PDF (Volume 1)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Durham E-Theses Participation for whom?: a critical study of worker participation in theory and practice Ramsay, Harvie E. How to cite: Ramsay, Harvie E. (1981) Participation for whom?: a critical study of worker participation in theory and practice, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/7606/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 "THE QUESTION OF 1 FOR WHOM1 IS FUNDAMENTAL; IT IS A QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE" MAO TSE- TUNG 23 May 1942, concluding speech to Yenan Forum on Literature and Art. (in 'Selected Works, Vol III' :78, Peking: Foreign Language Press, 1967) PARTICIPATION FOR WHOM? A CRITICAL STUDY OF WORKER PARTICIPATION IN THEORY AND PRACTICE \|0L • \ - HARVIE E. RAMSAY The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. A thesis submitted to the University of Durham in fulfilment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy CONTENTS Page PREFACE INTRODUCTION PART ONE: WORDS AND MEANINGS 2 Introduction 5 Chapter 1: Democracy 30 Chapter 2: Industrial Democracy 61 Chapter 3: Participation PART TWO: REAPPRAISING THE THEORY OF PARTICIPATION Introduction 1110 Chapter 4: Little Boxes 113 Chapter 5: Towards A Theory of Participation 168 PART THREE: THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF AUTHORITY IN INDUSTRY Introduction 240 Chapter 6: Power, Ideology and Participation 242 Chapter 7: Working Class Consciousness and the 276 Limits of Legitimacy Chapter 8: Management Thought and Managers' 319 Attitudes PART FOUR: PARTICIPATION IN PRACTICE: A CRITICAL REASSESSMENT Introduction 353 Chapter 9: Plus Ca Change 358 Chapter 10: Between the Lines 392 Chapter 11: A Cosmopolitan Cipher 443 Page PART FIVE: THE SURVEY Introduction 509 Chapter 12: The Demand for Participation: On 516 Whose Terms? Chapter 13: Managers, Workers and Participation 544 Chapterl4:Weldrill 567 Chapter 15: Epoch 587 Chapter 16: Natco 612 CONCLUSION 649 BIBLIOGRAPHY 688 APPENDICES Shop Floor Responses Management Responses Manual Questionnaire Schedule Management Questionnaire Schedule iu PREFACE Thi6 thesis is the culmination of some eight years of work and thought ( a separation of dubious political credentials!). Apart from my own sheer stubbornness, it owes a great deal to a vast number of influences. Some are too obscure to mention (or remember). Others would seem like ritual and almost insulting pats on the head, however genuine I tried to say they were. So I shall make none of these explicit. One ritual I shall not forgo, though, is to acknowledge the tireless patience of Richard Brown, who had to read and comment on this monstrous tome in far less legible forms. Just to shun orthodoxy one more time, and so as not to deny participation to him, let me say that he even has to share a few granules of blame for what follows. Not that he ever had any real say in what happened. In order to maximise convenience of reading and reference I have used a footnote system at the end of each chapter to deal with detailed additional comments or items of information to those in the text, and a reference system which makes use of a bibliography at the end of the thesis. In the bibliography, references are listed alphabetically, and chronologically for each author. Where more than one publication occurs in a given year for a given author, the first item is given just the year, the second has an 'a' appended to the year, and so forth. INTRODUCTION This thesis opens with a quotation from Mao Tse-tung. That quotation neatly fits the title of the thesis, yet it may seem a flourish of little relevance, for Mao was talking about the revolutionary role of art and literature. Nonetheless, the argument it embodies is thoroughly germane to that developed below on the topic of worker participation. For Mao, the key question was the class stand of a piece of writing or a painting - whether it expressed the ideas and interests of the working class or the bourgeoisie. Nor is this always straightforwardly judged. An essay may declare itself committed to workers' interests, and yet foster relations and attitudes which sharpen the division of labour or otherwise promote bourgeois rule. So it is with worker participation. Clarion calls for the need to improve the position of the worker in the industrial authority structure may be taken at face value, or seen as siren songs designed to lure the producers of value into the intensification of their own exploitation. To pass judgement, it is necessary to undertake an empirical investigation of the political economy of participation informed by a critical appreciation of concepts like 'participation' (and 'industrial democracy') themselves. The task of this introduction is to set the scene for an investigation of this sort. When the project was begun in 1971, it seemed eminently manageable, but the subject has grown underfoot and so in consequence has the thesis itself. That very intensification of the interest in worker participation is, and must be, part of that which is to be examined and explained. At the wi time, all spokesmen seemed to be agreed that worker participation would have to come - in one prominent politician's words: It is no longer a question of whether workers should play a greater part in theTr day-to-day factory life, but how this is to be done. (Harold Wilson, quoted Daily Mirror 25.6.73). There was less consensus, however, on the 'how', or indeed on the meaning of 'a greater part'. Was this to be a change of power relations and so of the very criteria by which decisions were to be made in industry? Or merely a matter of motivation of the worker to get her or him to do more and supposedly feel happy about it? Was it to be achieved by worker directors, works councils, profit-sharing or what? Nor have the issues been much clarified in the intervening years of countless strident pronouncements. What is noticeable as I write is a marked decline in volume of and attention to the debate of late, particularly since the electoral defeat for Labour in May 1979. Stepping away from the public arena to that of academit discussion might be hoped to yield a greater clarity. In practice, however, this has not been the case. As I shall seek to show in the course of the chapters which follow, the analysis of participation has been predominantly superficial, oversimp 1istic (from the left as well as the right) and heavily imbued with ideological prior as sumptions,most of which are not made explicit. The identification and criticism of the presuppositions investing most of the literature is one of the aims of this thesis, and particularly of Parts 1 and 2. A vii second aim is intimately entangled with this: to clarify the way in which certain key terms are used, and the way in which they change their meaning according to the theoretical context in which they are used. In particular, the concepts of 'democracy', 'industrial democracy' and 'participation' will be scrutinised in Chapters 1, 2 and 3 respectively. In addition, the analysis of 'power' and 'ideology' will be examined in Chapter 6 (following a preliminary discussion of power and participation in different accounts in Chapter 5). These two aims, though important, are in some ways only preparatory to the main tasks of the thesis. These involve the construction of an adequate analytical framework, and an attempt to identify and explain the main empirical phenomena of worker participation in operation using this framework. To this end I shall make use of the resources which I would argue are available within Marxism. Some aspects of Marxist analysis will be called upon without a full and critical examination of their own basis, while others will be more closely scrutinised. I shall say a little more on this in a moment, in an attempt to make clear my own starting point (and, perhaps, inherent bias, since I put so much emphasis elsewhere on the unspoken assumptions of others). Firstly, however, I shall preface the critical treatment of existing theories of worker participation with a comment on the minimum requirements of a theory of part i c ipat ion. 1 . A clear theoretical basis in the form of a theory of industrial relations and society in general is viii mandatory if one is to proceed beyond ad hoc lists of categories into which to organise data. In practice, a theory of some sort is inevitably embedded in any such approach, and equally inevitably, it colours the analysis. Confusion, misapprehension and ideological claims of political neutrality follow from the implicit, and often unrecognised, presence and nature of this permeative theory. It thus becomes important both to recognise and make explicit the theoretical underpinning of one's discussion; at the same time, this exposes the approach to criticism both of the theory and of the consistent application of that theory to the subject under review.