A
N
I
NVESTIGATION INTO
W
ORKPLACE
R
ESISTANCE BY
L
EISURE
S
ERVICE
E
MPLOYEES
KEITHTOWNSEND*
T
his article compares and contrasts the findings of two case studies examining the prevalence and manifestations of resistance within the leisure industry. This study was based on workplace experience over a number of years and supported by thirty-six semi-structured interviews with employees at all levels of the two organisations studied. The author predicted that there would be a number of factors contributing to the employees resisting managerial controls. It was expected that the size of the organisation would, in part, determine managerial style. Managerial style would, in turn, influence employee perceptions of what were appropriate behaviours while in the workplace. However, the employment history and expectations of key managerial staff prove to be interesting complications in one case. It was found that in one organisation where middle-management culture was one of resistance to upper-managerial approaches, so-called deviant behaviours became more covert and damaging.INTRODUCTION
The field of industrial relations boasts a rich history of literature examining the day-to-day interactions between employees and employers at the workplace level. Following World War II industrial sociologists undertook a number of valuable workplace studies on employee resistance to managerial controls in the work-place (see for examples: Roy 1952; Roy 1954; Lupton 1963; Blauner 1964; Cunnison 1966). However, such first-hand studies of the employment relation-ship have slipped from vogue. In the 1970s and 1980s Labour Process scholars, such as Braverman (1974) and Friedman (1977), offered a rich historical inter-pretation of workplace management behaviour strategies. However, the school has largely abandoned the practice of placing the worker at the centre of the analysis (Thompson & Ackroyd 1995).
This study returns to the traditions of the industrial sociologists and focuses on the resistance to managerial controls and the informal behaviours of employees at work. Firstly, this paper will examine theoretical perspectives with regard to the control/resistance/cooperation framework. Two case study organisations of differing sizes operating within a leisure industry in Australia
will be outlined before this paper considers the manner in which resistance and workplace behaviours are manifested in each organisation. Finally, this paper will analyse the motivations behind the behaviours within a control/resistance/ cooperation framework.
THEORETICALLY RESISTANCE?
Industrial relations scholars within Australia have traditionally focused upon structural issues such as national labour market policy, trade unions and employer associations, and the role of the law. When conflict is considered (in the institutional realm) research is largely concerned with the way conflict is regulated (Gardner & Palmer 1998). Hence, studies that place the worker at the centre of analysis are largely absent from Australian industry studies and the potential for studying resistance is marginalised.
The labour process framework of control/resistance/cooperation gathered renewed vigour in scholarly debates following the publication of Braverman’s
Labour and Monopoly Capital (1974). Almost thirty years later, debate continues as to the veracity of Braverman’s work. Certainly, it is widely agreed that labour process theory does not fully explain the complex dynamics that occur between actors in the workplace (Willmott 1993; Thompson & Ackroyd 1995; Sewell 1998; Ackroyd & Thompson 1999). A question remains over the degree to which employees are willing (and perhaps able) to resist managerial controls in the workplace (see for examples: Sewell & Wilkinson 1992; Webster & Robins 1993; Knights & McCabe 1998; Sewell 1998; Findlay et al. 2000; Knights & McCabe 2000; Callaghan & Thompson 2001; Ezzamel et al. 2001)
Managerially focused literature demonstrates a distinct tendency to view workplace behaviours with rose coloured glasses. Where behaviours do not fit the mould of being both conformist and positive, they are viewed as deviant. The expectation is that these behaviours can be, and should be, rectified (Ackroyd & Thompson 1999). However, Ackroyd and Thompson argue that there is much more to employee behaviours than labour process theory and organisational behaviour analyses can explain, a view supported by this research.
