced, which reinforces the aging distribution. In contrast, expand­ ing industries hire young new workers. If the expanding industry is heavily technologically oriented, they are likely to hire young and recently trained workers (see also Simpson et al., 1982). Kaufman and Spilerman note that the kinds of findings they present have important policy implications now. If mandatory retirement prac­ tices were reduced or eliminated, this would reduce the flow of workers into the old age and U-shaped age profile categories. The major impact of altered retirement policy would be on the middle-aged category, because the people in that category—at middle to upper levels in organizations—would probably tend to stay in their occupations, thus altering the compositions of the category, and also creating a situation

240

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

in which there would be fewer opportunities for advancement from below, because there would be fewer openings in the higher positions. There are additional considerations in the labor force experience of adult workers. Tolbert (1982) found that the barrier between the core and peripheral sectors becomes increasingly impermeable as people age. In a study of the impact of union membership on labor mobility, D’Amico (1984) found that although the type of union—industrial versus craft—made a difference in interfirm job shifts for younger workers, this effect was attenuated for older workers who were disin­ clined to make any job shifts. The age factor is important in another regard. Rosenbaum (1979) studied promotion rates over a three-year period in a large U.S. corpo­ ration. He found that promotion rates declined dramatically with age. Figure 7.1 illustates this pattern. Nonmanagement personnel have low promotion rates to begin with, but the promotion rates for foremen and lower management, though originally high, decline rapidly. Figure 7.2 uses the same data base, but controls for educational level. Having a BA (or BS) degree increases the promotion rate and extends the age at which promotion is likely to occur, but the pattern of decline is still present. Rosenbaum also found industry effects in his study, in that industry and corporate rates of growth and decline affected promotion rates. An exception here were men who had a BA degree and were in the 30 to 34 age category. This “favored” group had a systematically high promotion rate. Although promotion rates decrease with age, there is good evidence that job satisfaction increases with age (Wright and Hamilton, 1978; Kalleberg and Loscocco, 1983). Wright and Hamilton’s research exam­ ined three possible explanations for the consistent finding that older workers are more satisfied with their work than younger workers. One such explanation is that the “now generation” has a postmaterial set of values and it seeks different attributes in its work. A second possible explanation is that older peoples’ values have eroded and that they will simply settle for less. The final possible explanation is that older workers simply have better jobs. Wright and Hamilton’s data support the last explanation. Career patterns and job changes bring people into better jobs. Kalleberg and Loscocco’s research supplements this interpretation. They find that when work is highly salient for men, age is positively related to job satisfaction in terms of intrinsic and financial rewards. The more salient the work, the higher the levels of satisfaction reported. The logical extension of this would be that if work becomes less salient,

241

The Age Dimension

P rom otion Rat* I Percent I

24

29

34

39

44

49

54

59

64

Age

SOURCE:

Jam es

E.

R o se n b a u m ,

“ O rg an iza tio n a l

Career

M o b ility :

P ro m o tio n

Chances In a Corporation During Periods of G ro w th and C o n tractio n .” Am erican Journal of Sociology, V o l. 85, N o . X, p. 32. Published by T h e University of Chicago Press. © 1979 b y T h e University o f Chicago. Reprinted b y permission. N O T E : Percentages based on fewer than six cases are not portrayed.

Figure 7.1 Promotion Rate, 1962-1965, by Age for Each Level

then job satisfaction would decline, which is what Kalleberg and Loscocco found. They suggest that during the midlife transition (the midlife crisis for some writers) work may become less salient for men and that satisfaction would correspondingly decrease.

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

242

24

29

34

39

44

49

54

59

64

Age

S O U R C E : James E. Rosenbaum, “ Organizational Career M o b ility : Prom otion Chances In a Corporation During Periods of G ro w th and C o n tra c tio n ." Am erican Journal of S ociology, V o l. 85, N o . 1, p. 34. Published by T h e University of Chicago Press. © 1979 by T h e University of Chicago. Reprinted by permission. N O T E : Percentages based on fewer than six cases are not portrayed.

Figure 7.2 Promotion Rate, 1962-1965, by Aga and Education for Each Laval

The Age Dimension

243

The studies we have been examining have focused on the age dimen­ sion and male workers. There is a paucity of such research on female workers (Markson, 1985) on the age dimension. The research that is available suggests that age may well operate in a different manner for women than for men. Felmlee (1984) found that women’s job mobility increased with age. She interprets this to be based on the concentration of women in female-dominated occupations. Felmlee suggests that employers may view age as a proxy for employee stability. It is well recognized that the age dimension affects women as they are in the childbearing years and that this can be a time of severe role overload. For many women past the peak childbearing years (late 30s and early 40s) there is the process of reentry into the labor force. Hood (1983) and Shaw (1983) have documented problems faced by women during the reentry process. The problems include unused or outmoded skills, self-concepts of being housewives and mothers and not workers, and relationships with husbands and children who may or may not support the reentry into the labor force. Shaw (1985) has found that the attachment to paid work of married women in their late 30s increased from 1966 to 1976. This suggests that reentry will become more and more common, although as Shaw notes, economic conditions could prevent such reentry. Kalleberg and Loscocco’s (1983) research on age and job satisfaction also included women, which is a rarity. They found that satisfaction tended to increase in midlife. They suggest that the less satisfied older and younger women in their study might be less satisfied because they were forced to work and could not afford to “select themselves out” of the labor force. Another explanation that they offer is that middle-aged women may have chosen to reenter the labor force and thus work is salient and satisfying.

OLDER WORKERS The transition from adult worker to older worker has one character­ istic in common with the transition from young worker to adult worker—it can take place over a wide span of years. Otherwise, how­ ever, the situation of older workers is very different. The differences are based on societal views of older people in general, specific corporate and governmental policies regarding mandatory retirement, and corporate and governmental policies regarding support for retired persons. In this

244

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

section older workers will be examined and the transition to retirement will be considered. The chapter will not deal extensively with retired people. Technically they are out of the labor force and thus not within the scope of this volume. More practically, the amount of literature on the elderly in general is so vast that it is beyond the scope of this analysis. Our focus here is on older people in terms of how the age dimension impinges on their work. By necessity this is intertwined with retirement issues, as it also is with death and bereavement. Parker (1982: 20-28) has provided a useful overview of data on and issues surrounding older workers and his work will be paraphrased here. He first notes that more people are living to a healthy old age, whether in retirement or not, than in the past. These people have a healthier standard of living due to public and private pension programs. The average age of retirement has come down and more retirement is volun­ tary. Until World War II, people retired only if they were forced to by ill health or if they had substantial private wealth. According to Parker, there is a noticeable trend among older people toward a more youthful outlook on life and more youthful behavior. These positive developments are countered by a series of more nega­ tive factors, according to Parker. Demographic pressures from the increasing number of older workers lead to pressures to raise the age of retirement or eliminate or modify mandatory retirement policies. At the same time, economic pressures are in the reverse direction, as employers and unions seek to bring younger workers into the labor force (see Pampel and Weiss, 1983, for a discussion of this phenomenon). There are conflicts of interest between younger and older workers, with the former resenting paying taxes for the older workers’ social security benefits. Older people are relegated to nonfunctional roles, and manda­ tory retirement as such is not desired by many people and can have severely negative effects. There is also prejudice and discrimination against older workers, even though there is research evidence that older workers can be very useful contributors. Parker notes (1982:24): “What we are up against is one aspect of ageism: the systematic stereotyping of, and discrimination against, people simply because they are old, just as racism and sexism accomplish this with skin colour and gender.” Our society devalues the past and age has low status, a situation not found in societies such as China and Japan. Parker also notes that retirement has no significant social definition. Inasmuch as working is valued, not working is not. In addition, retirement is also viewed in terms of declin­ ing physical and mental prowess and impending death—all highly nega­ tive conditions.

The Age Dimension

245

Parker’s conclusions about the status of older workers, though pes­ simistic, appear to be accurate, particularly in terms of those who have moved into retirement. Further evidence about older workers is avail­ able from the work of Pames (1981). Parnes has been spearheading the National Longitudinal Surveys (NLS), which have been examining several samples of men and women of different ages over time. Many of the empirical studies of women workers discussed in the last chapter have been based on NLS data. For the purposes of this analysis the focus will be on the panel of men (a representative national sample in the United States) who were 45 to 59 years old in 1966 as they were studied over a ten-year period to 1976. As Pames (1981:1) notes, “Most people would agree that people in their late forties or early fifties are middleaged while those in their late sixties are old.” The Parnes data are thus a unique source of information regarding older workers. These data also present a different picture than that portrayed by Parker, primarily because most of the men in the NLS were still employed. Parnes concludes: Major changes occurred in the lives of the respondents between 1966 and 1976. However one defines middle age, it is clear that a substantial fraction of the group moved out of that category during the ten-year period. Reflecting this aging process, the number of their dependents decreased, but health problems became more significant. From a labor market perspective the most dramatic manifestation was retirement. The proportion of the age group out of the labor force rose from the negligible level of about S percent in 1966, to almost two-fifths in 1976, and this fraction was as large as two-thirds among the men who were 65 to 69 in that year. Among the majority of men who remained at work more or less continu­ ously over the decade, labor market experience appeared favorable by most criteria. Real hourly earnings of wage and salary workers were higher, on average, in 1976 than in 1966 for the entire age group. Only for those who were 65 to 69 in 1976 did this generalization not hold, reflecting the movement of many in this oldest category into lower-paying post­ retirement jobs. Even annual earnings in real terms were slightly higher at the end than at the beginning of the decade for white men (but not for black) who had not reached age 65, although for the oldest five-year age category they were only a fraction as high, again reflecting the prevalence of part-time postretirement jobs among this group. In noneconomic terms, also, employment seemed to continue to reward those who remained at work. The proportion of those who reported that they were very satisfied with their jobs remained at the same high levels that have been recorded as of 1966—in the neighborhood of three-fifths. A substantial minority of the employed men acknowledged that job

246

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

pressures and feelings of fatigue had increased over the preceding five years, but the proportions were not much different from those that had been recorded five years earlier. Almost half of the white men and about one-third of the blacks felt in 1976 that they had progressed in their jobs during the previous five years, and these proportions were only moder­ ately lower than those reported by the same men five years earlier. Of course, in interpreting these data for the men who remained employed, one must remember that disproportionate numbers with less satisfactory experience had left the labor force [Reprinted, with permission, from Pames, Herbert S., ed., Work and Retirement: A Longitudinal Study o f Men, pp. 32-34. Cambridge: MIT Press. © 1981 MIT Press],

The picture, then, is one in which older workers with good jobs who continue working are economically rewarded, experience feelings of success, and are quite satisfied with their work. Older workers are thus little different from younger workers in these matters. The key factor for older workers is thus retirement—mandatory, voluntary, or forced because of health problems. Hardy (1982) and Ward (1984) note that there are both a “push” and a “pull” toward retirement. The push comes from mandatory retirement requirements and health problems, and the pull comes from pension plans that make retirement affordable and attractive. Hardy’s research also indicates that there is a pull toward retirement among men when their spouses are also eligible for retirement. Another form of pull would be in jobs that are experienced as boring and alienating. There is a pull against retirement, of course, for people for whom work is a central life interest. Quadagno (1978), for example, found that both male and female physicians have difficulty planning for retirement, because being active and being dedicated to their profession is highly valued. As was noted in the earlier discussion of age and occupational distributions, the “free” professions and the self-employed have age distributions that include more older workers. Parker (1982) notes that a sizable minority of officially retired workers continue to work, usually on a part-time basis. The distribution of these older workers is much like that of younger workers, with the exception that older workers do less heavy manual labor. There is also a strong tendency for those who like their work prior to retirement to be those who seek and obtain postretirement work. For example, retired executives frequently work as part-time consultants to their former employers or other companies. Other retirees write memoirs. Inasmuch as those who like their work tend to have higher-status occupations, the relationship between the vertical dimension of work and the age dimen­

The Age Dimension

247

sion continues past retirement. Indeed, Henretta and Campbell (1976) found that the determinants of income after retirement were the same as those prior to retirement—education, occupation, and marital status. The nature of people’s work pervades into the retirement years.

CONCLUSION The relationship between age and work is direct in that there are normal ages at which people work and do not work. The issue becomes more complex when we consider the consequences of the kinds of work that young people do, the variations in the distributions of adult workers among various occupations and labor force sectors, and the ways in which people of different ages react to their work. In the previous section of the chapter older workers were considered. Older workers, like women, are subject to discrimination and prejudice. The same is true, in a different manner, for younger workers. In the next chapter, the analysis turns to the racial and ethnic dimension in which these same issues must be considered.

REFERENCES D’Amico, Ronald (1984) “Industrial feudalism reconsidered: the effects of unionization on labor mobility.” Work and Occupations 11 (November): 407-437. Elder, Glen H. Jr. (1974) “Age differentiation and the life course,” in Alex Inkeles (ed.) Annual Review of Sociology 1975, Vol. 1. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. -------- (1978) “Approaches to social change and the family.” American Journal of Sociol­ ogy 84: S1-S38. -------- (1981) “History and the life course,” in Daniel Bertaux (ed.) Biography and Society: The Life History Approach to the Social Sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Felmlee, Diane H. (1984) “The dynamics of women’s job mobility.” Work and Occupa­ tions 11 (August): 259-281. Gersuny, Carl (1984) “From contract to status: perspectives on employment seniority.” Sociological Inquiry 54 (Winter): 44-61. Ginzberg, Eli (1981) The School/ Work Nexus: Transition of Youth from School to Work. New York: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Greenberger, Ellen and Laurence D. Steinberg (1983) “Sex differences in early labor force experience: harbinger of things to come.” Social Forces 62 (December): 467-486. -------- and Mary Ruggiero (1982) “A job is a job is a job . . . or is it?” Work and Occupations 9 (February): 79-96.

248

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Hardy, Melissa A. (1982) “Social policy and determinants of retirement: a longitudinal analysis of older white males, 1969-1975.” Social Forces 60 (June): 1103-1122. Hareven, Tamara (1978) “Introduction: the historical study of the life course, ” in Tamara Hareven (ed.) Transitions: The Family and the Life Course in Historical Perspective. New York: Academic. Henretta, John C. and Richard T. Campbell (1976) “Status attainment and status mainte­ nance: a study of stratification in old age.” American Sociological Review 41 (December): 981-992. Hogan, Dennis P. (1980) “The transition to adulthood as a career contingency.” American Sociological Review 45 (April): 261-276. Hood, Jane C. (1983) Becoming a Two-Job Family. New York: Praeger. Kalleberg, Arne L. and Karyn A. Loscocco (1983) “Aging, values, and rewards: explaining age differences in job satisfaction.” American Sociological Review 48 (February): 78-90. Kaufman, Robert L. and Seymour Spilerman (1982) “The age structure of occupations and jobs.” American Journal of Sociology 87 (January): 827-851. Mare, Robert D., Christopher Winship, and Warren N. Kubitschek (1984) “The transition from youth to adult: understanding the age pattern of employment.” American Jour­ nal of Sociology 90 (September): 326-358. Markson, Elizabeth W. (forthcoming) “Review of The Aging Worker: Research and Recommendations, by Mildred Doering, Susan R. Rhodes, and Michael Schuster.” Work and Occupations. Miller, Delbert C. and William Form (1964) Industrial Sociology. New York: Harper & Row. Neugarten, B. L., J. W. Moore, and J. C. Lowe (1965) “Age norms, age constraints, and adult socialization.” American Journal of Sociology 70 (May): 710-717. Pampel, Fred C. and Jane A. Weiss (1983) “Economic development, pension policies, and the labor force participation of aged males: a cross-national, longitudinal approach.” American Journal of Sociology 89 (September): 350-372. Parker, Stanley (1982) Work and Retirement. London: George Allen and Unwin. Parnes, Herbert S. [ed.] (1981) Work and Retirement: A Longitudinal Study of Men. Cambridge: MIT Press. Quadagno, Jill S. (1978) “Career continuity and retirement plans of men and women physicians: the meaning of disorderly careers.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 5 (February): 55-74. Riley, Matilda (1971) “Social gerontology and the age stratification of society.” The Gerontologist 11 (February): 79-87. -------- Marilyn Johnson, and Anne Foner (eds.) (1972) Aging and Society: Volume 3: A Sociology of Age Stratification. New York: Russell Sage. Rosenbaum, James E. (1979) “Organizational career mobility: promotion chances in a corporation during periods of growth and contraction.” American Journal of Sociol­ ogy 85 (July): 21-48. Shaw, Lois B. (ed.) (1983) Unplanned Careers: The Working Lives of Middle-Aged Women. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. -------- (1985) “Determinants of the increasing work attachment of married women.” Work and Occupations 12 (February): 41-57. Simpson, Ida Harper, Richard L. Simpson, Mark Evers, and Sharon Sandormirsky Poss (1982) “Occupational recruitment, retention, and labor force cohort representation.” American Journal of Sociology 87 (May): 1287-1313.

The Age Dimension

249

Tolbert, Charles M., II (1982) “Industrial segmentation and men’s career mobility.” American Sociological Review 47 (August): 457-477. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1984) Employment and Earnings 31 (May). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Ward, Russell A. (1984) The Aging Experience: An Introduction to Social Gerontology. New York: Harper & Row. Wright, James D. and Richard F. Hamilton (1978) “Work satisfaction and age: some evidence for the ‘job change’ hypothesis.” Social Forces 56 (June): 1140-1158.

THE RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIMENSION The Irish cop, the black slave, and the English butler—these stereotypes are symbolic of the linkages between work and race and ethnicity. Although such stereotypes can be cruel and inaccurate, they inadver­ tently represent the racial and ethnic dimension of work in that members of various racial and ethnic groups are over- and underrepresented across the spectrum of work. Race and ethnicity will be treated here in terms of their social defini­ tions. By this I mean that if a set of people are defined (by others and/or by themselves) in terms of their racial or ethnic origins, they constitute an identified racial or ethnic group. This sort of distinction is obviously slippery, because ethnicity can involve religious affiliation as well as national origins and race can be used in broad categories—white versus nonwhite—as well as in more rigorous categories. Race and ethnicity intersect with the dimensions of work that have already been considered. When structural unemployment was consid­ ered, for example, young blacks were found to be the most disadvan­ taged group. In the previous chapter on gender, several comparisons were made between black and white women. The peripheral sectors of the horizontal dimension are where Hispanic legal and illegal migrants are employed. The intersection between the vertical dimension and race and ethnicity is evident to the most casual observer. The purpose of this chapter is to examine these intersections more closely. The bulk of the research on race and ethnicity, as is true regarding almost all phases of work, has been viewed in terms of the vertical dimension and this will be reflected here. Also to be reflected here is the fact that the bulk of the literature focuses on blacks, with less attention paid to other racial and ethnic groups. In the discussion that follows, materials on as wide an array of different groups as possible will be considered. One dominant theme is evident in the research on race and ethnicity and work. That theme is change. For example, in the American South, there has been a dramatic shift of blacks out of agricultural work (Wadley and Lee, 1974; Coleman and Hall, 1979). Though this is 251

252

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

partially linked to migration to the North, it is strongly linked to changing employment patterns in the South itself. There is now a much wider distribution of blacks in all sectors of the labor force in the South (Tsonc, 1974), to the extent that some observers are viewing the South as the place of greatest opportunity for blacks (Rhee, 1974). Part of the shift to the South is based on new forms of industry moving southward. Thomas (1980), for example, has shown that the extension of the tourist industry to Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, altered the work of the Gullah blacks who inhabited the island and who had led independent agriculturally based lives. As the resort industry grew, more and more of the native blacks took low-skill jobs (chambermaids and caddies) at the resort. Despite the low wages, Thomas reports that the resort work is seen as a positive alternative to work in the fields. The agricultural aspect of work remains important, especially for new migrants. Foner and Napolic (1978) found that Jamaican migrant farm workers perceived their work as a possible source of mobility for themselves and their children. Black migrant farm workers did not have such a perception of the same work. In his analysis of undocumented Mexican migration to South Texas, Jones (1984) found that the typical migrant first works on a farm or ranch and then moves into an urban area. Agricultural work is thus the point of entry for new workers. Historically, agricultural work has played a more differentiated role. Slavery was agricultural work. So too was the work found by northern and western European immigrants who came to the United States in the early 1800s. Scandinavian and German immigrants moved to the rich farmlands of the Midwest and settled these rural areas. Later migrants from southern, central, and eastern Europe more typically moved to the cities, where industrial jobs were located. Lieberson (1980), in a study of these later migrants (since 1880) and of black migrants to urban areas, found that neither blacks nor later European migrants had especially desirable jobs. A major difference that was found was that the European migrants had jobs in the manufacturing sector, but blacks were concen­ trated in service jobs. We will deal with this study and these differences in more detail later in this chapter. The theme of change is evident in other recent research. In an exami­ nation of age and income discrimination against Mexican Americans and blacks in Texas between 1960 and 1970, Mindiola(1979) found that younger age groups experienced less discrimination than older age groups. The patterns of discrimination were such that although blacks experienced more discrimination than Mexican Americans, the rate of discrimination against blacks was declining, but that against Mexican Americans was increasing.

The Racial and Ethnic Dimension

253

In much of the analysis that follows the same problem with data that was evident in the chapter on gender will be encountered. Many of the studies to be cited necessarily rely on information from the 1960s and early 1970s. Though the data are reliable, they do not reflect changes that have occurred as civil rights legislation and practice have become imbedded in the system (Hanushek, 1982). For example, Mare and Winship (1984), in an analysis of the work experiences of black youths between 1964 and 1981, found that unemployment had worsened over this time period. However, there was a paradoxical improvement in other socioeconomic indicators. Mare and Winship suggest that this paradox is linked to the increased substitution of schooling and military service for employment by young blacks. This in turn is related to reduced work experience and disrupted employment as people leave school and military service at older ages. In addition, there is a “cream­ ing” effect in which young blacks with above-average employment prospects, based on either schooling or military experience, are hired into good jobs. This pattern would appear to contribute to growing socioeconomic or class differences among blacks as those youths with little schooling become unemployable and those with schooling or other experience become desirable to employers. As will be seen, there is some debate as to the relevance of military experience, but based on Mare and Winship’s analysis such experience in combination with schooling appears to make a difference for black youths. Regardless of historical era, the racial and ethnic dimension appears to be a factor that operates independently of the other dimensions that have been considered. For example, though we have seen that the vertical dimension is of critical importance in most aspects of work, race can have an even stronger influence. For example, DiPrete (1981) found that although the primary difference in unemployment experience between whites and nonwhites was among people with low tenure in their work, nonwhites were more likely to be sensitive to recession at higher levels of tenure as well. Inasmuch as tenure and status tend to vary together, the racial dimension has importance in its own right. In the next section the ways in which race and ethnicity interact with the horizontal dimension will be examined.

THE HORIZONTAL DIMENSION Research dealing with race and ethnicity and the horizontal dimen­ sion has been concentrated in the areas of dual labor markets and labor

254

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

market sectors. The dual market perspective has yielded the somewhat surprising findings that there are not large differences in racial represen­ tation in the core and peripheral markets (Beck et al., 1978, 1980; Tolbert et al., 1980; Zucker and Rosenstein, 1981). The positions in these markets, of course, as the research on labor market sectors indi­ cates (to be considered shortly), can be highly differentiated. Research in the dual labor market perspective has revealed what might be expected. Disadvantaged groups are disadvantaged in both core and peripheral sectors. Daymont (1980) found that black men were more disadvantaged in terms of pay in the competitive (peripheral) as opposed to the monopoly or core sector. Bonacich’s (1976) analysis of black industrial workers revealed that this set of workers were hurt disproportionately when manufacturing operations were moved over­ seas (runaway shops), were relocated in the United States, or were automated. A clearer picture of horizontal differentiation emerges when labor market sectors are considered. For example, relative black opportuni­ ties are favorably influenced by government employment (Kaufman and Daymont, 1981). Although there is no research to support this conten­ tion, it would appear that the entertainment industry would also be a sector in which relatively more favorable black opportunities would be found. Intersector differences are also revealed when other ethnic groups are considered. Lieberson (1980:2) notes that every president of the United States thus far has been of old (northern and western) European origins. He also notes that Poles and Italians are dramatically underrepresented as board members or officers in large corporations in the Chicago area in comparison with their proportion in the population of that metropolitan area. Lieberson also notes evidence indicating that Roman Catholics and Jews (even more so than Roman Catholics) are not found as senior officers in banking. Sectors thus are differentiated in terms of their racial and ethnic composition. Kaufman’s (1983) research on labor market sectors is particularly important in this regard. He found that minorities are differentially distributed in labor market sectors, which practice wage discrimination. If blacks or other racial or ethnic groups had access to all sectors of the labor market, they would experience a net gain in earnings, but at the same time be subject to wage discrimination. Labor market sectors differ in the manner in which racial and ethnic groups are advantaged or disadvantaged. This, in combination with the differential distribution of

The Racial and Ethnic Dimension

255

these groups into industrial sectors, contributes to the differentiated reward structure on the vertical dimension. Before turning to the vertical dimension, it should be noted that the horizontal dimension involves more than the distribution of workers into labor markets or sectors, because people react to their work. In a study of racial prejudice, Cummings (1980) found that white ethnic group members who compete in the secondary labor market are more racially intolerant than white ethnic group members in the primary or core labor market. Racial tolerance and intolerance are interpreted in terms of labor market conditions. When groups are competing for the same jobs, intolerance is more likely. When jobs are more secure, relationships among racial and ethnic groups are less likely to be acri­ monious. At the same time, of course, the routes by which racial and ethnic group members reach their particular attitudes toward work will vary with the background and experience of the particular groups involved. Zingraff and Schulman (1984), for example, found that white and black textile workers in North Carolina reported both different levels of class consciousness and different bases for such attitudes, even when objective work conditions were largely the same.

THE VERTICAL DIMENSION Any consideration of the intersection between the racial and ethnic dimension and the vertical dimension must begin with the issue of discrimination. Cain (1984: 2) has provided two useful definitions of discrimination: There are two broad definitions of economic discrimination. First, eco­ nomic discrimination may be defined as long-lasting inequality in eco­ nomic well-being among individuals based on their color, gender, or ethnic ties. Second, economic discrimination is also defined as differences in pay or wage rates for equally productive groups.

We are concerned with more than economic discrimination and thus would add differences in power and authority and other forms of rewards from work into the second definition. Alvarez’s (1979) defini­ tion of discrimination given in the previous chapter included the com­ ponents of power, property, and satisfaction. Such discrimination is

256

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

systematically found in analyses of socioeconomic opportunity. In their major study of changes in socioeconomic opportunity between 1962 and 1972, Hauser and Featherman (1977: 134-135) report: If black men in the labor force have experienced greater increases in educational attainment, occupational status, and income than white men of the same age over the past decade, these gains have not been great enough to offset the discriminatory obstacles faced by black men. In 1972, as in 1962, there are large differences in the educational attainment, occupational status, and income of black and white men in each of the age groups 35 to 44,45 to 54, and 55 to 64. In 1962 the racial differential in educational attainment ranged from 3 to 4 years of schooling, and, in 1972, it ranged from 2.25 to 3 years. In 1962, the occupational differential between the races was 21 or 22 points on the Duncan scale at every age, and, in 1972, it was about 18 points. In 1962, the income differential between the races ranged from $3200 to $3800, and, in 1972, it ranged from $2900 to $3200.

In his examination of trends in median earnings for year-round, full-time workers, Cain (1984) reports similar trends. The black/white earnings ratio for men has shifted from .45 in 1939 to .73 in 1982. There is a nearly identical earnings ratio for Hispanic men in 1982, the only year for which data are available. There has been a dramatic shift in the earnings ratio for women. In 1939 the black/white ratio was .38. This changed to .94 in 1982. This near parity is offset, of course, by the fact that white women only earn .59 of that earned by men, so that the black women’s gain has only caught them up with white women. The ratio for Hispanic women was .86. According to Cain, these figures mean that equally productive men and women are discriminated against in terms of their pay. Several factors are operative here. Snyder and Hudis (1976) suggest that blacks are systematically excluded from higher paying occupations. This would depress the average earnings. Although some have argued that the earnings gap is based on human-capital explanations, such as the number of years of schooling, years of experience, or geographical location, such as South versus non-South, Hanushek (1982) finds these explanations inadequate. He argues that if individual characteristics and geographical location were held constant and blacks were paid according to the white earnings schedule (by standard metropolitan statistical area), 80% of the earnings gap would be closed. If these analyses are correct, both access to occupations and earnings within occupations are subject to discrimination.

