Yeni Üretim/Yönetim Modelleri ve Denetim TZÜ/TKY Modelinde Hegemonik Despotizmin Yükselişi

Year 2013, Volume: 1 Issue: 36, 187 - 210, 01.01.2013

Özlem Irmak Balkız

Abstract

Zanaatkârlıktan modern fabrikalara doğru yaşanan dönüşüm, geniş ölçekli üretimle birlikte verimliliği arttırırken emek sürecinin denetimi olgusunu da gündeme getirmiştir. Geçmişten günümüze emek denetim rejimleri, her dönemin sosyal, siyasal ve ekonomik özelliklerine göre değişim göstermiştir. Ancak kapitalist emek sürecinin belirli amaçlar çerçevesinde denetim altına alınması süreklilik arzetmiştir. Günümüzde emek sürecinin denetimi daha çok ‘işyerinde gözetim’ kavramıyla ifade edilmektedir. Ancak mevcut işleyiş, gözetim olgusunu disiplin boyutuna taşıyarak sistematikleştirmektedir. Tam Zamanında Üretim TZÜ ve Toplam Kalite Yönetimi TKY gibi yeni üretim/yönetim modelleri; stoksuz üretim, bütünsel kalite kontrol, sıfır hata, verimlilik gibi teknik yönleriyle ön plâna çıkmaktadır. Üretim sürecinin organizasyonunu piyasanın anlık değişimlerine uyarlama amacında olan TZÜ/TKY modeli ‘piyasa despotizmi’ mantığını büyük ölçüde içermektedir. Bilgisayarlı otomasyonun üretim süreçlerine girişi yöneticilerin emek sürecinde despotik bir denetim kurmalarını kolaylaştırırken işçilerin zihnini hedef alan ‘firma kültürü’ sayesinde hegemonik denetim mümkün hale gelmektedir. Makalede TZÜ/TKY modelinde yükselen teknolojik/elektronik denetim, despotik emek rejimleri; ‘firma kültürü’ perspektifi ise hegemonik emek rejimleri çerçevesinde ele alınıp değerlendirilecektir. Güzergâhı despotikten hegemoniğe doğru olan emek rejimlerinin, piyasa koşullarına uyarlanmış üretim/yönetim süreçlerinde nasıl ‘hegemonik despotizm’ biçimini aldıkları irdelenecektir

Keywords

Emek Sürecinin Denetimi, TZÜ/TKY Modeli, Emek Sürecinde Teknolojik Denetim, Firma Kültürü, Hegemonik Despotizm.

New Production/Organization Models And Control The Rise of Hegemonic Despotism in JIT/TQM Regimes

Abstract

While the shift from craftsmanship to modern factories increased productivity thanks to wide-scale production, it also introduced the concept of control of the labor process. From past to present, labor control regimes have changed in line with the social, political and economic characteristics of every era. However, the control of the capitalistic labor process within the context of certain purposes is a continuous phenomenon. Today, the control of the labor process is rather expressed by the term “workplace monitoring”. The current practice, however, systematizes the monitoring phenomenon by taking it to the extent of discipline. New production/management models such as Just-in-time JIT and Total Quality Management TQM , stand out with technical aspects such as stockless production, total quality control, zero defects and productivity. Accordingly, to achieve these results, they create a hegemonic control procedure in the labor process. The JIT/TQM regime, whose objective is to adapt the organization of the production process to the instant changes in the market, includes, to a great extent, the ‘market despotism’ mentality. On the other hand, the entry of computer automatization in the production processes, despite increasing productivity, is building up managers’ despotic control on the labor process. In this article, while the rising technological control in the JIT/TQM regime will be examined within the context of despotic labor regimes, corporate culture perspective will be dealt with within the context of hegemonic labor regimes. Therefore it will be scrutinized how the labor supervision regimes whose route is from despotism to hegemony, take form of ‘hegemonic despotism’ within the production/management processes that have been adapted to current market conditions.

Keywords

Control of Labor Process, The JIT/TQM Regime, Technological Control in Labor Process, Corporate Culture, Hegemonic Despotism.