The focus of post-World War II industrial sociology was the low-skilled and semi-skilled, blue-collar worker of mass production manufacturing workshops. This work largely focused on employees and their experiences from the position of the employee, and provided a rich tapestry of behaviours that demonstrated employees resisting managerial controls (see for example: Roy 1952,1954; Lupton 1963; Blauner 1964; Cunnison 1966). Burawoy (1979) successfully returned to this tradition, while situating his study within a labour process framework. Burawoy detailed employees actively cooperating to resist managerial controls and maintain group norms and accepted behaviours. Employees supported each other to redress the power imbalance in the employment relationship and perhaps surprisingly there was little mention of union involvement. Employees used the strength of shopfloor cohesion to resist managerial controls and reduce the subjective alienation of industry.
result in negative consequences for the production process. In fact, employees would actively involve themselves in reaching workload targets and ‘making out’. Indeed, Burawoy was puzzled to find himself ‘breaking my back to make out . . . risking life and limb for that extra piece’ (Burawoy 1979, p. xi). According to Burawoy, employees actively became involved in playing the game of ‘making out’ and that ‘manufactures consent’ towards the production of surplus value. However, employees are not provided with the opportunity to set the rules of the game and will often feel dissatisfaction with, or alienated from the game. The employee’s expansion of choices by way of informal work practices or resistance within the narrow limits presented by the labour process constitutes the basis of consent. Hence, the degradation of work pursues its course without continuing crisis (Burawoy 1979, pp. 3, 94). The workers use informal behaviours as a means of reducing alienation and dissatisfaction with the labour process without presenting major challenges.
The world of employment has undergone dramatic changes and developments in recent years, including a clear shift to service industries. The growing body of literature examining new managerial regimes, such as Total Quality Management, Just-In-Time Production, and Cultural Control, is further evidence of the changing nature of the employment relationship. For this reason alone there is a requirement to readdress the issue of resistance from the perspective of workers.
After working in the leisure industry for some twelve years it was obvious to the researcher that employee behaviours included resistance to managerial controls. However such behaviours could not always be viewed as resistance. A series of thirty-six interviews was undertaken with former employees of the two organisations considered in this study. This data set represents more than 80 per cent of the employees in the two organisations. The interviews were semi-structured and conducted at a time and venue suitable to the interviewee.
THE ORGANISATIONS
coordinating the process. The employer considered training the staff to execute the majority of the differing aspects of the business to be necessary. However, experienced staff had a tendency to quit as the employer explains:
You’d tend to employ young people that you know and trust and they work with you through high school in the kiosk and then they do some extra lifeguarding when they leave school and then they move on with their life and want more hours. If they are really interested in the industry they want to get their own pool. So you really train your staff to leave you and the better they are the more chance you have of losing them. There’s a limited number of people that are good and are willing to work for shitty pay (Interview, Employer, January 2000).
Hence, the employer accepted a balance between hardworking, highly skilled, prospective staff and reliable long-term employees.
The second organisation considered in this paper operates within the same city and the same industry. White Tower Leisure held the lease of three leisure centres from the municipal council. With significant financial backing, White Tower Leisure was able to negotiate long-term leases for their centres. As such, the White Tower Leisure employees are not confronted with the industry-based job insecurity faced by Small Pools employees. Unlike Small Pools’ 5-year lease, White Tower negotiated a 30-year lease at Central Tower, a 15-year lease at North Tower and a 10-year lease at South Tower. Also, unlike Small Pools, the White Tower organisation committed to significant capital improvements to the centres rather than the typical lease payments. At each centre, the capital improvements included the transformation of the centre into a heated, indoor facility operating year-round. The inclusion of water slides, tailored learn-to-swim facilities and the refurbishment of existing buildings were negotiated at various centres.
As a result of the extended leases negotiated, it may be expected that White Tower would be in a stronger position than Small Pools to provide long-term job security for employees. However, being in a stronger position to provide long-term job security is not sufficient to ensure high staff retention rates and low levels of staff turnover. Small Pools employees left due to industry insecurity, that is industry turnover. White Tower employees indicate factors within the company being significant in their decisions to leave the industry, that is, organisational turnover. Currently, (some 5 years later) only 3 of 31 employees still work in the industry, and none of these is still employed at White Tower Leisure.
with the general employees than the Directors. The ‘unmanned factory’ seemed to be a concept quite attractive to the board of White Tower. The Board of Directors level most certainly approached all employees (including their management team) in a manner described by Gouldner as ‘handling the enemy within’ (1954, p. 166).
