Lean In for Industrial Workers? Comments on Management Divided

Abstract

Matt Vidal is out to make an omelet, or at least break some eggs, in Management Divided. Selfidentifying as a Marxist, he trains his critique on two widely held views among Marxist labor analysts: Braverman's deskilling theory and the perception that lean production, the management system purveyed by Toyota since the 1970s, is an enhanced or more reflective form of Taylorism. Much like classical Taylorism, however, he argues there is 'one best way to organize production', or most contemporary labor processes, and it is lean (p. 308). How some managers choose to implement this and how workers respond to it constitute Vidal's primary empirical questions. He investigates these with qualitative insights from 59 Midwest manufacturers -mostly smallto-medium component suppliers for large multinationals. His derives a four-part 'typology of approaches to lean' (p. 141), examines 52 workers' experiences with work intensification under lean (most of whom saw no substantial change -p. 161-163), and compares lean implementation in various settings by managers' 'aspiration levels' (pp. 241 and 275), yielding a positive trend line. He also provides accounts from managers suggesting that when they deploy lean systematically this brings better market performance.It should first be said that Vidal has written an engaging book built upon an impressive body of data. He provides readers lengthy original passages that allow them to get a sense for daily routines and form their own conclusions. His attempt to update Marxist theory by re-emphasizing productive forces is also welcome, if ultimately under-supported. Critical students of the labor process have much to gain from Management Divided and it deserves debate.Central to that should be several of the book's larger-order conclusions. Vidal argues (1) that deskilling is not a fundamental tendency of capitalist production; (2) that lean methods 'substantively empower' workers; (3) that lean is called forth by an 'underlying' and 'transhistorical' 'engineering motive -distinct from the profit motive' which, at the post-Fordist stage, demands reintegration of manual and mental labor (p. 14); 4) that these dynamics apply 'across a wide range of occupations, from . . . productive and administrative support, to . . . education, healthcare, software engineering, and social services' (p. 307); and several other things (e.g. that managers