Rethinking Post-Fordism: The Meaning of Workplace Flexibility

• Published in: Sociological theory 1999-03, Vol.17 (1), p.68-101
• Main Author: Vallas, Steven P.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Business structures; Capitalism; Commercial production; Conditions of employment; Criticism; Economic theory; Employees; Employment; Employment policy; Flexible hours of work; Flexible Specialization; Fordism; Labour market; Labour market structure; Mass production; Middle management; Organizational Change; Organizational Structure; Post-Fordist era; Sociological theories; Sociology; Sociology of work; Sociology of work and sociology of organizations; Theoretical Problems; Total quality management; U.S.A; United States of America; Work Organization; Work organization. Working relations; Work place; Workplaces
• ISSN: 0735-2751; 1467-9558
• DOI: 10.1111/0735-2751.00065

Social scientists increasingly claim that work structures based on the mass production or "Fordist" paradigm have grown obsolete, giving way to a more flexible, "post-Fordist" structure of work. These claims have been much disputed, however, giving rise to a sharply polarized debate over the outcome of workplace restructuring. I seek to reorient the debate by subjecting the post-Fordist approach to theoretical and empirical critique. Several theoretical weaknesses internal to the post-Fordist approach are identified, including its uncertain handling of "power" and "efficiency" as factors that shape work organizations; its failure to acknowledge multiple responses to the crisis of Fordism, several of which seem at odds with the post-Fordist paradigm; and its tendency to neglect the resurgence of economic dualism and disparity within organizations and industries. Review of the empirical literature suggests that, despite scattered support for the post-Fordist approach, important anomalies exist (such as the growing authority of "mental" over manual labor) that post-Fordism seems powerless to explain. In spite of its ample contributions, post-Fordist theory provides a seriously distorted guide to the nature of workplace change in the United States. Two alternative perspectives toward the restructuring of work organizations are sketched-neoinstitutionalist and "flexible accumulation" models-which seem likely to inspire more fruitful lines of research on the disparate patterns currently unfolding within American work organizations.