Post‐Fordism, Gender and Work

Citation

Sayers, J. (2002), "Post‐Fordism, Gender and Work", Women in Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 237-238. https://doi.org/10.1108/wimr.2002.17.5.237.1

Post‐Fordism and the debates around production processes are very important for women, but most empirical studies do not include gender as being central in their analysis despite the fact that gender is acknowledged as being critical. In short, women are often framed as “victims” of post‐Fordism and flexible specialisation, being a group of workers that are often perceived as numerically flexible and therefore marginal because of their greater representation in part‐time work, temporary work and home working. For example, Walby (1989) points to this conclusion – that post‐Fordism leads to an increase in numerically flexible jobs, the majority of which are performed by women, who consequently experience the drawbacks of the peripheral labour market.

In this book, Andrea Wigfield has provided a very useful study of women working in Nottinghamshire (UK) clothing factories using production techniques that draw on Japanese methods of quality circles and TQM – more specifically the approaches of the Kanban and Toyota Sewing System (TSS). These factories have been through considerable restructuring in recent times, and predominantly employ women (85 per cent of employees). Andrea Wigfield’s study is quite significant in its field, and should be referred to by anyone interested in the debates about contemporary work practices and their impact on the skills and experiences of the workers who attempt to bring the management concepts to “life” in their everyday working lives.

The book is essentially a report of a study (which reads like a thesis) conducted on 16 factories, chosen because they represented either a production line or a team approach to production. The systems of production are discussed in depth, with the literature, challenges and benefits of each system discussed. The data were gathered through interviews (including focus‐group interviews), questionnaires, secondary resources, observations at the factories, and the book begins with the classic literature review, which provides an excellent overview of the terms and approaches within this area, and each approach’s weaknesses and strengths in terms of the insights they provide about gender.

Much of the existing literature in this area is based on evidence that is quite broad‐based, with conclusions being drawn from available general statistics, or across a wide range of industrial sectors, or within the service sector (where numerical flexibility practices are more prevalent). Wigfield counters these weaknesses with a focus within one industry group (clothing manufacture) providing a detailed exposition of the day‐to‐day concerns of the predominantly female workforce, in terms of how they manage and construct their lives within the factories in which they work. In this way Wigfield provides both support and counter‐points to the prevailing tone of the literature and a number of useful suggestions for managers in terms of what it is important to consider in implementing a new production system based on team‐working, and what their workforce is likely to think of it, if they share the characteristics of Wigfield’s sample.

Wigfield reports on several issues that point to the contradictory and ambiguous nature of work experience in “new” team working environments. Numerical flexibility practices do not necessarily accompany post‐Fordist reorganisation – within the Nottinghamshire clothing industry full‐time work opportunities remained the norm. But the workers felt decidedly ambivalent about full‐time work. The reason for this is mainly the issue of child‐care and their abilities to juggle their work and family lives satisfactorily.

As I have mentioned, part‐time work is framed in the post‐Fordist literature about numerical flexibility as being problematic for women, but Wigfield reports that women often criticise their employers for not providing enough part‐time opportunities, so that they can combine their work and home lines more productively. Mostly, in the clothing manufacturing industries Wigfield studied, women worked full‐time and juggled their child‐care arrangements in ways that most appeared to find stressful. Complaints about the cost of child‐care and its quality were frequent. These women wanted more opportunities for part‐time work – many did not want full‐time work and did not construct part‐time work negatively in the ways they talked about it.

But, at the same time, issues to do with work, pay systems and team‐working were contentious. Pay systems that depended on the team “productivity” were perceived by most of the women to lead to less in their pay packets. In addition it provided an additional stress, because women felt a strong responsibility to team members and this was felt negatively as well as positively. For example, feelings of guilt were apparent and the women were more likely to cover up and resent “under‐performers” in their teams, and also to attend work, even when feeling ill or over‐tired. This issue of guilt was one I found personally interesting, because it seems to me that “guilt” is very much a feminist issue and it would have been interesting to delve into this issue in greater depth.

Related to these issues is the common practice of returning garments to the team when they are faulty, which was often perceived to be unfair. The women appeared to me to read perfectly well that the rhetoric of team‐building was often being used to improve quality of the products at the expense of their take‐home pay. And there was a similar recognition that the rhetoric of devolved control, which is apparent in managerial accounts of team‐working, does not actually mitigate real power structures and control hierarchies in the “post‐Fordist” factories. The material conditions of the work for these women remain extremely important to them and they sense unfairness and hypocrisy very acutely.

Overall, I found this book to be an interesting read, especially for those who have some knowledge of the issues. However, it would be a fairly turgid read, if you did not, being essentially a report on some research in this area, rather than being written to introduce readers to the interesting, many‐faceted nature of the debates. Nevertheless, the first few chapters do give a very good overview of how the post‐Fordist, Fordist and flexible specialisation debates have emerged and their weaknesses vis‐à‐vis their perspectives on women. For managers, especially women in management, the final conclusions of the book are particularly resonant and useful. Wigfield argues that the Kanban system appears to be perceived as the fairest and most beneficial to the women in the factories she studied, mainly because it provides multi‐skilling opportunities, less de‐skilling and more training. But, she argues, the Kanban model alone cannot guarantee benefits to women without attention being paid to wider cultural changes, particularly fair pay systems and greater promotion prospects.

In this book, the women workers have spoken. Others might read what they say differently. For instance, Kondo (1990) provides a very sensitive reading of a group of marginal part‐time women workers in Japan, which is well worth comparing with Wigfield’s research. All in all, this book really does plug a gap in the literature and it is a good book for your local tertiary education library for reference – so go and recommend that they purchase it now.