American Sociological Review
1958 1959 1960 1962 1963 1966 1968 1971 1975 1976 1977 1980 1990 1992 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Опубликовано на портале: 17-09-2003Charles N. Halaby American Sociological Review. 2003. Vol. 68. No. 2. P. 251-278.
This paper develops a framework for conceptualizing preferences for different job properties in terms of a tradeoff between risk and return in the pursuit of economic welfare. Following portfolio theory, job properties are viewed as having mean-variance properties with respect to the distribution of rates of growth in economic welfare. Actors may pursue a high-return, high-risk "entrepreneurial" strategy, or a low-return, low-risk "bureaucratic" strategy. An actor's choice is determined by "entrepreneurial ability" and risk preferences, which in turn are rooted in the major dimensions of family and schooling background, cognitive ability, and gender. This theory is tested by anchoring it in the Wisconsin status attainment model and then fitting rank-ordered logit models to data from the 1957 and 1992 Wisconsin Longitudinal Survey. The findings support the theory: Actors who are "advantaged" with respect to family background, schooling, cognitive ability, and gender express a preference for "entrepreneurial" as opposed to "bureaucratic" job properties. Findings also highlight the strong parallels between the process generating adult job values and the process of socioeconomic achievement itself.
Опубликовано на портале: 17-09-2003Steven P. Vallas American Sociological Review. 2003. Vol. 68. No. 2. P. 223-250.
Using data from a comparative, multisite ethnography, this paper identifies some of the social and organizational conditions that limited the impact of workplace transformation at four manufacturing plants during the 1990s. Although these plants adopted an array of new work practices, most achieved only limited gains and were generally unable to transcend the traditional boundary between salaried and hourly employees. A key reason lay in the managerial orientation toward production that was brought to bear on the process of workplace change. This orientation, which placed substantial emphasis on scientific and technical rationality, limited the firm's ability to provide an overarching normative or moral framework within which workplace change might unfold, leaving team systems vulnerable to anomic tendencies, to status distinctions among hourly employees, and to other sources of instability. The predominance of a technical, expert-centered orientation toward production also introduced salient contradictions into the new work regimes, pitting a logic of standardization against managerial efforts to cultivate a logic of participation. These findings suggest that successful implementation of workplace change may depend on the ability of corporate executives to demonstrate the very capacity for flexibility that they often demand of their hourly employees.