Indicated throughout all of the interviews of White Tower employees is an overwhelming frustration with many aspects of the organisation. Rating high among these frustrations is the observation that the organisation’s structure was far too convoluted. The Board of ‘Dictators’, as the managerial staff referred to it, consisted of seven members of the one family. Regularly, decisions would be made at a managerial level, only to be overturned at the board level. When decisions would be reached at the board level, individual board members would voice alternate strategies away from board meetings. As a result, managerial staff found themselves in the position of weighing up the balance of power at the board level before determining their actions. Every decision seemed to be driven by manipulation and a struggle for control born at a family level rather than at an organisational level.
SOLDIERING AS RESISTANCE, OR MANAGERIAL CONDONED GO-SLOWS? Although soldiering was commonplace in both organisations it was manifested in differing ways. At Small Pools the restriction of effort was not necessarily to evade managerial policies with which the employees disagreed. In fact, the employer actively engaged in and encouraged effort restriction on various occasions. Small Pools was seen by staff as being a rather ‘laid back’ place of employment, and yet employees detail how important it was for them to perform many duties simultaneously. For example, casual employee John detailed the considerably varied workloads at Small Pools:
. . . pools are understaffed . . . you just have to be. You only have a limited amount of days that you will really make money and so you work your arse off. Say, you have a few rush in at once and you’re cleaning or something or you don’t have someone out on deck watching the pool for whatever reason so you’ve gotta work the kiosk and watch the pools and get back to the cleaning whenever. You’re always doing at least two things at once, more often three or four things (Interview, John, February 2000).
And later, when asked specifically about times when employees could be performing work but would not, John explained it this way:
. . . we’d get our stuff done, maybe not as quickly and efficiently as we could if we didn’t talk to anyone, but that’s what was so good about the job, just really friendly and relaxed. We kind of offset the success of the business a little for having an enjoyable place to work. [The manager] didn’t mind, he wanted to enjoy working as well . . . yeah, it was all pretty laid back (Interview, John, February 2000).
(1952, 1954) research that found group norms sought were for the benefit of the employees and not of the organisation. It is apparent that Small Pools’ employees used group norms for the realisation of different goals. That is, group norms were not placing an upper limit on effort as with Roy’s groups, but placing a lower limit on effort restrictions. Peter, a full-time employee explained the treatment of those not adhering to group norms in terms of an accepted level of effort restriction:
We did have one girl who’d just park her arse on the counter and we really hated people sitting on the counter, but she’d just sit there and you’d say ‘how ‘bout you do such ‘n’ such’ and she’d be like, just not interested. She just wanted to sit around and do nothing and that pissed other people off. She wasn’t made feel very welcome, nobody would talk to her and we’d give her shitty jobs . . . so she didn’t hang around that long (Interview, Peter, February 2000).
Staff members quickly learnt the acceptable group norms when it came to effort restriction. There was a realisation that some days were going to be extremely busy and the staff would need to be prepared for an increased workload, and other days would be ‘laid back’ days where withholding effort was acceptable. Individuals who failed to adhere to the informal group norms were ostracised from the group, limiting their future in the organisation. The employees had a degree of semi-autonomous control and with that control they could withhold effort that might have led to surplus value, but also maintain a high level of output at other times, clearly more complicated than simple soldiering as resistance.
As stated by one informant, systematic underworking may have adversely affected Small Pools’ profitability. Yet the employer sanctioned this behaviour that appeared to directly and negatively affected profitability. Hence, when the employer explicitly sanctions a level of ‘soldiering’, it is difficult, if not impos-sible, to reconcile these behaviours within the labour process resistance frame-work. When considered in totality with other informal work practices, the adverse effect of effort restriction may be counterbalanced with a higher level of staff morale, reduced organisational turnover, almost no absenteeism, and reduced levels of pilfering.
Workers at White Tower were certainly aware of expectations to work hard, even performing multiple duties at once.
When you’re lifeguarding there is always the expectation that you’re also keeping the grounds clean. It can be a dilemma even for experienced lifeguards—at what point is the pool safe enough to do some cleaning or whatever? Interview, Scotty, July 2000.
