4.2.4 - Labour process - Fordism, post-Fordism and control

Division of labour and control

Functionalists begin from the question of how modern societies hold together when people no longer all do the same work. Durkheim argued that simple societies rely on mechanical solidarity: cohesion produced by similarity. Modern societies rely on organic solidarity: cohesion produced by interdependence between specialists. The division of labour therefore has a positive side. It increases efficiency and ties people together because each role depends on others. Durkheim also examined abnormal forms: a forced division of labour involves unjust barriers to fair role allocation, while an anomic division involves inadequate regulation of relationships between specialised roles.

A Marxist reading is much less optimistic. Marx argued that under capitalism the labour process is organised around profit, not human fulfilment. Employers control what is produced, how it is produced, and the pace at which it is produced. Workers sell their labour power, but the value they create is greater than the wages they receive. That gap is surplus value, and it is the basis of exploitation. The division of labour therefore becomes a way of controlling workers rather than simply coordinating them.

Marx identified four linked forms of alienation. Workers do not own the product, they have little say over the production process, they are pushed into competition with fellow workers, and they cannot fully develop their creativity or species-being. This makes work a site of power and inequality. It also shapes identity: instead of seeing themselves as creative producers, workers may come to experience themselves as replaceable labour.

Weber adds a different angle. He argued that modern organisations are increasingly rationalised: rules, calculation, measurement, and hierarchy are used to make behaviour predictable. In the labour process, this means control often works through bureaucratic procedures and performance measures as well as direct ownership. Taylorist targets, timed tasks, and standard operating procedures are therefore both capitalist and bureaucratic forms of domination.

Taylorism, Fordism and deskilling

The next question is how employers turn general control into everyday workplace routines. Taylor called this scientific management. He argued that managers should study each task scientifically, discover the one best way of doing it, separate planning from doing, and monitor workers closely. In practice, this meant time-and-motion studies, close supervision, and incentive systems linked to output. The worker's knowledge of the job was taken away and relocated into management.

Fordism applied these principles on a huge scale. Named after Henry Ford's car plants, Fordism used the assembly line, standardised products, and semi-skilled labour to produce large quantities cheaply. Because each worker repeated a narrow task, employers could increase output and replace labour more easily. The famous Fordist compromise was that workers received relatively stable jobs and higher wages, but in return they accepted monotonous work and strict managerial control.

Braverman updated Marx's argument by claiming that monopoly capitalism systematically separates conception from execution. Engineers, designers, and managers keep the planning knowledge, while workers carry out fragmented instructions. For Braverman, technology is not neutral. It is often introduced in ways that transfer control upwards, simplify tasks, and degrade work. This is why his labour process theory is so important: it links technology, deskilling, and class power.

Blauner also explored technology and alienation, but he reached a more qualified conclusion. He compared craft production, machine-tending, assembly-line work, and process production. Craft workers tended to have most autonomy, assembly-line workers tended to feel most alienated, and some automated process workers regained a measure of responsibility because they monitored systems rather than repeating a single manual action. This suggests that technology can either intensify control or, in some settings, restore some skill and autonomy.

Post-Fordism and flexible work

From the 1970s onwards, many sociologists argued that the classic Fordist model was weakening. Post-Fordism refers to more flexible production: shorter runs, niche markets, just-in-time systems, teamwork, and workers who are expected to switch between tasks. Supporters of this view argue that some jobs become less rigid and more skill-intensive. Instead of standing on one point of an assembly line all day, some workers solve problems, coordinate with teams, and adapt to changing consumer demand.

A simple comparison helps to keep the contrast clear: