Post-Fordist Theory, Labour Process and Flexibility and Autonomy in Australian Workplaces

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
This article contributes to the ongoing debates about labour flexibility by subjecting some central theoretical claims to empirical scrutiny. Specifically, competing propositions drawn from the theoretical schools referred to as post-Fordism and neo-Fordism form the basis for the central research problem addressed in the paper. These propositions concern the alleged links between ‘labour process flexibility’ and autonomy. Post-Fordist theory holds that various manifestations of this sort of flexibility are associated with a fundamental transformation of work and the empowerment of employees. In contrast, neo-Fordist theorists argue that no such transformation is likely, and that in fact such flexibility may be associated with a degradation of work. These competing positions are assessed using two sets of data. Firstly, data drawn from the Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey (AWIRS) are used to generate quantitative indicators of flexibility and autonomy and the relationships between the two phenomena are explored via statistical analysis. Secondly, this is supplemented by qualitative analysis of more detailed data drawn from a small survey of law and accounting firms in the Brisbane area. The analysis allows substantive conclusions to be drawn which in turn allow an assessment to be made of the utility of each theory as a means to inform policy making. It is argued that neo-Fordist theory receives more support from the evidence than does post-Fordist theory.