They [the directors] all wanted to be the ones to control it and would undermine the managers . . . f or a while the managers would try to do their jobs but eventually would give up . . . [and] didn’t care when jobs got done as long as they didn’t get in the shit over things. The staff didn’t care if things got done just as long as no-one drowned on their shift.’
There is a general opinion that managers are high performers and highly com-mitted individuals who are bound together to achieve the corporate mission and objectives of the organisation in which they are employed, driven by a sense of ambition, teamwork, knowledge and flexibility (Noon & Blyton 1997; Biggs & Horgan 1999). As part of their responsibilities, it is expected that managers are empowered to adapt to the organisation’s needs; will always ‘be on call’ if the need arises, and will work hours in a ‘whatever it takes’ style that meets the needs of the business. This picture portrays middle managers as very hard-working and dedicated to the goals of the organisation. However, Smith (1990) recognises that this is not always the case for managers and certainly was not the case with the managers at White Tower Leisure.
Smith details and questions organisational and class paradigms that see managers simply as an extension of the capitalist without due recognition of the divergences between (middle) management who manage the day-to-day functions at the workplace and the upper levels of management who are responsible for ‘strategies of accumulation’ and the measures for achieving them (Burawoy, cited by Smith 1990).
In the context of the hostile White Tower environment, management staff positioned themselves with other employees in their adversarial relationship with the employers. All employees regardless of their position within the hierarchy spoke of the employers in terms of ‘us and them’. The employees at White Tower present a workforce with a surface level of solidarity based on a significant dislike of their employers. For these employees, resisting organisational expectations of required work effort was not simply redressing a perceived wage/effort imbalance but a means of regathering some measure of personal control they felt had been undermined. The general feeling can be summed up with the notion that all employees throughout the organisation perceived that the board felt the managers’ efforts were perpetually inadequate; the level of respect proffered to employees was inadequate; the demands placed upon employees were seen to be unreasonable. It was as a result of these factors that, whenever possible, workers determined their own level of effort, rarely at a level that was expected by the Board. Clearly, this is in stark comparison to the reasons for effort restriction at Small Pools.
WHO IS TO BLAME WHEN EMPLOYEES DON’T WORK?
The Small Pools employer explicitly sanctioned the ‘misuse of company time’ and to some degree trained staff to recognise when this informal work practice was appropriate. James explains the approach to employee’s time this way:
study. Steve encouraged it; he’d say ‘go on, bring your books, you’re not going to be doing anything else’. You couldn’t always do it though—most of the time you just wouldn’t even bother trying (Interview, James, January 2000).
The employer was certainly accommodating, allowing employees the time to enjoy their workplace to an extent that employees developed a strong sense of respect for the appropriate times to engage in such practices. The employer spent many hours working in the complex. Hence, no differently from the employees, the employer was confronted with some of the frustrating aspects of employment within the industry. The employer’s involvement in the misuse of company time was an attempt to minimise his own frustrations. Whether as a conscious managerial decision or not, his leadership and readiness to engage in the misuse of company time provided tacit authorisation to the employees to engage in this informal work practice when he was not present. Hence, the personal use of company time was not directly a form of resistance to managerial controls but an attempt by employees to minimise frustrations with structural aspects of their employment.
At White Tower the strained employment relationship uncovered in consider-ation of the wage/effort exchange was equally, if not more, influential on determining employee’s use and misuse of company time. For example, (from the management team through to the newest casual staff) every single employee engaged in what could be considered significant misuse of company time, regard-less of upper-management dictums. Board members continually reinforced the idea that ‘time’ was to be spent ‘working’. Managers knew the position of the Board and made sure the staff were also aware of the pronouncement. However, the following comments indicate the attitudes the employees really took on a daily basis.
The activities undertaken by employees ranged from ‘disappearing out to the back office to make a few private phone calls’ (interview, Alicia, September 2000) to some more deceitful and recalcitrant activities.