The Racial and Ethnic Dimension

257

Multiple factors contribute to discrimination. Bonacich (1972,1976) has argued that capitalism, in its drive for cheap labor, utilizes a split labor market and seeks out both domestic and overseas sources of such labor. I would argue that this would occur in noncapitalist systems as well, since cheap labor would be sought by any organization. Marks (1981) examined data from a different time period from that used by Bonacich and found that some of her findings were not upheld, but that the split labor market idea was supported. Marks also adds the impor­ tant component of technological change as an important element in the creation of split labor markets. The degree to which there is this split labor market is open to some question. Wright and Perrone (1977) identified class categories of owners, managers, and workers. In con­ trast to what the interpretation of Bonacich would predict, Wright and Perrone found that the returns from education for income were the same for blacks and whites within class categories. What appears to be operating here is that organizations will seek out inexpensive labor, regardless of race or ethnicity of domestic or overseas locations. In so doing, racial and ethnic minorities who have little in the way of alterna­ tives will work for lower wages. Although the practices of organizational owners and managers have contributed to discrimination, so too have the activities of unions. Lieberson (1980) has shown that the new European immigrants he studied had a difficult time in gaining access to the craft unions present at the turn of the twentieth century. For blacks the situation was even worse. Exclusion from craft unions meant exclusion from craft jobs. Leigh (1978) has recently examined data from the National Longitu­ dinal Surveys of middle-aged men and found that craft unions still appear to practice entry discrimination against black workers. On the other hand, industrial unions appeared not to so discriminate and did not exclude a disproportionate number of black men from union cover­ age. Union membership tended to have a wage-leveling effect. Leigh also found a larger wage differential between union covered and noncov­ ered blacks than for whites. Union coverage in the industrial unions thus appears to operate against discrimination. Employment in the public sector, in city, county, state, and federal governmental agencies, has union coverage as well. Hyclak and Stewart (1981) note that research is needed to determine if unions such as municipal unions can have such leveling effects. Another factor that may contribute to patterns of discrimination is the distribution of racial and ethnic groups across geographical areas.

258

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Stolzenberg and D’Amico (1977) found little difference among U.S. cities in race- and sex-linked occupational differences. On the other hand, in an analysis of employment patterns in banks, Szafran (1984) found that community characteristics, such as labor force composition (percent minority), unemployment rates, and political orientation (per­ centage voting democratic in 1972) were more important than organiza­ tional characteristics in accounting for the employment of racial minor­ ity group members in managerial and professional positions. Apparently organizations such as banks, which must rely on local community residents as their customers, will be more responsive to local community characteristics than organizations that do not provide services or prod­ ucts in the local area. The geographical factor appears to be more important when migra­ tion is considered. Lieberson (1980: 379) reports that many immigrant groups were able to find niches in particular occupations: As for special niches, it is clear that most racial and ethnic groups tend to develop concentrations in certain jobs which either reflect some distinc­ tive cultural characteristics, special skills initially held by some members, or the opportunity structure at the time of their arrival. In 1950 among the foreign-born men of different origins there were many such examples: 3.9 percent of Italians in the civilian labor force were barbers, eight times the level for all white men; 2.5 percent of the Irish were policemen or firemen, three times the rate for all white men; more than 2 percent of Scottish immigrants were accountants, about two and one-half times the level for whites; 9.4 percent of Swedish immigrants were carpenters, nearly four times the national level; 14.8 percent of Greek immigrant men ran eating and drinking establishments, 29 times the national level; and 3.3 percent of Russian immigrant men were tailors or furriers, 17 times the rate for all white men. These concentrations are partially based on networks of ethnic contacts and experiences that in turn direct other compatriots in these directions.

For blacks migrating from the South to the North and West, the pattern was quite different. The jobs held by resident northern blacks were at the bottom of the service sector. In addition, as Lieberson (1980: 380) points out, sizable numbers of new migrants raise the racial or ethnic consciousness of others. Lieberson suggests that the movement of sizeable numbers of blacks to the North actually reduced the negative disposition that other whites had toward new European groups. It would also appear that black migrants to the North have been ham­ pered, at least in the past, by the poorer schooling received in the South. Hogan and Pazul (1982) found that black men who migrated to the

The Racial and Ethnic Dimension

259

North as adults received lower returns on their education than those who migrated as children or who were born in the North. The situation of Asians migrating to the United States has been different from that of blacks migrating to the North. Lieberson (1980) notes that Asians did not pose economic threats to whites, except in the West, where the response to Asians was severe and violent. In addition, Asian migration was essentially stopped by immigration laws, which permitted earlier Asian migrants and their children to establish niches in jobs such as truck farming. Lieberson also suggests that attitudes toward China and Japan may have been very different from attitudes toward Africa. Hirschman and Wong (1981) found that the educational levels of both native and migrant Asian Americans have equaled or exceeded that of whites in recent years and that parity in income has been achieved for the native Asian American population. Immigrants remain far behind in income, perhaps because of the concentration of migrant Chinese and Filipinos in service and retail trade jobs. Migrants almost always enter the labor force at the bottom, even if they arrive with human capital and credentials. Recent migrants from Southeast Asia and Latin America exemplify this. There appears to be a growing convergence between blacks and whites in the socioeconomic attainment process. Featherman and Hauser (1976) report that among white men, family factors were less important in occupational allocation in 1973 compared with 1962. Schooling had increased in importance in this process. Among black men, family factors were more important than education (reflecting continuing discrimination), but the combination of family and educa­ tion was beginning to operate in the same pattern as for whites. The same authors’ book reports that proportionately less of the variance in occupational attainment can be explained by aspects of blacks’ social backgrounds as educational attainment gains in importance (Feather­ man and Hauser, 1978: 382). Despite these shifts, blacks still remain disadvantaged, as blacks have been unable to convert their schooling into higher-status occupations (Stolzenberg, 1975). There is evidence to suggest that blacks who are intelligent and creative are sponsored within the educational system by both teachers and peers (Porter, 1974; Portes and Wilson, 1976). Porter also notes that there is a tendency for blacks who are intelligent and creative to become more conventional. There appears to be a pattern that the returns on education are greater for those who obtain higher levels of certification. The attainment process does not end with the completion of school­ ing. Sandefur (1981) found that whites change jobs more often than

260

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

blacks and that these job shifts were linked to upward movement and competition for higher levels of rewards. Whites also receive a greater return on education in interfirm job shifts. Blacks, on the other hand, receive equal or greater returns on education and other firm-specific resources, such as on-the-job training and experience in the case of intrafirm job shifts. Sandefur’s data are for the period 1944-1969, so it is impossible to determine the effects of affirmative action programs. He was also not able to determine if there were differences between sectors. The intrafirm shifts for blacks may have been primarily in the peripheral sector. There is another element in the socioeconomic attainment process for racial and ethnic minorities. Service in the military is frequently cited as a means by which minority group members can learn skills and behav­ iors that can be transferred to the civilian labor force. The evidence on this is mixed, however. Browning et al. (1973) report that among a set of Mexican Americans and blacks studied, veterans generally have higher incomes than nonveterans by occupational category. In contrast, Cutright (1974) found that the 1964 civilian earnings of former draftees was equal to or lower than that of nonveterans. He concludes that military service does not facilitate postservice economic achievement and that the job training received is not relevant. It appears that these discrepant findings are based on the comparison of different groups. Draftees would be different from volunteer military joiners. Within the military, minority group status is negatively related to promotion. Butler (1976) has demonstrated that it consistently takes longer for blacks to be promoted in rank. This occurs when universalistic criteria, such as civilian education, scores on the Armed Forces Qualifications Test (AFQT), and occupational type are controlled. A very similar finding is reported by Nordlie (1979), who found that whites were consistently promoted faster than blacks at every educational level. In regard to AFQT scores and promotion, Nordlie (1979: 171) reports the following interesting finding: With a few minor exceptions whites are promoted faster than blacks at every grade for those with high AFQT scores and for those with low AFQT scores. The variable, AFQT score, does not therefore account for the black-white difference. But for whites, those with high AFQT scores are promoted faster than those with low AFQT scores, which is what one would expect. However, for blacks, those with low AFQT scores are promoted faster than those with high AFQT scores. The relationship is exactly the reverse for whites and blacks. Clearly, this is a phenomenon deserving further intensive study.

The Racial and Ethnic Dimension

261

This last anomalous finding does need more study, indeed. Butler’s and Nordlie’s findings are clear examples of organizational or institu­ tional discrimination, which will be considered later in this chapter. It should be noted that the army revised its affirmative action plan on the basis of Nordlie’s findings. It is too early to tell whether or not this has had an impact on these patterns. The pattern in the military reflects the broader pattern in that organi­ zations have intentional and unintentional personnel policies that favor some groups and discriminate against others. Szafran et al. (1980) found that Irish men have a slight advantage in the Roman Catholic clergy. This is based on disproportionate recruitment and also slightly on selective promotion. This same type of patterning would be found across the organizational spectrum. There is no simple explanation for the distribution of racial and ethnic groups and their members on the vertical dimension, but surely discrimination and segregation must be high on the list of reasons. Lieberson (1980) provides support for this in his analysis of South, Central, and East European immigrants and blacks in northern U.S. cities. Lieberson’s basic explanation is that from the very outset of black migration to the North, blacks were excluded from work in the core sector, but the European immigrants were able to gain access to manu­ facturing jobs. Blacks were lower in the queue for good jobs. The employment patterns were exacerbated by residential segregation, with its attendant differentiation in schooling, and by labor unions, which feared economic competition. Steinberg (1983), in reviewing Lieber­ son’s conclusions, suggests that lumping together of European immi­ grants is a mistake, because immigrants from rural Italy fared very differently from urban Jewish immigrants from eastern Europe. More important, Steinberg takes Lieberson to task for ignoring the almost 90% of blacks who lived in the South in 1880 and the 77% who were living there as late as 1940. Any explanation of the racial and ethnic dimension must include the sources of discrimination and segregation that were explored in the chapter on gender. A basic component of the situation that ethnic and racial minority group members face is institutional or organizational discrimination. Alvarez (1979:2) defines this as “a set of social processes through which organizational decision making, either implicitly or explicitly, results in a clearly identifiable population receiving fewer psychic, social, or material rewards per quantitative and/or qualitative unit of performance than a clearly identifiable comparison population within the same organizational constraints.” Much of this explanation is

262

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

based on economic considerations as employers seek lower costs. Unions and other workers in general seek to maximize their own posi­ tions and use discrimination as a means by which their incomes and benefits can remain higher than those of the groups discriminated against. Exactly who does gain from discriminatory practices is the subject of a lively and as yet inconclusive debate surrounding the extent to which whites gain from discrimination against blacks (see Beck, 1980, for a review of this literature). The radical interpretation (Reich, 1971; Szymanski, 1976) is that racism is supported by capitalists who stand to gain from a fractionalization of the working class, which would lessen working-class solidarity, and that both whites and blacks suffer eco­ nomically because of racism. Beck’s (1980) data do not support this position. Rather, they suggest that white workers actually do gain by having blacks at the economic periphery. What is lost in some of this debate is that blacks systematically lose, whether or not there is any white gain. In addition to purely economic factors there are also cultural or value explanations that must be considered. Belief systems about racial and ethnic inferiority and superiority contribute to discriminatory practices (Christiansen, 1979). It is difficult to disentangle economic from non­ economic sources, but it would appear that economic factors are at the root of discrimination. The patterns we have been considering are in flux. Wilson (1978) has argued and Hout (1984) has recently demonstrated that race is becom­ ing less significant than class factors in the employment patterns of blacks. Much of this is attributed to the growth of public sector employment, in which there have been significant black gains as discrim­ inatory practices abated. Hout’s data in regard to this are for the period from 1962 to 1973. It is unclear what changes have occurred since that time frame. It would appear that a slowdown in the growth of the public sector that may develop because of political shifts toward a more conservative form of government would dampen this move toward minority group gains. At the same time, of course, the private sector may also have shifted toward less discriminatory practices, but evidence in this regard is not currently available. Even within the public sector, full equality has not been achieved, as Taylor and Shields’s (1984) analysis of the federal civil service and pay inequality between Mexican Americans and Anglos indicates. Although race may be declining in importance, the pattern is unclear in regard to ethnicity. Alba and Chamlin (1983) found that among

The Racial and Ethnic Dimension

263

native bom whites there appears to be a rise in the degree to which people identify themselves on an ethnic basis, even though their actual ethnic background is mixed. The exact implications of this ethnic selfidentification for work is unclear. Portes (1984) has found an increase in ethnic identification among Cubans in Miami, Florida. Ethnic identity among Miami Cubans was exacerbated by the large influx of new refugees in 1980, which resulted in the whole Cuban population being subjected to negative stereotyping. This is related to the vertical dimension of work in that prior to the 1980 influx, a large proportion of the Cuban population was in enclaves (Wilson and Portes, 1980; Wilson and Martin, 1982) in which people had their own labor markets and in which they were somewhat insulated from competition with the dominant white labor market. Portes and Manning (1985) report that such enclaves were found in the past among Jews in Manhattan and among Japanese on the West Coast. In addition to the contemporary Cuban enclaves in Miami, Portes and Manning note that there is an important Korean enclave in Los Angeles. Accord­ ing to Portes (1984), recent events have forced some Cuban workers into the broader labor market as ethnically identified, and hence disadvan­ taged, workers. Ethnic and racial groups have typically entered the labor force at the bottom of the vertical dimension. This pattern is continuing with the arrival of documented and undocumented Latin American and South­ east Asian immigrants. The ongoing debate in regard to citizenship, language, job opportunities, education, and public assistance for these new migrants demonstrates that the interests of employers, labor unions, and the workers themselves remain highly divergent. Not all migrants, of course, enter the labor force at the bottom. Portes and Manning (1985) report that there are sizable numbers of professionals, technicians, and craftsmen entering the United States from nations such as India, South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan—this is the socalled brain drain from these Third World nations—and that these workers enter the primary labor market.

THE GENDER DIMENSION Race and ethnicity and gender interact with some strange twists and turns. Black women, on average, earn less income than white women or black or white men (Fox and Hesse-Biber, 1984—these data are based

264

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

on year-round, full-time workers). Among professional and technical workers and managers, however, black women have had somewhat higher levels of earnings. This anomaly is partially explained by the fact that there are large earnings differentials between black and white women operatives. There is also some evidence suggesting that black women professionals may stay in the labor force more consistently over longer periods of time (Wallace, 1980: 61). In the professions, black women are concentrated in teaching, social work, and nursing, as is the case with white women. On the other hand, Fox and Hesse-Biber (1984) report that although approximately 40% of all professionals are women, black women have constituted more than half of all black professionals since 1940. There are several explanations for this. Fox and Hesse-Biber indicate that some authors have suggested that there have been “loopholes” in racial discrimination that permitted black women to take advantage of educational opportunities and that black families may have encouraged their daughters, rather than their sons, to continue their educations. Epstein (1973) developed the interest­ ing argument that black professional women enjoy a positive effect from the “double negative” of being both black and women. Her argument is that the two negatives cancel each other out—being black negates the deficiencies believed to be found in white women professionals, such as seeking husbands or being ready to leave the labor force. In addition, the black professional woman, being rather unique, may have a better bargaining position and may also have stronger motivations. Fox and Hesse-Biber report the results of several studies that strongly question Epstein’s conclusions—there are more obstacles than advan­ tages in the educational system for black women, the concentration of black women professionals in teaching, social work, and nursing is hardly a situation in which bargaining for more rewarding or better paying work would be found, and that black women tend to have lower aspirations for professional work than black men. Nonetheless, the anomolous pay differential between white and black women in the professions remains. The explanation based on less interrupted work histories appears to be the strongest one, especially in light of the fact that if black women are married, their husbands are likely to be paid less than white men, and the continuous income is needed. When the focus is shifted away from black professional women, the double negative indeed exists in a nonnegated way, with racism and sexism evident in many situations. In many cases there is a third negative or jeopardy—social class (Fox and Hesse-Biber, 1984: 156). The situa­ tion for black women is linked to the historical fact of slavery, in which

The Racial and Ethnic Dimension

265

black women were very much a part of the labor market. After slavery ended, black women continued to participate in the labor force. This participation has been due to economic pressures. These pressures arise from the need for additional income if women are married with the husband present, because black males tend to have low incomes. For black women who are not married or whose husband is absent, work is necessary for self-maintenance and for the care of children if they are present. The proportion of black families maintained by women is much higher (40.5%) than is the case for white families (11.6%; U.S. Depart­ ment of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1980). Black and other racial and ethnic group women workers tend to be concentrated in the same kinds of work as women in general, with the difference appearing to be that minority group members are on the lower side of these work realms. The processes by which jobs and their related social and economic status are attained are largely the same for black women as for other groups in the labor force. The family is an important component of the occupational attain­ ment process. Macke and Morgan (1978) found negative role modeling among black girls whose mothers had blue-collar jobs. More black girls than white girls anticipated working while their children were young. Treiman and Terrell (1975) found that the process of occupational attainment was essentially similar for men and women in general, with educational attainment the major contributor to occupational attain­ ment. This study found that black women got higher returns on educa­ tion than black men. Treiman and Terrell note that although the women’s returns were higher than men’s, there is still no positive effect of the double negative noted earlier. Although education is of critical importance, language ability is also important for some ethnic groups. Cooney and Ortiz (1983), for exam­ ple, found that English language ability was an important component of the education and work linkage for native-born Hispanic women. In fact, language proficiency among foreign-born Hispanic women essen­ tially canceled out the importance of education. Even though labor force participation and occupational attainment are different, this latter study indicates that an additional element of human capital is involved for ethnic and racial minority group members for whom English is not the first language. Most of the focus in this section of the chapter has been on black women. As Fox and Hesse-Biber (1984: 173) point out, women members of other minority groups have not only the concerns of

266

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

women, but also those of the minority groups to which they belong, which have had differentiated histories and have faced different oppor­ tunities and obstacles. Thus Native American, Hispanic, and Asian American women must deal with both labor market conditions and the customs and conditions of their own racial or ethnic groups (see Almquist, 1979, for a more detailed analysis).

CONCLUSIONS This chapter is the last of three that deal with matters of ascription— gender, age, and race and ethnicity. As in the case of gender and age, out of necessity and reality the chapter dealt with discrimination and preju­ dice. Change was also examined, because the patterns that have been described and analyzed in the past have become altered. The alterations are based largely on government actions that reflect changing public opinion and social movements. Government actions can be as sweeping and terrifying as the Holocaust or as subtle and muted as enforcement of affirmative action regulations. Alterations also occur as members of racial and ethnic groups move into areas of the horizontal and vertical dimensions that were formerly closed or seldom entered. It is perhaps a dream that race and ethnicity, along with gender and age, will in the future make no difference in regard to the vertical and horizontal dimensions of work. The evidence presented here suggests that there is some movement in that direction, but that movement is slow and painful, and it meets strong resistance. One aspect of that resistance is the fact that work is carried out in organizations—the subject of the next chapter—and organizations are entities that are highly resistant to change. REFERENCES Alba, Richard D. and Mitchell B. Chamlin (1983) “A preliminary examination of ethnic identification among whites.” American Sociological Review 48 (April): 240-247. Almquist, Elizabeth M. (1979) Minorities, Gender, and Work. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. Alvarez, Rudolfo (1979a) “Preface,” in Rudolfo Alvarez et al. (eds.) Discrimination in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

The Racial and Ethnic Dimension

267

-------- (1979b) “Institutional discrimination in organizations and their environments,” in Rudolfo Alvarez et al. (eds.) Discrimination in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Beck, E. M. (1980) “Discrimination and white economic loss: a time series examination of the radical model.” Social Forces 59 (September): 148-168. -------- Patrick M. Horan, and Charles M. Tolbert II (1978) “Stratification in a dual economy: a sectoral model of earnings determination.” American Sociological Review 43 (October): 704-720. -------- (1980) “Industrial segmentation and labor market discrimination.” Social Prob­ lems 28 (December): 113-130. Bonacich, Edna (1972) “A theory of ethnic antagonism.” American Sociological Review 37 (October): 547-559. -------- (1976) “Advanced capitalism and black / white race relations in the United States: a split labor market interpretation.” American Sociological Review 41 (February): 34-51. Browning, Harley L., Sally C. Lopreato, and Dudley L. Poston, Jr. (1973) “Income and veteran status: variations among Mexican-Americans, blacks and Anglos.” American Sociological Review 38 (February): 74-85. Butler, John Sibley (1976) “Inequality in the military: an examination of promotion time.” American Sociological Review 41 (October): 807-818. Cain, Glen G. (1984) “The economics of discrimination: part 1.” Focus (University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty) 7 (Summer): 1-11. Christiansen, John B. (1979) “The spirit labor market theory and Filipino exclusion: 1927-1934.” Phylon Quarterly 40 (March): 66-74. Coleman, A. Lee and Larry D. Hall (1979) “Black farm operators and farm population, 1900-1970: Alabama and Kentucky.” Phylon Quarterly 40 (December): 387-402. Cooney, Rosemary Santana and Vilma Ortiz (1983) “Nativity, national origin, and hispanic female participation in the labor force.” Social Science Quarterly 64 (Sep­ tember): 510-523. Cummings, Scott (1980) “White ethnics, racial prejudice, and labor market segmenta­ tion.” American Journal of Sociology 85 (January): 938-950. Cutright, Phillips (1974) “The civilian earnings of white and black draftees and nonvet­ erans.” American Sociological Review 39 (June): 317-322. Daymont, Thomas N. (1980) “Pay premiums for economic sector and race: a decomposi­ tion.” Social Science Research 9 (September): 245-272. DiPrete, Thomas A. (1981) “Unemployment over the life cycle: racial differences and the effects of changing economic conditions.” American Journal of Sociology 87 (Sep­ tember): 286-307. Epstein, Cynthia Fuchs (1973) “Positive effects of the multiple negative: explaining the success of black professional women.” American Journal of Sociology 78 (January): 912-935. Featherman, David L. and Robert M. Hauser (1976) “Changes in the socioeconomic stratification of the races. 1962-1973.” American Journal of Sociology 82 (November): 621-651. -------- (1978) Opportunity and Change. New York: Academic. Foner, Nancy and Richard Napolic (1978) “Jamaican and black-American migrant farm workers: a comparative analysis.” Social Problems 25 (June): 491-503.

268

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Fox, Mary Frank and Sharlene Hesse-Biber (1984) Women at Work. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Greenberger, Ellen, Laurence D. Steinberg, and Mary Ruggiero (1982) “A job is a job is a job . . . or is it? Behavioral observations in the adolescent workplace.” Work and Occupations 9 (February): 59-78. Hanushek, Eric A. (1982) “Sources of black-white earnings differences.” Social Science Research 11 (June): 103-126. Hauser, Robert M. and David L. Featherman (1977) The Process of Stratification: Trends and Analyses. New York: Academic. Hirschman, Charles and Morris G. Wong (1981) “Trends in socioeconomic achievement among immigrant and native-born Asian-Americans.” Sociological Quarterly 22 (Autumn): 495-514. Hogan, Dennis P. and Michele Pazul (1982) “The occupational and earnings returns to education among black men in the North.” American Journal of Sociology 87 (Janu­ ary): 905-920. Hout, Michael (1984) “Occupational mobility of black men: 1962 to 1973.” American Sociological Review 49 (June): 308-322. Hyclak, Thomas and James Stewart (1981) “ A note on the relative earnings of central city black males.” Journal of Human Resources 16 (Spring): 304-311. Jones, Richard C. (1984) “Changing patterns of undocumented Mexican migration to south Texas.” Social Science Quarterly 65 (June): 465-481. Kaufman, Robert L. (1983) “A structural decomposition of black-white earnings differen­ tials.” American Journal of Sociology 89 (November): 585-611. -------- and Thomas N. Daymont (1981) “Racial discrimination and the social organiza­ tion of industries.” Social Science Research 10 (September): 225-255. Leigh, Duane E. (1978) “Racial discrimination and labor unions: evidence from the NLS sample of middle-aged men.” Journal of Human Resources 13 (Fall): 568-577. Lieberson, Stanley (1980) A Piece of the Pie: Black and White Immigrants Since 1880. Berkeley: University of California Press. Macke, Ann Statham and William R. Morgan (1978) “Maternal employment, race, and work orientation of high school girls.” Social Forces 57 (September): 187-204. Mare, Robert D. and Christopher Winship (1984) “The paradox of lessening racial inequality and joblessness among black youth: enrollment, enlistment, and employ­ ment, 1964-1981.” American Sociological Review 49 (February): 39-55. Marks, Carole (1981) “Split labor markets and black-white relations, 1865-1920.” Phylon Quarterly 42 (December): 293-308. Mindiola, Tatcho, Jr. (1979) “Age and income discrimination against Mexican Americans and blacks in Texas, 1960 and 1970.” Social Problems 27 (December): 196-208. Nordlie, Peter G. (1979) “Proportion of black and white army officers in command positions,” in Rudolfo Alvarez et al. (eds.) Discrimination in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Parnes, Herbert S. [ed.] (1981) Work and Retirement: A Longitudinal Study of Men. Cambridge: MIT Press. Porter, James N. (1974) “Race, socialization and mobility in educational and early occupational attainment.” American Sociological Review 39 (June): 303-314. Portes, Alejandro (1984) “The rise of ethnicity: determinants of ethnic perceptions among Cuban exiles in Miami.” American Sociological Review 49 (June): 383-397.

The Racial and Ethnic Dimension

269

-------- and Robert D. Manning (1985) “The inunigrant enclave: theory and empirical examples,” in Joane Nagel and Susan Olzak (eds.) Ethnicity: Structure and Process. New York: Academic. Portes, Alejandro and Kenneth L. Wilson (1976) “Black-white differences in educational attainment.” American Sociological Review 41 (June): 414-431. Reich, Michael (1971) “The economics of racism,” in David M. Gordon (ed.) Problems in Political Economy. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. Rhee, Jong M. (1974) “The redistribution of the black work force in the South by industry.” Phylon Quarterly 35 (June): 293-300. Rosenbaum, James E. (1979) “Organizational career mobility: promotion chances in a corporation during periods of growth and contraction.” American Journal of Sociol­ ogy 85: 21-48. Sandefur, Gary D. (1981) “Black/white differences in job shift behavior: a dynamic analysis.” Sociological Quarterly 22 (Autumn): 565-579. Snyder, David and Paula M. Hudis (1976) “Occupational income and the effects of minority competition and segregation: a reanalysis and some new evidence.” American Sociological Review 41 (April): 209-234. Steinberg, Stephen (1983) “Review of A Piece o f the Pie: Blacks and White Immigrants Since 1880, by Stanley Lieberson.” Contemporary Sociology 12 (January): 93-94. Stolzenberg, Ross M. (1975) “Education, occupation and wage differences between white and black men.” American Journal of Sociology 81 (September): 299-323. -------- and Ronald J. D’Amico (1977) “City differences and nondifferences in the effect of race and sex on occupational distribution.” American Sociological Review 42 (December): 937-950. Szafran, Robert F. (1984) “Female and minority employment patterns in banks.” Work and Occupations 11 (February): 55-76. -------- Robert W. Peterson, and Richard A. Schoenherr (1980) “Ethnicity and status attainment: the case of the Roman Catholic clergy.” Sociological Quarterly 21 (Winter): 41-51. Szymanski, Albert (1976) “Racial discrimination and white gain. ” American Sociological Review 41 (June): 403-414. Taylor, Patricia A. and Susan Walker Shields (1984) “Mexican Americans and employ­ ment inequality in the federal civil service. Social Science Quarterly 65 (June): 380-391. Thomas, June M. (1980) “The impact of corporate tourism on Gullah blacks: notes on issues of employment.” Phylon Quarterly 41 (March): 1-11. Tolbert, Charles M. II, Patrick M. Horan, and E. W. Beck (1980) “The structure of economic segmentation: a dual economy approach.” American Journal of Sociology 85 (March): 1095-1116. Treiman, Donald J. and KermitTerrell(1975)“Sex and the process of status attainment: a comparison of working women and men.” American Sociological Review 40 (April): 174-200. Tsonc, Peter Z. W. (1974) “Changing patterns of labor force participation rates of nonwhites in the South.” Phylon Quarterly 35 (September): 301-312. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1980) Perspectives on Working Women: A Databook (Bulletin 2080). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. -------- (1984) Employment and Earnings, 31 (May). Washington, DC: Government Print­ ing Office.