References

• Aglietta, M.(1979) A Theory of Capitalist Regulation (Translated by David Fernbach) London:Verso.
• Aydoğanoğlu, E. (2011) Fabrikada Emek Denetimi, İstanbul: Evrensel Basım Yayın.
• Braverman, H.(1974) Labour and Monopoly Capital, New York: Monthly Review Press.
• Bryer, R.(2006) ‘Accounting and Control of the Labour Process’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, No:17, 551-598.
• Burawoy, M.(1985) The Politics of Production, London: Verso.
• Dale, B.(1994) Managing Quality, New York: Prentice Hall.
• Delbridge, R.vd. (1992) ‘Pushing Back the Frontiers: Management Control and Work Intensification Under JIT/TQM Factory Regimes’, New Technology Work and Employment, Vol. 17, No.2, 97-106.
• Dickson, D. (1992) Alternatif Teknoloji (çev. Nezih Erdoğan), İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yay.
• Dohse K.vd.(1985) ‘From Fordism to Toyotoism, The Social Organization of the Labour Process in the Japanese Automobile Industry’, Politics and Society, Vol 14, No:2, 115-146.
• Ezzamel, M.ve Willmott, H.(1998) ‘Accounting for Teamwork: A Critical Study of Group-based Systems of Organizational Control’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 358-396.
• Friedman, A. (1977) ‘Responsible Autonomy versus Direct Control Over the Labour Prcess’, Capital and Class, Vol 1 No 1, 43-57.
• Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, London: Allen Lane.
• Hill, S.(1995) ‘From Quality Circles to Total Quality Management’, A.Wilkinson, H.Willmott (der.) Making Quality Critical: New Perspectives on Organizational Change içinde London:Routledge.
• Hyman, R.(1989) ‘Flexible Specialization: Miracle or Myth?’, Richard Hyman, Wolfgang Streeck (der.) New Technology and Industrial Relations içinde, Great Britain: Oxford. 48-61.
• İmai, M.(1994), Kaizen, İstanbul: Brisa Yayınları.
• Kelly, R. (1995) ‘Total Quality Management: Industrial Democracy or Another Form of Managerial Control’, Labour and Industry, No.6, 119-140.
• Kenney, M. ve Florida, R. (1988) ‘Beyond Mass Production: Production and the Labour Process in Japan’, Politics and Society, Vol.16, No.1, 121-158.
• Littler, C.R., Salaman, G. (1982) ‘Bravermania end Beyond: Recent Theories of the Labour Process’, Sociology, Vol 16, No 2, 251-269.
• Mc Ardle, L.; Rowlinson, M.vd.(1995) ‘Total Quality Management and Participation’, A.Wilkinson, H.Willmott (der.) Making Quality Critical: New Perspectives on Organizational Change içinde London:Routledge.
• Mütevellioğlu, N.ve Işık, S. (2009) ‘Türkiye Emek Piyasasında Neoliberal Dönüşüm’, Nergis Mütevellioğlu, Sinan Sönmez (der.) Küreselleşme, Kriz ve Türkiye’de Neoliberal Dönüşüm içinde, İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yay.
• Öngen,T. (1996) Prometheus’un Sönmeyen Ateşi, Günümüzde İşçi Sınıfı, İstanbul: Alan Yayıncılık.
• Özdemir, G.Y.(2000) ‘Hegemonik Fabrika Rejiminde Mavi Yakalı İşçiler’, Toplum ve Bilim, 86, 241-260.
• Özdemir, G.Y.(2010) ‘Despotik Emek Rejimi Olarak Taşeron Çalışma’, Çalışma ve Toplum, 4, 35-50.
• Özuğurlu, M.(2005) Anadolu’da Küresel Fabrikanın Doğuşu, İstanbul: Halkevleri Emek Çalışmaları Merkezi.
• Parker, M.; Slaughter, J. (1990) ‘Management by Stress, The Team Concept in the US Auto Industry’, Science as Culture, Vol 1, Issue 8, 27-58.
• Sewell, G.(1998) ‘The Discipline of Teams: The Control of Team-based Industrial Work Through Electronic and Peer Surveillance’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 397-428.
• Sewell, G; Wilkinson, B (1992a) ‘Someone to Watch Over Me: Surveillance, Discipline and the Just-in-Time Labour Process’ Sociology, 26: 271-289.
• Sewell,G. Wilkinson, B.(1992b) ‘Empowerment or Emasculation? Shopfloor Surveillance in a Total Quality Organization’ Paul Blyton, Peter Turnbull (der.) Reassessing Human Resource Management içinde, London: Sage, 97-116.
• Tuckman, A.(1995) ‘Ideology,Quality and TQM’, A. Wilkinson, H. Willmott (der.) Making Quality Critical: New Perspectives on Organizational Change içinde, London:Routledge.
• Yamak, O.(1998) Kalite Odaklı Yönetim, İstanbul: Panel Matbaacılık.
• Wickens, P.(1987) The Road to Nissan, London: Macmillan Press.
• Wilkinson, A.vd.(1998) Managing with Total Quality Management, London: Macmillan.
• Willmott, H.(1993) ‘Strenght is Ignorance, Slavery is Freedom: Managing Culture in Modern Organizations’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol 30, No:4, 515-52.