We had this cavity under the pool with all the plant equipment in it—it was a whole level below ground and we used this one area but there was another entrance to this place that nobody ever used. So anyway, I ducked down the back way one day and I saw one of our staff members . . . well, can I just say in a very compromising posi-tion with a woman. Let’s just say I got the impression they had a close relaposi-tionship [laughing] (Interview, Douglas, July 2000).
Informants detail numerous other similar incidents. However, managers were reluctant to carry out disciplinary measures amongst employees. One White Tower manager reflected this when he stated
if the managers are doing what they can to get out of their own work what could you legitimately do to stop the staff from doing it? Besides, what motivation was there to try? (Interview, Douglas, July 2000).
managers would have a two or three hour lunch. Why? Because none of them really wanted to go back to work and they could justify their actions quite readily. If questioned they could describe the lunch as a management meeting. Needless to say, after the initial complaints about the latest initiatives from the board of dictators, discussions would not relate to anything relevant to the White Tower organisation. Managers removing themselves from their designated work area was indeed an act of resistance to employer control.
PERKS, PILFERING OR THEFT?
When examining this area of resistance to managerial controls, the misuse of organisational goods, the most telling difference between the Small Pools case and the White Tower case becomes apparent. The camaraderie at Small Pools contributed to the development of informal guidelines for the use of effort and time. Resistance to managerial controls did not seem to be a particular motiv-ation for such behaviours. It is also this camaraderie that contributed to a very low level of product misuse within the organisation. In fact, sabotage and quite separately, pilfering, were essentially non-existent at Small Pools.
You could rip that place off like you wouldn’t believe. There was nothing stoppin’ you except your conscience . . . and really, I guess that’s what stopped us . . . you’d be stealin’ from a mate, you know . . . it’s all about trust. That’s why it was so good workin’ there, we all trusted each other and we’re all mates with [the manager]. You wouldn’t take money from his pocket (Interview, James, February 2000).
While pilfering was certainly frowned upon by employees, it did occur on a very small scale. The use of the telephone for private phone calls and the unstructured manner of paying for products used by staff resulted in the misuse or reappropriation of goods, similar to what Ditton called ‘perks’ (1976). Staff did take some small items, but there was a strong notion of loyalty among staff members to their employer. Hence the reappropriation of goods remained at the level of ‘perks’:
Uhm . . . I guess I used to grab a lolly every now and then, but just say I bought a drink that cost a dollar fifty, I’d drop in two bucks . . . it would have all sorted itself out. If I was buying a pair of togs or something like that (the manager) would give us discount so we’d just go to him and he’d give us a good price (Interview, Kerri, February 2000).
Oh . . . yeah . . . some of us did okay. Yeah, we’d never pay full price, and I never run out of chlorine at my home pool. I didn’t always ask him [the employer], but I never thought it’d be a big deal anyway. Occasionally, I’d take a mate or someone for a swim late at night and we’d get something to eat and not pay, but it was never anything of substance, you know? Just all little stuff (Interview, Peter, February 2000).
Within White Tower Leisure, the convoluted chain of command places a physical and bureaucratic barrier between the board of directors and the general staff. Here a paradoxical contrast is presented for the White Tower hierarchy. Long-term and experienced employees within the industry traditionally have roots in single operations such as Small Pools where close relationships are formed. However, employees felt that the employer at White Tower was not interested in them and this alienation manifested itself in resistance. Informants admitted to pilfering goods, varying from small levels of stock to large sums of money, stock and equipment, and ‘food was common, everyone would take food. You never went hungry on this job’ (Interview, Jordan, July 2000).
The managers and staff appeared to be aware that employees at all levels were pilfering goods. The fact that this was occurring largely unchecked indicates significant problems for the organisation in terms of communication and staff morale, not to mention profitability implications.
Oh, the managers knew—of course . . . nobody really hid it did they? I mean, I can remember plenty of times you’d waltz into the coffee shop and grab a salad roll and . . . say you’d pay for it later. I’m not sure if it’s a big surprise . . . but nobody really . . . did. So I guess some just figured it was open slather. You know if it wasn’t bolted down then within reason . . . (Interview, Jenny, May 2000).
