If we define work as the production of goods and services valued by others and define society as the totality of social relationships among human beings, we see at once the intense and pervasive interdependence of these two concepts. Neither can be defined, explained, or understood without due consideration of the other. This interaction is also apparent when we look into branches of knowledge such as economics, politics, and sociology. Man writers in each of these fields point to the significant influence of the writing of Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim in forming the basis for their academic discipline.
According to Salaman (1980) many early writers believed that the way in which the means of production are owned and the nature of the relationship between employers and workers in production determine the social and political structure and process. Others, for example Kerr et al. (1973] propose that the way that work and technology are designed determines the social and political structure. They place primary emphasis on how worker are recruited and how the labor force is developed and maintained. Freidsoi (1982) contends that occupations, as organized forms of differentiated productive activity, can be only partially explained by using both organizational theory and class or social-structure theory. He points out that many occupations exist in complex organizations, some exist in the labor market outside of any organizational structure, and some exist in hybrid situations where they are seen within an organization but appear to be freestanding, self-directing suppliers of labor.
Salaman summarizes the well-known view of Marx, who pointed to the inherently political nature of the way work is designed under capitalism in order to maximize profitability, and to direct and control the activities of employees whose interests conflict with those of the employers. Salaman also recalls the views of Adam Ferguson and Adam Smith, whose writings suggest the social phenomenon of worker alienation-the idea that increasingly finer divisions of labor separate the worker from any sense of relationship to the product of his or her effort. Alienation or separation develops, according to Ferguson, not only between worker and product, but also between worker and self, and worker and community. Marx later applied the view developed by Ferguson and Smith in much of his own writing. For the past century and a half, concern with the relationship between the worker and work has been basic to much writing in economics, political science, and sociology. Today, this focus on the worker/work affinity is primary when one describes societies with adjectives such as advanced, agrarian, capitalist, communist, industrial, socialist, and the like.
Hamilton (1980) describes the sociological study of work as following one or the other of two basic approaches. Those who use a structural model approach see work as deriving from the structural characteristics of society and its major institutional areas. Most models that follow this approach mild on the theoretical positions of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. Others accept a human-relations model, which is mainly a theoretical and focuses on a managerial-type approach to improving the work situation. The latter view grew out of the famous Hawthorne Works studies conducted in the late 1920s, which revealed the heavy influence on worker production caused by informal work groups. This discovery of the impact of views of fellow workers on output conflicted with the earlier structural view that workers acted individually in self-interest.
It would probably be difficult to identify any society that represents a form of either of these two models. Most capitalist societies --where theory proposes that employers will control and dominate the workplace and the worker--have permitted or encouraged the expansion of regulation, interference by the government in economic activity, development of state or public ownership, and the creation of welfare systems, all to serve as counteracting forces to capitalistic pressures. Similarly, most socialistic and communistic societies have found that the lack of incentive and the growth of stifling bureaucracies have necessitated the use of some form of private enterprise. Salaman (1980) suggests that the impact of either political form on the worker may be quite similar. His position is clearly stated in the following paragraph:
It is far from clear that work in a Russian car factory is substantially different from working for Ford. The technology is the same. The size of the organization and its conditions will be broadly similar. There may be some differences in levels of reward of manual work in the two countries, if not absolutely, at least relative to other work and occupational groups, but the hierarchical nature of the organization and the specialization, subdivision and nature of actual work tasks will be very similar. And while events and decisions in the Ford plant will be governed by the company's drive for profit, in the Russian case such decisions follow the organization's attempts to fulfill the levels of output, input and efficiency that had been set by the centralized planning departments. In neither case, it would seem, does the ordinary worker play much, if any, of a part in determining the nature of his work, or its objectives, nor does he work for himself in any meaningful sense, despite the fact that in the USSR he ostensibly owns the means of production.
Parsons (1960) has suggested that differences are found not between industrialized nations with differing political structures but rather between industrialized and non-industrialized nations. These differences can be found, he believes, in social institutions, social roles, stratification systems, and their power structures. The differences are produced by the fact that industrialized nations have become more complex.
