Have British Workers Been Working Harder in Thatcher's Britain? A Re‐Consideration of the Concept of Effort
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1990.tb00997.x |
| Date | 01 November 1990 |
| Published date | 01 November 1990 |
| Author | David E. Guest |
British Journal
of
Industrial Relations
28:3
November
1990
0007-1080
$3.00
Have British Workers Been Working
Harder in Thatcher‘s Britain?
A
Re-Consideration
of
the Concept
of
Effort
David
E.
Guest“
Final version accepted
1
May 1990
ABSTRACT
Increased intensity of work has been frequently cited aspart of the explanation
for the productivity gains in British manufacturing industry during the
1980s.
One of the main sources
for
this claim has been the PUL (Percentage
Utilization of Labour) index,
a
measure of throughput at the point
of
production. Analysis
of
the underlying rationale for this measure leads to the
conclusion that it
is
not
a
sound basis on which to assess workers’ effort. This
article examines the concept of effort in some detail and considers the validity
of psychological and psychophysiological measures. Whichever measure
is
used, the evidence provides little support for the contention that workers’
effort has been
a
signijkant factor in productivity increases.
1.
INTRODUCTION
In the continuing debate on the impact of Thatcherism in the work-place,
interest has recently focused on explanations for the dramatic rises
in
productivity that occurred in British manufacturing industry throughout
most
of
the 1980s. One
of
the most controversial
issues
is
the influence
of
a
trade union presence on the level of productivity (Freeman and Medoff
1984; Metcalf 1988; Nolan and Marginson 1990). A second issue, and the
one addressed in this paper, is the nature
of
any intensification of work and
therefore the extent
to
which productivity rises can be attributed to increases
in workers’ effort
.
The systematic measurement of workers’ effort has always been central to
claims that work study provides the basis for what Taylor described as
‘scientific management’. Effort is also an important concept in industrial
Department
of
Occupational Psychology, Birkbeck College. London University
294
British Journal
of
Industrial Relations
psychology. It
is,
for example, a central component
of
expectancy theory,
the dominant theory of worker motivation and a key element in attribution
theory, which is concerned primarily with how we interpret events. At a
more practical level, some assessment
of
effort is invariably included in
performance appraisal systems. But social scientists, including psycholog-
ists, have generally been sceptical about the feasibility of measuring effort.
Indeed, most
of
those who have looked at it seriously have concluded that
the problems
of
measurement are
so
great that it
is
not a fruitful topic on
which to devote their own time and effort.
Recently two researchers have attempted to
fill
this vacuum by presenting
what they claim
is
an objective measure of worker effort (Bennett and
Smith-Gavine
1987).
They have directed their findings mainly towards
labour economists, and their measure is increasingly used in the debate on
work intensification and productivity to support the view that workers were
working harder in the
1980s.
Their bold claims
of
scientific objectivity,
presented in the best traditions
of
scientific management
,
raise the need for
careful scrutihy
of
their measure, especially if their data are used to explain
the impact of macroeconomic policy and thereby perhaps indirectly to
influence
it
in the future.
The first aim
of
this paper is therefore
to
analyse the measurement of
effort presented by Bennett and Smith-Gavine. A second aim
is
to assess
whether the work on effort undertaken by psychologists and sociologists
provides more useful insights and measures. This analysis is set in the
context
of
the debate on Thatcherism at work, since a third aim is to provide
a better means
of
answering questions about the nature and extent
of
any
change in effort
or
intensification of work during the
1980s.
2.
THATCHERISM AT WORK
At the heart of the Thatcherite analysis
of
the problems
of
British industry
when the Conservatives came
to
power in
1979
was the view that ‘lazy’
British workers, over-protected by excessively powerful unions, were not
displaying enough
effort
for the rewards they obtained. The idea of the ‘lazy’
British worker had become widely accepted. Yet it seemed
to
rest mainly on
repeated assertion and a small number of contentious comparative studies.
Nichols
(1986)
has provided a compelling critique of the evidence,
suggesting that the ‘lazy’ British worker is largely a myth; the explanation for
low
levels
of
performance must be sought elsewhere.
Thatcherism
is
rooted in Victorian values
of
hard work and thrift. Three
elements are designed to encourage hard work. One is the unleashing
of
market forces, partly through national economic policy but also through
legislation to reduce the power
of
trade unions and through steps
to
remove
restrictions on free enterprise. Privatization is one manifestation of this. A
second element is the provision of incentives to greater effort. This is
reflected in tax reform and the encouragement of performance-related pay.
To continue reading
Request your trial