Within this organisation managers have little training and are offered little assistance to engage in formal managerial training. Employees were chosen to be managers for their experience within the industry, but few, if any were chosen with proven managerial experience. As a result of this, many staff members placed in managerial positions felt intimidated by the expectations placed upon them and the bullish behaviour of the organisation’s directors.
It really makes you bitter though, you know, to be put in this position of respon-sibility but not be given any positive responrespon-sibility or encouragement. I might as well have been scrubbing the shithouses for all the respect I was given. And when you’re treated so poorly I think it’s just human nature to want to protect yourself. I guess the only way a lot of these managers knew how to protect themselves was to adopt sort of guerrilla tactics. You know, screw them before they screw you (Interview, Julie, May 2000).
As has been suggested, managers at White Tower are likely to resist organisational controls and engage in informal work practices at a higher level. They have greater scope and more opportunities to misuse time, effort and goods and, it is argued by former employees, more reason to do so. The following quotes provide examples of known and alleged activities undertaken by managers in this organisation.
payment if you like. The same thing happened with the whipper snipper, I’ve got it at home now, too (Interview, Bobbie, June 2000).
On one occasion there was a break-in and a ride-on mower, a whipper snipper and an industrial sized pool vacuum was stolen. The safe was also opened and the day’s takings totalling thousands of dollars was stolen. Julie offered the following explanation:
I was sure it was an inside job and I spoke to one of the other managers and he agreed with me . . . we kind of thought we knew who was most likely to have done it and we thought it was probably a bit of pay-back for the way this guy was being treated. We didn’t tell anyone though . . . (Interview, Julie, May 2000).
Douglas tells of the minimal benefits of selling chlorine and other pool chemicals to mates. He also details a more structured group system utilised by some staff members to regularly fiddle the till:
We’d have a couple of guys that’d work the same shift working together skimming the till. You might get fifty or a hundred dollars a day. That adds up . . . especially over a year (Interview, Douglas, July 2000).
As intimated prior to these quotes, managers often felt quite aggrieved in regard to three different things: the volume of work placed on them; the lack of respect from their employers; and the pressure to place what the managers considered unrealistic expectations upon lower level staff. As a result, the reappropriation of goods was manifestly obvious, even barefaced in comparison to the insignificant levels at Small Pools.
LEISURE AT WORK OR RESISTING LEISURE WORK?
Within these case studies, there are three significant factors that influence the level of behaviours that may be viewed as resistance. These include: the style of management used, the size of the workforce, and the perception the employees hold of how they are treated by management.
Small Pools employees see their place of work necessarily understaffed to maintain profitability. Conversely, White Tower employees have a perception of the classic class struggle. They see themselves as overworked and underpaid, while the owners arrive in their expensive motor vehicles and spend large sums of money on capital improvements. As a result, employees form the perception that the company is quite successful and feel staffing levels should be at a level preventing the overworking found at Small Pools. Nevertheless, like Small Pools employees who state they work in a ‘stressful’ workplace where staff are ‘always doing at least two things at once’, White Tower employees feel they too are required to exceed expected norms.
employees have no hesitation in reappropriating effort should the opportunity arise. However, there is recognition among staff that the reappropriation of effort is an activity that is only possible at suitable times. Rather than resistance, these behaviours can be viewed as an employer making a concerted attempt to reduce the subjective alienation that an employee may feel.
The sense of being overworked is similar in both organisations, and the patterns of effort restriction and performing multiple tasks are similar in the two workplaces. However the similar activities mean different things within each organisation. The close relationships employees enjoy with the Small Pools employer are not apparent at White Tower. In fact, quite the opposite is evident. The employees at White Tower present a workforce (of general staff and managers) with a surface level of solidarity insofar as they share a resistance to their employers’ control, and the workers engage in covert effort-restrictive practices as a means of redressing the perceived control imbalance.
Small Pool’s managerial style is certainly accommodating to the employees using company time for their own benefit. As a result of this attitudinal approach from management and an unstructured programme that teaches employees expected behaviours, the employees develop a strong sense of respect for the appropriate times to engage in such practices. Again, this cannot be viewed as resistance, rather an employee sacrificing the potential labour power by indirectly developing measures that aim to limit the style of behaviour that employees are likely to attempt regardless. In contrast, at White Tower the employers actively limited and minimised staffing levels to reduce ‘down-time’.
