contrary to HRM forecasts, an emergent ‘de-knowledging’ of theWrm (Littler and
Innes 2003 ).
- 1 Alternative Propositions
Though the above critique has been produced by writers of varying perspectives,
contemporary LPT has made a distinctive contribution to explaining whathas
happened to skill formation and why. The most common conclusion of critics of
human capital and knowledge economy arguments is to return to the concept of a
polarization of high-skill ‘knowledge work’ and low-skill ‘routine’ jobs—perhaps
an ‘hourglass economy’ (Fleming et al. 2004 : 733 ). Whilst this is useful, it doesn’t
adequately address the dynamics in the content of skills. Three key trends can be
identiWed from recent LPT research. First, that a partial break with Taylorism and
Fordism from the mid– 1980 s onwards relied primarily on aqualitative intensiWca-
tion of labor (Thompson 2003 : 362 – 4 ). Initially, LPT developed a critique of
Xexibility models by highlighting employer moves to multi-tasking rather than
multi-skilling. This was linked to work intensiWcation through lean production
(Parker and Slaughter 1995 ) and teamworking (Danford 1998 ; Findlay et al. 2000 ).
There is now a considerable body of wider evidence supporting a work intensiWca-
tion thesis (e.g. Green 2001 ). But this intensiWcation required the mobilization of
something new, whether described as ‘knowledgeability’ (Thompson et al. 2000 ),
knowledge worked (Brown and Hesketh 2004 ), or the ‘extra-functional skills’
of the ‘new model worker’ (Flecker and Hofbauer 1998 ). It can be seen that
these arguments do not lead back to a simple notion of deskilling. In fact, such
observations critically recast the HRM insight that contemporary work systems are
dependent on the ‘full utilization of labor.’
Second, that there has been a decisive shift in the skill requirements of employ-
ers, but one that rests more on ‘capitalizing on humanity’ than investing in human
capital (Thompson et al. 2000 ). As the introduction to a recent volume from the
labor process book series sets out, paralleling the shift from explicit to tacit
knowledge has been one fromtechnical to social skills(Warhurst et al. 2004 ). Whilst
employers may have in the past thought ‘positive attitudes’ were desirable, they
were not regarded asskillsintegral to the job. Today, in much service and other
work, ‘person-to-person’ social competencies are prized above all. This has been
conWrmed in wider research in France and the USA which has found that attitudes,
dispositions, and appearance are frequently more important than level of educa-
tion and training (Mounier 2001 ). With respect to appearance, LPT has been at the
forefront of developing the concept of ‘aesthetic labor’ to describe how more
employers are drawing on the embodied capacities of employees in the service
encounter. Such trends are reXected in the language of social policy and vocational
training such as ‘transferable skills,’ ‘generic skills,’ and ‘employability.’ The
latter marks the transfer of responsibility for investment in human capital from
employers to employees.
hrm: labor process perspectives 159