20.2 Workers in Contemporary
Manufacturing
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
The nature of competition in mature product markets has prompted a revision to
traditional Taylorist views of job design and work organization in manufacturing
operations. While anticipation of ‘post-Taylorist’ and ‘post-Fordist’ new worlds has
run ahead of empirical evidence of radical shopXoor transformation, the dynamic
and unpredictable context of manufacturing has led to a reassessment of the extent
to which design and execution can be separated (Kenney and Florida 1993 ; Cooke
and Morgan 1998 ; Appelbaum et al. 2000 ). Drives to reduce cost and improve
eYciencies on the shopXoor now rely heavily on the input of operator-level
employees responsible for the jobs; shopXoor employees are seen assources of
ideasfor improvement (Adler 1993 ; Fruin 1992 ). This has given rise to discussion
of plants as ‘learning factories’ (Leonard Barton 1992 ; Fruin 1997 ), sites of know-
ledge creation and application as well as the production of physical objects, where
workers think as well as do (Snell and Dean 1992 ). Delbridge et al. ( 1998 ) outline
the key attributes of such an approach. In particular, they emphasize continuous
improvement activities ‘that are driven by internal sources of information such as
the tacit knowledge of shopXoor workers, the ‘‘contextual’’ knowledge of techni-
cians, and the ‘‘formal’’ knowledge of professionals and craft workers’ (Delbridge
et al. 1998 : 227 ).
Such expectations require the organization and management of workers in order
that discretionary eVort and employees’ skills and knowledge be developed and
appropriated. Thus, the role of HRM has been a key feature in research and debates
regarding the ‘learning factory.’ In particular, it has been argued that the
eVective implementation of speciWc bundles of ‘progressive’ HR practices and
‘high-involvement’ work practices, known as High-Performance Work Systems
(HPWSs), positively aVect individual, team and organizational performance
(Arthur 1994 ; MacDuYe 1995 a; MacDuYe and Pil 1999 ; Appelbaum et al. 2000 ).
These practices relate to the organization of work and the emergence of new
manufacturing and management practices such as teamworking, multi-skilling,
and the encouragement of employee involvement in which continuous improve-
ment is seen as central in sustaining competitive advantage (Cappelli and Neumark
2001 ). A number of studies have reported positive associations betweenWrm-level
measures of HRM and work systems and organizational performance (for example,
Arthur 1994 ; Becker and Gerhart 1996 ; Huselid 1995 ; MacDuYe 1995 a).
The exact relationships between workers, management practices, and organiza-
tional performance have been conceptualized through a number of divergent
theoretical frameworks (Jackson and Schuler 1995 ). Numerous quantitative studies
have found evidence that employee involvement, complemented by appropriate
408 rick delbridge