Perhaps one of the most striking influences on employee behaviours at White Tower stems from the fact that at the time of this research White Tower as an organisation is in its infancy. Many key managerial employees had been recruited from organisations similar to Small Pools. Hence, along with valuable industry experience, these employees bring to White Tower a culture supportive of informal work practices. As a result of the experienced employees’ expectations, and in resistance to White Tower employer expectations, staff manipulate their labour process to maximise their opportunities to engage in informal work practices. This is clearly resistance in the control/resistance/cooperation framework. Employees seek duties that provide opportunities to turn a ‘fifteen minute job into an hour job’ (interview, Danny, July 2000). Further, managerial staff members cooperate with each other to engage in work avoidance whenever an opportunity should arise.
Certainly the misuse of organisational goods is present in both organisations; however, the practice manifests itself with significantly diverse results. Many of the Small Pool’s employees enjoy ‘perks’ that are discounted prices and an informal method of payment that falls in their favour, while some employees are guilty of what Ditton (1976) refers to as ‘pilfering’; that is, the use of company goods on a small-scale and seen by employees as part of wages. White Tower employees engage in both small-scale pilfering and much larger-scale theft; a self-determined pay-off for perceived poor treatment (Ditton 1977, p. 3).
Small Pools employees have a smaller scope in that the organisation is much smaller. They also have much less opportunity, as the employer is present for most hours of the day. White Tower employees are faced with greater scope in terms of the size of the organisation. With a much smaller level of direct man-agerial supervision, lower level employees have a greater degree of opportunity. Staff members higher in the organisational hierarchy have both the scope and a greater level of opportunity due to the additional freedom in their position. This increased scope and opportunity, coupled with dissatisfaction with their employers, results in a high level of reappropriation of goods at the upper ech-elons of the organisation with the levels tapering off as scope and opportunity decreases.
Within the smaller organisation, the staff worked on a daily basis with their employer. Intimate relationships were formed and friendships flourished. Workers were institutionalised into an established structure of work practices that could be viewed as resistance in another organisation. The guidelines offered by the employer and more experienced staff were generally accepted by employees. Any resistance was often perceived to be directly against a friend rather than a faceless organisation.
Small Pools employees enjoy the fact that their employment is not one with a traditional employer/employee relationship with strict demarcations and controls. The employer is in a position to use direct control measures (Edwards 1979) to maintain a level of discipline within the workforce. However, the control measures are relaxed and relationships are friendly rather than antagonistic. Employees in this organisation offer their commitment to their employer as an individual person, largely removed from any organisational structure.
By contrast, many White Tower Leisure staff rarely, if ever, meet their employers. This in itself may not seem significant, but a majority of senior employees arrived at this organisation from an employment relationship similar to that of Small Pools. Hence, their expectations were somewhat different to the reality of working at White Tower. The employees arrived with industry experience and knowledge along with expectations of an appropriate level of informal work practices. When these practices were maintained at White Tower, conflict arose between the employers and the employees. Each party has signifi-cantly differing expectations of the role the other would play in the organisation. The employers are perceived to be disrespectful to their employees, including their managerial staff, and as a result employees hold no emotional attachment to the organisation or the people for whom they work. As much as the employers attempt to promote a ‘team’ environment, the employees see this as a manipu-lative façade and remain highly individualistic in their approach to work.
managerial controls. This is in stark contrast to the perception of Small Pools employees, who commonly cited friendly relations and being part of a team as a core benefit of their employment. The perception among these employees was that they were appreciated and respected, and, perhaps most importantly, that they as individuals were important to the employer. Again, in stark comparison to White Tower employees, among Small Pools staff there is the perception that profit at all costs is not the sole aim of their employment.
