Introduction
Time is a unique dimension, which has an impact on social life and perception of reality. The other set of physical processes from which we derive our conceptions of time are of an entirely different nature: the growth of children, the changes in our own bodies and minds from hour to hour and from year to year, and, on a larger scale, the gradual changes in the earth’s landscape of which we are dimly aware. None of these make accurate clocks; none are simple to understand. All, if we are to trace in them the operation of physical time, require to be analyzed in terms of vast numbers of individual molecular processes, and many of them are still beyond our science (Barr 44). The era of industrial and postindustrial society is characterized by strict time structure and dependence upon time measures.
Thesis Life of people is controlled and measured by the clock time: people live and work in accordance with stipulated time measures and norms.
Main body
Industrial societies represent themselves by the place occupied in an evolution described as progress. Thus, the metasocial guarantee of industrial society is the overarching meaning of history viewed not as a product of social relations but as the criterion by which to judge them (specifically vis-à-vis progress in the development of the forces of production). Accordingly, class struggles are situated at the point of material production and revolve around issues of socioeconomic justice. The two contending classes (workers versus boss/organizers) compete for control over the development of the forces of production; both struggle for what they consider to be a just institutionalization of industrial society. In this context, struggles over political and civil rights descend to the institutional/organizational level, losing the character of social movements (Barr, p. 47). Social struggles because they are no longer carried out in the name of political or economic rights and are no longer tied to actors defined by specific attributes. The clock time stipulates the beginning of working day and its end, time pf production and time of delivery (Bell, p. 73).
In industrial society, the clock time influences a unique understanding of pats and present. The conclusion of this is that the great difference between our understanding of past and future is a difference in the complexity of the guessing games they offer. At every moment, simple causes are giving rise to complex effects. The past presents relatively few choices–with a small amount of information we can make a good guess as to what it was (Bell, p. 63). For the future, we would need absurd quantities of data to rule out the alternatives. How is this? The amount of data you need before you can say you know something is a measure of the complexity of the alternatives offered. If I say that there is a person in the next room you will not be able to guess who it is (Barr, p. 49). If I say it is a forty-six-year-old veterinarian whom you know well, the possibilities are so reduced that you may be able to guess at once. This is part of the difference between the past and the future. The reason we need so much more data to know what will happen next week is that the number of possibilities then is so much vaster than it was last week–the world will be a far more complex place than it is now, and this increase has been going on since the universe began (Adam, p. 20).
In industrial and postindustrial society the clock time schedules the life of people. First, despite the rejection of systems analysis and evolution theory, it is obvious that the discussion of cultural models and forms of investment relies on both. For example, the effort to give some content to the concept of “postindustrial society” clearly draws from analyses of new structural elements in the organization of production and in the relation between state and society (Block, p. 76). A combination of economic forces and changing values gave rise to a new way of conceptualizing work and work organization and experimentation with new organizational choices. In the United States, these forces have only recently come into focus. Rapid technological change, quality instead of quantity of output as the key competitive element in an increasingly global economy, the shift from a producer- to a consumer-oriented market, and the changing expectations of an increasingly educated segment of the workforce have created an environment in which companies are forced to search for new ways to assure organizational success and survival (Barr, p. 55).
In both industrial and postindustrial societies, the clock time stipulates the work boundaries and helps to control completion of processes. The overview of the different conceptualizations of work and work organization throughout this century can be summarized as follows: Depending on the approach taken, the design of work activities and work organization may create a more broadly or more narrowly defined structure that may either deliberately stifle and limit, or enhance the developmental potential of human beings in the context of work activities. These structures and processes have a powerful influence on the characteristics and behavior of the organizational members (Block, p. 73). People in rigid and bureaucratic organizations tend to develop rigid and bureaucratic personalities; if the organization does not change, people are not likely to change either. Organizations that are flexible and dynamic tend to “reproduce” similar characteristics in their employees. While characteristics of work and organizational design reflect the changes in the economic, political, and social environment, rather than replacing each other, different elements of the design approaches discussed here tend to coexist in various combinations in today’s organizations or in different industrial contexts. Work activity and job design are afterthoughts (Bell, p. 63). People then have to make up for the flaws in the technology by supervising, maintaining, and fixing the equipment. Thus human capacity is underutilized and undervalued, based on the assumption that the functioning of the whole system is dependent on how well the technology works. Production systems can be optimized only if both the technical and the social systems are jointly optimized. Only then can technology be viewed as the product of design choices rather as a fait accompli (Adam, p. 20).