270

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Wadley, Janet K. and Everett S. Lee (1974) “The disappearance of the black farmer.” Phylon Quarterly 35 (June): 276-283. Wallace, Phyllis (1980) Black Women in the Labor Force. Cambridge: MIT Press. Wilson, Kenneth and W. Allen Martin (1982) “Ethnic enclaves: a comparison of the Cuban and black economies in Miami.” American Journal of Sociology 88 (July): 135-160. Wilson, Kenneth and Alejandro Portes (1980) “Immigrant enclaves: an analysis of the labor market experiences of Cubans in Miami.” American Journal of Sociology 86 (September): 295-313. Wilson, William Julius (1978) The Declining Significance of Race. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wright, Erik Olin and Luca Perrone (1977) “Marxist class categories and income inequali­ ties.” American Sociological Review 42 (February): 32-55. Zingraff, Rhonda and Michael D. Schulman(1984) “Social bases of class consciousness: a study of southern textile workers with a comparison by race.” Social Forces 63 (September): 98-116. Zucker, Lynne G. and Carolyn Rosenstein (1981) “Taxonomies of institutional structure.” American Sociological Review 46 (December): 869-884.

THE ORGANIZATIONAL DIMENSION Organizations are the setting of contemporary work. The vast majority of workers are employees, although there are exceptions, of course. In 1982, for example, approximately 8% of the labor force were selfemployed in nonagricultural pursuits (Tausky, 1984:72). This figure has changed little during the twentieth century. Such self-employment involves work such as restaurant ownership, household maintenance, skilled trades, such as painting or electrical work, automobile or appliance repair work, and other small business ownership. Even for these self-employed workers, organizations loom as important entities in their roles as suppliers and creditors. For the balance of the nonagricultural labor force (96% of white men; 97% of black men; 99% of black and white women—Tausky, 1984: 61) organizational employment dominates. The data on such employment are revealing in several ways. First, one-tenth of 1% of all organizations have more than 1,000 employees, but employ over 14% of the labor force—large organizations are a dominant component of contemporary work. At the same time, approximately 75% of all organizations have fewer than ten employees, but employ slightly over 15% of the labor force. Both large and small organizations have nearly the same proportion of employees. A point can be made immediately in regard to small organizations. Many such organizations are new organizations and they suffer from the liability of newness (Stinchcombe, 1965; Carroll and Delacroix, i982). New organizations have a hard time surviving and there is a high “death rate” (see Whetten, 1980) among such small and new organiza­ tions. Work in such organizations is thus precarious in many cases. As will be seen later in this chapter, the size of organization factor is important in other ways as well. Although small organizations are important, most work is carried out in larger organizations. Such organizations tend to grow larger over time for a variety of reasons (Hall, 1982) and the primary focus of this chapter will be on work in large-scale, complex organizations. There will be two major thrusts in the analysis. The first will be a consideration 271

272

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

of the role organizations play in the distribution of people on the vertical dimension, with issues of gender, age, and race and ethnicity considered where appropriate. The horizontal dimension will also be considered, but as a starting point and not as part of the major analysis. The second thrust will be a consideration of organizations as the immediate setting of work. In Chapter 3, the subject of how people respond to their work was explored. Here this issue is taken further and how work has been and might be changed to enhance its quality for the people involved will also be examined.

THE HORIZONTAL FA CTOR There is abundant evidence that organizations are vitally affected by the environments in which they are operating. Regardless of their basic orientations, organizational theorists include the environment as one of the major factors (and in some cases the sole factor) that shape organizations (Aldrich, 1979; Hage, 1980; Hall, 1982; McKelvey, 1982; Meyer 1978; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978; Scott, 1981; Clegg and Dunkerly, 1980). The environmental element that is of critical importance for this analysis appears to be the industry in which an organization operates. For conglomorate-style organizations that operate across industries, it is reasonable to consider particular organizational units in terms of the industry in which they are operating. It will be recalled from Chapter 4 that many writers use the distinction between core and periphery or monopolistic and competitive sectors. Baron (1984) notes that this perspective contains the expectation that better jobs are concentrated in core firms and industries. This is explained by a combination of technical mix; union and management concern for employment sta­ bility; ability to absorb higher labor costs due to market structure and demand; growth, concentration, and change in organizational forms; differences in the quantity and quality of managerial activity; and economic and political relationships with domestic and foreign states. From this perspective, organizations in the core sector will provide “good” jobs with opportunities for advancement and peripheral-sector organizations will provide “bad” jobs that provide little in the way of rewards. In reviewing the literature on industrial segments, Baron (1984: 49) concludes: Despite its initial promise, this approach to inequality has neither generated sustained inquiry nor produced cumulative findings. Many

The Organizational Dimension

273

hypotheses about how economic structure constrains careers are or­ ganizational, but investigators have implicitly equated environments with industrial phenomena. Yet those industry attributes that are used to demarcate segments do not cohere neatly (Kaufman et al., 1981; Wallace and Kalleberg, 1981), and the effects of industry structure on attainment depend very much on the variables and typologies used to represent workers’sectoral locations (Kalleberg et al., 1981; Zucker and Rosenstein, 1981). Furthermore, industrial sector schemes fail to capture many hypothesized differences in organizational arrangements and career outcomes. For example, Cohen and Pfeffer (1984) found that distinctions among broad industrial sectors did not capture much of the variation in organizational personnel practices that is predicted by dualists. Similarly, Jacobs (1983) reported that career movement is not demarcated by industrial sectors and that sectoral boundaries disproportionately impede mobility among minority workers [Reproduced, with permission, from the Annual Review o f Sociology, Volume 10, © 1984 by Annual Reviews Inc.].

Baron goes on to suggest that the spatial factor may be more important than industrial-sector considerations. Firms are unevenly distributed geographically. Particular locations develop traditions in terms of personnel practices and wages. Wage determination and mobility processes have been shown to differ markedly across geo­ graphical locations. Regulatory and financial support practices of the government have also been shown to affect personnel and wage policies. Affirmative action demands, for example, can improve the opportunity structures for previously disadvantaged groups. Although the evidence in support of clear sectoral differences is weak and factors such as location and federal subsidies are important considerations, the role of industrial sector in the organizational dimension cannot be dismissed. Baron and Bielby (1984) have provided a useful demonstration of the manner in which sectoral and organiza­ tional considerations can be joined. They reconceptualize the coreperiphery distinction. The reconceptualization involves distinguishing among the complexity of organizational forms in terms of size, structure, technology, and the degree of market power or environmental dominance of the organizations involved. Using 400 firms as their data base, Baron and Bielby demonstrate that organizations that have many of these attributes (that is, large size, complex structure, advanced technology, and high market power) rely more on internal career ladders and proliferation of job titles. They argue that by approaching the core-periphery distinction in this way, they are better able to capture the diversity of organizations than by using the more traditional coreperiphery distinctions.

274

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

If Baron and Bielby are correct, then the horizontal dimension is seen to impinge upon the organizational dimension in terms of market power or environmental dominance. Powerful organizations are less vul­ nerable to environmental pressures. Peripheral organizations are weak­ er and smaller and they and their workers are more vulnerable. Most organizations exist between the extremes of core and periphery and are more or less vulnerable and more or less complex. This form of differentiation on the horizontal dimension appears very useful for conceptualizing and understanding the organizational dimension. In some research closely related to that of Baron and Bielby, Pfeffer and Cohen (1984) used the distinction between internal and external labor markets. The internal-external distinction, it will be remembered, is based on the extent to which an organization relies on internally based personnel decisions regarding matters such as pay or promotion in contrast to relying on the economic forces in the external labor market. Pfeffer and Cohen found that internal labor markets were more likely to be used when organizations had training programs, were in the industri­ al core, had a personnel department, and were branch units of larger organizations. Unionization was negatively associated with the use of an internal labor market, but size of organization was unrelated to internal labor market practices. Pfeffer and Cohen conclude that unionization and bureaucratic controls through internal labor markets are essentially alternative (and competing) means around which personnel decisions can be made. On the organizational dimension, as elsewhere, the horizontal and vertical dimensions are tightly intertwined.

ORGANIZA TIONS AND THE VERTICAL DIMENSION Organizations are the agents of stratification in contemporary society. They distribute people into positions. The positions have differential rewards attached to them prior to and after any particular incumbent. These facts may seem obvious, but only relatively recently has the organizational dimension been entered into the vertical dimen­ sion equation. As Baron (1984) notes, previous emphases in status attainment and human-capital approaches had a rather exclusive focus on individual determinants of career outcomes. In this section I will borrow heavily from Baron’s (1984) recent and authoritative review of the literature on the interaction between

The Organizational Dimension

275

organizations and the vertical dimension. Baron begins his analysis with the observation that the division of labor among jobs and organizations leads to a distribution of opportunities and rewards that is often logically and temporally prior to incumbents—some organizations pay more than others and have higher promotion rates. Baron’s primary focus is on internal labor markets and the factors that affect career outcomes within organizations. Before proceeding with an analysis of such internal labor markets, it should be noted that the basic decision to hire or not to hire in the first place has important ramifications. Institutional discrimination does exist in the form of not hiring people because of their gender, race or ethnicity, and age (Alvarez, 1979). Affirmative action policies imposed from outside organizations or developed within organizations have lessened such discrimination, but it does exist. There are instances in which such discrimination would appear to be highly rational for the organizations involved. For example, business firms with strong dependence on sales in Saudi Arabia or South Africa would not be likely to hire female or black sales representatives, respectively. The same point would hold domestically in terms of strong male or white bastions. Patterns of discrimination are thus defended under the guise of rationality in some instances. Baron's analysis reveals several organizational characteristics that are related to differential internal labor markets. The factors upon which he focuses are also those that have been part of a good deal of organizational theory. The first of these is the size of the organization. As is the case with the relationships between size and other organizational characteristics (Hall, 1982), the relationships between size and the verti­ cal dimension are ambiguous. On the one hand, researchers such as Hodson (1984: 345) conclude: “At the company level, organizational size appears to be the most significant determinant of earnings.” He goes on to note that at the industry or sector level capital intensity is the most important determinant. The industry effects are stronger than the orga­ nizational effects. Hodson (1984: 346) expands his interpretation with the following consideration of the gender dimension: Analysis of the company- and industry-level economic-structure models across gender groups reaffirms the importance of gender distinctions for understanding the role of economic segmentation at the workplace. The positive earnings effects associated with large company size observed in the total sample accrue most strongly to women. The positive earnings effects associated with capital-intensive industrial environments observed in the total sample accrue entirely to men. These results reinforce prior

276

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

findings in this area and indicate a reasonably stable pattern of effects that warrants substantive interpretation. For women in the labor force, the bureaucratic rules associated with large company size appear to provide a degree of protection from at least some discriminatory wage and earnings practices and are responsible for much of the effect of economic structure on women’s wages. For men in the labor force, the heightened pro­ ductivity and responsibility associated with capital-intensive production systems appear to offer substantial opportunities for securing higher earnings, opportunities that do not provide equivalent advantage for women.

The other side of the coin is that other researchers discount the importance of size. Granovetter (1984) agrees that large-sized organiza­ tions have more hierarchical levels and more openings in the internal labor market, but that the large number of small organizations should really be the focus of research. Granovetter reports that although the proportion of the labor force employed in small establishments or organizations has declined in this century, over 25% of the labor force is employed in establishments of fewer than 100 workers and that 72.5% of the labor force is employed in organizations of fewer than 1,000. He reasons that smaller organizations will not have highly developed internal labor markets. The establishments that he considered could be part of larger firms. If this were the case, however, internal labor markets would only exist for personnel at the middle-management level or higher as they might move among the establishments of a firm. For blue-collar production workers and for most white-collar workers, the kinds of internal labor markets assumed to be present in large organizations are simply not part of reality. Baron’s (1984) review of the literature on size reveals similarly ambiguous research findings. Some of the ambiguity can be reduced when the focus is slightly shifted. Large organizations in prosperous industries will offer greater numbers of hierarchical levels and hence greater promotional opportunities, particularly for managerial and professional personnel. These organizations will also offer higher pay scales at all hierarchical levels, because they will be unionized, for the most part, and the executives and professionals will see to it that they themselves are paid well. In industries characterized by small establish­ ments, such as retailing and services, there is less prosperity in general— pay is generally lower and promotional opportunities are fewer. The same conclusion would appear to hold for employment in the public and not-for-profit sectors. Museums with wealthy patrons and school districts in wealthy suburbs present greater opportunities for their employees than do their less affluent counterparts.

The Organizational Dimension

277

Organizational size is essentially a static variable as it has been used in research on organizations and on the vertical dimension. Closely related to size, however, is the more dynamic factor of changes in organization­ al size. Most of the emphasis has been on organizational growth, al­ though some attention has been paid to shrinking size. Changing organi­ zational size is closely linked to the industry or sector in which an organization is located. It is quite well established that the important consideration of profitability in the private sector is strongly related to the growth of industries (Lieberson and O’Connor, 1972). Thus it is not too surprising that Rosenbaum (1979) and Bielby and Baron (1983) found increased internal promotional opportunities in growing organi­ zations. These opportunities extended to groups, such as women, who might not otherwise have had such chances for promotion. Baron’s (1984) analysis notes that there have been few studies of the consequences of organizational shrinkage, although Schervish’s (1983) research suggests that seniority procedures and “bumping” would disproportionately harm minorities and women on the basis of the last hired, first fired principle. Common sense would also suggest that contraction would limit chances for mobility in almost all situations. The next factor Baron (1984) considers is the impact of demography. Though clearly not an organizational variable, demographic factors exogenous to organizations and their own demographic profiles affect movement and attainment on the vertical dimension. Chances for mobility are greater for members of small birth cohorts, such as children of the Depression. The “baby boom” generation has found chances for mobility to be limited in the absence of continued strong economic growth. Within the organization, the age structure has been shown to be important. For example, Brittain and Freeman (1980) argue that when organizations are staffed at the top by predominantly young workers, as is the case in the semiconductor industry, other young workers, seeing little or no chance for advancement, will leave and join new firms that are just starting in the industry. Organizations that have extensive numbers of older workers will exhibit much greater opportunities for mobility as the older workers retire. Gender distributions are also important. Kanter (1977) and Spangler et al. (1978) argue that when the gender distribution in an organization is highly skewed, the women present are “tokens” and are in a collectively powerless position. Token individuals are very visible and their actions are more easily observed than are those of the dominant group members. When a woman does advance rapidly in a highly genderskewed organization, a double-edged sword is frequently bared—was

278

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

the advancement because the organization wanted to exhibit its token woman or was it possible because of sexual favors granted to someone in power? These kinds of questions are not asked about men in the “fast track.” When the gender distribution is more even, such questions are less frequently raised. This same basic point, minus the issue of sexual favors, would hold for minority group members and their demographic distribution. Baron (1984) next considers technology as an important organiza­ tional variable in regard to the vertical dimension. Like organizational size, technology has been identified as an important contributor to the structure of organizations (Hall, 1982). The technology variable is a complicated one, because most organizations employ multiple tech­ nologies. Administrative matters are handled differently from produc­ tion or sales operations. Organizational operations that can utilize routine technologies, as is the case in much production and office work, are situations in which there would be little in the way of opportunity structures. When bureaucratic or professional specializations are pres­ ent, the chains of opportunity will be lengthened. The major focus of organizational research and theory in recent years has been on the environments of organizations. This has already been considered in terms of the discussion of the horizontal dimension earlier in this chapter. Some theoretical developments in regard to organiza­ tional environments provide additional insights for this discussion of the vertical dimension (Baron, 1984). The first of these theoretical models is the “population ecology” model (Aldrich, 1979; Aldrich and Pfeffer, 1976; Hannan and Freeman, 1977; McKelvey and Aldrich, 1983). This approach deals with popula­ tions of organizations and the manner in which the environment “selects” those organizational forms that are most adaptive. Adaptive organizational forms, such as fast-food franchise organizations, are retained and reproduced because they have been adaptive. For the purposes of this analysis, the retention of the fast-food franchise has led to a proliferation of less-than-full-time work. This work does not carry pensions and other fringe benefits with it, as full-time work in restaurants might. Other important organizational forms that have been reproduced in this manner include such bureaucratic traits as hiring and promotion on the basis of merit or the use of seniority as a major personnel policy. The population ecology model has been criticized because it down­ plays the importance of choices made within the organization (Van de

The Organizational Dimension

279

Ven, 1979), because it removes issues of power, conflict, disruption, and social class variables from organizational analyses (Perrow, 1979), and because it ignores what organizations do in and to the environment around them (Hall, 1982). Nonetheless, it does sensitize us to a form of ultimate test of organizational effectiveness—survival is such a test— and to the importance of environmental factors for the development and survival of organizations. Furthermore, because we are interested in understanding why organizations impinge on the vertical dimension, it is important to consider the persistence of forms of organizational personnel policies that affect this dimension. As an alternative to the extreme environmental emphasis of the population ecology model, other organizational theorists have pro­ posed the use of the “resource dependence” model (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978; see also the discussion in Hall, 1982). This approach views the organization as an active participant in the organization-environment relationship. Strategic choices (Chandler, 1962; Child, 1972) are made among a set of alternatives in regard to how to deal with the environment. These choices involve whether or not an organization will enter or remain in a particular environmental niche. They also involve how the organization will actively try to manipulate the environment itself. There is no implication here that the choices are necessarily rational or moral—just that organizations do react to and on environ­ mental pressures. At the same time, it is critical to note that the title of the model—resource dependence—emphasizes the high degree to which organizations are dependent upon their environments for their basic resources of financial support, customers and suppliers, and personnel. Baron (1984) has noted several insights that this approach provides. For example, organizations that are dependent upon government contracts or that are subjected to intensive regulatory pressures have shown substantial improvements in job opportunities for disadvantaged workers. The environmental dependence leads to internal changes. Individuals and organizational subunits that deal (successfully) with key aspects of environmental uncertainty will be rewarded more highly. Baron also suggests that when organizations are dependent upon other organizations and engage in interorganizational relationships with them, shared practices will develop, including the management of human resources (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Baron concludes that the proliferation of personnel management associations, human re­ source consulting firms, government agencies, unions, and business schools should diffuse personnel practices across organizations, in­

280

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

dustries, and locales. If such homogenization does occur, it seems that this would be a victory for more universalistic standards. This would be most likely to happen in the core sector.

Summary We have been considering organizational variables and insights from organizational theory in regard to the placement of individuals on the vertical dimension. It should be clear that organizations are the major mechanism by which individuals are sorted out on the vertical dimension. The combination of factors such as size, growth, technology, and the environment yields situations in which individuals and cate­ gories of individuals are placed, by organizations, into their work positions. As seen earlier, except for managerial and professional workers, the initial placement is likely to be the final placement, because there is little mobility on the vertical dimension for most workers. If an individual is lucky enough to live in an area where there are large and growing organizations and these are able to bring in adequate resources, employment will be stable or growing and wages and salaries will be reasonably high. The opposite would also hold, even for managerial and professional workers.

M OBILITY IN ORGANIZA TIONS According to Baron (1984: 54): Conventional economic theorists discuss sorting processes in terms of an equilibrium between labor supply and demand. Workers possess vo­ cational aspirations, which are treated as exogenous, and invest in human capital so as to maximize their utility and earnings, subject to various constraints (including innate ability). . . . A firms’s labor needs are determined by its technology (capital-labor ratios) and product demand. The price mechanism is assumed to clear the market, and the question of which workers are matched to which jobs does not appear to be problematic to neoclassical microeconomists [Reproduced, with per­ mission, from the Annual Review o f Sociology, Volume 10,® 1984 by Annual Reviews Inc.].

The problem is that it is problematic. The sorting of people within organizations contains a series of elements that raise serious questions about the utility of the neoclassical economists’ approach. The first

The Organizational Dimension

281

element involves the selection of workers. Employers use a “credentialist” system (Berg, 1971; Collins, 1979; Meyer, 1977) in which the possession of a particular credential, such as a BA, MBA, Ph.D., and so on, is taken as the indication of a person's capabilities or absence thereof. The prestige of the college or university granting people degrees has also been shown (Rosenbaum, 1981) to have an effect on the level at which people enter their employing organizations. The credential (not years of schooling) and its source serve as a signal to the employer and to fellow workers what a person is likely to be like. Once a person is in an organization, the situation continues to be one in which the predictions of neoclassical economists would not be con­ firmed. For example, Kanter (1977) found a process of “homosocial reproduction” in the large industrial firm she studied. Homosocial reproduction involves using sex, race, social background, and family status as the bases of determining who would advance in the organiza­ tion. Only those with common homosocial characteristics stood much of a chance. Another complication is that the evaluation of performance once a person is in the organization is itself ambiguous and vague. Dombusch and Scott (1975) have shown that the higher the level in the hierarchy, the greater the ambiguity and vagueness. At the same time, March and March (1978) have suggested that it is difficult for organizations to assess the work of new employees in terms of their performance in relation to the job requirements. The picture being painted here is one in which organizations do not and perhaps cannot act in economically rational terms in their selection and evaluation processes. Nonetheless, some people advance and others do not. A key factor here appears to be early career stardom (Kanter, 1977; Rosenbaum, 1979). These studies show that people who are identified as stars early in their careers are put on fast tracks in their organizations and that the designation is likely to remain with the individuals unless they conspicuously make repeated blunders. Role expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies operate here. Also, as Baron (1984) points out, organizations may escalate their commitment to earlier decisions so they do not look foolish. Whether the personnel decisions are rational or not does not matter if the people involved believe in the system. If such rationality is a myth, it is a myth that is largely accepted by those who are participating in and contributing to it. Though this line of reasoning can be taken to extremes—behavior in organizations is actually not totally random—it does illustrate that mobility in organizations is subject to a series of factors beyond individual or organizational control—careers may in fact be “almost

282

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

random” (March and March, 1977). For the organization, it might not make much of a difference. If the initial selection criteria, focusing on academic credentials, bring bright and trainable people into the organization, the issue of who is mobile or not is irrelevant. For the individuals involved, of course, it matters a lot. The organizational dimension is a critical component in the lives of individuals in terms of their placement on the vertical dimension. This has been well documented. There is another aspect of the organizational dimension that also affects the lives of individuals: the immediate work arrangements that people face on a day-to-day basis. Chapter 3 was devoted to individuals and how they respond to their work. In general, organizational work was found to be less alienating and more satisfying than common stereotypes would suggest (see Zeitz, 1984, for additional support of this point). There are important differences, however, in the organizational work experiences of individuals and these are related to the individuals* relationships to their organizations. In a summary of their almost twenty-year research program on job conditions and personality, Kohn and Schooler (1982: 1265) report: Position in the organizational structure has a widespread impact on other conditions of work. Ownership results in doing substantively more complex work, at higher levels of income, but with a greater risk of losing one’s job or business. Bureaucratic firms and organizations provide substantively more complex work, more extensive job protections, higher income, physically lighter work, and fewer hours of work. Higher position in the supervisory hierarchy results in substantively more complex, less routine, less closely supervised, and physically lighter work; higher levels of pay; and more hours of work per week. In short, the three facets of position in the organizational structure have similar effects on substantive complexity and job income, but decidedly different effects on the number of hours worked and on job protections and job risks, with ownership maximizing risk and bureaucratization maximizing job protections.

Job complexity has a strong and reciprocal relationship with such personality factors as self-confidence, ideational flexibility, self-direction, and amount of distress experienced (negative relationship). For our purposes here, two of the findings reported above are important— position in the hierarchy and work in bureaucratic settings. The issue of ownership, though interesting, is less relevant because it is an unlikely work condition for most people. It is specifically those people who have the potential to experience mobility in the organizational setting who do the kinds of work that offer the substantive complexity so important for

The Organizational Dimension

283

mental well-being—people in managerial and professional occupations. For other organizational workers, the situation is more routine and less complex. This fact has led to a series of forms of attempts aimed at altering the organizational conditions of work, particularly for people at lower hierarchical levels.

CHANGING THE ORGANIZATIONAL DIMENSION Changes in the organizational dimension can take a variety of forms—job redesign, worker participation, the “Japanese” approach, and comparable worth. Some of these are interrelated, and others essentially stand alone. Advocates of organizational change come from many camps. Some see organizational change from a political per­ spective and wish to see more power in the hands of workers. Others take a more humanistic stance toward work and see organizational change as a way to improve the lives of the individuals involved. The major source of change efforts, however, is management. Organization­ al change is seen as a way to increase productivity and hence profitabili­ ty or efficiency. This can be done on the basis of a humanistic or a strictly capitalistic orientation, but the impetus typically comes from the top of the organization. According to Sabel (1982), changes do not come from management’s concessions to workers, but rather from management’s attempts to regain or retain their control over the work force. This is accomplished by introducing new machines or new organizational forms. Almost all of the organizational changes to be discussed here and in the next chapter involve alterations of the horizontal dimension of work. Altera­ tions of the vertical dimension would involve redistributions of power and rewards, which are obviously not sought by those already in power. Alterations of the horizontal dimension can be seen most easily in efforts at job redesign.

Job Redesign There are a variety of ways in which jobs can be redesigned. Tausky and Parke (1976: 532) identify three such techniques: (1) Job rotation—the movement by a worker from one work station to another, either every few hours or day to day; the tasks remain designed as they were, but the worker shifts among a limited set of tasks. (2) Job

284

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

enlargement—the tasks stay as they were, but a limited set of tasks are grouped together into a job, thus providing the worker more variety at his work station; this sort of variety is sometimes referred to as “horizontal loading.” (3) Job enrichment—this is sometimes referred to as “vertical loading,” because the tasks involve the elements of variety plus com­ plexity and discretion. Variety, we noted, has to do with the number of operations to be performed, complexity involves the sequence, timing and coordination of the variety, and discretion incorporates the decisions required to deal with complexity. Vertical loading of a task, however, requires a bit more flesh than the bare bones we noted; in a fundamental sense it resembles the vertical integration of a firm. A series of operations that come before and after a single task are grouped together so that the overall task has a discernible unity. For example instead of simply feeding a machine, the worker with an enriched job would perform “set up,” feed the machine, then inspect the output, accept, reject, or repair the output, and, if necessary, adjust or even perhaps repair the machine. Thus, variety, complexity, and discretion are joined in the design of enriched jobs.

Job enrichment is obviously the most far-reaching form of job redesign and has received the most attention. Enrichment efforts are frequently carried out in conjuction with other forms of organizational change, including various worker participation schemes and attempts to develop work group solidarity. Enrichment programs are also carried out in a context of the workers’ own expectations and experiences, the wider organizational setting, the presence or absence of unions, and an environmental context that includes economical and political considera­ tions. These contextual factors impinge upon enrichment programs and make an assessment of their results very difficult. The evidence available in regard to enrichment programs is mixed. There are numerous case studies that report successful implementations of enrichment programs (see Tausky and Parke, 1976, and Nystrom, 1981, for extensive references to these studies). However, other research has reported mixed results or outright failure. Nystrom (1981) has examined the ways in which job redesign efforts have and have not worked. He notes that job redesigns cannot be isolated from their milieu, because other organizational variables often change at the same time. These other variables include the redesign of work groups, wage incentives, training, altered physical facilities, and the establishment of new information systems. A great deal of attention has been focused on the Saab and Volvo automobile assembly programs in Sweden. Both auto makers have experimented with their production processes, abandoning the traditional assembly line and installing “a

The Organizational Dimension

285

new production system involving assembly by parallel groups, employ­ ees having control over pace, products moving to component materials, and employee groups moving along with their product, all tied to a common transportation system” (Nystrom, 1981: 278). Although the workers are generally satisfied, production costs are higher. Other as­ pects of the Swedish experience are also noteworthy. The group assem­ bly section of the automobile (Saab) assembly plant has attracted work­ ers who were already highly motivated. In sections of the plant that still use traditional assembly methods, the staffing is heavily based on young women who have emigrated from Finland. Nystrom concludes that, despite the publicity these efforts have received, it is premature to make a judgment of success or failure. The importance of workers’ expectations in redesign efforts can be seen in several studies which Nystrom reviewed. Particularly interesting are two cases in which redesign efforts apparently contributed to less satisfaction with the work being performed. This was attributed to the fact that expectations about the new work arrangements were raised prior to the implementation of the new work designs and the new arrangements did not fulfill the raised expectations the workers developed as the redesign effort was being planned. Worker characteristics are important in understanding work re­ design in another way. Nystrom suggests that in some instances highly performing workers are the ones who volunteer for job enrichment experiments. There is also evidence that when workers are given the power to select their own coworkers, they are highly selective and hence the work group is not representative of workers as a whole. Nystrom also reports that, in general, labor union leaders and regular members tend to rank job redesign lower in their priorities than the more traditional concerns with earnings and job security. Indeed, if job redesign efforts lead to increased productivity, labor union members believe they should receive the rewards. Tausky and Parke (1976) note that enrichment programs almost always involve feedback to workers on their performance. This means that they are also more accountable for the quantity and quality of their work. This accountability in turn may contribute to increased pro­ ductivity. In a later study, Tausky and Chelte (1983) found that individual accountability was closely tied to productivity, with pro­ ductivity sharply rising with an increase in individual accountability and declining as accountability declined. Although such accountability may not be the only factor important in redesign efforts or in productivity overall, it certainly appears to be a critical factor.