Two important points have become apparent throughout this research. Firstly, the three factors initially considered to play a major role in the determination of why employees resist managerial controls are important. They are: the style of management used, the size of the workforce and the perception the employees hold of how they are treated by management. Secondly, and perhaps the most important factor in the comparative analysis, is the role management staff played at White Tower Leisure. While the organisation was in its infancy, many experienced leisure centre staff were recruited to managerial positions. With this experience came a culture of acceptance and expectance of a workplace with informal work practices. When confronted with a different expectation from the employers in the context of the previous three factors, informal work practices became more covert and hence appeared to be more deviant—clearly resistance.
This paper reinforces many of the findings of labour process literature in relation to the control/resistance/cooperation framework. In terms of behaviours and acts of resistance, the employees seem to behave in ways that they perceive as being appropriate to the situation in which they find themselves. However, the Small Pools case study illustrates that behaviours that scholars would often situate within the control/resistance/cooperation framework simply do not fit. This reinforces one aspect of the ‘organisational misbehaviour’ thesis forwarded by Ackroyd and Thompson: ‘the best that can be achieved by management is the containment of misbehaviour in discrete and manageable packages’ (1999, p. 7). Academic discourse within the field of industrial relations requires a reconsider-ation of informal work practices. Individual resistance is a significant area of analysis with both positive and negative results for individuals and organisations. In the meantime, employees within the leisure industry, as with many other industries, will continue to engage in informal work practices, sometimes condoned, but often condemned, by their employer.
REFERENCES
Ackroyd S, Thompson P (1999) Organisational Misbehaviour. London: Sage Publications. Biggs S, Horgan K (1999) Time On, Time Out: Flexible Work Solutions to Keep Your Life in Balance.
St Leonards: Allen and Unwin.
Blauner R (1964) Alienation and Freedom: The Factory Worker and his Industry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Braverman H (1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Burawoy M (1979) Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process under Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cunnison S (1966) Wages and Work Allocation: A Study of Social Relations in a Garment Workshop. London: Tavistock Publications.
Ditton J (1976) Perks, pilferage and the fiddle: the historical structure of invisible wages. Theory and Society4(1), 39–70.
Ditton J (1977) Part-Time Crime: An Ethnography of Fiddling and Pilferage. London: Macmillan. Edwards (1979) Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century.
London: Heinemann.
Ezzamel M, Willmott H, Worthington F (2001) Power, control and resistance in ‘the factory that time forgot’. Journal of Management Studies38(8), 1053–1079.
Findlay P, McKindlay A, Marks A, Thompson P (2000) In search of perfect people: teamwork and team players in the Scottish spirits industry. Human Relations53(12), 1549–1571.
Friedmann A (1977) Industry and Labour: Class Struggle at Work and Monopoly Capitalism. London: Macmillan.
Gardner M, Palmer G (1998) Employment Relations. South Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia.
Gouldner A (1954) Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. New York: The Macmillan Company. Knights D, McCabe D (1998) What happens when the phone goes wild? Staff, stress and spaces
for escape in a BPR telephone banking work regime. Journal of Management Studies35(2), 163–194.
Knights D, McCabe D (2000) ‘Ain’t misbehavin’? Opportunities for resistance under new forms of ‘quality’ management. Sociology34(3), 421–436.
Lupton T (1963) On the Shop Floor: Two Studies of Workshop Organisation and Output. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Noon M, Blyton P (1997) The Realities of Work. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Roy D (1952) Quota restriction and goldbricking in a machine shop. The American Journal of Sociology57, 427–442.
Roy D (1954) Efficiency and ‘the fix’: informal intergroup relations in a piecework machine shop.
American Journal of Sociology60.
Sewell G (1998) The discipline of teams: the control of team-based industrial work through electronic and peer surveillance. Administrative Science Quarterly43, 397–428.
Sewell G, Wilkinson B (1992) Someone to watch over me: surveillance, discipline and the Just-In-Time labour process. Sociology26, 271–289.
Smith V (1990) Managing in the Corporate Interest: Control and Resistance in an American Bank. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Thompson P, Ackroyd S (1995) All quiet on the workplace front? A critique of recent trends in British industrial sociology. Sociology29(4), 615–632.
Webster F, Robins K (1993) ‘I’ll be watching you’: comment on Sewell and Wilkinson. Sociology
27(2), 243–252.
