Skip to main content
Log in

Social control and social contract in networking

Total quality management and the control of work in the United States

  • Published:
Computer Supported Cooperative Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Networks can be understood as organizational control strategies. As an example, we present two case studies of team-based networking strategies associated with the Total Quality Management movement in the United States. TQM's implied social contract requires some form of power sharing. In practice TQM team organization can also become another form of labor intensification. Similarly, TQM appeals to democratic values by emphasizing participation, communication, cooperation and team work. Such claims can also serve to legitimize major organizational changes, some of which follow familiar Taylorist patterns. Two cases illustrate how the technical components of communications systems help redefine control systems in TQM-based work rerganization experiments. In the manufacturing setting, communications took the form of web-and-hub networks, centralizing off-site engineering control of production workers. In the design and engineering workplace, peer-to-peer communications implemented by self-managed teams reduced intellectual ‘slack time’. In both cases the communications systems provided means to intensify labor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alvesson, M and Willmott H. (1992): On the Idea of Emancipation in Management and Organization Studies.Academy of Management Review, vol. 17 no. 3, pp. 432–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barley, S. and Kunda, G. (1993): Design and Devotion: Surges of Rational and Normative Ideologies of Control in Managerial Discourse.Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 37, pp. 363–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, T. (1991):Managing the Total Quality Transformation. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J.P. and Troxell, W.P. (1993).Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Technology Management 1993: Design for Competitiveness. Manufacturing Excellence Center, Colorado State University, Boulder, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deming, W. Edwards, (1983):Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position. MIT Press Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. (1964):Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Free Press New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1984)The Theory of Communicative action. beacon Press Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juran, J.M. and Gryna, F.M. Jr.Quality Planning and Analysis. McGraw-Hill, New York.

  • Kraft, P. and Truex. D. (1992): “‘Postmodern’ Management and the Modern Industrial Corporation,” paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Society for the Study of Social Problems, August, Pittsburgh, USA.

  • Kunda, G. (1992):Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in A High-Tech Corporation. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. and Simon, H. (1958):Organizations. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naisbitt, J. (1986).Megatrends. Warner Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, C. (1986):Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, T. and Waterman, R. (1982): InSearch of Excellence. Harper and Row, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalk, G. (1988): “Time—The Next Source of Competitive Advantage”Harvard Business Review, pp. 41–51.

  • Stalk, G., and Hout, T. (1990):Competing Against Time, Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toffler, A. (1985):The Adaptive Corporation. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, M. (1986):The Deming Management Method. Dodd, Mead, & Co., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, S. (1993): “The Lean Production Model”, Background paper prepared for the Lean Workplace Conference, September 30, Port Elgin, Ontario, Canada.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

We wish to thank Sal Agnihothri, Andrew Clement, Peter Meiksins, Gary Roodman and Ina Wagner, as well as members of the SUNY-Binghamton School of Management Information Systems Seminar for their criticisms of earlier drafts of this paper. We are grateful to Suzanne Iacono and Nancy Zimmet for especially close and helpful readings. Katherine Karlson helped tremendously in locating sources. The opinions expressed here are our own. All the usual warnings about generalizing from culturally-specific cases apply. The authors are listed alphabetically.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Klein, H.K., Kraft, P. Social control and social contract in networking. Comput Supported Coop Work 2, 89–108 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00749285

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00749285

Key words

Navigation