tasks, and the use of insecurity and performance pressures to motivate workers, now characterize types of work that, in the past, were rarely organized in this way. It can be argued, in fact, that the ideas pioneered by Frederick Taylor and Henry Ford have become more, not less, influential in the contemporary “postindustrial” economy.
To be sure, new technologies and production methods have required an expansion in certain worker skills and transformed the ways in which work is performed. However, those same machines and methods also have replaced many workers, both in manufacturing and elsewhere, and the persistence and spread of mass production methods cannot be ignored. As discussed next, the reality is that the new economy relies on both high-skill and low-skill work, and it uses both mass production techniques and new flexibly specialized systems to produce goods and services.
New Skills?
The fact that the new economy is characterized by a new mix of industries has led some to conclude that it requires a new set of skills from the workforce. According to this argument, the traditional low-skill work characteristic of the industrial economy is being automated out of existence, while the new economy demands a workforce with “soft skills” needed for successful social interaction in service sector jobs. It also demands a more highly educated workforce, as the emergent “knowledge economy” relies heavily on highly trained workers with substantial quantities of technical and intellectual skills. Some argue that, as these new skills have supplanted manual skills, the trend toward work simplification also has been altered—even reversed. This is because the predictable, carefully designed, strictly managed, routine jobs typical of mass production might be difficult to transfer to activities that require face-to-face interaction or sophisticated knowledge and problem-solving skills. Thus, the new workforce will have to be more highly educated and able to work independently, outside the strict controls imposed on routine manufacturing work. Let us examine some of these “new” skills to determine whether the claims being made about them can be supported.
Interpersonal Skills in the Workplace
Suppose that you needed to hire a lawyer. What type of person would you select for the job? One might assume that the best legal representation would be lawyers who are able to find obscure loopholes and introduce a wide range of legal precedents into court proceedings. That assumption would miss an important observation—most legal decisions are straightforward and do not require a mastery of arcane knowledge. What lawyers bring to the table is relational expertise, such as their knowledge of whether a judge is likely to respond to appeals for sympathy. In reality, the legal success comes from the lawyer’s rudimentary knowledge of how courts work and ability to guide clients (and judges and juries) to be considerate of formal and informal rules of conduct (Sandefur 2015). Given the importance of interpersonal relationships, you would probably be better off hiring a local lawyer who did poorly on her bar exam, as compared to hiring a newcomer to your community who graduated at the top of her class.
Alternately, suppose you wanted to hire a person to be a fire fighter. Obviously, a good candidate would need to have the physical strength and experience to perform the tasks effectively and safely. But beyond technical skills, the ideal candidate would be someone who can effectively fit in with the cultures that exist among fire fighters so as to perform a very dangerous team-oriented job. Most fire fighters are men, and their interactions are rich with emotional displays that convey joviality (good humor) and companionate love (feeling that their fellow fire fighters are “like family”). The bonds created by these types of values promotes trust, which in turn carries over to effective teamwork and interpersonal relationships (O’Neill and Rothbard 2017).
Lawyers and firefighters are old economy jobs that continue to exist in the new economy. Both occupations demonstrate that interpersonal dynamics and emotions on the job are not altogether new concerns within the world of work. However, the new economy evidences an increased reliance on these job elements, especially in interactive service work that necessitates direct personal encounters between employees and customers. These types of jobs require the workers to interact effectively with clients and, more often than not, to manage encounters that leave clients satisfied not only with the services rendered, but also with the experience of being served.
One clear conclusion of a growing body of literature is that skills such as the abilities to communicate effectively with others, to present oneself appropriately, and to function effectively in a range of social situations are essential components of contemporary jobs and are valued highly by employers. Depending on the type of service being provided and customers’ expectations, it is important to be able to put on emotional displays that are intense (e.g., smile frequently) and authentic (e.g., actually experience the warmth and friendliness beneath the smile) (Wang et al. 2017). This type of emotional labor can leave employees feeling emotionally depleted at the end of their workdays and, over the long term, it can contribute to burnout (Uy, Lin, and Ilies 2017). For some workers, the skills to engage in service interaction work have been cultivated through years of informal socialization, such as that received from parents, so that they already know how to “fit in” with the types of people to be served. However, individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds often have developed very different types of interaction styles that lead to a poorer fit between their cultural tool kits and jobs. A young worker who grew up in an inner-city neighborhood may have a very difficult time “reading” the signals given off by the responses of a more privileged client and may also feel uncomfortable in the encounter. And the client may not necessarily treat the young worker in the same way as someone perceived as being more similar in habits and disposition. These types of interpersonal dynamics present new challenges in fitting workers into the new opportunity structures, as the work is not only about mastering technical skills, but also social skills.
In theory, at least, interactive skills would seem to be resistant to routinization and simplification. However, as in the old economy, employers have attempted just that, and with considerable degrees of success. Perhaps the most familiar example of routinized interaction can be seen in the fast-food industry. As Robin Leidner (1993) documented in her pioneering study of interactive service work, McDonald’s has worked out very specific guidelines not just for the production of the food their stores sell to customers, but also for structuring the interaction between workers and customers. Frontline service workers in the stores are given very specific scripts to follow and are instructed (and their performance is monitored) regarding what to say and how to say it. Nor is the management of interaction confined to employees, as McDonald’s has succeeded in finding ways to encourage customers to behave in predictable ways; for example, by physically arranging the store to encourage customers to behave in prescribed ways (line up here, pick up your food there, don’t linger too long, dispose of your trash on the way out), as well as limiting or scripting menu choices (“I will have value meal number seven”). As has frequently been noted, the experience of patronizing a McDonald’s restaurant is more or less the same, no matter where it is located, as a result of this careful routinization. Call center work is another type of interactive service work that has been successfully routinized and elaborately managed. Employees must follow carefully developed scripts, and calls are monitored for “quality assurance.” Employees of call centers located abroad undergo accent modification programs so that their English will not be too foreign to callers; they are also asked to become familiar with aspects of Western culture (such as sports) so that they can interact more effectively with callers (Belanger and Edwards 2013).
Like routinization in manufacturing, interaction constraints can be experienced as oppressive and intrusive by both workers and customers. Much of the early research on scripted interaction speculated about the possibility that following scripts, and interacting with others according to externally imposed routines, rather than one’s own reaction to the situation, can breed feelings of inauthenticity and psychological distress (Wharton 1999). But efforts to make interaction more routine and predictable can actually help employees do their jobs, with the result that they sometimes embrace the protocols and actively collaborate with employers in imposing routines.
