Martha Crowley

Organizational decision-makers increasingly promote neoliberal work practices, which emphasize market processes and unrestricted deployment of organizational resources, as a means to optimize economic performance in an intensely competitive environment. A growing number of sociologists have raised questions about their tactics and pointed to negative consequences for employee well-being. We expand on this literature by using content-coded data on 217 work groups to investigate implications of neoliberalism at work for well-being of workers and firms. We especially emphasize on how neoliberal practices influence relationships and day-to-day behaviors that underwrite organizational functioning and success. Findings indicate negative ramifications, including increases in turnover and quitting, and reductions in informal peer training and effort as well as job quality. Importantly, these associations are net of any secular time trend. Qualitative materials capture how and why these relations exist and additional consequences with strong potential to undermine foundations for prosperity and future organizational success.

This article investigates how complex combinations of control contribute to class variations in the experience of work through their impacts on relational aspects of workplace dignity. Analysis of content-coded data on 154 work groups suggests that control structures vary by class and have significant implications for levels of abuse and shame, but exert little direct impact on hostility toward management or coworker conflict. Abusive treatment rooted in coercion, however, generates hostility toward management and intensifies feelings of shame associated with coercive control. Contrary to expectations, a pattern of abuse does not tend to generate coworker conflict. Reimmersion in the case studies suggests that when it does, the cause is often favoritism—a correlate of abuse.

Scholars often offer competing accounts of the consequences of workplace teams. Researchers in the empowerment tradition describe autonomy in teams as generating satisfaction and pro-social behaviors. The panopticon approach emphasizes the disciplinary aspect of teamwork – arguing that peer monitoring elicits intense effort and discourages resistance through visibility and normative control. The conflict school highlights variation in experiences of and responses to teamwork, calling particular attention to worker resistance. This study uses mixed methods to investigate these perspectives simultaneously, analyzing content-coded data on 204 work groups. Though evidence supports both empowerment and panopticon theories, especially when used in combination, the conflict perspective emerges as pivotal to understanding not only worker resistance but also consent to empowerment and even panoptic control.

This study investigates implications of complex control combinations applied in manual, service and professional occupations for expressive, behavioral and emotional aspects of workplace dignity. Qualitative comparative analyses of 154 content-coded workplace ethnographies suggest that professionals encounter persuasive ‘bundles’ of control that enhance expressive and behavioral manifestations of dignity as well as pride. However, these benefits come at the expense of high levels of stress associated with internal drives and externally driven normative orientations and behaviors. Workers in manual and service occupations confront a broader array of approaches, including coercive control combinations that erode pride and effort by dehumanizing workers and inviting abuse. Furthermore, the benefits of persuasive control combinations in these settings are mitigated by supplementary constraints, which promote maintenance of a protective distance from employers that may also help to limit stress. The paper concludes with organizational strategies for curbing abuse in coercive manual and service environments and a discussion of changes necessary to address the problem of stress in the professions.