illustrate causal processes in some of the instances which have been identiWed by
the former.
It may also be the case that in some instances there are simultaneously positive
andnegative impacts on employees. Work reform may, for example, increase
employee discretion while simultaneously increasing stress by shifting responsibil-
ity for decisions to employees. How does LPT account for these patterns? In the
case of ‘no impact’, a plausible argument is that new forms of work organization
simply do not replace existing hierarchical management structures and thus do not
challenge managerial prerogative (see Harley 1999 ). For example, a ‘foreman’ may
become a ‘team leader’ and a shift in a plant be redesignated a ‘team’, without any
change to actual practice. From an LPT perspective, in many cases management
will be unwilling to undertake genuine changes to management structures, pre-
cisely because this would be seen as compromising managerial prerogative. In
other instances, new forms of work organization are likely to have negative impacts
because they are used as new control mechanisms, in which peer- and self-mon-
itoring intensify work (Sewell 1998 ). In such cases, it may also be that employees
experience a mixture of positive and negative impacts. For example, an increase in
employee discretion may also involve an increase in responsibility for meeting
production targets, thereby contributing to work intensiWcation and heightened
levels of stress.
LPT has sought to challenge a naive optimism which expects new forms of work
always or mainly to have positive outcomes. Nevertheless, it recognizes that within
the constraints of capitalist production, there is room for struggle and negotiation
over the organization of work and its outcomes. The extent to which new forms of
work organization lead to win–lose or win–win, or some combination, will depend
largely on struggles between management and employees or their trade unions,
within broader market constraints.
- 3 Skill Formation and Human Capital
The formation of skills occupies a central role in HRM and LPT. As we argued
earlier, the latter does not claim that deskilling is an inherent law of capitalism.
However, if skill is ‘knowledgeable practice within elements of (job) control’
(Thompson 1989 : 92 ), LPT sees cost and control imperatives as placing constraints
on the development of workforce skills and is inherently skeptical of claims for
long-term upskilling. HRM tends to be sympathetic to, but not dependent on, such
claims. Human Capital theory had already shifted the terms of debate about
competitive advantage by emphasizing that the quality and skills of the workforce
can have a signiWcant eVect on productivity (Becker 1964 ). HRM theorists empha-
size a more contingent argument that changes in the external environment have
made the internal assets of theWrm more signiWcant and strategic. In particular,
hrm: labor process perspectives 157