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

286

Some work can be redesigned to make it more satisfying and less alienating. There are limitations, however. The organization has to have the financial resources to permit redesign. New equipment and new physical arrangements are typically required. If the organization is in a marginal industry, it is less likely to have the financial resources available for such redesign efforts and the poorest jobs are likely to be found in just those organizational settings. Only rather affluent organizations can attempt redesign efforts. The workers involved must also be interested in having their work made more interesting. This is not a guaranteed situation. Careful thought must also be given to how any gains from redesigned work are to be distributed. Job redesign is clearly not the answer to all of the problems of the work place. Worker Participation The job redesign approach to changing organizational arrangements affects the manner in which labor is divided in the making of products or the provision of services. As such, it represents a slight alteration of the horizontal dimension within organizations. Worker participation, on the other hand, can take forms that are dramatic, even radical, departures from traditional hierarchical forms. Worker participation can range from benign systems of consulting with workers, through the participation of workers in management decisions, to worker own­ ership. Varying degrees of worker participation are closely intertwined with the power arrangements in organizations and thus could be considered in the next chapter. I will deal with worker participation here, because, in the United States, participation is frequently linked to job redesign efforts. Participation schemes also take place in or­ ganizational settings. The link with job redesign programs is rather common in the United States. For example, the experiences at a General Foods dog food plant in Topeka, Kansas, have served as a model for altering organizational arrangements (Walton, 1980). This particular program received na­ tional television and newspaper coverage. Walton (1980: 219-220) describes the operation as follows: Three rotating shifts were used to operate the plant twenty-four hours a day, five days a week. On each shift, one self-managing team was responsible for the “process” segment of production and another for the “packaging” segment. The teams numbered from seven to fourteen

The Organizational Dimension

287

operators, large enough to embrace a set of interrelated tasks and small enough to permit face-to-face meetings for making decisions and for coordination. Activities usually performed by separate units—main­ tenance, quality control, custodianship, industrial engineering, and personnel—were built into the responsibilities for each team. For example, team members screened job applicants for replacements on their own team.

The transfer to the work group of personnel screening and other decision making is symbolic of a limited form of worker participation linked to job redesign. Walton’s analysis of this particular program indicates that the continued success of the program was dependent upon management’s continued backing. In the case of the dog food plant, this backing eroded over time. In this case, there was little actual shift in power from management to the workers. What was shifted was what management wanted shifted. At the opposite extreme is employee ownership. According to Woodworth (1981: 195-196): The mechanisms by which employees come to obtain ownership of a business are at least fivefold: (1) Crises—a plant closing due to bank­ ruptcy or relocation; (2) Company Benefits—part of a corporate rewards program intended to interest and satisfy employees; (3) Gifts—an offering of the stock of one’s company to the employees usually by a retiring entrepreneur or an ideologist benefactor; (4) Takeovers—the seizing of control by workers who demand a voice and a piece of the business; (S) New Collectives—the spontaneous creation of a new enterprise by individ­ uals who share democratic values in consensus decision making and communal property.

Two points must be noted before proceeding. First, employee ownership is impossible for governmental organizations, although a high level of worker participation is not. Second, takeovers, though conceptually possible, are possible in fact only when the laws and regulations of the state have an orientation toward private property that is very different from those in capitalistic systems. A major form of worker participation can be found in Yugoslavia. As a socialist country, organizations are not owned in the capitalist sense. In the case of Yugoslavia, ownership is social—“Social ownership is ownership of the enterprise by the society as a whole, and the management of an enterprise is delegated to the workers’ collective— those people who work in it” (Tannenbaum et al., 1974: 29). The Yugoslavian self-management system is complex. The idea of self­ management implies direct worker-participation in all decisions. That is

288

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

not always feasible, especially in large enterprises, so that indirect methods of participation have been developed. In addition, direct participation occurs in annual or semiannual meetings of entire collectives in which important issues such as the financial status of the collective are discussed. There are also meetings of work units to discuss more immediate problems. Referenda are held in regard to major ques­ tions. Most of the day-to-day participation is indirect, however. Tannenbaum et al. (1974: 30) describe the system as follows: Because direct participation is not possible in all of the decisions that must be made, the workers’ collective delegates part of its authority to several elected groups or persons, thus creating the basis for indirect participa­ tion. The 1950 Federal Law presrcibed three such groups or persons: the Workers’ Council, the Managing Board, and the Director. The Workers’ Council consists of ten to fifty people depending on the size of the enterprise. Candidates for the Council are nominated by the trade union or by the workers, but they are elected by all employees. The Managing Board is elected by the Workers’ Council and it consists of five to fifteen persons. Members of the Managing Board may be members of the Workers’ Council or they may be experts or managerial personnel not on the Workers’ Council. The Board is designed to advise the council as well as to interpret and expedite on a day-to-day basis the decisions of the Council. The Director is an ex officio member of the Council, and does not have a vote, but he is nonetheless likely to be very influential in the Council. Like the Managing Board, the Director is elected and discharged by the Workers’ Council.

The Workers’ Councils are the key to the whole system, as they have the major authority in the system. They approve production plans, determine prices, allocate profits, determine the distribution of wages and salaries, and have control of all other major decisions. While both Obradovic (1972) and Rus (1972) have noted that managers and profes­ sionals have more influence in Workers’ Councils decisions than their numbers would warrant, the Yugoslavian system, which has been in place and successful (by most estimates) for more than thirty years, represents a truly radical organizational form. Power in the organiza­ tion comes from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. The death of Premier Tito, increased interethnic strife, and the need to move into advanced technology enterprises all threaten this system and only history will permit an assessment of its long-run viability. However, it represents a model for high-level worker participation. Another example of intense worker participation is found in the Kibbutz system in Israel (see Tannenbaum et al., 1974, for a complete description). Here, there is intentional work role rotation, including

The Organizational Dimension

289

rotation into managerial positions. A major diffference between the kibbutz system and that of Yugoslavia is that the kibbutz is not the major vehicle for Israel’s economic activity (Warner, 1981). Another approach to worker participation involves various schemes linked to the idea of “industrial democracy” (see Thorsrud et al., 1976) or worker-participation movements. Most of the activity in regard to industrial democracy and worker participation has occurred in Europe. The forms of industrial democracy and worker participation contain many elements, ranging from increased worker participation at the sociotechnical level through having worker and/or union representa­ tion on boards of management or boards of directors. Such schemes have been implemented in both state-owned and privately held organiza­ tions. Brannen (1983) has examined the history and context of workerparticipation programs and finds there is a strong relationship between social and economic conditions and the extent to which worker participation and representation are supported by both workers and management. In general, levels of worker participation and representa­ tion increase in periods of economic growth and stable social conditions and decrease in more difficult times. Brannen sees a gradual movement toward more worker participation, but predicts it will have limited impact on the authority structure of organizations. Most obsevers note some clear differences between Europe and the United States in terms of the magnitude and forms of worker participation. Miles (1981) notes that in Europe there is at least an operational level of agreement among government leaders, labor spokesmen, and social scientists in regard to the value of restructuring work role relationships. In Europe this takes the form of greater participation in work decisions at the worker level and representation on corporate boards. Such is not the pattern in the United States, where the issues of pay and employment security are more central. It would appear that programs designed to increase worker participation in the United States will only be supported when a clear link with increased productivity is seen by management and no threat to job security or pay is seen by labor.

The “Japanese”Approach In recent years there has been a great deal of interest in and borrowing from Japanese managerial systems by organizations in the United States. The reasons are simple—Japanese firms have been very suc­ cessful in world markets and Japanese workers have been shown to be

290

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

highly productive. Ouchi’s (1981) highly popular book, Theory Z, helped bring the Japanese approach to even greater prominence. In his review of the Japanese experience, Tausky (1984) notes that Japanese education stresses discipline and that Japanese culture empha­ sizes collective, rather than individual, ends. The context is thus clearly different from that in the United States. This makes a difference in the extent to which this Japanese product can be exported. At the same time, there are many efforts being made in the United States to import certain practices. The Japanese approach has a strong collective orientation. Em­ ployees hired in a given year are promoted as a group, rather than only some individuals being put on the fast track. Employers are paternalis­ tic, offering housing programs, family allowances, day care and medical facilities, and group travel arrangements. After a probationary period, workers receive permanent employment. Wages are relatively low, but this is compensated for by a bonus system that is linked to a firm’s profitability for the preceding time period. Tausky notes that the systems of permanent employment and bonuses create a strong bond between employees and employers. It is in the employees’ interests to produce work that is high in quality and quantity, as the success of the company contributes to both individual and collective benefits. The relationships between employers and em­ ployees are nonadversarial. Interestingly, this approach is not really new to the United States. The Lincoln Electric company has had a pay system that is linked to productivity for fifty years (Fein, 1976). Fein reports that the Lincoln workers work fast and hard. They also receive very large bonuses each year, with much more of the profits going to management and workers than to stockholders. The Lincoln system is tied to collective accomplish­ ment. Fein (1976: 513) notes that although Lincoln has been visited by many other managers over the years, there has been little emulation, perhaps because the system is seen as too ‘‘radical.’’ On the other hand, Ouchi (1981) has found examples of successful implementation of Japanese-type programs in companies such as IBM and Hewlett-Packard. The basic Japanese approach and the Lincoln program involve clear redefinitions of the role of individuals. When individual accomplish­ ment is stressed, there is little likelihood of successful implementation of such approaches. The greatest likelihood of successful implementation in the United States would appear to be in situations of high technology that are very labor intensive and require highly collaborative work. It should also be noted that these systems are nearly impossible in nonprof­

The Organizational Dimension

291

it work situations, unless there were to be wholesale restructuring in the ways in which government agencies, public universities, hospitals, muse­ ums, and the like are funded and evaluated. In the United States, this is highly unlikely. One additional technique that has been borrowed from Japan should be noted: the “quality control (Q-C) circle.” Q-C circles involve work groups and supervisors meeting together to discuss production and quality problems and coming up with proposed solutions. The sugges­ tions from Q-C circles are subject to management approval. The Q-C circle approach has gained rapid acceptance in many U.S. organiza­ tions. Tausky (1984:147) sees little likelihood of the Q-C circle approach having a lasting impact because of the continuing adversarial relation­ ships between employers and employees: The programs we have reviewed have promise, but fall short of coming to grips with the underlying dilemma of adversarial relationships. Until that problem is resolved, no scheme is likely to extend its effects beyond rather restrained improvements. Adversarial relationships are not handily detectable in strike statistics; their results are usually more subtle because they inhibit concern with higher productivity and better quality. There is, it seems to me, no mystery about the personnel policies that are sufficiently potent to stimulate substantial gains in cooperation. With the twin policies of secure jobs and profit sharing, the perception of a shared fate emerges. Without such a perception, adversarial relationships will most likely persist.

I concur, with the caveat that something comparable to profit sharing must be developed for work out of the private sector.

Comparable Worth The organizational change to be considered here is very different from those that have been discussed. The impetus for this change comes from outside the organization. According to Steinberg (1984: 15): Equal pay for work of equal value, more commonly known as com­ parable worth, represents the newest development in the evolution of policy to achieve labor market equality for women. It concerns whether work done primarily by women is systematically undervalued because it has been and continues to be done primarily by women. The consequence of systematic undervaluation is that the wages paid to women and men engaged in women’s work are artifically depressed relative to what the wages would be if the jobs were being performed on the free market by white men.

292

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

A committee established by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences found “systematic underpayment of jobs held primarily by women” (Treiman and Hartmann, 1981: 65). This underpayment is not explained by the women’s human-capital invest­ ments or by labor market discrimination. The basis lies squarely within organizations and is linked to the manner in which the rates of pay for jobs are evaluated by organizations. The move toward comparable worth is based on the idea that if many jobs were reevaluated, equality in pay for jobs of equal worth to organizations could result. Comparable worth has been opposed on two grounds—the costs involved in evaluating all of the jobs in an organization and the costs that might result from raising the pay scales for some jobs. Comparable worth is supported by those who believe that wage discrimination should be eliminated. Steinberg (1984) notes that comparable worth has been supported by women employees, state commissions on the status of women, and some labor unions, who have been battling with employers over comparable worth. The early battles were fought in courts. More recently, according to Steinberg, the arenas of struggle have been broadened to include state and local legislatures and collective bargaining situations. Exactly where this issue will go is still unclear.

ORGANIZATIONS AN D CHANGE The forms of organizational change that have been analyzed here are based on sources within and outside organizations. McKelvey (1982) has labeled these “autogenic” and “allogenic” sources of change, respectively. Organizational management is the dominant source of autogenic change, as it seeks to raise productivity and minimize costs— this is regardless of whether an organization is public or private. Alloge­ neic sources of change include labor unions, government actions (for private organizations), and social movement groups, as in the case of women’s groups and comparable worth. Regardless of the source, it is important to note that organizations are highly resistant to change (Kaufman, 1971; Hall, 1982). Organiza­ tions, by their very nature, are designed to be stable. It is thus unrealistic to expect rapid or deep changes in the organizational dimension of work. Most of the forms of change that we have been considering are essentially tinkering, and this is likely to be the pattern of the future.

The Organizational Dimension

293

CONCLUSIONS This chapter began with the observation that contemporary work is organizational work and ended with the conclusion that these organiza­ tions are unlikely to change very much. In between, the power of organizations in their role as the immediate setting of attainment on the vertical dimension was examined. It was shown that organizations are clearly affected by their own environments. The final consideration was various approaches to changing the organizational dimensions that have appeared in the literature and in practice. Larger-scale changes would appear to be dependent upon shifts in power, within organiza­ tions and in the wider society. The next chapter considers the power dimension.

REFERENCES Aldrich, Howard E. (1979) Organizations and Environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. -------- and Jeffrey Pfeffer (1976) “Environments of organizations.” Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 2. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Alvarez, Rodolfo (1979) “Institutional discrimination in organizations and their environ­ ments,” in Rodolfo Alvarez, Kenneth G. Lutterman, and Associates, Discrimination in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Baron, James L. (1984) “Organizational perspectives on stratification,” pp. 37-69 in Ralph Turner (ed.) Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 10. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. -------- and William T. Bielby (1984) “The organization of work in a segmented economy.” American Sociological Review 49 (August): 454-473. Berg, Ivar (1971) Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery. Boston: Beacon. Bielby, William T. and James N. Baron (1983) “Organizations, technology, and worker attachment to the firm,” in Donald J. Treiman and Robert V. Robinson (eds.) Research in Social Stratification and Mobility. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Brannen, Peter (1983) Authority and Participation in Industry. New York: St. M artin’s. Brittain, Jack W. and John H. Freeman (1980) “Organizational proliferation and density dependent selection,” in John R. Kimberly, Robert H. Miles, and Associates, The Organizational Life Cycle. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Carroll, Glenn, Jr. and Jacques Delacroix (1982) “Organizational mortality in the newspaper industries of Argentina and Ireland: an ecological approach.” Ad­ ministrative Science Quarterly 27 (June): 169-198. Chandler, Alfred D., Jr. (1962) Strategy and Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Child, John (1972) “Organizational structure, environment, and performance: the role of strategic choice.” Sociology 6 (January): 1-22. Clegg, Stewart and David Dunkerly (1980) Organization, Class, and Control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

294

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Cohen, Yinon and Jeffrey Pfeffer (1984) “Employment practices in a dual economy.” Industrial Relations 23 (February): 58-72. Collins, Randall (1979) The Credentials Society. New York: Academic. DiMaggio, Paul J. and Walter W. Powell (1983) “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields.” American Sociolog­ ical Review 48 (April): 147-160. Dombusch, Sanford and W. Richard Scott (1975) Evaluation and the Exercise of Authority. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fein, Mitchell (1976) “Motivation for work,” in Robert Dubin (ed.) Handbook of Work, Organization, and Society. Chicago: Rand McNally. Granovetter, Mark (1984) “Small is bountiful: labor markets and establishment size.” American Sociological Review 49 (June): 323-334. Hage, Jerald (1980) Theories of Organizations. New York: John Wiley. Hall, Richard H. (1982) Organizations: Structure and Process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hannan, Michael T. and John H. Freeman (1977) “The population ecology of organizations.” American Journal of Sociology 82 (March): 929-964. Hodson, Randy (1984) “Companies, industries, and the measurement of economic segmentation.” American Sociological Review 49 (June): 335-348. Jacobs, Jerry (1983) “Industrial sector and career mobility reconsidered.” American Sociological Review 48 (June): 415-421. Kalleberg, Arne L., Michael Wallace, and Robert P. Althauser (1981) “Economic segmentation, worker power, and income attainment.” American Journal of Soci­ ology 87 (November): 651-683. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic. Kaufman, Herbert (1981) The Limits of Organizational Change. University: University of Alabama Press. Kaufman, Robert, Randy D. Hodson, and Neil D. Fligstein( 1981) “Defrocking dualism: a new approach to defining industrial sectors.” Social Science Research 10 (March): 1-13. Kohn, Melvin and Carmi Schooler (1982) “Job conditions and personality: a longitudinal assessment of their reciprocal effects.” American Journal of Sociology 87 (May): 1257-1286. Lieberson, Stanley and James F. O’Connor (1972) “Leadership and organizational performance: a study of large corporations.” American Sociological Review 37 (April): 117-130. March, James C. and James G. March (1977) “Almost random careers: the Wisconsin school superintendency 1940-1972.’’ A dm inistrative Science Q uarterly 22 (September): 377-409. -------- (1978) “Performance sampling in social matches. ” Administrative Science Quarter­ ly 23 (September): 434-453. McKelvey, Bill (1982) Organizational Systematics: Taxonomy, Evolution, Classification. Berkeley: University of California Press. -------- and Howard E. Aldrich (1983) “Populations, natural selection, and applied organizational science.” Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (March): 101-128. Meyer, John (1977) “The effects of education as an institution.” American Journal of Sociology 83 (July): 55-77. Meyer, M arshall W. (1978) Environments and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

The Organizational Dimension

295

Miles, Raymond E. (1981) “Governance of organizations: leader-led roles,” in George W. England et al. (eds.) The Functioning of Complex Organizations. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain. Nystrom, Paul C. (1981) “Designing jobs and assigning employees,” in Paul C. Nystrom and William H. Starbuck (eds.) Handbook of Organizational E>esign, Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press. Obradovi6, Josip (1972) “Distribution of participation in the process of decision making on problems related to the economic activity of the company,” in Eugen Pusi6 (ed.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Participation and SelfManagement, Vol. 2. Zagreb: University of Zagreb, Institute for Social Research. Ouchi, William (1981) Theory Z. Lexington, MA: Addison-Wesley. Perrow, Charles (1979) Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Yinon Cohen (1984) “Determinants of internal labor markets in organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 29 (December): 550-572. Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Gerald R. Salancik (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row. Rosenbaum, James A. (1979) “Organizational career mobility: promotion chances in a corporation during periods of growth and contraction.” American Journal of Sociolo­ gy 85 (July): 21-48. -------- (1981) “Careers in a corporate hierarchy: a longitudinal analysis of earnings and level attainments,” in Donald J. Treiman and Robert V. Robinson (eds.) Research in Social Stratification and Mobility: A Research Annual. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Rus, Veljko (1972) “The limits of organized participation,” in Eugen Pusifc (ed.) Proceed­ ings of the First International Conference on Participation and Self-Management, Vol. 2. Zagreb: University of Zagreb, Institute for Social Research. Sabel, Charles, F. (1982) Work and Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Schervish, Paul G. (1983) Vulnerability and Power in Market Relations: The Structural Determinants of Unemployment. New York: Academic. Scott, W. Richard (1981) Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems. Engle­ wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Spangler, Eve, Marsha A. Gordon, and Ronald M. Pipkin (1978) “Token women: an empirical test of Kanter's hypothesis.” American Journal of Sociology 84 (July): 160-170. Steinberg, Ronnie J. (1984) “From laissez faire to a fair wage for women’s work: a technical fix to the labor contract.” Contemporary Sociology 13 (January): 15-17. Stinchcombe, Arthur L. (1965) “Organizations and social structure,” in James G. March (ed.) Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally. Tannenbaum, Arnold S., Bogdan Kav6i6, Menachem Rosner, Mino Vianello, and Georg Wieser (1974) Hierarchy in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tausky, Curt (1984) Work and Society. Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock. -------- and E. Lauck Parke (1976) “Job enrichment, need theory, and reinforcement theory,” in Robert Dubin (ed.) Handbook of Work, Organization, and Society. Chicago: Rand McNally. -------- and Anthony F. Chelte (1983) “A ccountably and productivity: some longitudi­ nal data.” Work and Occupations 10 (May): 207-220. Thorsrud, Einar, Bj^m Aase Sorensen, and Bj^m Gustavsen (1976) “Sociotechnical approach to industrial democracy in Norway,” in Robert Dubin (ed.) Handbook of Work, Organization, and Society. Chicago: Rand McNally.

296

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Treiman, Donald J. and Heidi Hartmann (1981) Women, Work, and Wages: Equal Pay for Jobs of Equal Value. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Van de Ven, Andrew H. (1979) “Howard E. Aldrich: organizations and environments.” Administrative Science Quarterly 24 (June): 320-326. Wallace, Michael and Arne L. Kalleberg (1981) “Economic organization, occupations, and labor force consequences: toward a specification of dual economy theory,” in Ivar Berg (ed.) Sociological Perspectives on Labor Markets. New York: Academic. Walton, Richard E. (1980) “Establishing and maintaining high commitment work systems,” in John R. Kimberly et al. (eds) The Organizational Life Cycle. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Warner, Malcolm (1981) “Organizational experiments and social innovations,” in Paul C. Nystrom and William H. Starbuck (eds.) Handbook of Organizational Design, Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press. Whetten, David (1980) “Sources, responses, and effects of organizational decline,” in John Kimberly et al. (eds.) The Organizational Life Cycle. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Woodworth, Warner (1981) “Forms of employee ownership and workers’ control.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 8 (May): 195-200. Zeitz, Gerald (1984) “Bureaucratic role characteristics and member affective response in organizations.” Sociological Quarterly 25 (Summer): 301-318. Zucker, Lynne G. and Carolyn Rosenstein (1981) “Taxonomies of institutional structure: dual economy reconsidered.” American Sociological Review 46 (December): 869-884.

—

10

—

THE PO WER DIMENSION Every chapter in this book, in one way or another, has been concerned with power. When the issue of deskilling and the control of work in the first chapter was considered, this was clearly an issue of power. For the individual dimension, the important variable of autonomy is essentially about the power of individuals in their work. The various forms of work are closely linked to power—managers and executives occupy positions of power and professionals exercise power in relationships with clients and in their work places. Most white- and blue-collar work is character­ ized by the absence of power. On the horizontal dimension, autonomy was one of the defining characteristics and core or monopoly sectors have power over peripheral or competitive sectors. The vertical dimen­ sion can be viewed exclusively from a power perspective, although I believe that this is too narrow an interpretation of the vertical dimen­ sion. The gender, age, and racial-ethnic dimensions can also be viewed totally from a power perspective. Feminist scholars, for example, con­ sistently view male-female economic and status differentials from the perspective of male efforts to maintain dominance. Efforts to restruc­ ture the organizational dimension in terms of various forms of worker participation involve shifts in power arrangements. Why then, a separate chapter on the power dimension? There are several reasons. First, some loose ends from the discussion of the organizational dimension should be brought together into what I hope will be a coherent conclusion. Second, there is an additional approach to power distributions in organizations—empowerment—that is best dis­ cussed outside the context of worker participation. Third, labor unions and their efforts to alter power arrangements have been considered only obliquely and will be brought into the analysis here. Fourth and finally, the broader political context and its influence on work has not been analyzed, but will be included in this chapter.

Power Defined The simplest and most widely used definition of power is Dahl’s (1957:202-203) statement: UA has power over B to the extent that he can 297

298

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

get B to do something that B would not otherwise do.” (For additional considerations of the power concept, particularly in the organizational context, see the works of Bacharach and Lawler, 1980; Bierstedt, 1950; Blau, 1964; Dornbusch and Scott, 1976; Emerson, 1962; Etzioni, 1961; Hall, 1982; Kaplan, 1964; Pfeffer, 1981; Weber, 1947.) Dahl’s simple definition can be modified easily for our purposes. The key modification is the substitution of social units for the male pronoun. Thus whites have power over blacks to the extent that whites . . . , or organizations have power over their workers to the extent that organiza­ tions . . . , and so on. It is thus possible to consider social classes, industrial sectors, gender groupings, or any social unit within the basic definition of power. Power can also operate at the individual, interper­ sonal level in work settings. The second modification is more subtle. Power is sometimes exercised without the intent of the power holder. Power is a social relationship, with a power holder and a power recip­ ient. It is possible for the power recipient to perceive that some power holder—an organization, a superior, a member of a different gender—is attempting to wield power, when that is actually not the intent. If the power recipient perceives an action as a power action and behaves accordingly, power is exercised regardless of the intentions of the power holder. Most power relationships, of course, do involve intent on the part of the power holder.

POWER AND THE ORGANIZATIONAL DIMENSION The basic power issue in organizations is well stated by Hill (1981:2). He notes that “employers and employees are enmeshed in economic relations which by their very nature contain powerful oppositional elements.” According to Hill, these oppositional elements involve both the production of goods and services and the distribution of profits. The issue in the production of goods and services is control of the worker, and thus the issues discussed in the previous chapter reemerge here. In my view, the issue is broader than the economic emphasis given by Hill. Nonetheless, the notion of inherent conflict is useful, because employers and employees do attempt to exercise power in the work place. The exercise of power in the organizational work place occurs in a broader context than in the organization itself. Brannen (1983) finds that workers’ orientations toward participation at the work place are

The Power Dimension

299

related to their broader orientations toward work. These broader orien­ tations are themselves related to individual background characteristics, social conditions, and the immediate work situation. As noted in the previous chapter, Brannen also found that orientations toward partici­ pation are related to the wider political and economic context, with drives for participation coming in waves, rather than in the form of constant pressures. Brannen also considered the orientation of managers toward worker participation. Basing his conclusions largely on studies done in Europe, where there is generally a stronger interest in and higher levels of worker participation than in the United States, Brannen (1983: 95) reports: All the surveys on management’s orientation towards participation we have discussed. . . took place during the 1970s, a period when there was a resurgence of interest in society at large in the issue of participation. There are a number of common threads in management views. Most managers expressed interest in the idea of participation. Few managers defined participation in terms of sharing the decision-making process with the workforce. For most managers across industry and across managerial occupations participation was about communication and consultation, a means of involving the workforce and increasing their commitment in order to increase efficiency [This and subsequent quotes from this source are reprinted by permission of St. Martin’s Press, Inc.].

Brannen goes on to state that there are variations in these managerial orientations. Managers with a “left” political orientation were more favorable toward participation than those expressing the opposite polit­ ical views. Managers in areas such as personnel or industrial relations were more disposed toward worker participation than line managers. Interestingly, senior managers were less threatened by the idea of worker participation than their more junior colleagues. There was also some variation by industrial sector, with the industrial sector more favorable than the service sector and the public sector more positive toward worker participation than the private sector. All in all, Brannen (1983:96) concludes: “Participation is considered by management only when there are threats to managerial authority, and paradoxically in order to maintain it.” Based on his analysis of worker orientations toward participation, Brannen reaches the following additional conclusion: The data on attitudes toward participation tends to be drawn from workers who, broadly speaking, are in the primary sectors of the labour market. These are located in enterprises which provide the greatest poten­ tial for participation. Within the secondary segments people are gathered

300

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

who, both in terms of their personal characteristics and the social situa­ tion they inhabit, will have little cohesion and little stability. Organisa­ tion, knowledge and understanding, important underpinnings of partici­ pation, are difficult to achieve in such situations. Potential is low. However, even in the primary segments with strong potential and at a time of high public interest, the data indicates that whilst there was a general demand for greater participation, there was also a general accep­ tance of the existing authority structure of the enterprise. Despite some signs of a cultural change, with a heightening of expectations, particularly amongst younger workers, the data appears to suggest that most workers are uninterested in participating in their work organisations other than in relatively limited ways at the socio-technical level. Their values represent no basic challenge to managerial authority [p. 80].

Brannen’s view is thus that worker participation schemes have little likelihood of altering the basic power arrangements in organizations. This conclusion is reinforced by two other bits of evidence. Albrecht (1981) analyzed orientations toward worker participation in Sweden, a country with a strong tradition of participation. She found that although interest in and demands for participation were high, they were countered by broad trends of centralization, consolidation, and concen­ tration. These trends “reduced old channels of actual participation while at the same time creating a harder working life. Thus, the demand for increased participation is viewed as stemming from an actual decreased potential to participate” (p. 263). Even in situations with a tradition of high participation, there are forces operative that limit the potential for participation. In an analysis of actual levels of participation in labor-management committees, Lietko et al. (1985) found that nonparticipation was the modal response of workers who were members of such committees. The workers’ own orientations and those of the management personnel on the committees contributed to the lack of actual participation even in these intentionally participative committees. Both workers and man­ agement had been socialized to expect nonparticipation. The evidence we have been considering here strongly suggests that worker participation programs will have little effect on the power arrangements within organizations. There is understandably very little interest on the part of management of losing power and workers appear to be unwilling, even unable, to assume power through participation. Power arrangements are affected by more than worker participation schemes, however, and the balance of this chapter is devoted to other ways in which power arrangements have been approached.

The Power Dimension

301

EMPOWERMENT The idea of empowerment is closely tied to the work of Kanter (1977), which was largely focused on women in large-scale organizations. Miller (1981) has expanded the concept to include both workers in general and clients of professionals. The idea of empowerment also has obvious ramifications for the age and racial/ethnic dimensions that have been considered here. The basic idea behind empowerment is “to alter the distribution of power in work settings so that those who have been powerless in the past are given more opportunities to control their destinies” (Miller, 1981: 247-248). How is this to be done? According to Kanter (1977:275-276), it must begin with a realization of the nature of power in the organizational work setting: Power. . . has both a job-related and a social component. It is associated with the exercise of discretion, the chance to demonstrate out-of-theordinary capacities in the job, handling uncertainties rather than routine events; with access to visibility; and with the relevance of the job to current organizational problems. As is well known, organizations also have an informal power structure coexisting alongside of the formal delegation of authority, which is influenced by formal arrangements but may or may not correspond to official hierarchical distinctions. Thus, power is also accumulated through alliances with sponsors, successful peers, and up-and-coming subordinates. To empower those women and others who currently operate at a disadvantage requires attention to both sides of power. It is always hard to get at real power issues or make impactful changes in a power structure, since, almost by definition, those with power have a stake in keeping it for themselves. However, with this limitation in mind, it is still possible to try to structurally improve the power position of more people.

Kanter goes on to make some specific suggestions in regard to how to implement empowerment. The first suggestion is to flatten the hier­ archy. This involves removing levels and spreading formal authority. Kanter believes this would operate to the advantage of both subordi­ nates and superiors. Subordinates would participate in more decisions, and superiors would be freed from watchdog type supervision and could engage in more planning. Both superiors and subordinates would thus be empowered. Along with flattened hierarchies, Kanter also suggests decentralization as an empowerment strategy. This would result in more autonomous work groups.

302

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

In order to deal with the difficult aspect of the informal side of power arrangements, Kanter argues that opening communications channels and providing system knowledge would be means of empowerment. Both techniques would permit access to information that had previously been in the hands and minds of men “on the inside.” Kanter’s study reveals the importance of sponsorship for later careers and this would have to be tackled in an empowerment program. Her suggestion here is to reward more senior officials for the number of individuals that they sponsor successfully. Kanter believes that empowerment programs would lead to more effective organizations. In addition to empowerment, Kanter advocates balancing the numbers of minorities and women in organizations (to prevent token­ ism) and enhancing opportunities through various forms of job rede­ sign. Kanter is fully aware of the resistance that empowerment move­ ments will face. Nonetheless, she believes that the costs are too high for the people who do not have power and for the organizations that do not develop the power and performance potentials of all their members not to attempt to implement empowerment strategies. Some evidence in support of Kanter’s approach is found in South et al.’s (1982) research on male and female supervisors in a large federal bureaucracy. These researchers note that the stereotype of female supervisors is a negative one, with terms such as mean, bossy, domineer­ ing, capricious, and excessively bureaucratic frequently used. This study found that women supervisors were generally rated as more particularis­ tic and controlling than male supervisors by female subordinates. The more interesting finding, however, was that this relationship was signifi­ cantly improved when the actual amount of organizational power that the female supervisors had was controlled. When the women supervi­ sors had actual power, the value of work group membership and job satisfaction increased, and perception of favoritism and close supervi­ sion decreased. However, as these authors note: Ironically, however, a major obstacle to the admission of women to positions of authority may well be managers’ application of the “mean and bossy” stereotype, not only to powerless female supervisors, but also to all female supervisors. This stereotype may thus take on the status of a self-fulfilling prophecy: If executives think that female supervisors are rigid and authoritative, play favorites, and foster low group morale and job dissatisfaction among their employees, they are more likely to assign female supervisors to low-status, unimportant, and powerless positions in the organization. And, as we have seen, powerlessness, among both male and female supervisors, breeds these very traits [South et al., 1982:252].

The Power Dimension

303

It would appear that some empowerment is likely to develop in the future on the basis of sheer numbers. Affirmative-action hiring, based on the form of larger political movements, which will be discussed in the last section of this chapter, has led to increasing numbers of women and minorities entering the labor force in nontraditional positions. As these individuals move through their organizational systems, some empowerment will be almost inevitable. Empowerment involves altered power arrangements within organi­ zations, but in ways quite different from worker participation strategies. Altered power arrangements can also occur on the basis of pressures from outside organizations. One of these sources of pressure is labor unions, to which the discussion now turns.

LABOR UNIONS The purpose of this section is to examine the ways in and extent to which labor unions affect power distributions. This is not intended to be a complete overview of unions. More comprehensive overviews of union activities and structures and bibliographies can be found in Form and Huber (1976), Miller and Form (1980) and Tausky (1984). There are several points that should be noted prior to analyzing the impact of unions on power arrangements. The first point is that labor unions are a relatively recent phenomenon in terms of their official recognition by the government in the United States. It was not until the New Deal era of the 1930s that the Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932) and the Wagner Act (1935) granted unions’protection and recognition. Legisla­ tion in later decades (Taft-Hartley in 1947, and Landrum-Griffin in 1959) represented attempts at prohibiting certain union activities, but the basic government protection and recognition remained. The second preliminary point is that a miniority of workers are union members. Tausky (1984:123) notes that only 25% of the nonagricultural labor force are represented by organized labor. The percentage of this labor force that is represented has shown a steady decline since the high of 36% in 1945. The third preliminary point is that the distribution of union power within the United States is uneven. Approximately twenty states have “right-to-work” laws that prohibit certain practices that encourage union security. These states are primarily in the South and Southwest (Tausky, 1984:122). This is at least a partial explanation for the move­

304

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

ment of some industries to the Sunbelt. According to Simpson (1981), who examined unionization in the southern textile industry, the relative weakness of unions in the U.S. South is based on a combination of management practices and control, characteristics of the workers involved, characteristics of both unions and traditional southern indus­ tries, and the manner in which the labor force has been integrated into the community. Simpson suggests that these patterns may be changing. In southern textile factories, “changes... may make them ripe at last for unionism. But a union victory could be pyrrhic if it hastened the flight of the industry to low-wage countries” (p. 398). These preliminary considerations might make it appear that unions are unimportant in terms of power arrangements. This is hardly the case. Tausky (1984:118) makes a strong argument for the importance of unions in regard to power: Although we take unions and collective bargaining for granted, their legitimacy under our laws is of relatively recent origin. For the largest share of the world’s workers these activities are still either not permitted or stunted. Outside North America and Western Europe, collective bar­ gaining is found in comparatively few nations. In the rest, unions are either absent altogether—as in China, Indochina, and the major OPEC countries—or so tightly controlled by the government that the unions resemble an arm of the state—as in Russia, Cuba, Eastern Europe, and most of South America. The reasons for suppressing or controlling unions involve power and economics. Autonomous unions represent a challenge to the concentra­ tion of power in a government’s hands, as the recent suppression of Polish unions unmistakably illustrates. In addition to the power issue, but tied to it, is the economic dimension. The amounts of money invested in different sectors of an economy are directly determined by government if the economy is not open to orga­ nized demands for wage hikes and consumption goods. Organized pres­ sure for such gains can be avoided if unions are prohibited or tightly regulated. Clearly, we should not expect a reversal of current policies toward unions in nations with a history of centralized power.

There is a crucial point that is somewhat buried in the statement given above: the importance of governmental recognition of unions. Simpson and Simpson’s (1981) anthology contains analyses of worker conscious­ ness and workers protests in such diverse settings as Tropical Africa, Nigeria, India, and Russia. Unless there is governmental recognition of unions, however, there is little likelihood that power arrangements will be altered, even in the face of massive worker protests. The fact that the

The Power Dimension

305

Polish government made a strong effort to crush the union-based Soli­ darity movement is indicative to its recognition that unions have the potential to exercise a great deal of power. On the other hand, of course, in situations in which unions are officially recognized, as in the United States, unions do not wield nearly as much power as was potentially wielded in the Polish situation. In the United States, people join and participate in unions for a variety of reasons. The basic, and obvious, reason for favorable atti­ tudes toward unions is dissatisfaction with the work place (Getman et al., 1976; Kochan, 1979). The most critical factors, especially for bluecollar workers, involve economic issues, such as wages, job security, and fringe benefits (Kochan, 1979; Farber and Saks, 1980; Schriesheim, 1981). Other researchers have identified the gap between workers’desire to participate in decisions and their actual ability to do so (Brett, 1980), and levels of organizational commitment (Alutto and Belasco, 1974) as important contributors to workers’ interests in unions. The exact reasons a particular set of employees, whether they be blue-collar, white-collar, or professional workers, have particular atti­ tudes toward unions will vary with the particular work situation and social setting involved. For example, Rosenstein and French (1985) found that attitudes toward unionization in a business firm that had a strong program of employee stock ownership were related to the degree to which employees participated in the stock ownership plan, along with more traditional economic and noneconomic factors. In a study of working-class consciousness in Spain, Logan (1981) found that recent rural migrants to cities were conservative in their levels of conscious­ ness, but more affluent workers were more militant because they realized that they had little opportunity for further advancement in the system that had prevailed under the Franco regime in that country. There is no one factor that determines attitudes toward unionization, but rather a combination of factors unique to particular work situations. The basic tool of unions is collective bargaining. According to Form and Huber (1976: 772), this technique, which was developed in bluecollar unions, “is now so well known and effective that other occupa­ tions are adopting it: clerical workers in large firms, government workers at all skill levels, and various levels of professional workers such as nurses, teachers, and airline pilots.” Collective bargaining is an adversarial relationship (Tausky, 1984: 125). Each side, labor and management, attempts to gain as much as possible, while giving up as little as possible. For labor, the gains come in the forms of economic benefits, employment security packages, extra

306

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

holidays and vacations, and greater control of the work process. For management, gains come in the forms of keeping costs down and retaining control of the work process. The “ultimate” weapon in collective bargaining is the strike by labor or the lockout by management. In reality, strikes are very infrequent— typically less than one-quarter of 1% of the total working time per year (Tausky, 1984: 125). Collective bargaining in general and decisions to strike in particular are not done in a vacuum. The social and economic context of a particular collective bargaining situation is critical. Smith (1979), for example, argues that strikes are rational when there is low unemployment, regardless of the attitudes of employers or the extent to which the government is favorable to unions. Conversely, it would not be rational to strike while there is high unemployment. Britt and Galle (1974) found relationships among plant size, degree of industry unioni­ zation, and union size and the length, extent, and frequency of strikes. For example, in heavily unionized industries, strikes were broader, shorter, and more frequent than in less unionized industries. The con­ text in which collective bargaining is carried out thus has important consequences for the outcome. In a period in which many industries in the United States are facing intense foreign competition, many unions are making wage and other concessions to employers. Were the situa­ tion to turn around, unions would obviously demand that these conces­ sions and more be returned to them by employers. The key question in regard to unions for the purposes of this discus­ sion is whether or not unions actually alter power arrangements. Tausky (1984: 129) asks the question this way: Does unionism pay? Generally, yes. What is harder to answer is how much it benefits union members. Since an answer to “how much” depends on comparison between union and nonunion wages (and benefits), we should notice that union wages also affect nonunion employers. They too may follow along, at least roughly, in order to avoid unions. But it does appear that among employees doing approximately similar work, over the past twenty years there has been a 5 to 20 percent wage advantage in the private sector for union versus nonunion pay, with the low side of this estimated advantage for unionized federal workers and state and local public employees.

Form and Huber (1976) are less sanguine about unions* contributions to the economic benefits of their members. They note that measurement of economic gain or loss is compounded by more general economic upturns and downturns and by changes in industrial sector composition and distribution. Form and Huber do conclude that the presence of

The Power Dimension

307

unions has a stabilizing effect on the economy, as wages do not fall during periods of high unemployment and deflation. Form and Huber (1976:776) believe that the real impact of unions has been in the area of working conditions: The institutionalization of labor conflict results in the increased use of arbitration and mediation to solve problems. Unions reduce conflict at the local level, solve grievances on the plant floor, decrease the arbitrary authority of foremen, demand consultation on changes in wage rates, and secure adherence to seniority rules. In short, unions have forged a com­ mon law for everyday problems at the plant level and have institutional­ ized conflict in economic bargaining. Unions everywhere have stimulated governments to assume some of the burdens resulting from economic instability, such as unemployment insurance, old age benefits, medical insurance, and price stabilization.

The answer, then, to our basic question is that unions have contrib­ uted to alterations of power arrangements in work. The alterations are slight in terms of economic gains—labor’s piece of the whole economic pie appears to have changed little over time, but it has also not become smaller as Marx predicted it would (Form and Huber, 1976: 775). In terms of control over working conditions, unions have had an important power influence. Unions have had a mixed impact on power differentials on the racial and ethnic and gender dimensions. Baron (1984) notes that industrial unions have narrowed black-white income differentials. Blacks are part of the labor force where industrial unions have been strong. Craft unions, on the other hand, have systematically excluded minority workers. For women, the picture is different. Both teaching and nursing are highly unionized, as are some lower-status jobs in services. The unions that women belong to are thus likely to span organizations, according to Baron, rather than be firm-specific. This permits women to use their schooling and background across employers. In the case of nursing and teaching, unionization has had a positive impact on the power of the occupations. As is the case for men, nonunion jobs provide the potential for the greatest returns and prestige for women. The role of unions in the wider political context is mixed. In some countries, such as England, there are labor parties. In the United States, such direct linkages are absent. At one time, there was a close linkage between organized labor and the Democratic party, but this linkage has been weakened in recent years. The United States has been character­ ized by low levels of class consciousness and U.S. trade unions have

308

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

always been apolitical (Brody, 1980). Brody contends that U.S. unions have had little concern for the power issues of job content and design. In fact, he suggests that worker participation schemes, managementemployee councils, and other power-sharing techniques are actually welcomed and encouraged by management as a means of weakening unions through reduced levels of militancy. Although the level of labor militancy is presently quite low, this was obviously not the case in the past. The history of the labor union movement is full of highly militant unions and individuals. Interest­ ingly, Rubin et al. (1983) found that labor insurgency has been related only weakly to the presence or absence of unions. Early labor militancy was fought by state and federal governments that acted on behalf of management. Later, union recognition and protection came about because of governmental actions. The broader political context and its varying forms of impact on work will now be considered.

THE POLITICAL CONTEXT OF WORK The political context of work can be understood by examining a variety of examples. The present analysis begins with a presentation of some of these examples and then turns to a broader conceptualization of the political context. In Chapter 2 the nature of professional work was discussed. One of the keys to professional work is that those involved in these occupations have been able to obtain power. This power is frequently found in the form of licensure and certification by the state. Established professions fight inroads from aspiring professions. Aspiring professions attempt to gain recognition from the state. It is through legislation or by the actions of some executive office that many professions are licensed to practice. Ebbs and flows of power among lawyers, accountants, and bankers in the area of financial management and among physicians, nurses, and physicians’ assistants in the area of health care are based on successes and failures in the political arena. It is no accident that the headquarters of most major professional associations in the United States are located in Washington, D.C., or that state associations have their headquarters in state capitals. It is also widely recognized that laws have encouraged and discour­ aged various forms of worker participation and job redesign in different countries around the world (Stern and Whyte, 1981). Deutsch (1981),

The Power Dimension

309

for example, argues that legislation in Sweden and Norway helped pave the way for efforts to reform the work environments in those countries. In the same vein, de Marquez (1981) claims that changes are required in the balance of power among groups that compete for control of the state in Latin America before any work reforms are possible in that context. Laws and regulations have had major impacts on the gender, age, and racial and ethnic dimensions as various forms of discrimination have been outlawed. For example, Abbott and Smith (1984), found that the number of women in coaching and administrative positions in college athletics has increased as a result of Title IX and EEO regulations. Abbott and Smith suggest that this trend is likely to lead to a sexsegregated structure in athletics, with women coaching women’s teams and men coaching men’s teams. The “big-ticket items” in college athlet­ ics remain football and men’s basketball, so that a power differential will undoubtedly continue. In addition, Abbott and Smith report that the role of athletic director remains a largely male position. Nonetheless, the governmental actions in regard to Title IX and EEO regulations have had a real impact in this setting. Steinberg (1982) has traced the history of legislation in the United States dealing with wages, such as minimum wage laws, and hours, such as maximum number of hours people are permitted to work. She finds that a combination of factors are related to the passage of wages and hours legislation at the state and federal levels. Economic crises, such as depressions or recessions are followed by extensions of wage and hour coverage—greater protections are provided for workers. She also found that unionization was related to the passage of minimum wage legisla­ tion, and states with high levels of unionization are more likely to have progressive minimum wage laws. The passage of wages and hours legislation was also found to be related to the support of middle-class groups who were sympathetic to issues regarding work reform. Steinberg’s work is a good point of departure for a reconsideration of alternative positions that have been taken regarding the politics of work. Steinberg based her analysis on a class conflict approach in which workers are pitted against owners and managers. In other chapters of this book various aspects of the class conflict approach were considered. The evidence was found to be less than compelling in regard to the utility of using class conflict as the major basis for understanding the nature of work or as the dominant source of change in work. In Chapter 1, for example, the issue of deskilling was explored. Class conflict theorists hold that owners/managers systematically seek to deskill work to increase their measure of control over workers. Empirical evidence does not offer strong support for that position. In Chapter 2 the extent to

310

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

which the executive elite could be considered a class that acts in its own behalf was discussed. The evidence here appears to be stronger in terms of the presence of a class. However, this set of elites is unable to impose its will completely, which suggests some additional weakness in the class conflict approach. There are two basic issues in regard to a class conflict approach to the political arena surrounding work. The first is whether or not class consciousness serves as the basis for attempts at worker control on the part of owners/managers. The evidence indicates that this is only a partial answer for the forms of contemporary work. The second basic issue is whether or not class consciousness is at the core of movements, such as those to change laws regarding wages and hours or to eliminate general discrimination, designed to alter social relations at the work place. After an extensive review of labor and social movements, Landsberger (1976: 870) concludes that class consciousness is not the core phenomenon: A class conscious working-class movement with revolutionary potential, of the kind envisaged in the early part of this century, is over and done with: atrophied by success in economically developed societies; subject to repression by governments of all political colors in the developing nations. As Goldthorpe and his colleagues have correctly pointed out, this by no means implies that unions as such will disintegrate in the capitalist countries, nor that working-class people will become precisely like others in life-styles and values (Goldthorpe et al., 1969). But clearly, what remains is not uthe movement” in the old sense. We must conclude that it was only in the relatively liberal, capitalist and, of course, rich countries of the West that movements of some low status groups were given ample scope for limited periods of time. In economies of scarcity, and in politics of instability, including post-revolutionary ones, such movements would likely not be allowed to thrive. The organizations and movements of low status people is only one means to achieve upward mobility. Liberal-capitalist governments permit such movements. But in the long run, these systems may not be most effective in structuring society to accomplish the basic aim of rapidly and lastingly elevating the economic, political, prestige, and cultural status of the least privileged. Indeed, it may be that different forms of government are differentially effective in each of these areas: the socialist countries more efficient in some respects, and for some groups, the predominantly capi­ talist societies more for others. But in neither type of society are classical working-class, or peasant movements, likely to play a powerful role over any lengthy period of time [Henry A. Landsberger, “Labor Movements, Social Movements and Social Mobility,” in Robert Dubin (ed.) Hand­ book o f Work, Organization, and Society, p. 870. Copyright ® 1976 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Used by permission.].

The Power Dimension

311

If class conscious social movements are not to play the crucial role in the political arena surrounding work, what parties will? The answer appears to lie in a point that has been made repeatedly in this analysis— work is carried out in organizations. As I noted in an earlier work: The impact of organizations on the societies in which they are imbedded is great. There is little likelihood of this condition being reversed. Morris (1972) has pointed out that organizational growth is organizational suc­ cess. Even in a no-growth economy, private and public organizations try to grow at one another’s expense. Growth is a major way in which organizational decision makers or elites demonstrate their contributions to the organization. In addition to their size, there is another factor that gives contemporary organizations their unprecedented role in contemporary society: the modem organization is a legal entity, just like the individual person. In a perceptive set of essays, Coleman (1974) has indicated that legality is granted by the state, itself a legal creation. While the individual is given a set of rights and responsibilities by the state, rights and responsibilities are extended to organizations. These rights, coupled with size, give organiza­ tions an enormous amount of power within the state. Coleman also points out that the state government is more comfortable dealing with other organizations than with individual persons, and thus tends to provide more preferential treatment to organizations in areas as diverse as taxa­ tion or rights to privacy [Hall, 1982: 24].

Powerful organizations are thus the key political actors and not social classes. Recognition of this point is implicit in works such as Steinberg’s. Even though she frames her analysis on a class basis, Berg (1985), in a review of her work, points out that labor unions, together with middle-class social reform organizations, led to the work reforms she documents. The political arena surrounding work is thus composed of organizational actors. These organizational actors include corpora­ tions, the government itself, labor unions, professional associations, and social reform organizations. These social reform organizations can be on the political right or left. Important social reform organizations would include religious groups and advocates for older people, minori­ ties, and women. This political arena, as Landsberger has noted, is found only in liberal, capitalist, and wealthy national settings. CONCLUSIONS In this chapter I have attempted to complete the analysis of work and the power dimension. Power has emerged consistently as a theme

312

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

throughout this book, because it is ubiquitous in work itself. My view is that power arrangements in regard to work are subject to change. Altering power at work is difficult, given the organizational settings in which work is carried out, but the labor movement, attempts at empow­ erment, and programs of work reform have all altered existing patterns. Having said this, I would also note that major, revolutionary changes in the nature of work are extremely unlikely simply because owners/ man­ agers have more power than workers. The sheer possession of power tends to lead to its perpetuation. The focus of the analysis so far has been on work itself. In the next, and concluding chapter, the focus will shift. The relationships between work and other social institutions, such as the family and health and safety, will be examined.

REFERENCES Abbott, Andrew and D. Randall Smith (1984) “Governmental constraints and labor market mobility: turnover among college athletic personnel.” Work and Occupations 11 (February): 29-53. Albrecht, Sandra L. (1981) “Preconditions for increased workers’ influence: factors in the Swedish case.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 8 (May): 252-272. Alutto, Joseph A. and James A. Belasco (1974) “Determinants of attitudinal militancy among nurses and teachers.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 27 (January): 216-227. Bacharach, Samuel B. and Edward J. Lawler (1980) Power and Politics in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Baron, James N. (1984) “Organizational perspectives on stratification” in Ralph Turner (ed.) Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 10. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Berg, Ivar (1985) “Review of Ronnie Steinberg, Wages and Hours: Labor and Reform in Twentieth-Century America." Work and Occupations 12 (May): 229-232. Bierstedt, Robert (1950) “An analysis of social power. ” American Sociological Review 15 (December): 730-738. Blau, Peter M. (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley.

Brannen, Peter (1983) Authority and Participation in Industry. New York: St. Martin’s. Brett, John M. (1980) “Behavioral research on unions” in Barry M. Staw and Larry L. Cummings (eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Britt, David W. and Omer Galle (1974) “Structural antecedents of the shape of strikes: a comparative analysis.” American Sociological Review 39 (October): 642-651. Brody, David (1980) Workers in Industrial America: Essays on the Twentieth Century Struggle. New York: Oxford University Press. Coleman, James S. (1974) Power and the Structure of Society. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Dahl, Robert (1957) “The concept of power.” Behavioral Science 2 (July): 201-215.

The Power Dimension

313

de Marquez, Viviane B. (1981) “Politics, bureaucracy, and industrial democracy: a com­ parative framework for the analysis of worker control in Latin America.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 8 (May): 165-179. Deutsch, Steven (1981) “Work environment reform and industrial democracy. ” Sociology of Work and Occupations 8 (May): 180-194. Dornbusch, Sanford M. and W. Richard Scott (1976) Evaluation and the Exercise of Authority. New York: Basic. Emerson, Richard M. (1962) “Power-dependence relations.” American Sociological Review 27 (February): 31-40. Etzioni, Amitai (1961) A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: Free Press. Farber, Henry S. and Daniel H. Saks (1980) “Why workers want unions: the role of relative wages and job characteristics.” Journal of Political Economy 88 (April): 349-369. Form, William and Joan Huber (1976) “Occupational power,” in Robert Dubin (ed.) Handbook of Work, Organization, and Society. Chicago: Rand McNally. Getman, Julius G., Stephen B. Goldberg and Jeanne B. Herman (1976) Union Represen­ tation Elections: Law and Reality. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Goldthorpe, John H., David Lockwood, Frank Bechhofer, and Jennifer Platt (1969) The Affluent Worker in the Class Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hall, Richard H. (1982) Organizations: Structure and Process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hill, Stephen (1981) Competition and Control at Work: The New Industrial Sociology. London: Heineman Educational Books. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic. Kaplan, Abraham (1964) “Power in perspective” in Robert L. Kahn and Elise Boulding (eds.) Power and Conflict in Organizations. New York: Basic. Kochan, Thomas A. (1979) “How Americans view labor unions.” Monthly Labor Review 102 (April): 23-41. Landsberger, Henry A. (1976) “Labor movements, social movements, and social mobil­ ity” in Robert Dubin (ed.) Handbook of Work, Organization, and Society. Chicago: Rand McNally. Leitko, Thomas A., Arthur L. Greil, and Steven A. Peterson (1985) “Lessons at the bottom: worker nonparticipation in labor management committees as situational adjustment.” Work and Occupations 12 (August). Logan, John R. (1981) “Class structure, the sexual division of labor, and working-class consciousness in Spain,” in Richard L. Simpson and Ida Harper Simpson (eds.) Research in the Sociology of Work: A Research Annual, Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Miller, Delbert C. and William Form (1980) Industrial Sociology. New York: Harper & Row. Miller, Gale (1981) It’s a Living: Work in Modern Society. New York: St. Martin’s. Morris, Robin (1972) “Is the corporate economy a corporate state?” The American Economic Review 62 (March): 103-119. Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1981) Power in Organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman. Rosenstein, Joseph and J. Lawrence French (1985) “Attitudes toward unionization in and employee-owned firm in the southwest.” Work and Occupations 12 (November). Rubin, Beth A., Larry J. Griffin, and Michael Wallace (1983) “ ‘Provided only that their voice was strong’: insurgency and organization of American labor from NRA to Taft-Hartley.” Work and Occupations 10 (August): 325-347.

314

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Schriesheim, Chester A. (1981) “Job-satisfaction, attitudes toward unions and voting in a union representation election.” Journal of Applied Psychology 63 (October): 548-552. Simpson, Richard L. (1981) “Labor force integration and southern U.S. textile unions,” in Richard L. Simpson and Ida Harper Simpson (eds.) Research Sociology of Work: A Research Annual, Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI. -------- and Ida Harper Simpson [eds.] (1981) Research in the Sociology of Work: A Research Annual, Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Smith, Michael R. (1979) “Institutional setting and industrial conflict in Quebec.” Ameri­ can Journal of Sociology 85 (July): 109-134. South, Scott J., Charles M. Bonjean, Judy Corder, and William T. Markham (1982) “Sex and power in the federal bureaucracy.” Work and Occupations 9 (May): 233-254. Steinberg, Ronnie (1982) Wages and Hours: Labor and Reform in Twentieth-Century America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Stern, Robert and William F. Whyte (1981) “Editors’ introduction.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 8 (May): 139-142. Tausky, Curt (1984) Work and Society: An Introduction to Industrial Sociology. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock. Weber, Max (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons, trans.). New York: Free Press.