In postindustrial society all processes and performance are stipulated by the clock time. It is impossible to imagine the office work or industrial processes without strictly determined measures. Overall, particularly in office and clerical work settings, the opportunities inherent in information technology lead to a variety of new forms of work organization that combine the core activities necessary for the production and administration on a product-focused basis (Block, p. 72). The extensive use of computer-based data management systems suggests that technological options are found mostly in the area of software development, often implying decisions about centralized or decentralized organization of work activities. The optimal utilization of the potential of microelectronic-based technology requires an approach to equipment and process design with a focus on their implications for work activities. If the desired outcomes of quality, flexibility, and continuous competence development are to be achieved, work design has to be an integral part of the total design process. Continuous improvement means continuous learning (Bell, p. 66). In the informated workplace, learning is no longer a classroom activity; rather, the organization itself becomes a learning environment. As it becomes more difficult to anticipate future knowledge and skill requirements, work itself must be organized so as to allow for continuous learning and development (Braverman, p.77).
The design of the organizational process itself is mostly undervalued and insufficiently understood. Training and competence development are often treated as issues of secondary importance. As a result, training and development budgets are often the first to be cut when cash flow problems arise. Successful integrative rationalization and innovation will depend on the degree to which employee competence is being developed on a timely, adequate, and continuing basis. Integrative rationalization and organizational innovations are likely to fail in static organizations and structures that inhibit workforce skill utilization and further development after an initial training period (Block, p. 75). The development of a “competent” organization involves much more than narrow skill training of the existing workforce or the recruitment of new employees able to meet these competence requirements. Much of the knowledge and many of the skills required at the four levels outlined above are best acquired within the organization. A complementary human resource policy would determine medium- and long-range competence development profiles, and assess employees’ qualification potential in light of these requirements (Braverman, p. 71). Personnel recruitment then becomes an internal as well as an external function. Employees already part of the organization are “recruited” and encouraged to take on new tasks, with training, education, and work design matching the goals of continuous competence development. This requires an organizational philosophy with a developmental and learning orientation that is convincingly communicated externally as well as internally (Bell, p. 23).
The primary tasks of the clock time are to determine a quantitative and qualitative definition of the input-output relationship. The primary task can be distinguished from secondary tasks like system support (e.g., repair, maintenance, training) and regulation functions (e.g., input planning, control, coordination of tasks). The primary task is a heuristic concept used in the sociotechnical system approach that helps identify organizational units which engage in a clearly identifiable, relatively self-contained set of activities. The production of a product or the performance of a service ought to be clearly attributable to a specific organizational unit. In other words, the technical and organizational flow has to be designed in a way that allows for the identification of each (sub)product with its production unit in terms of quantity as well as quality of output (Braverman, p. 44). Input elements or problems resulting from other units have to be identifiable as such. If we compare work systems to circuits, the work systems within an organization should be as “closed” as possible. This facilitates direct feedback and a quick response to problems. The unity of product and organization is a motivational prerequisite for the work group’s orientation toward a common task. If work is designed from a purely technical perspective, people often end up with a job that in itself has no meaning. Work motivation through external means such as financial incentives or pressure has great limitations (Adam, p. 20).