11

THE INSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION Some years ago I had the pleasure of living in Burlington, Vermont—a lovely city in a lovely part of the world. Just outside of Burlington was a large plant and office facility of IBM and, naturally, I became acquainted with a number of IBM employees. One day, one of these friends asked me, “What does IBM stand for?” I replied, “International Business Machines, of course.” The friend then said, “No, you’re wrong—It means I’ve Been Moved.” What he was referring to, of course, was the IBM policy at that time of moving its managerial and professional personnel around the country and around the world. IBM, and most major corporations and the military, have personnel for whom job transfers are an expected part of work life. I have made seven such long-distance moves in my career as a sociologist. These moves illustrate the major thrust of this chapter. When people move as part of their work, their families generally move with them. This has obvious repercussions for the work of spouses, for the education of children, and for relationships with parents and other relatives. Despite arguments that life in the United States is becoming homogenized, there are clear differences between living in upstate New York, New York City, Minnesota, or Southern California. The impact of people’s work spreads into other aspects of their lives. This chapter will have a primary focus on work-family linkages. Also to be considered are the relationships between work and physical and mental health. The analysis, and the book, will end with an examination of the relationships between work and government. It should be noted that another major institution, education, has vital linkages with work. These have already been discussed in earlier chapters and will not be repeated here.

WORK AN D THE F A M ILY The linkages between work and the family are complex. Part of the complexity is due to changes that have taken place in family form and 315

316

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

composition in recent years. Single-parent families, dual career or dual work families, homosexual families, and the apparent reemergence of extended families make the work-family relationship a complicated one to analyze. It must be recognized, however, that the work-family relationship has always been complex. The image of the wgood old days” in which the man was the only breadwinner and the woman the housewife and mother with only family responsibilities is an inaccurate image at best for most families. Bose (1984), in an analysis of women’s work in 1900, found a great deal of “hidden” employment of women at that time. Unpaid farm work or work in a family-owned business were common, as was taking in boarders. In any family enterprise—farm, business, or boarding house— work and family roles are highly intertwined. The chapter on the gender dimension revealed that women working outside the home in the labor force is not a new phenomenon. A more useful way to approach the work-family relationship is through a conceptualization such as Pleck’s (1977), which considers female and male roles simultaneously. In this approach, four roles are identified—the female work role, the male work, the male family role, and the female family role. To be sure, there are sex-segregated labor markets for both paid work and family tasks. Also, according to Pleck, there are asymmetrically permeable boundaries between work and family roles for both men and women. The advantage of a formulation such as Pleck’s is that it permits a simultaneous consideration of the impact of work roles on family roles and vice versa for both men and women. The ways in which work and family roles are intertwined can be readily seen in the work of Mortimer and her associates (Mortimer et al., 1978; Mortimer, 1980). Mortimer’s (1980) research is based on a sample of married male college graduates who were in the early stages of their managerial and professional careers. Her major focus was on the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the husband’s occupation, his involvement in his occupation, and the ways in which these aspects of his occupation influenced his perceptions of work-induced family strain, the wife’s supportiveness of his occupational role, and his marital satisfaction. Previous research has found that marital satisfaction generally increases with the prestige of the husband’s occupation, but that this satisfaction levels off or reverses direction at the highest socioeconomic levels. Mortimer (1980: 101) notes: It is in the professional and managerial occupations that requirements for career advancement, long hours and time pressure, overnight travel, and

The Institutional Dimension

317

geographical mobility can be severely disruptive of the family. These structural features of the husband’s job, coupled with the high occupa­ tional involvement that is stimulated by the challenges and rewards of this kind of work, may leave little time for family participation or for the sharing of family work. Under these circumstances, the husband’s preoccupation with occupational tasks may constrain the family to adopt a highly differentiated and often unsatisfying role structure, even when the couple is committed to an egalitarian life style (Pahl and Pahl, 1971; Young and Willmott, 1973; Aldous et al., 1978). Moreover, it has been suggested that when there is deep occupational commitment, job pressure, and intense interpersonal involvement at work, there is a tendency for the husband to withdraw psychologically from the family. Both Kanter (1977) and Maccoby (1976) have observed considerable detachment from their families on the part of high-level corporate executives.

Before proceeding with Mortimer’s analysis, two points should be noted. First, requirements for geographical mobility are not limited to just managerial and professional workers, as witnessed by migrant laborers. By the same token, extended and unusual hours of work can be found in a host of white- and blue-collar jobs—the cross-continental bus or truck driver and the person working two jobs come immediately to mind (see Mortimer et al., 1978). Second, all of the points made would be exacerbated in dual-career situations, which will be discussed below. Mortimer’s data generally confirm the expectations noted above. The vertical and horizontal dimensions of the husband’s work did contribute to strain in the family. Unexpectedly, Mortimer found that support­ iveness from wives reduced marital dissatisfaction, regardless of the wives’ employment status. Mortimer concludes that the family is an active reactor to the constraints of the husband’s occupational role. Another aspect of the general work-family relationship can be seen in research that has examined the forms of work women take when they have family obligations. Both Ericksen (1977) and Martin and Hanson (1985) have found that factors that make it easier for women to fulfill both work and family obligations are considerations in the form of work that women take. The length of the journey to work and the flexibility and convenience of the work have been found to be important. Although the purpose of this chapter is not to examine women and work in the labor force, it is clear that the force of tradition and traditional expectations are crucial for family and work role expec­ tation. Sokoloff (1980) argues that both patriarchy and capitalism explain women’s positions. Her point is that political and economic conditions surrounding both home and market work explain women’s positions in both locations. The same would also be true for men.

318

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Whether or not one wants to attribute the situation to broad capitalistic and patriarchal trends or not is up to the observer, but, clearly, female and male work and family roles are subject to important forces outside of the immediate work and family situations. The work-family linkage consists of many elements. As we saw in the analysis of the vertical dimension, the family, or more accurately parents’ occupations, are a critical component in the status and income attainment process for children. Even more basic is the linkage between work and having children.

Children It is difficult to consider the relationships between work and having children. Romantic imagery and religious beliefs combine with social expectations that somehow having children is “normal” for “normal” wives and husbands. Couples who opt not to have children experience a great deal of pressure from their parents who want to be “normal” grandparents. Couples who cannot have children are frequently made to feel guilty—whose fault is it? The notion of a “normal” couple, is, of course, highly unrealistic, given high rates of marital dissolution and that the “normal” wife is now the working wife. It is becoming increasingly evident that changing patterns of work are contributing to lower fertility rates. Huber and Spitze (1983) note that broad historical trends have led to decreasing fertility. The combined forces of industrialization, decreased mortality, increased levels of education, increased women’s labor force participation, and increasing rates of divorce have led to lower fertility. Women’s labor force participation is a double-edged sword. In the short run, fertility has a strong impact on wives’employment, and in the long run, employment has a strong impact on fertility (Cramer, 1980). There appear to be two explanations for this. The first of these is based around economic factors and considerations. Oppenheimer’s (1982) analysis illustrates the economic explanation of the timing, number, and spacing of children. She finds that there is a high rate of women’s employment at younger ages. People delay marriage or child bearing in order to become economically established. Employment rates decline with childbirth, but then increase again as children age and the costs associated with raising and educating children increase. Oppenheimer also finds that the economic contribution of wives to families is related to whether or not they will work. In low-

The Institutional Dimension

319

income and low-status families, wives’ contributions are higher than in high-income situations. In the latter, wives are less likely to work, because their work would make less of a contribution to the families. In addition to economic factors, Oppenheimer also considers women’s education and finds strong evidence that education is a strong deter­ minant of labor-force participation—those with the highest and lowest levels of schooling are most likely to participate. The educational factor itself is linked to fertility. Marini (1984) reports that educational attainment has strong delaying effects on the entry into parenthood. Reciprocally, early parenthood reduces educational attainment. Marini notes that increases in women’s educational attainment and in pre­ marital sexual activity are likely to increase the magnitude of the effects that she observed. Increasing educational attainment is likely to increase the age a woman first gives birth and thus is likely to decrease the overall number of children she has. At the same time, increasing premarital sexual activity and a decline in the age at which sexual activity is begun increase the likelihood of early pregnancy and childbirth, thus leading to lower educational attainment among these women. Early childbearing has been found to be negatively related to economic well-being (Hofferth and Moore, 1979). The economic and educational factors that have been considered appear to be particularly applicable to white families. Wilkie (1984), in a review of Oppenheimer’s (1982) study, reports that black women do not leave the labor force with the arrival of children and they continue in the labor force as their husbands* incomes increase, contrary to the pattern among whites. Huber and Spitze (1983) suggest that these economic determinants of fertility will continue to be operative in the future. They suggest that the costs of childbearing and staying home, particularly for educated women, will continue to drive the fertility rate down. In addition, the economic rewards of having children have declined. This is in terms of both children as unpaid labor and as prospective sources of support in old age. Huber and Spitze also consider the psychological aspects of having children and suggest that patterns here also will contribute to a decline in fertility. They note that there are psychological costs involved in child rearing—not every child is a genius or superb athlete—and that psychological benefits are increasingly difficult to realize because children leave the home and community to establish their own nuclear families. The second explanation for the relationships between wives’ em­ ployment and fertility is not based on economic considerations. Many

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

320

women like their work and make decisions not to have children or to limit the number that they have. Waite and Stolzenberg (1976) found that young women’s plans for labor-force participation at age 35 had substantial effects on the number of children they planned to bear in their lifetime. This was the same for married and never married women. In addition, this relationship held when husbands’income and attitudes toward wives’ labor-force participation were considered. Waite and Stolzenberg conclude that there is a simultaneous and reciprocal development of expectations about both work and childbearing. In this section I have tried to show that something that is at once intimate and personal—having children—is also subject to economic considerations and expectations arising from educational attainment and attachment to work. In the next section we will consider the workfamily relationship from another perspective—the dual-work or dual­ career family.

-

Dual Work and Dual-Career Families Families in which both wives and husbands are in the labor force are now overwhelmingly the norm. Fox and Hesse-Biber (1984) report that only 6% of American families consist of the traditional model of two parents, with the husband a full-time participant in the labor force and the wife a full-time homemaker. The focus in this section is on the current normal family situation in which there is a husband and a wife, and perhaps children. Single-parent families will not be considered, nor will whether the family is the result of a first marriage or not. We will, however, examine dual-work marriages in general and then turn to the special case of dual-career families, or situations in which both partners have strong career commitments. The point of this section is neither to lament the difficulties that dual-work couples face nor exalt in the potentials for happiness for both partners in such situations. Rather, the point is to explore further the ways in which work and family role expectations intersect, conflict, and can possibly be reconciled. Dual-worker family situations are full of potential for role overload and role conflict. Work roles demand that people be at work at particular times and in particular places. Family roles demand that people be there at the same particular times, but at different places. If work role demands conform to a regular forty-hour, five-day work week, the basic issue is one of role overload, because housework tasks, family maintenance activities such as shopping, child care, and affection,

The Institutional Dimension

321

and other family duties all have to be crammed in at the end of the day or on weekends. If work role demands for wives and/or husbands require extended or irregular hours of work or travel, the situation is exacerbated. The evidence available (see Fox and Hesse-Biber, 1984, for docu­ mentation) indicates that the wife bears the brunt of these overloads and conflicts. This is because traditional role expectations, which are held by both husbands and wives in many instances, are such that wives are expected to play the major roles in activities such as child care, cooking, cleaning, and the like. It should be made clear that these traditional role expectations come about for a variety of reasons. Women and men are still socialized into traditional role expectations. Married people’s parents have expectations about how their children should act. Other social institutions also reinforce traditional expectations. When a child is sick, for example, schools overwhelmingly call the mother before calling the father, and it is the mother who is expected to stay home with a sick child. Fox and Hesse-Biber (1984: 181-187) have identified a number of specific areas in which overloads and strains are particularly acute. The first of these is housekeeping standards. This involves the quality of cooking, decorating, entertaining, cleaning, and correspondence. Sev­ eral options are available here. Standards can be lowered. Some activities can be eliminated, such as entertaining. Other activities can be purchased, such as cleaning and cooking, if the family is sufficiently affluent. The second area of strain is that of children. There is less likelihood of dual work situations when young children are present, and women’s labor-force participation declines (but does not stop) during such times. The situation here is different from that involving housekeeping standards, as few parents would want to eliminate some activities with their children or lower their standards. This is a complicated and controversial situation. Some argue that the “quality” of time spent with children is more important than the quantity, but if parents are not available for children or are too tired from work to have quality relationships, problems with children can develop. In the case of children, alternative arrangements are possible through a variety of child care systems. Here again, however, the more affluent are most able to afford personalized and high-quality child care. There is evidence (Presser and Baldwin, 1980) that less affluent mothers would work or would work longer hours if child care were available at reasonable costs. There is a basic public policy issue here, of course, in

322

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

terms of who or what party should provide child care services—the parent(s), the employer, or the public through tax funds (see Fox and Hesse-Biber, 1984:201-203, for a discussion of the policy alternatives). It is also possible to eliminate some child care tasks, such as driving children to various activities, going to sporting events, plays, and musical programs, or volunteering for school activities. The problem is that if all parents eliminated these activities, the activities themselves might suffer. On the other hand, such activities could become the domain of those parents, typically the more affluent wives, who are not in the labor force. The third area of strain involves the distribution or allocation of household tasks. As noted above, these tasks are allocated dispropor­ tionately to women. The basic strain here is one of overload. Huber and Spitze (1983: 91) note that most marriages are not permanent battle­ grounds. Their analysis suggests that people come into marriages with expectations about how household tasks should be allocated and tend to marry persons who share those beliefs. If the beliefs of one of the spouses changes, there will be negotiations to achieve a new consensus or, in some cases, a divorce. It should be noted that this household division of labor by gender is found in socialist as well as capitalist countries, as the work of Schwartz (1979) and Rueshemeyer (1981) demonstrates. Women are expected to carry out the majority of household tasks. Thus far the discussion has focused on problems and issues that occur in the family setting for dual-work families. If the focus shifts in the opposite direction—toward work—a different, but still perplexing set of issues can be identified. The fundamental work problem, according to Fox and Hesse-Biber (1984: 183), is “simply finding two jobs that will provide satisfactory employment and still allow them to live in the same area and coordinate work and non work schedules.** This fundamental problem is most acute when a couple moves to a new location or when the decision is made to become a dual-work family. When a man and woman who are both working decide to get married and continue their work, there is little problem at first. The problems arise when one person is transferred or changes jobs, which can throw the work of the other spouse into incompatibility. As will be seen shortly, job transfers are a very common phenomenon. Fox and Hesse-Biber indicate that several factors play a role in determining the extent to which family factors spill over and affect work among dual-work family members. These factors include the degree of occupational specialization that people have (more specialized work is harder to find), the degree to which work is a central life interest (in cases

The Institutional Dimension

323

in which work is not a central life interest, people are more willing to make compromises about the kind of work they take), and the work stages of the partners (are people in competitive or complementary stages of their work careers). An interesting parenthetical issue exists in regard to the impact of dual-work families on work itself. Papanek (1973) has identified the “two-person career.” The two-person career is one in which there are strong expectations that a spouse be an active and integral part of his or her spouse’s career. A classic example is the male Protestant minister and his wife (Taylor and Hartley, 1975). In this situation the wife is expected to share in the husband’s career not only by doing things such as teaching Sunday school or leading the choir, but also by dressing appropriately and acting as a “minister’s wife.” The two-person career can also be seen in many instances among politicians. Indeed, candi­ dates’ spouses have become integral—and sometimes controversial— components of political campaigns. Ambassadors’ wives have been shown to play a similar visible and public role (Hochschild, 1969). Pfeffer and Ross (1982) found that for professional and managerial workers, being married to a nonworking wife contributed to positive evaluations. The wife is viewed as a career resource. In dual-work families, of course, the two-person career is an impossibility, and the two-person career itself is increasingly anachronistic. At the same time, if a person’s work is such that there is the expectation of participation by a spouse and the spouse is unavailable for such participation because of his or her own work, then problems at work will arise. Dual-work situations present difficulties for both family and work roles. There is yet another area of difficulty that Fox and Hesse-Biber (1984: 186-187) have correctly identified—the relationship itself. The relationship can suffer if the spouses see themselves in competition for success. It can also suffer if so much energy and emotion is put into work that there is little or none left for the relationship itself. Epstein (1980, 1981) has documented that for some women lawyers there is resistance to even entering a relationship lest it interfere with their promising legal careers. Huber and Spitze (1983) indicate that women may increasingly consider divorce if they have resources from their work that would permit them to live independently from their husbands if they have grown to dislike their husbands. In dual-work situations in which husbands and wives have little time to be together, this sort of absence will not make the heart grow fonder, nor will abstinence. The problems in regard to family roles, work, and relationships are intensified greatly when the dual work takes the form of dual careers

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

324

(Holmstrom, 1973; Hunt and Hunt, 1977; Mortimer, 1978; Rapoport and Rapoport, 1971). These are situations in which both husbands and wives are in demanding and competitive occupations that require a high level of commitment, long hours, deep involvement, and full devotion to the career. The stereotypical business executive, physician, lawyer, university professor, or member of the clergy serves as an ideal example of the forms of work wives and husbands have in dual-career situations. There are a number of ways in which the potential and actual severe strains of dual-career marriages can be reduced. As Fox and Hesse-Biber (1984) note, these can involve individual adjustments in the form of less involvement in either work or family, or cycling or phasing intense involvement in work and family and structural adjustments, such as flexible work schedules (flex-time) or job-sharing—a situation in which the husband and wife share a single job. All of these approaches to reducing the strains of dual-career marriages tend to involve a di­ minished level of career involvement. To be fully satisfactory, such diminished career involvement by members of dual-career families would have to be accompanied by a similar such decline in involvement by people not in such marriages. Unfortunately or fortunately, that does not seem too likely.

,

,

Housework Work and the Family We examined housework as a form of work in Chapter 2. Two conclusions from the analysis in that chapter should be noted in the present context. First, when people are married, housework is predomi­ nantly the work of women, regardless of the extent to which women participate in the labor force. Second, housework has economic value in its own right (Becker, 1981; Berk and Berk, 1983; Huber and Spitze, 1983). The point is that the nature of housework and reactions to it are affected by the dynamics of the work-family relationships that have been described. All housework activities can be purchased, but only the extremely affluent or the extremely incapacitated have all their cooking, cleaning, clothing needs, building maintenance activities, and other housework activities carried out by hired help. Housework involves activities that range from those that are done on a daily basis—cooking, doing dishes, disposing of garbage—to those that are done on an annual basis— putting up storm windows, planting flowers, and the like. These time

The Institutional Dimension

325

constraints are also evident in market work, of course, although the exact forms vary. What really distinguishes housework from market work are the interpersonal and organizational contexts of housework, as Schooler et al. (1984: 99-100) explain: On an interpersonal level, household members are more mutually dependent for a wider range of personal needs than are fellow employees. Thus, the interpersonal relationships found in the home are generally more intense than those in the workplace. The motivation for performing the work may also be quite different in the two contexts; for example altruism may be a stronger motive in the household than in the workplace. These interpersonal factors may affect the meaning and impact of the work for the worker in the household. At the organizational level, the family differs from usual work organi­ zations in both its internal and external relationships. Family relation­ ships are marked by an absence of formal definitions of supervisory roles and job responsibilities. Although societal sex-role norms obviously affect the assignment of household tasks, in most families the division of labor is not as explicit as in a paid-work setting. Furthermore, except by remote analogy, it makes no sense to specify a houseworker’s hierarchical position in a formal supervisory structure or to think of the level of bureaucratization in a family. There are also fewer objective internal and external validations of work well done in the home than in the paid-work setting. Promotions, profits, or pay raises are not available as signals to the homeworker. In fact, in the home it is unclear what work must be done (e.g., is cleaning under the beds necessary?) and what standards must be met (e.g., are water-spotted glasses necessarily unacceptable?). Even obvious failure, such as the breakup of a household, is far from proof that the housework was not well done. Thus some important dimensions of paid work cannot be applied to housework. It is even difficult to fix the boundary line between housework and leisure-time activities. At what point do cooking, gardening, or furniture repair cease being household chores and become hobbies?

Despite these differences between market work and housework, Schooler et al. developed an innovative research plan that permitted them to compare aspects of housework and market work. Their approach followed that of Kohn and Schooler (1973, 1978), which was discussed in Chapter 3. This approach to work involves considering aspects or dimensions of work, such as its complexity, the degree of routinization it contains, the time pressure under which it is performed, the heaviness of the physical labor involved, how dirty one gets while performing the work, and the frequency with which one is held respon­ sible for things beyond one's control. These aspects of work have been

326

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

found to be reciprocally related to aspects of psychological functioning, such as effective intellectual functioning and open and flexible orienta­ tions toward other people. Schooler et al. applied this conceptual framework to information from a national U.S. sample of husbands and wives in which housework was measured along the same dimensions that have been applied to market work. This approach does not consider socialization activities and socioemotional support among family members as components of housework, and the results have to be interpreted with that in mind. Several findings from the Schooler et al. study are of interest here. First, the important dimension of task complexity is related to physically heavy labor in housework, but not in paid employment. Housework is more routinized than paid employment, but involves more complex work than does paid employment. All in all, Schooler et al. conclude that Mif done for pay, housework would not be a particularly unusual job” (p. 121). A major, but not unexpected, finding was the presence of marked sex differences in spheres of responsibility and activity. The husbands’ spheres of activities centered on household repairs, but wives are responsible for and actually do a far wider array of household tasks necessary for the daily maintenance of the household. This pattern was found whether or not the wife worked outside the home and regardless of other important background variables such as family income, education, number of children under age sixteen, and so on. Findings in regard to the nature of housework and its relationship to psychological functioning are comparable to those for paid employment and psychological functioning among the women studied. That is, more substantively complex housework has strong relationships with ide­ ational flexibility and on self-directedness. Being held responsible for things beyond one’s control was related to felt distress. Doing heavy housework reduces both ideational flexibility and self-directedness. For men, the picture was very different. For them, it was not the substantive complexity of work that was related to self-direction and ideational flexibility, but the heaviness of the housework! This unex­ pected finding is exactly the opposite from that found in paid employment for men. Schooler et al. believe this can be explained by the fact that doing heavy work at home may be different from doing it on the job and may fulfill some aspects of the men’s self-images. It is probably more fulfilling to complete painting one’s house than to do similar heavy work on something that one will never see again. Another surprising finding for men was that the substantive complexity of the work they performed at home was unrelated to their psychological functioning.

The Institutional Dimension

327

Schooler et al. conclude that the reasons the psychological effects of housework parallel the effects of paid employment for women, but not for men, are linked to the ways in which housework is an imperative for women, but not for men. Men are not held responsible for very much housework and thus it has less meaning for them. For women, it is much more critical to their total psychological functioning. Schooler et al.’s analysis does not give us answers to some intriguing questions. For example, is there some point at which paid employment for women outweighs housework as a determinant of psychological functioning? It would appear that strong involvement in and attachment to work, coupled with doing less housework because it is purchased, would result in the housework having less salience for the women involved. Similarly, in situations in which a man has more household responsibilities, as a single parent or as an egalitarian spouse, does housework increase in its salience for psychological functioning? Answers to questions like these await further research. The point of this section has been to indicate that an important family activity—housework—is affected by the nature of paid or market work engaged in by family members. The meaning of housework to the individual is also affected by the nature of the paid work. As a major social institution, the family is strongly affected by traditional role expectations and thus the division of labor remains strongly related to gender.

,

,

Work the Family and Geographical Mobility People and families have always moved to find food, shelter, and work. The history of North America is full of stories about people moving across the continent in search of work. Native Americans, of course, were forced away from their traditional work as the great westward movement occurred. The point of this brief section will be to consider contemporary patterns of geographical mobility and indicate how this mobility affects and is affected by work and family characteristics. People still move to find work. Part of the growth of the Sunbelt in the United States has been based on people leaving areas in the Northeast and Midwest and seeking work in the South and West. This would appear to be a pure labor market phenomenon, but it is not. There are important nonmarket allocations of labor (Sell, 1982, 1983a, 1983b). These involve job transfers (I’ve Been Moved). Sell’s research indicates that such transfers take place at all levels, but are more

328

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

frequent at the higher socioeconomic levels. The rate of relocation doubled from the 1960s to the 1970s (Sell, 1983a) and appears to be continuing unabated. Obviously, any geographical mobility will affect the family and the work of a spouse. Duncan and Perrucci (1976) also found that higherstatus men were more likely to be transferred and also that migration hampered the employment of wives who had been working prior to the move. On the other hand, some wives who had not been working previously were facilitated in working after the move. Women’s workrole characteristics had little or no effect on the migration itself. In a later study, Spitze (1984) found essentially the same pattern. Long­ distance moves were negatively related with wives’ employment status and number of weeks worked. Spitze also found that these patterns were similar for married women in their 20s, 30s, and 40s. The effects of the long-distance moves did not last beyond the first year or two after the moves. As people voluntarily or involuntarily move with or to find work, families are obviously affected. Although some employers seem to realize that the demands for geographical mobility among their employees must now consider the desires and employment of spouses, there appears to be little likelihood that transferred jobs will disappear. As Sell (1983a) points out, corporate management is developed through socialization and selection as people are placed in different locations. The same patterns are evident in the military, in higher education, and in the government. Quite obviously, transferring jobs can cause strain. The analysis now turns to a consideration of the linkages among work, family, and health prior to our consideration of work and health.

Work, Family, and Health The relationships among work, family, and health are extremely complex. At the extremes, the issue is probably quite simple. People who love their work and love their families will probably enjoy good health, while those who hate their work and hate their families will not. Very few situations are that simplistic, of course, and thus the evidence in regard to work, family, and health is unclear. Gove and Geerken (1977), for example, found that married women were in poorer mental health than married men. Married employed women had more demands placed on them than their husbands did, but less than unemployed wives. Kessler and McRae (1982), on the other

The Institutional Dimension

329

hand, found that working women had improved mental health due to the objective changes that had occurred in their life situations. Their spouses, in contrast, experienced more psychological distress, based on traditional sex-role orientations, housework pressures, and child care demands. These discrepant findings can at least be partially reconciled when a broader set of considerations is brought into the analysis. The research of Ross et al. (1983) incorporates the notion of preferences for work and for traditional roles. When a wife is working, but both she and her husband believe that he should be the sole breadwinner, there is a great deal of depression. Depression is seen least in cases in which both husband and wife work and both are responsible for the housework. In any event, work expectations interact with family expectations and have consequences for physical and mental health. Both work and family carry a heavy emotional content and each can spill over into the other sphere.

WORK AND H EALTH The relationships between work and health take many forms, ranging from matters of life and death to the rather benign finding that a sense of well-being at work is related to a sense of well-being away from work (Bergermaier et al., 1984). The importance of the work-health relation­ ship was recognized in the 1973 publication of W ork in America: R eport o f a Special Task Force to the Secretary o f Health, Education and Welfare (OToole et al., 1973; see also OToole, 1984). In the chapter devoted to work and health, the authors of W ork in Am erica note that there are relationships between the quality of work

and longevity, heart disease, other cardiovascular problems, ulcers, arthritis, and various forms of mental illness. In addition to these problems, researchers have identified linkages between work and alcohol abuse (Fennel et al., 1981), drug abuse, and suicide. The W ork in A m erica approach was valuable in that it helped focus national attention on problems in the work place. Unfortunately, it viewed most problems of work from a social psychological standpoint, and possible improvements were seen as coming from improving the quality of working life and thus levels of job satisfaction. Such an approach overlooks more immediate and more radical linkages between work and health. Some jobs are very dangerous, such as coal mining and offshore oil rig work (Carson, 1982). Writers such as Gersuny (1981) see

330

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

the issue from the standpoint of class conflict, with workers assuming the risks and the owners reaping the benefits. Gersuny’s analysis, based on historical evidence, focuses on indus­ trial accidents, in which workers’ lives and limbs are threatened. The more physically dangerous jobs clearly involve manual work, and there is a relationship between status and illness more generally (Leigh, 1982). It becomes a matter of belief or faith, of course, to attribute all work dangers to the greed of capitalists. At the same time, there are legitimate questions in regard to who should pay how much to whom for the performance of hazardous work. Although premium wages are paid for recognized hazardous work, owners still make profits without them­ selves undergoing risks. The problem with this sort of analysis, of course, is that the same risks are present in noncapitalist systems and some workers assume them, probably on a social class-based system, with the lower-status workers having the riskier jobs. Work that presents immediate physical danger is easy to identify. More difficult is the identification of health risks that do not show up immediately (what is the effect of staring at my green computer monitor?) or that operate more subtly through social psychological processes. It is also difficult to determine how risk could be removed from certain types of work, such as police and fire work. Nonetheless, reducing risks at work has been one of the foci of many public policy initiatives.

WORK AND PUBLIC POLICY A great deal of public policy has been focused specifically on work and health issues, such as the Workman’s Compensation Acts passed between 1911 and 1948, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act passed in 1970. In addition, there is a broader array of work issues that public policy has addressed, both directly and indirectly, intentionally and unintentionally. In this last section of the book, I would like to consider the nature of public policy and work. According to Ilchman and Uphoff (1983: 30-31): Public policies are the use by a regime of its resources to intervene into the accustomed behavior of some citizens to produce more or less of that behavior, whether the behavior sought is more savings and investment, less bribery of public officials, more conservation of fossil fuels, or less

The Institutional Dimension

331

fertility, and so on. In many instances these interventions are at the behest of the objects of the policy in order that they might realize other values; in others the interventions are on behalf of third parties so that their well­ being is improved. These public resources induce and deter, increase or decrease some behaviors thought desirable or undesirable.

This straightforward definition of public policy does not include a consideration of the content of such policy. This is the stuff of which political conflict is made. For example, in the area of occupational health and safety, some analysts argue that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has too many regulations and prevents workers from taking higher paying jobs that would involve more risk (Viscusi, 1983). Other analysts (Nelkin and Brown, 1984) argue that existing occupational hazards are a consequence of insufficient funding, inadequate enforcement, and inappropriate administrative priorities within OSHA. Viscusi’s approach argues for a free competitive market—the conservative approach— while Nelkin and Brown’s is the liberal approach. These are the classic stances in regard to public policy and work. Public policy issues in regard to work take many forms and can range from the very specific to the very general and vary in scope from narrow to broad. In essence, any federal or state budget is a public policy statement about work, because the state of the economy is a constant concern to budget makers as they consider debt levels, resources, and spending priorities. At the national level, decisions to spend on defense rather than social programs means that some work will be supported and other work will not. Every chapter in this book has contained public policy issues that may or may not have been identified as such as the issues were discussed. These closing paragraphs will identify the public policy issues involved. The policy alternatives are usually obvious, although the outcomes of such alternatives may not be. In Chapter 1 the major policy issues surround unemployment and involve such questions as the following: How much unemployment is necessary for a healthy economy? How are the unemployed to be supported if no work is available or if the work that is available is mismatched with the people that are available? How can the effects of unemployment be minimized for “innocent victims” of such unemployment? Chapter 2 contains descriptions of the varieties of work that people perform. Policy issues from these considerations include how much power professionals should be granted by the state, what the public’s role is in retraining people whose skills have become obsolete, and whether public policy should encourage or discourage technological

332

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

developments that will make many forms of production work and office work (blue collar and white collar) unnecessary. In Chapter 3 the policy issues surround ways to make work more rewarding for the people performing it. This is the major thrust of Work in America. Can alienation be reduced and satisfaction increased? Chapter 4 contains a series of broad policy issues. For example, to what extent should employing organizations be permitted to shift work to locations outside the United States or to peripheral sectors within the United States? Also, to what extent should the reward structures (intrinsic and extrinsic) be equalized across sectors? Chapter 5 includes policy issues of the greatest magnitude, because it is impossible to avoid considerations of income redistribution, the extent to which property can be inherited, and the role of the state in providing equal educational opportunities for people who are disad­ vantaged from birth. Also considered are matters such as the desirability of vocational education (at both the high school and college levels) and the possible consequences of overeducation. Chapter 6 is also full of policy issues, such as the extent to which comparable worth should be pursued and the manner in which it is to be determined; the costs and timing involved in changing educational materials so that they do not segregate by gender, display stereotypes, or use different standards by gender; and the extent to which the government should be involved in issues such as promotion into the higher offices of private organizations (Fox and Hesse-Biber, 1984). Chapter 7 has the obvious policy issues surrounding whether or not there should be mandatory retirement—for whom and in what situa­ tions? There are subtler issues regarding youths, such as whether they should be paid the same as adults or whether it is better to pay youths less so that more have the opportunity to work, and what the proper mix is of formal education and on-the-job training. For middle-aged people, the major policy issue appears to be in the area of responsibility for continuing education and training in the current area of work or retraining for new areas of work—Is it up to the individual or is this a public responsibility? Chapter 8 discusses policy issues regarding vestiges of discrimination that still exist. The basic consideration is the effort that must be expended to ensure that racial and ethnic factors do not come into play in hiring and advancement decisions. Chapter 9 explores issues related to those raised in Chapter 3—the extent to which organizations are responsible for providing or should be encouraged or made to provide working conditions that permit

The Institutional Dimension

333

individuals to work to their full potential. A more basic issue is the extent to which it is in the public interest for organizations to continue to grow in size and power—Is it in the public interest to break up AT&T? Should there be public subsidies for weak organizations? Should there be a check and balance system for monitoring large organizations? Chapter 10 continues with considerations of work in organizations, but with a shift in focus toward worker participation programs. The basic policy issue is the extent to which worker participation should be encouraged as part of public policy, as is the case in many European nations. Another important policy issue is the extent to which labor unions should be encouraged as a counter to the power of management. Finally, this chapter discusses, in addition to policy issues sur­ rounding work and health, policy issues surrounding work and the family, such as the responsibility and desirability of providing child-care services. Public policies also can discourage or encourage dual-worker families through taxation policies. This excursion into public policy issues was intended to demonstrate that the dimensions of work that have been considered here are more than academic. Indeed, most of our public debates—whether carried out in legislative halls, administrative offices, or on editorial pages— ultimately have something to do with work.

REFERENCES Aldous, Joan, Marie Osmond, and Mary Hicks (1978) “Men’s work and men’s families,” in Wesley Burr et al. (eds.) Contemporary Theories About the Family. New York: Free Press. Becker, Gary S. (1981) A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bergermaier, Rent, Ingwer Bork, and Joseph E. Champoux (1984) “Structural relation­ ships among facets of work, nonwork, and general well-being.” Work and Occupa­ tions 11 (May): 163-182. Berk, Richard A. and Sarah Fenstermaker Berk (1983) “Supply-side sociology of the family: the challenge of the new home economics,” in Ralph H. Turner and James F. Short, Jr. (eds) Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 9. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Bose, Christine (1984) “Household resources and U.S. women’s work: factors affecting gainful employment at the turn of the century.” American Sociological Review 49 (August): 474-490. Carson, W. G. (1982) The Other Price of Britain’s Oil. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Cramer, James C. (1980) “Fertility and female employment: problems of causal direction.” American Sociological Review 45 (April): 167-190.

334

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Duncan, E. Paul and Carolyn Perrucci (1976) “Dual occupation families and migration. ” American Sociological Review 41 (April): 252-261. Epstein, Cynthia Fuchs (1980) “The new women and the old establishment: Wall Street lawyers in the 1970s.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 7 (August): 291-316. -------- (1981) The Woman Lawyer. New York: Basic. Ericksen, Julia A. (1977) “An analysis of the journey to work for women.” Social Problems 24 (April): 428-435. Fennel, Mary L., Miriam B. Rodin, and Glenda K. Kantor (1981) “Problems in the work setting, drinking, and reasons for drinking.” Social Forces 60 (September): 114-132. Fox, Mary Frank and Sharlene Hesse-Biber (1984) Women at Work. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Gersuny, Carl (1981) Work Hazards and Industrial Conflict. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. Gove, Walter R. and Michael R. Geerken (1977) “The effect of children and employment on the mental health of married men and women.” Social Forces 56 (September): 66-76. Hochschild, Arlie R. (1969) “The role of the ambassador’s wife: an exploratory study.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 31 (February): 73-87. Hofferth, Sandra L. and Kristin A. Moore (1979) “Early childbearing and later economic well-being.” American Sociological Review 44 (October): 784-815. Holmstrom, Lynda Lytle (1973) The Two-Career Family. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman. Huber, Joan and Glenna Spitze (1983) Sex Stratification: Children, Housework, and Jobs. New York: Academic. Hunt, Janet G. and Larry L. Hunt (1977) “Dilemmas and contradictions of status: the case of dual-career families.” Social Problems 24 (April): 407-416. Ilchman, Warren F. and Norman T. Uphoff (1983) “Public policy and organizational theory,” in Richard H. Hall and Robert E. Quinn (eds.) Organizational Theory and Public Policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic. Kessler, Ronald C. and James A. McRae, Jr. (1982) “The effect of wives’employment on the mental health of married men and women.” American Sociological Review 47 (April): 216-227. Kohn, Melvin L. and Carmi Schooler (1973) “Occupational experience and psychological functioning: an assessment of reciprocal effects.” American Sociological Review 38 (February): 97-118. -------- (1978) “The reciprocal effects of the substantive complexity of work and intellectual flexibility: a longitudinal assessment.” American Journal of Sociology 84 (July): 24-52. Leigh, J. Paul (1982) “Education, occupational status, and illness.” Work and Occu­ pations 9 (November): 441-456. Maccoby, Michael (1976) The Gamesman: The New Corporate Leaders. New York: Simon & Schuster. Marini, Margaret Mooney (1984) “Women’s educational attainment and the timing of entry into parenthood.” American Sociological Review 49 (August): 491-511. Martin, Jack K. and Sandra L. Hanson (1985) “Sex, family wage earning status, and satisfaction with work.” Work and Occupations 12 (February): 91-109. Mortimer, Jeylan T. (1978) “Dual career families: a sociological perspective,” in Samiha S. Petersen et al. (eds.) The Two-Career Family—Issues and Alternatives. Wash­ ington, DC: University Press of America.

The Institutional Dimension

335

-------- (1980) “Occupation-family linkages as perceived by men in the early stages of professional and managerial careers,” in Research in the Interweave of Social Roles: Men and Women, Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI. -------- Richard H. Hall and Reuben Hill (1978) “Husbands’ occupational attributes as constraints on wives’ employment.” Sociology of Work and Occupations S (August): 285-313. Nelkin, Dorothy and Michael S. Brown (1984) Workers at Risk: Voices from the Workplace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Oppenheimer, Valerie Kincade (1982) Work and the Family: A Study in Social Demography. New York: Academic. OToole, James [ed.] (1984) Work and the Quality of Life. Cambridge: MIT Press. -------- et al. (1983) Work in America: Report of a Special Task Force to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. Cambridge: MIT Press. Pahl, J. M. and R. E. Pahl (1971) Managers and Their Wives. London: Allen Lane. Papanek, Hanna (1973) “Men, women, and work: reflections on the two-person career.” American Journal of Sociology 78 (January): 852-872. Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Jerry Ross (1982) “The effects of marriage and a working wife on occupational and wage attainment.” Administrative Science Quarterly 27 (March): 66-80. Pleck, Joseph H. (1977) “The work-family role system.” Social Problems 24 (April): 417-427. Presser, Harriet B. and Wendy Baldwin (1980) “Child care as a constraint on employment: prevalence, correlates, and bearing on the work and fertility nexus.” American Journal of Sociology 85 (March): 1202-1213. Rapoport, Robert and Rhona Rapoport (1971) Dual Career Families. Baltimore: Penguin. Ross, Catherine E., John Mirowsky, and Joan Huber (1983) “Dividing work, sharing work, and in-between: marriage patterns and depression.” American Sociological Review 48 (December): 809-823. Rueshemeyer, Marilyn (1981) Professional Work and Marriage: An East-West Com­ parison. New York: St. Martin’s. Schooler, Carmi, Joanne Miller, Karen A. Miller, and Carol N. Richtand (1984) “Work for the household: its nature and consequences for husbands and wives.” American Journal of Sociology 90 (July): 97-124. Schwartz, Janet S. (1979) “Women under socialism: role definitions of Soviet women.” Social Forces 58 (June): 67-88. Sell, Ralph R. (1982) “A research note on the demography of occupational relocations.” Social Forces 60 (March): 859-865. -------- (1983a) “Transferred jobs: a neglected aspect of migration and occupational change.” Work and Occupations 10 (May): 179-206. -------- (1983b) “Market and direct allocation of labor through migration.” The Sociological Quarterly 24 (Winter): 93-105. Sokoloff, Natalie J. (1980) Between Money and Love: The Dialectics of Women’s Home and Market Work. New York: Praeger. Spitze, Glenna (1984) “The effect of family migration on wives’ employment: how long does it last?” Social Science Quarterly 65 (March): 21-36. Taylor, Mary G. and Shirley Foster Hartley (1975) “The two-person career: a classic example.” Sociology of Work and Occupations 2 (November): 354-372.

336

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Viscusi, R. Kip (1983) Risk by Choice: Regulating Health and Safety in the Workplace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Waite, Linda J. and Ross M. Stolzenberg (1976) “Intended childbearing and labor force participation of young women: insights from nonrecursive models.” American Sociological Review 41 (April): 235-252. Wilkie, Jane Riblett (1984) “Social model-building.” Contemporary Sociology 13 (May): 277-278. Young, Michael, and Peter Willmott (1973) The Symmetrical Family. New York: Pantheon.

Name Index Abbott, Andrew, 46-47,84, 309, 312 Abrahamson, Mark, 162,18S Acland, Henry, 187 Aiken, Michael, 96, 122 Alba, Richard D., 188,262, 266 Albrecht, Sandra L., 300,312 Aldous, Joan, 317, 333 Aldrich, Howard E., 31,37,46,84,272,278,293, 296 Alexander, Karl L„ 158-159, 175, 185, 187 Allardt, Erik, 72, 84 Almquist, Elizabeth M., 266 Alonso, Ramon C., 122 Althauser, Robert P., 294 Alutto, Joseph A., 101, 122, 305, 312 Alvarez, Rudolfo, 216, 224, 255, 261, 266, 267, 275,293 Alwin, Duane F., 175, 185 American Nurses* Association, 46,84 Anderson, Karen, 192,224 Aneshenensel, Carol S., 201,229 Angle, Harold L., 100, 123 Arber, Sara, 228 Aronowitz, Stanley, 104,123 Avery, Robert W., 190 Bacharach, Samuel B., 96, 123, 298, 312 Baldwin, Wendy, 321, 335 Bane, Mary Jo, 187 Barnard, Chester I., 57,84 Barnewolt, Deb, 88, 151 Baron, James N., 142, 150, 172, 181, 185, 217, 224,272-281,293,307,312 Bartlett, Susan, 187 Bechhofer, Frank, 86, 123,186, 312 Beck, E. M „ 144, 151, 152, 178, 185, 254, 262, 267, 269 Beck, Scott H., 174,185 Becker, Gary S., 81, 84, 324, 333 Becker, Howard S., 101, 111, 112,118,123 Belasco, James A., 305,312

Bell, Daniel, 29, 36,61,84 Beller, Andrea H., 217,225 Bendix, Reinhard Benet, Mary K., 25,36 Benoit-Smullyan, Emile, 130,151 Bensman, Joseph, 74, 84 Bereano, Philip L., 82-83,84 Berg, Ivar, 27,36,157, 185, 281, 293, 311,312 Bergermaier, Rene, 93, 123, 329, 333 Berk, Richard, 80,84, 324,333 Berk, Sarah Fenstermaker, 80, 84,324, 333 Berle, Adolph A., Jr., 61, 84 Bernel, Helen Hazunda, 204, 227 Bibb, Robert, 144, 151,170, 178, 185, 203, 212, 225 Bielby, Denise Del Vento, 203, 225 Bielby, William T , 142,150, 203,217,224,225, 273-274, 277,293 Bierstedt, Robert, 298,312 Bills, David, 154-156, 187 Birnbaum, Bonnie, 81,85 Bjorn, Lars, 223, 227 Blalock, Hubert M., Jr., 37 Blau, Francine D., 217,225 Blau, Judith R., 48,84,141, 151 Blau, Peter M„ 10, 34, 36, 62, 63, 84, 129, 151, 154, 171, 173-177, 185,298,312 Blauner. Robert, 68,72,84, 105-107, 123 Bluestone, Barry, 143,151 Bonacich, Edna, 254,257,267 Bonjean, Charles M., 89,228, 230, 314 Borg, Ingwer, 123,333 Borgatta, Edgar F., 162,185 Bose, Christine, 82-83,84,154,185,206,225,316, 333 Boulding, Elise, 17, 36,78, 79-80,84 Bourne, Patricia G., 216,225 Bowles, Samuel, 159,185 Boyd, Marcia, 210, 216, 230 Brannen, Peter, 289,293,298-300,312 Braverman, Harry, 24,26, 36

337

338

Brawer, Milton J., 225 Brett, John M.. 305, 312 Bridges, William P., 212,219-220, 225 BrinkerhofT, David B„ 194, 231 Britt, David W„ 306, 312 Brittain, Jack W., 277,293 Brody, David, 308, 312 Broom, Leonard, 162,186 Brown, Linda K., 222,225 Brown, Michael S.. 331,335 Brown, Randall S., 218,225 Browning, Harley L„ 39, 172, 189, 260, 267 Bryant, Clifton D., 127 Burawoy, Michael, 16,24,25, 36 Burnham, James, 61, 84 Burrage, Michael C., 131, 151 Burris. Val, 97,123 Burt, Ronald S., 60, 84 Butler, John Sibley, 260-261, 267 Cagliani, Giorgio, 167,186 Cain, Glen G., 201, 225,255, 256, 267 Cain, Pamela S.. 131-137,151 Campbell, John P., 55,85 Campbell, Richard T., 188, 247, 248 Cantor, Muriel G., 32,38 Caplow, Theodore, 57-58,67,75,85 Carlin, Jerome, 50,85,148, 151 Carliner, Geoffrey, 201,225 Carlson, Richard O., 190 Carroll, Glenn R., 271,293 CarT-Saunders, A. R., 41,85 Carson, W. G., 329, 333 Chamlin, Mitchell B., 262,267 Champoux, Joseph E„ 100,123, 333 Chandler, Alfred, 57,85,279, 293 Chase, Ivan D., 213, 225 Chelte, Anthony F., 285,294 Chenoweth, Lillian C., 196, 225 Child, John, 279, 293 Chinoy, Ely, 56, 70,85 Christiansen, John B., 262,267 Clark, John P., 110,123,124 Clausen, John A., 110,124 Clawson, Dan, 24, 36 Clegg, Stewart, 272,293 Clignet, Remi, 81,82,90 Cohen, David, 187 Cohen, Yinon, 273, 274,294 Coleman, A. Lee, 251, 267 Coleman, James S., 208,225, 311, 312 Collins, Randall, 281,294 Cook, Martha, 185 Cooney, Rosemary Santana, 265,267 Corcoran, Mary, 187

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Corder, Judy, 89,228, 230,314 Cornfield, Daniel B., 19-20,37 Cory, David, 131,151 Coverman, Shelley, 198,225 Cramer, James C., 198,225, 318, 333 Crouse, James, 187 Cullen, John B., 48, 85,162-163, 186 Cummings, Scott, 255,267 Curtis, James E., 174, 186 Cushing, Robert G., 162,186 Cutright, Phillips, 260,267 Czajka, John L., 228 Dahl, Robert, 297, 312 Dahrendorf, Ralf, 61,85,164,186 Dalton, Gene W., 113,123 Dalton, Melville, 59,85 D ’Amico, Ronald, 178,181, 183, 186, 194, 195, 225,230,240, 247, 258,269 Daniels, Arlene Kaplan, 49,85 Dansereau, Fred, 86 Davis, Fred, 73,85 Davis, Kingsley, 160-161, 186 Daymont, Thomas N., 254, 267,268 DeFleur, Lois B., 221, 225 DeJong, Peter Y., 213,225 Delacroix, Jacques, 271, 293 de Marquez, Viviane B., 309, 313 Deutsch, Steven, 309, 313 Dickinson, Peter J., 187 DiMaggio, Paul J., 279,294 DiPrete, Thomas A., 253,267 Doeringer, Peter B., 30,37 Dofny, Jacques, 87 Domhoff, G. William, 168,186 Dorabusch, Sanford, 281, 294, 298, 313 Dubeck, Paula J., 216,226 Dubin, Robert, 38, 100,123 Duncan, Beverly, 186 Duncan, Otis Dudley, 62,84,154,155,173,175177, 185, 186 Duncan, E. Paul, 197,225,328, 334 Dunkerly, David, 272,294 Dunn, Thomas P., 71,86 Dunnette, Marvin D., 85 Durkheim, Emile, 129,151 Eaglesfield, David, 187 Edwards, Alba M., 75-76,85, 156, 186 Edwards, Richard, 23-24,37,165-167,186 Eisenstein, James, 52,80,85 Ekland, Brace K„ 185 Elder, Glen H., Jr., 234, 235, 247 Emerson, Richard M., 298, 313 Engels, Frederick, 37, 72,88

Name Index

England, Paula, 206, 218, 226 Ensel, Walter M., 188 Epstein, Cynthia Fuchs, 200, 201, 222,226, 264, 267, 323, 334 Ericksen, Julia A., 196,226, 317, 334 Erlanger, Howard S., SI, 83 Etzioni, Amitai, 70,83,298, 313 Evans, Mari ah D., 49,83, 149, 131 Evers, Mark, 248 Faia, Michael A., 137, 186 Farber, Henry S., 305,313 Faver, Catherine A., 202,226 Featherman, David L., 1S6, 171, 172, 177, 186, 187, 189, 207, 213, 226, 227, 256, 259, 267, 268 Fein, Mitchell, 95,96, 120,123, 290, 294 Feldberg, Rosalyn, 23,37,64, 86 Feldman, Daniel C., 112,123 Felmlee, Diane H., 211,213, 226, 243, 247 Fennell, M ary L„ 110, 123, 329, 334 Ferber, Marianne, 81, 85,202, 208, 226 Ferree, Myra Marx, 202,226 Ferrence, Thomas P., 49,86 Fetters, Michael L., 222,227 Finlay, William, 130, 131 Fitzpatrick, John S., 103,123 Fligstein, Neil D., 69,90,131,168,186,207,217, 226,231,294 Foner, Anne, 248 Foner, Nancy, 232, 267 Form, William, 23-26,37,68,69,70,86,88,144, 151, 167, 170, 178, 185, 186, 212, 217-218, 223, 226, 236,248, 303,305, 306-307,313 Fox, Mary Frank, 10-11,15,37,54,62,64,76,86, 192-193, 194-195, 198-199, 201, 202, 208, 214-215,226,264,265,268,320-324,332,334 Freeman, John H„ 277,278 Freidson, Eliot, 40,43,44-43,47,86 French, J. Lawrence, 305,313 Friedland, William H., 78,86 Friedman, Nathalie S., 87, 124 Fry, Lincoln, 228 Galbraith, John 1C., 61,86 Galle, Omer, 306,312 Garson, Barbara, 104,123 Geer, Blanche, 123 Geerken, Michael R„ 204,227,328, 334 Gerstl, Joel, 88 Gersuny, Carl, 239,247,329-330, 334 Gerver, Israel, 74,84 Getman, Julius G., 305,313 Gibbs, Jack P., 129,151 Giddens, Anthony, 61,86, 167,186

339

Gintis, Herbert, 139, 185, 187 Ginzberg, Eli, 235,237,247 Glaser, Barney G., 49, 86 Glenn, Evelyn, 23,37,64,86 Glenn, Norval, 97, 123,213,227 Goldberg, Stephen B., 313 Goldner, Fred H., 86 Goldthorpe, John H„ 70,72-73,86,121-122,123, 167, 186,310,313 Goode, William J., 43,49,86 Gordon, Marsha A., 230,294 Gove, Walter, 204, 227,334 Goyder, John C., 174, 186 Graen, George, 86 Grandjean, Burke, 99, 124, 163, 169-170, 186, 187, 204, 227 Granovetter, Mark, 177, 187,276,294 Greeley, Andrew M., 102,127 Greenberger, Ellen, 216,227, 236, 247,268 Greenwald, Howard P., 53,86 Greenwald, Maurine Weiner, 192,227 Greenwood, Ernest, 42-43,86 Greil, Arthur L., 313 Griffin, Larry J., 99,124,158, 184, 185, 186,313 Grimm, James W., 4 7,34,71,86 Gronn, Peter C., 31, 37 Gross, Edward, 43, 86 Gruber, James E., 223,227 Gruenberg, Barry, 99,124 Grusky, Oscar, 102, 124,177, 187 Guest, Robert, 73,90 Gurin, Gerald, 95, 124 Gustavsen, Bjorn, 293 Hackman, J. Richard, 115, 126 Haga, William J., 55, 86 Hage, Jerald, 272, 294 Halaby, Charles N., 207,208, 216,218,227 Hall, Douglas T., 100, 113, 124,123 Hall, Larry D., 251 Hall, Richard H., 14,15,35,37,39,40,43,46,59, 86,120,124,129,151,160-161,187,228,272, 275, 278, 279, 292, 294,298, 311, 313,335 Haller, Archibald 0 ., 134-136, 175, 187 Halpern, Richard S., 70,86 Hamilton, Richard F., 97-98, 124, 128, 240, 249 Hannan, Michael T., 278,294 Hanson, Sandra L., 317,335 Hanushek, Eric A., 253,256, 268 Hardy, Melissa A., 246,248 Hareven, Tamara, 234,248 Hargens, Lowell L., 213,229 Harlan, Sharon L., 224,228 Hartley, Shirley Foster, 323, 335 Hartmann, Heidi I., 80,87, 218, 230, 292,296

340

Hatt, Paul K.. 130,151 Haug, Marie R., 52,87 Hamer, Robert M., 156, 171-172, 175-176, 186, 187, 189, 207, 213, 226, 227, 230, 256, 259, 267,268 Havens, Elizabeth M., 213, 227 Hayward, Mark D., 230 Hearn, H. L., 77,87 Hedley, R. Alan, 119, 124 Heinz, John P., 50-51,87, 148, 151 Hendricks, Wallace E., 217, 225 Henretta, John C., 247 Henry, Kenneth, 59, 87 Herman, Jeanne B., 313 Herzberg, Frederick, 95, 119-120, 124 Hesse-Biber, Sharlene, 10-11,15, 37, 54, 62,64, 76, 86, 192-193,194-195, 198-199, 201, 214215, 226,265, 265, 268,320-324, 332 Heydebrand, Wolf V., 24, 29, 37, 51,87 Heyns, Barbara, 187 Hicks, Alexander, 186 Hicks, Mary, 333 Hill, Reuben, 228, 335 Hill, Stephen, 298, 313 Hirschman, Charles, 259,268 Hitt, M. A., 217,227 Hochschild, Arlie, 77, 87, 323, 334 Hodge, Robert W., 154,187 Hodson, Randy, 144, 151,275, 294 Hofferth, Sandra L., 319,334 Hogan, Dennis P., 237,248, 258,268 Hollinger, Richard, 110,123,124 Holmstrom, Lynda Lytle, 324, 334 Hood, Jane C., 243,248 Hope, Keith, 161,187 Horan, Patrick M „ 151, 152, 163,185,187,267, 269 Hougland, James G., Jr., 127 Hout, Michael, 174,187,213,227,262, 268 Hrebiniak, Lawrence G., 123 Huber, Joan, 80-81, 82, 87, 197, 202, 204, 227, 230, 303, 305, 306-307, 318, 319, 322, 323, 324, 334, 335 Hudis, Paula M„ 230, 256,269 Huffine, Carol L., 110,124 Hughes, Everett C„ 14,37,68,87,110,123,124 Hulin, Charles L., % Hull, Frank M., 68,87,107-108, 124 Hull, Raymond, 57,88 Hunt, Janet G., 324, 334 Hunt, Larry L., 324, 334 Hybels, Judith, 38 Hyclak, Thomas, 257,268 Ilchman, Warren F., 330,334

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Izraeli, Dafna N„ 193,227 Jacobs, Jerry A., 205-206,229,273,294 James, David R., 61-62, 87 Janson, Phillip, 98,124 Jencks, Christopher, 175-176,187 Johnson, Marilyn, 248 Johnson, Terrence, 45,87 Jones, F. L., 218, 227 Jones, Richard C., 252,268 Kahn, Robert L.,96, 109-110, 124 Kalleberg, Arne L„ 93-94,99,124,149-150,152, 168, 179, 181-183, 184, 187, 188, 240-241, 248, 273, 294, 296 Kanter, Rosabeth Moss, 58-59, 64-65, 87, 200, 216, 217, 221, 223, 227, 277, 281, 294, 301302, 313, 317, 334 Kantor, Glenda K., 123,334 Kaplan, Abraham, 298,313 Kasarda, John D., 21-22,37 Katz, Daniel, 109-110, 124 Kaufman, Debra R., 208,222, 227 Kaufman, Herbert, 292,294 Kaufman, Robert L.. 144,151,238-239,248,254, 268,273, 294 Kavcic, Bogdan, 127 Kendall, Patricia, 125,295 Kerkhoff, Alan C., 158,177, 188 Kessler, Ronald C., 328,334 Kim, Dong 1., 127 Kimberly, John R., 46,87 Klegon, Douglas, 45-46,87 Klein, Gary, 196, 226 Kochan, Thomas A., 305,313 Koffell, John N„ 187 Kohn, Melvin L„ 95,108-109,114-115,117-118, 124-125, 127, 151, 228,282, 294,325, 334 Konda, Suresh L., 180,189 Komhauser, William, 49,87 Kostecki, Marian, 7 Kraft, Phillip, 49, 87 Kraut, Allen I., 100, 125 Kronus, Carol L., 47, 86 Kubitschek, Warren N., 248 Kumka, Donald, 116, 126 Kurke, Lance B., 31, 37 Labovitz, Sanford, 228 Ladinsky, Jack, 50, 87 Land, Kenneth C., 188 Landsberger, Henry A., 310-311,313 Lane, Angela, 172, 176,188 La Porte, Todd R., 49,87 Larson, Magali Sarfatti, 45,87