In industrial and postindustrial societies, the clock time allows such thing as self-regulation. Self-regulation means having the resources, competences, and desire to solve problems where they occur. Work unit members thus gain a sense of control, as uncertainties about fluctuations and problems arising from the organizational context can be largely eliminated (Atkinson, p. 87). Production problems can be addressed quickly and with greater flexibility. For example, members of a sociotechnical system unit ought to be in a position to execute and make decisions about all aspects related to the accomplishment of the unit’s primary task. This includes minor repair and maintenance work (if necessary, a technical expert can be called upon) (Braverman, p. 37). The supervisor, in general, does not make decisions internal to the sociotechnical unit but focuses on boundary management in order to minimize disruptions to the unit’s functioning. This often involves coordination with other units whose work may influence or depend on this unit’s work. The supervisor’s responsibility, for example, is to make sure all necessary materials and documents are available, technical experts are at hand when needed, and so forth (Atkinson, p. 17).
The clock time influenced technology and information. It determines the time of processes and acquisition, controls manufacturing processes and laboratory analyses. Technology frequently becomes a driving force if it is developed and implemented without consideration of the social system, which is usually “adjusted” after technology has been introduced. Yet, technology does not have to be a fixed factor; it offers choices and options (Atkinson, p. 76). While this is no revolutionary insight, in the context of presently emerging technologies the choices made have far-reaching consequences. Abandoning assembly-style production lines, many companies have developed new forms of group-based production and assembly processes, sometimes called cell manufacturing. Technically, this involves breaking down previously connected assembly lines into parallel groups which, while still retaining features of the assembly line principle, gain increased independence through the addition of buffer zones and stock areas. This requires new transportation and material handling systems, such as robocarriers, etc. Another concept, also developed for assembly purposes but mostly utilized in electronics manufacturing, links assembly cells in a star-shaped structure. The modules of each aggregate product are assembled at the “points” of the star and brought together in the center. Especially in component manufacturing various models of group technology have been developed. This involves machine configurations that link operations of different types. Technologically advanced forms such as fully automated flexible manufacturing systems tend to limit the potential for employee or work group self-regulation (Baldwin, p. 101).
The changes demanded a form of managerial coordination and control relying on workers’ willingness to cooperate in achieving company goals. The socio-technical systems approach proposed the concept of semi-autonomous work groups based on the underlying assumption that learning and the development of social and occupational competences largely occur in cooperation and communication with others (Fuchs, p. 34). In addition, industrial production does not lend itself well to the improved design of individual jobs, since most tasks are highly interdependent. The group thus is often the “natural” work unit. Optimal functioning of open, continuously changing systems is seen as predicated on the degree to which the resources and competences for controlling the work of different organizational units are returned to the members of that unit (Baldwin, p. 10). The principle of motivation through task orientation rather than external control is enhanced in relatively independent organizational units that allow increased scope for selfregulation of work groups. Acknowledging that individuals are guided by varying goals and motivations, work has to be organized in a manner that allows different individuals to satisfy varying needs and to develop new goals and aspirations. And rather than enriching jobs in consultation with external experts, employees themselves are to plan and regulate their work activities by means of direct participation based on the principle of self-design. This conceptualization of human nature and work leads to forms of work organization aimed at the development of competences by giving work groups the scope and latitude to complete tasks based on their own planning and guided only by specified deadlines and standards. There is no longer a “one best way” for doing things; rather there is discretion and decision latitude rooted in the recognition that different paths might equally well-achieve the same goals (Phelps, p. 22). The metaphor is that of an organism where different organs fulfill different functions but are dependent on each other, and can function appropriately only in interaction with all other parts of the organism. In particular, work rules rooted in traditionally adversarial labor-management relations, management’s reluctance to share control over work organization, and the expanding economy in many industrialized countries during the sixties provided little impetus for change. A breakthrough came with the Industrial project (Fuchs, p. 34).
The clock time speeds our life and creates new demands and challenges ofr a modern worker. Understanding the development of predominant forms of work organization requires a brief history of the emergence of the modern business enterprise. Characterized by multiple distinct operating units and managed by a hierarchy of salaried executives, this mode of organizing industrial activity is a relatively recent phenomenon dating back to the late nineteenth century (Phelps, p. 49). As the traditional family and financier controlled enterprises typical of the last century grew in size and diversity, ownership and management of firms became increasingly divorced. The growing dominance of career managers who came to determine the structures and policies of the modern firm shifted the emphasis from maximizing current profits to long-term stability and growth (Gough, p. 55) The continued existence of the enterprise became essential for the lifetime careers of professional managers. By the middle of this century, the transformation from family and finance capitalism to managerial capitalism was complete as the salaried managers of a relatively small number of large enterprises coordinated the flow of goods and services and allocated the resources in major sectors of the economy (Olma, p. 39).
The clock time becomes a driven force for technological innovation, rapid population growth, and expanding markets central to increasing the complexity and speed of the process of production and distribution. Mass distribution preceded mass production. The first modern enterprises were the expanding railroad and telegraph companies in the 1850s and 1860s (Phelps, p. 87). The coordination of the traffic flow and the safety of passengers required elaborate administrative procedures and organizational innovation. The revolution in mass production came more slowly, as it required new technologies and processes. Thus, while mass distribution was largely based on organizational innovation and improvements, breakthroughs in mass production relied on the development and utilization of more efficient machinery and higher quality raw materials along with the intensified application of energy. The adoption of continuous process machines that turned out products automatically greatly increased output per worker. In the early 1880s, these new processes became widespread in the tobacco and the refining and distilling industries. The metalworking industries faced a bigger challenge (Gershuny, p.67). They relied on a greater variety of raw materials and needed to coordinate multiple subunits for the production of castings and moldings and the assembly of complex products such as stoves, firearms, sewing machines, and typewriters. The initial focus was largely on refining the technology. But the prolonged depression of the 1870s meant a continuing drop in demand and an increase in unused capacity. As a result interest shifted to organizational innovation to improve efficiency and productivity. Largely management-dominated designs led unions to shift their focus to a collective resource approach, involving researchers, workers, and union representatives in the design of technologies linked to opportunities for skill development and expanded influence on the organization of work (Olma, p. 77).
Conclusion
In sum, the industrial and postindustrial societies are depends upon the clock time which stipulates time boundaries and schedules our lives. The clock time speeds all processes and creates new demands for information technologies and better solutions. Controlling skilled workers presented a different problem for entrepreneurs. The knowledge embodied in the activities of the craftsmen distinguished their work from that of the laborers. Thus, while they looked down on the frolicking, drinking, and escapism common to many of the laborers, crafts workers used their “functional autonomy” and management’s dependence on their know-how to limit or withhold compliance with prescribed standards of output and discipline. Similarly, the rejection of both evolution theory and practical philosophy renders the key criterion of his own implicit evolutionism—the (increasing) reflexivity of cultural models and social actors—indefensible. A combination of elaborate fines, threats, and punishments was utilized to overcome the ambivalence of the workers and the multitude of ways they used to limit output and exhaustion. Numerous historical accounts present a vivid picture of the difficulties faced by the industrial entrepreneurs and their managers in instilling work habits that would allow them to utilize more efficiently the capital invested in new machinery
Works Cited
- Adam, Barbara. ‘Time’ Theory, culture and society, 23 (2006), 19-126.
- Atkinson, A. B. The Economics of Inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
- Baldwin, P. The Politics of Social Solidarity: Class Bases of the European Welfare States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
- Barr, N. The Economics of the Welfare State. Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1993.
- Bell, D. The Coming of Postindustrial Society. New York: Basic Books, 1976.
- Block, F. Postindustrial Possibilities. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.
- Braverman, H. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press., 1974
- Fuchs, V. How We Lived. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000.
- Gershuny, J. After Industrial Society: The Emerging Self-service Economy. London: Macmillan, 1978.
- Gough, I. The Political Economy of the Welfare State. London: Macmillan, 2001.
- Olma, Sebastian. ‘Social Time’. Theory, Culture and Society, 23 (2006), 127-129
- Phelps, E. Rewarding Work. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 887.