Name Index

Laumann, Edward O., 50-51, 85, 86, 148, 149, 151 Lavin, David E., 159,188 Lawler, Edward E., 111,85,92,100,120,125,126 Lawler, Edward J., 298 Layder, Derek, 102, 125 Lee, Everett S., 251,270 Leigh, Duane E., 257, 268 Leigh, J. Paul, 330, 334 Leiter, Jeffrey, 108,125 Leitko, Thomas A., 300,313 Lembright, Muriel Faltz, 222, 227 Lenski, Gerhard, 61, 87 Leventman, Paula Goldman, 53,87 Levin-Epstein, Noah, 116, 126, 130-131,152 Lieberson, Stanley, 252,254, 257,257-258, 261, 268, 277, 294 Likert, Rensis, 57,87 Lin, Nan, 175, 177, 188 Linder, Marc, 33, 37 Linhart, Robert, 72, 88 Lipset, Seymour Martin Locke, Edwin A., 92,95,96,125 Lockwood, David, 86,123,186 Loeb, Jane W. Logan, John R., 176, 188,305, 313 Lopata, Helena Znaniecki, 64,80-81,83,88,142, 152 Lopreato, Sally C., 268 Lorence, Jon, 115-116, 125, 126, 131, 152, 212, 228 Loscocco, Karyn, 240-241, 248 Lowe, J. C., 248 Lueptow, Lloyd B., 125 Lyson, Thomas A., 220-221,228 Maccoby, Michael, 317,334 Machlowitz, Marilyn, 101,125 Macke, Ann Statham, 201,221,228, 265, 268 Macken, Patrick O., 228 Mackenzie, Gavin, 67,88 Majka, Lorraine, 193, 228 Mandelbaum, Dorothy R., 203, 228 Mannheim, Bilha, 203-228 Manning, Robert D., 263,269 Mansfield, Roger, 113,124 March, James C., 281,282,294 March, James G., 281,282, 294 Marcson, Simon, 49,88 Mare, Robert D., 236, 248,253 Maret, Elizabeth, 196, 225 Marglin, Stephen A., 24,37 Marini, Margaret M., 208,228, 319, 334 Markham, William T., 89,197, 228,230, 314 Marks, Carole, 257, 268 Markson, Elizabeth W., 243, 248 Martin, Jack K., 93,98,124, 125, 317, 334

341

Martin, W. Allen, 263,270 Marx, Karl, 28, 37,72,88,105,125,164,188 Maslow, Abraham, 119 Mason, Karen Oppenheim, 201, 220, 228 Mausner, Bernard, 124 Mayer, Sharren S., 222,228 McAuley, Alastair, 193,228 McClelland, Kent, 187 McClendon, McKee J., 125,210, 228 McCullough, Margaret R., 126 McDill, Edward, 185 McGregor, Douglas, 57,88, 119-120, 125 Mcllwee, Judith S., 221 McKelvey, Bill, 46,88,272, 278, 292, 294 McKeon, John W., 125 McLaughlin, Steven D., 208, 218, 226, 228 McMahan, Walter W„ 202, 226 McMillen, David Byron, 25-26, 37,217, 226 McNamee, Stephen J., 167,188 McNeill, Kenneth, 20-21, 37 McRae, James A., 328 McRoberts, Hugh A., 173,188 Means, Gardiner C., 61,88 Mechanic, David, 139,151 Meier, Robert F., 187 Merton, Robert K„ 111, 125 Messner, Steven F., 34,37 Michelson, Stephan, 185 Mirowsky, John, 335 Meyer, John W., 173, 188, 281,294 Meyer, Marshall W., 272,294 Miles, Raymond E., 289,295 Miles, Robert H., 87 Miller, Ann R., 133,151 Miller, Cheryl A., 88, 151 Miller, Delbert C., 69,70,88, 236, 248, 303,313 Miller, Gale, 13, 32-34,37, 301,313 Miller, George A., 93,125 Miller, Joanne, 98-99,115,125,127,203,228,335 Miller, Jon, 203, 228 Miller, Karen A., 125, 228,335 Miller, Richard E., 20-21, 37 Miller, S. M., 158, 188 Miller, Stephen J., 65, 88 Mills, C. Wright, 63, 66,88, 168, 188 Mills, Donald L., 43,90 Mindiola, Tatcho, Jr., 252, 268 Mintzberg, Henry, 31,37 Mirowsky, John, 335 Monane, Joseph, 89 Monk-Turner, Elizabeth, 158, 188 Montagna, Paul D., 23,29-30,37,39,59,65,71, 81,88 Moon, Marilyn, 225 Moore, J. W., 248 Moore, Kristin A., 319,334 Moore, Wilbert, 160-161,186, 188

342

Morgan, S. Philip, 186 Morgan, William R., 201, 228, 265, 268 Morris, Richard T., 130,132, IS2 M om s, Robin, 311, 313 Mortimer, Jeylan T., 92,93, 94-95, 96, 99, 100, 102,103,115-116,117-118,125-126,129,131, 152,196, 228, 324, 334-335 Mottaz, Clifford J., 109,126, 316-317 Mueller, Charles W., 137-138,152, 176-177, 188, 212,222,231 Mueller, Eva, 26, 38 Mueser, Peter, 187 Murphy, Raymond J., 130, 132, 152 Murphy, William M., 152 Napolic, Richard, 252,267 Nelkin, Dorothy, 331,335 Neugarten, B. L., 237, 248 Nordlie, Peter G., 260-261,268 Norr, Kathleen F., 88, 151 Novick, Shelley, 162-163,186 Nuss, Shirley, 193, 228 Nye, Barbara Randall, 89 Nystrom, Paul C., 284-285,295 Oakley, Ann, 88 Obradovic, Josip, 288,295 O’Connor, James F., 277,294 O’Farrell, Brigid, 224, 228 Ohlendorf, George W., 187 Oldham, Greg R., 96, 115,126 Olneck, Michael, 187 Oppenheimer, Valerie K., 196,229,318-319,335 Ortiz, Vilma, 265, 268 Osmond, Marie, 333 OToole, James, 103, 126,329, 335 Otto, Luther B., 187 Ouchi, William, 290,295 Pahl, J. M„ 317, 335 Pahl, R. E., 317, 335 Pampel, Fred C., 172, 188, 244, 248 Papanek, Hanna, 322, 335 Parcel, Toby L„ 137-138,152 Parelius, Ann Parker, 54,88 Parelius, Robert, 54, 88 Parke, E. Lauck, 120, 127,283-284, 285, 295 Parker, Stanley A., 12-13, 38, 244-245, 246, 248 Parkinson, C. Northcote, 57, 88 Pames, Herbert S., 245-246,248 Parsons, T alcott, 41,60,61,88,160,188,196,229 Patchen, Martin, 100, 126 Pazul, Michele, 258, 268 Peil, Margaret, 193, 229 Penn, Roger, 155, 189 Pennings, Johannes M., 59, 88

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Perry, James L., 100, 123 Persell, Caroline, 158, 189 Perrone, Luca, 164, 190,257, 270 Perrow, Charles, 279,295 Pemicci, Carolyn, 197,226,328, 334 Perrucci, Robert, 49,88 Peter, Laurence J., 57,88 Peters, Thomas J., 57, 88 Peterson, Robert W., 269 Peterson, Steven A., 313 Pfeffer, Jeffrey, 272,273,274,278,279,293,294, 295, 298, 313, 323,335 Pickens, B. A., 227 Pipkin, Ronald M„ 230,295 Platt, Jennifer, 86, 123,186, 313 Pleck, Joseph H., 83, 88,316,335 Piore, Michael B„ 30-31, 37, 38 Podmore, David, 222, 229 Poole, Eric O., 126 Porter, James N., 175, 189, 259,268 Porter, Lyman W„ 92,112, 125, 126 Portes, Alejandro, 20,38,259,263,268,269,270 Poss, Sharon Sandormirsky, 248 Poston, Dudley L., Jr., 129, 152, 267 Powell, Brian, 205-206,229 Powell, Walter W„ 279,294 Presser, Harriet B., 321,335 Price, James L., 93,126 Price, Raymond P., 126 Priest, T. B., 60, 88 Quadagno, Jill S., 246,248 Quick, Paddy, 219, 229 Quinn, Robert E„ 37 Quinn, Robert P., 92,95,97-98, 126 Ragan, James F., Jr., 218, 229 Rapoport, Rhona, 324,335 Rapoport, Robert, 324,335 Reader, George, 125 Regoli, Robert M., 113,126 Reich, Michael, 262, 269 Reimer, Jeffrey W„ 222,229 Reiss, Albert J., Jr., 68,88, 153, 154, 156, 189 Report of a Special Task Force to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 10-11, 103,126 Rhee, Jong M., 252, 269 Richardson, Barbara L., 208, 227 Richtand, Carol N., 335 Riley, Matilda, 233, 248 Ritter, Kathleen V., 213, 229 Ritti, R. Richard, 86 Ritzer, George, 39,49,59,89, 101, 126 Robin, Stanley, 123, 225 Robinson, Robert V., 172,189

Name Index

Roby, Pamela, 194,229 Rodin, Miriam B., 334 Roe, Anne, 14, 38 Roethlisberger, Fritz J., 69,89 Rogers, Theresa F., 87,124 RogofT, Natalie, 171, 189,213, 229 Roos, Patricia A., 151,209,211,218,229,231 Rosen, Bernard C., 201,229 Rosenbaum, James E., 158, 169, 179-180, 189, 240-242, 248, 269, 277, 281, 295 Rosenfeld, Rachel A., 17,38,79,89,207-210,229 Rosenstein, Carolyn, 143-147,152,254,270,273, 2% Rosenstein, Joseph, 305,313 Rosner, Menachem, 127,295 Rosow, Jerome M „ 104,126 Ross, Adreian A., 227 Ross, Catherine E., 329,335 Ross, Jerry, 323, 335 Rossi, Peter H., 154, 185,187,206, 225 Rotchford, Nancy L., 96,126 Roth, Julius A., 43, 89 Rothman, Robert A., 31, 38,52,60, 88, 89 Roy, Donald F., 74,89 Rubin, Beth A., 308, 313 Rueshemeyer, Marilyn, 322,335 Ruggiero, Mary, 247, 268 Rus, Veljko, 288,295 Russell, Raymond, 167,189 Sabel, Charles F., 283,295 Safa, Helen L.. 193, 229 Saks, Daniel H., 313 Salancik, Gerald R., 272,279 Salz, Arthur, 14, 38 Samuel, Yitzhak, 116,126,130-131,152,175,190 Sandefur, Gary D., 259-260,269 Sandell, Steven H„ 198,201,229, 230 Schein, Edgar H„ 113,126 Schervish, Paul G., 53,89, 165, 189,277, 295 Schoenherr, Richard, 63, 84, 102,127,180,269 Schooler, Carmi, 95,108,114-115,125,228,282, 294, 325-327,334, 335 Schmiedeskamp, Jay, 38 Schreiber, Carol Tropp, 221, 230 Schriesheim, Chester A., 305, 314 Schrink, Jeffrey L., 126 Schulman, Michael D., 255, 270 Schwartz, Janet S., 193,230, 322,335 Schwartz, Joseph, 189 Scott, W. Richard, 50,89,272,281,294,295,313 Seashore, Stanley E., 96,125 Sccman, Melvin, 184, 189 Seidman, Ann, 64,89 Selbee, Kevin, 189 Sell, Ralph R., 101, 125,327-328, 335

343

Semyonov, Moshe, 177,189 Sewell, William H., 175-176,189,211,230 Seybolt, John W„ 97,127 Shapiro, David, 198, 230 Shapiro, E. Guy, 119,127 Shaw, Lois B„ 202,230,243, 248 Shields, Susan Walker, 262,269 Sheldon, Mary E., 100,127 Shepard, Jon M., 63,89,96,109,127 Sheridan, John E., 92,127 Shih, Anthony, 80, 84 Shils, Edward A., 47,89 Shoemaker, Donald J., 100-101,127 Shrumm, Wesley, 55,90 Siegel, Paul M„ 154, 187, 189 Silberstein, Richard, 188 Simmons, Roberta, 111, 126 Simpson, Ida Harper, 33,37,38,54,89,239,248, 304.314 Simpson, Richard L., 33,37,38,54,89,248,304, 304.314 Singelman, Joachim, 39, 172, 189 Slocum, John W., Jr., 92, 127 Slomczynski, Kazimierz M., 115,127 Smigel, Erwin O., 40,50, 59, 89, 148, 152 Smith, Adam, 129,152 Smith, Billy G., 155, 190 Smith, D. Randall, 147,152, 309,312 Smith, David L., 128 Smith, Michael, 12-13,38, 306, 314 Smith, Sharon, 218, 229 Smith-Lovin, Lynn, 197-198,230 Snizek, William E., 127 Snyder, David, 193, 230,256, 269 Snyderman, Barbara B., 124 SokolofT, Natalie J., 219,230, 317,335 Sonquist, John, 38 Soref, Michael, 61-62,89 Sorensen, Aage B„ 169,170,189 Sorensen, Bjorn Aase, 30, 38, 295 South, Scott J., 69,89,204, 223,230, 302, 314 Spaeth, Joe L., 141, 152,196 Spangler, Eve, 216, 230,277,295 Spencer, Anne, 222, 229 Spenner, Kenneth I., 26-27, 38, 116-117, 127, 141-142,152 Spilerman, Seymour, 179,189, 238-239, 248 Spitze, Glenna, 7, 81-82, 83, 87, 196, 197, 202, 204, 227, 230, 318, 322, 323, 324, 328, 334, 335 Staelin, Charles, 38 Staines, Graham L., 92,126 Starr, Paul, 40, 41, 47, 53, 89 State Education Department, University of the State of New York, 42 Stein, Nancy Wendlandt, 47,89

344

Steinberg, Laurence D., 216, 227, 236, 247,268 Steinberg, Ronnie J., 219,230,291-292,29S, 309, 311,314 Steinberg, Stephen, 261,269 Stern, Robert N., 54,86, 309,314 Stevens, Gillian, 210,230 Stevenson, Mary, 1S1 Stewart, James, 257, 268 Stewart, Phyllis L., 32, 38 Stewman, Shelby, 180,189 Stinchcombe, Arthur, 68,89, 271, 295 Stoll, Patricia, 77, 87 Stolzenberg, Ross M., 157-158, 193, 197-198, 202, 230, 231, 258,269,320, 336 Stone, Eugene F., 96,127 Strauss, Anselm, 12, 38,112, 122 Strauss, George, 92,96,127 Styles, Margretta M., 52, 89 Sussman, Marvin, 53,87 Sutton, Robert I., 109,127 Szafran, Robert, 199-200,230, 258, 261,269 Szymanski, Albert, 262,269 Taber, Thomas D., 96,126 Tannenbaum, Arnold S., 96, 97, 127, 287-288, 295 Tausky, Curt, 15-16, 17-20, 27-28, 38, 71, 74, 76-77, 90, 92, 121, 127, 271, 283-284, 285, 290-291,303-304, 306,314 Taylor, Frederick W., 24,38, 57,90 Taylor, Mary G., 323, 336 Taylor, Patricia A., 99,124, 262 Terkel, Studs, 105,127 Terrell, Kermit, 173, 190,210, 231,265, 269 Thomas, June M., 252,269 Thompson, James D., 179,190 Thompson, Paul H., 123 Thorsrud, Einar, 289, 295 Tickameyer, Ann R., 197-198,230 Tinto, Vincent, 159,190 Tolbert, Charles M., II, 144, 151, 152, 181, 185, 190, 240, 249, 254, 267,269 Touraine, Alan, 29, 38 Travis, Harry P., 187 Treas, Judith, 213,230 Treiman, Donald J., 131-137, 151, 152, 154-155, 173, 187, 190, 209, 210, 218, 230, 231, 265, 269, 292, 296 Trice, Harrison M., 59,89, 101, 126 Trott, Jerry M., 188 Tsonc, Peter Z. W„ 252,269 Tully, Judy Corder, 213,227 Tuma, Nancy Brandon, 188 Tumin, Melvin, 161, 190 Turner, Arthur, 90 Turner, Ralph, 169, 190

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Tyree, Andrea, 155,213,230 U.S. Bureau of the Census, 16, 17,38, 39 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 18, 39,231,249, 269 U.S. Department of Labor, Dictionary o f Oc­ cupational Titles, 131-142 UphofT, Norman T., 330 Useem, Michael, 59,62,90, 168,190 Valadez, Joseph J., 81-82,90 Van de Ven, Andrew H., 57,90, 278-279, 296 Van Maanen, John, 114,127 Vanek, Joann, 83,90 Vanneman, Reeve, 167,188 Vaughn, John C., 188 Vaught, Charles, 103,128 Veroff, Joseph, 127 Vianello, Mino, 127, 295 Viscusi, R. Kip, 331, 336 Vollmer, Howard M., 43,90 VoydanofT, Patricia, 96,128 Vroom, Victor, 120, 128 Wadley, Janet K., 251,270 Waite, Linda J., 197-198,202,230,231,320,336 Walker, Charles, 69, 73,90 Wallace, Michael, 149-150, 152, 273, 296, 313 Wallace, Phyllis, 264, 270 Walsh, Edward J., 117-118, 128 Walton, John, 20, 38 Walton, Richard E., 73,90,286 Wanous, John P., 113,128 Ward, Kathryn B., 212,222, 231 Ward, Russell A., 7, 233,234, 249 Ward, Sherry, 187 Warner, Malcolm, 289,2% Waterman, Robert H., Jr., 57, 88 Weaver, Charles N., 97,123 Weber, Max, 298, 314 Weick, Karl, 84 Weiss, Jane A., 244, 248 Whetten, David, 271, 296 White, Harrison C., 169,190 Whyte, William F„ 31-32,38, 309, 314 Wieser, Georg, 127, 295 Wilder, Norma J., 216,225 Wilensky, Harold, 43,90 Wilkie, Jane Riblett, 319,336 Williams, Jill, 187 Willmott, Peter, 317,336 Wilson, Kenneth, 259, 263,269, 270 Wilson, P. A., 41 Wilson, William Julius, 262, 270 Wimberly, Ronald C., 33,38 Winship, Christopher, 248,253

Name Index

Wolf, Wendy, 69,90, 207,217, 226, 230, 231 Wong, Morris G., 259 Wood, Robert B., 89 Woodworth, Warner, 287,296 Wray, Donald E., 70,90 Wright, Erik Olin, 164-166,170,190,257,270 Wright, James D., 97,98,240, 249 Wuthnow, Robert, 55,90 Yauger, David, 175,188 Young, Michael, 317, 336

345

Yuchtman (Yaar), Ephraim, 175,190 Zagorski, Krzysztof, 188 Zeitlin, Maurice, 61,62,90 Zeitz, Gerald, 96, 128, 282,296 Zikmund, W. G., 227 Zingraff, Rhonda, 255,270 Zoloth, Barbara S., 225 Zucker, Lynne G., 143-147, 152, 254, 270, 273, 296

Subject Index Actors, 102-103 Administrators. See Managers Adult workers, 238-243 Age, 14-15, 17-19, 120 Age dimension, 35, 233-249, 332; life-course perspective, 234; stratification perspective, 233-234 Alienation, 72-73, 104-110 Architecture, 42,44,48 Auto workers, 106-107 Autonomy, 27, 31-32 Blue-collar work, 66-76 Cabdriving, 72-73 Capitalism, 61, 219, 317 Career, 179-183; nontraditional, 221-224; stages, 112-114 Centrality. See Work commitment Chemical workers, 107 Chiropractic, 42,43 Class consciousness, 167-168,309-311 Clergy, 41-42,47 Clerical work, 62-65 Collective bargaining. See Labor unions Commitment. See Work commitment Comparable worth, 218-219,291-292 Complexity of work, 114-115, 116-117, 137-138, 141-142 Control, 27, 31-32; professional, 45 Countercultural work, 32-34 Craft work. See Skilled work Dentists, 44 Deskilling, 23-27,64, 165-166,309

Dictionary o f Occupational Titles, 35,131-142 Discrimination and segregation, 214-220, 255258,261-262; distinction between, 216; young workers, 233 Division of labor, 233 Dual-career families, 323-324

Dual economy/labor market, 142-144 Dual-work families, 320-324 Economic dimension, 36 Education, 18-19, 22-23, 156-160; tracking, 158-159 Empowerment, 222-223,301-303 Engineers, 44,49, 53 Ethnic identification, 262 Executives. See Managers Factory work. See Semiskilled work Family and work, 116-117, 315-329, 333; chil­ dren, 318-320, 321-322; roles, 316; and women, 196-200, 212-214 Farm work, 78-80; wives, 79-80 Flight attendants, 77-78 Foremen. See Supervisory work Garbage collectors, 117 Gender, 17-19,67,69,80,83, 115, 120,243,275, 277-278; differences on vertical dimension, 206-209 Gender dimension, 35,191-231, 233 Geographical mobility, 196-197, 315, 316, 317, 321-322 Health. See Work and health Heteronomous organizations, 50 Horizontal dimension, 35, 129-152, 332; defini­ tion, 129-130; job content approach, 131143; labor market sector approach, 142-150; situs approach, 129-131 Housework, 80-83, 324-327; technological change, 82-83 Human capital, 19 Hustling work, 32-33 Income attainment. See Status and income attainment Individual dimension, 35, 91-128, 332

347

348

Industrial sector, 39-40,143-147,272-274 Institutional dimension, 36, 315-336 Job commitment. See Work commitment Job satisfaction, 92-99, 184; changes, 103-104; determinants, 93-99; and productivity, 92-93; and turnover and absenteeism, 93 Labor force, 15-23; defined, 15-17; women’* participation, see Women’s labor force participation Labor market, 15-23, 29-31, 35; external, 30; internal, 19-20, 30; sectors, 30-31, 142-150, 178-179, 212,253-254 Labor unions, 303-308; and gender dimension, 307; and racial and ethnic dimension, 307 Lawyers, 41-42,47, 50-51,52-53, 54, 59-60 Librarians, 50, 54 Mail carriers, 117-118 Managers, 54-62 Military, 260-261 Minority groups, 19-20,22-23,67 Mobility. See Status and income attainment Motivations for work, 119-122 Nontraditional work, 220-224 Nursing, 43,44,46, 51-52,54 Occupation, 10; definition, 14-15 Officials. See Managers Older workers, 243-247; retirement, 246-247 Optometry, 44 Organizational change, 283-292; comparable worth, 291-292; Japanese approach, 289-291; job redesign, 283-286; worker participation, 286-289 O rganizational design. See O rganizational change Organizational dimension, 35,271-296,332-333; horizontal dimension, 272-274; vertical di­ mension, 274-280 Organizational environments, 278-279 Organizational size, 271-272,275-277 Organizational work, 39-40,55-56, 117,311 Paraprofessionals, 45 Personality and work. See Socialization for work Personnel management, 59 Pharmacy, 43,44 Physicians, 40-45,47,50,53, 54 Postindustrial era, 29 Power, 61, 139-141; and gender, 222-223; de­ fined, 297-298 Power dimension, 35-36, 297-314, 333; and or­ ganizational dimension, 298-300

DIMENSIONS OF WORK

Power theory of stratification. See Vertical di­ mension, conflict approach Prestige, 154-156 Printers, 106,108 Professional attributes, 41-44,111-112 Professional power, 44-54; 111-112; external threats, 52-54; gaining and maintaining, 4648; gender threat, 54; internal threats, 50-52; organizational threats, 48-50 Professional training, 111-112 Professional work, 40-55,112, 308 Professors, 47,48, 54,117 Proprietors, 56-57 Psychiatrists, 47,49 Public accountancy, 42 Public policy. See Work and public policy Public relations, 59 Race and ethnicity, 119,319 Racial and ethnic dimension, 35, 251-270, 332; changes, 251-253; gender dimension, 263266; horizontal dimension, 253-255; vertical dimension, 255-263 Retirement. See Older workers, retirement Sales work, 62-63,65-66 Satisfaction. See Job satisfaction Scientists, 49,53 Semiprofessionals, 45, 54 Semiskilled work, 71-74,118, 121-122 Service work, 76-78 Sexual harassment, 223-224 Situs, 35, 130-131 Skill changes, 26-27 Skill degradation. See Deskilling Skilled work, 67-68 Social status, 153-160; measurement, 154-156, 205-206; and education, 156-160 Social workers, 50, 54 Socialization for work, 110-118,194-196 Staff-line distinction, 59-60 Status. See Vertical dimension Status and income attainment, 168,169,171-183; gender differences, 206-214; historical pat­ terns, 170-172; individual placement, 178183; international patterns, 173; organiza­ tional factors, 280-283; process, 173-178 Stratification. See Vertical dimension Supervisory work, 69-71 Teachers, 47,48, 5 0 ,5 4 ,117-118 Telephone operators, 64,65 Textile workers, 107,108 Training. See Socialization for work Underemployment, 23

Subject Index

Unemployment, 17-23, 331; frictional, 17-19; structural, 19-23; young workers, see Young workers, unemployment Unskilled work, 74-76 Vertical dimension, 35, 129, 153-190, 332; con­ flict approach, 164-168; functional explana­ tion, 160-164; gender differences, 205-214; structural explanation, 169-171 Veterinary medicine, 43 Waitress, 76, 77 White-collar work, 62-66; feminization, 63-64 Women’s laborforce participation, 191-221; 318; discrimination and segregation, 214-220; factors affecting, 194-201, 316-317; orienta­

349

tions toward, 201-204, 220-221; outcomes from, 203-204; rate, 191-193; vertical dimen­ sion, 205-214 Work: activities, 30-34; definition, 10-14; dimen­ sions, 34-36; history, 27-29; motivations, see Motivations for work; political context, 308311; satisfaction, see Job satisfaction Work commitment, 100-103; changes, 103-104 Work-family relationship. See Family and work Work and health, 328-330 Work and public policy, 330-333 Worker participation, 286-289,299-300, 308 Young workers, 234-238; phases, 236-237; un­ employment, 235-236,241

A bout the A uthor

Richard H. H ill is Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs and Policy at the State University of New York at Albany. He has taught previously at Indiana University, the University of Minnesota, and the University of Vermont. He is currently working on the fourth edition of his Organizations: Structure and Process. He also serves as Editor of Work and Occupations.

351

DIMENSIONS OF WORK by R IC H A R D H. H A L L , Here a the published on the nature and significance IH II H I IIPIIBP hensive survey is the longtime editor of l^HII II |j I II! I II I IIjl IIH tional Sociological Journal. He points ou^HII j| l||| I I | ! I 111 IIH elusive phenomenon than is recognized i ^ B H ill l!:i;lilil J i wILJIH activities that seem like w ork to those [te^ B P f X T i K y r i i i l T l U w ^ M o thers—for example, housew ork—shou of sociological analysis and understanding. To capture the complex and far reaching implications of w ork, Hall has chosen to focus on its many “ dimensions.” Some of these (individual, gender, age, and racial and ethnic) directly concern workers, while others (organiza­ tional, power, and institutional) describe the w o rk environment. In addition, Hall explores both the division of labor or “ horizontal” dimension of w ork and gradations of occupations or “ vertical” dimension—a distinction that he uses to question today’s preoccupation w ith status and income attachment, i.e., the “ vertical” w ork dimension. As the author demonstrates, all these dimensions are not discrete but “ overlapping, intersecting, and interde­ pendent ” In addition to this original interpretation, Hall provides an overview of the traditional, textbook taxonom y of w ork and occupations—managerial and professional, blue collar, and so o n —and a review of the m ajor public policy issues raised by his discussion. A penetrating account of an issue that has been pivotal in modern sociology since M arx, Weber, and Durkheim , D im e n s io n s o f W o rk will interest a broad spectrum of academics and professionals in employment related fields. ISBN 0-8039-2397-X clo th

SAGE

PUBLICATIONS The Publishers of Professional Social Science Beverly Hills London New Delhi ^