Reconstruction and restoration: the legacies of post-war German Industrial Sociology

Abstract

The article reconstructs the re-birth of Industrial Sociology in Germany after the Second World War in a comparative perspective. Although sharing the main context conditions and maintaining a constant and fluent exchange with their colleagues in other countries, the German intellectual traditions and specific institutional context motivated several particular interests and perspectives that shape a distinct German Industrial Sociology until today. The dominance of qualitative in-depth research, the focus on the emancipative potentials in high-skill-based work organization, the cooperative industrial relations tradition and the constant attempts to link employment studies with general social theory on modern capitalist society and social change characterize German Industrial Sociology. The richness of distinct national institutional settings for comparative social research on employment regimes may be another lesson to be learned from critical reconstruction of labour sociology.

Keywords

Fordism Industrial Sociology sociology in Germany sociology of the firm sociology of work

Introduction

Currently, the second post-war generation of German industrial sociologists is retiring and several initiatives and publications are reflecting on the trajectory and balance of their work.¹ In a synthetic reconstruction of the trajectory of Industrial Sociology in post-war Germany, this article discusses the specific features and approaches of the German Sociology of Work not only to gain an idea of the accumulated knowledge but also to identify possible lessons for current research. The underlying hypothesis assumes that, although in constant exchange and influence with the dominant Anglo-Saxon and other European social research schools, German Industrial Sociology has developed several particular methodological and theoretical features that might be interesting and inspiring for future social research. A second, related hypothesis points towards the determinant influence of historical institutional contexts on the development of distinct national sociological traditions as a constant source of rich insights for comparative social research.

The evolution of Industrial Sociology in Germany has been shaped by two primary factors: the specific context of the German society and economy and the social research traditions recovered and developed after the irruption of the Nazi regime. The notion of ‘Sociology of Work’ differs among the various social and linguistic contexts. In Germany, Sociology of Work is an all-encompassing term that includes several more specific terms such as Industrial Sociology, Sociology of the Firm or Industrial Relations. Industrial Sociology was conceived as an approach to understand the complex interaction of industrial work and societal institutions in modern capitalism. In this view, the firm is perceived as a public affair, a constitutional social community. ‘One could also say that the US and Britain focused on “private contracts” whereas Germany focused on a “social contract” within a firm’ (Frege, 2008: 48).

The rebirth of Industrial Sociology in the context of conservative restoration

Systematic academic research on work and industry started in Germany with the pioneering studies by Max and Alfred Weber and Heinrich Herkner for the ‘Association for Social Policy’ (Verein für Sozialpolitik) in the early 20th century. During the Nazi Regime (1933–45), sociology virtually disappeared. In the first post-war decade, only a handful of universities reinstated sociological studies and empirical research, and it was not until the 1960s that most universities re-established sociology as part of the academic curriculum.

In Germany, Industrial Sociology often took a dominant role of sociology-as-such, the study of ‘the industrial mode of production and the industrial way of life’ (Wilbert E Moore, 1948, quoted in Deutschmann, 2002: 7). The strong efforts in developing empirical foundations and conducting field research in this period also reflect what Paul Bahrdt called ‘thirst for reality’ (Mickler, 2000: 137) after long years of Nazi propaganda.

Three main and interrelated reasons moved Industrial Sociology into a priority position in German social research (Schmidt, 1980: 265):

West Germany experienced an accelerated process of re-industrialisation in the 1950s and 1960s. Industrial work and organisation thus occupied a central position in the understanding of the social, cultural and political dynamics in post-war Germany.

In the context of political disenchantment and conservative restoration, the engagement in the study of industrial workers, their working and living conditions, class consciousness and interest organisations appeared as a privileged field of work for progressive social scientists.

Certain specific German traditions in social thought and philosophy, such as the Historical School (Gustav von Schmoller, Lujo Brentano), a romantic criticism of modern industrialism (Oswald Spengler, Ernst Jünger), together with the subliminal influence of Weber and Marx, motivated an interest in the social consequences of industrial and technological development among German intellectuals.

Conservative restoration in post-war Germany was even more constraining for critical social research and left-wing political movements than in other Western European countries. First of all, there were only a few, early marginalized political groups with an anti-fascist or resistance legitimacy. These few groups returning from exile soon clashed with the US-led military governments, who maintained a tight control over the re-democratization process. The emerging Cold War with Western Germany in a strategic key position as a front guard against communist influence in Europe reinforced even more the surveillance of the allied forces. While in France or Italy the communist parties and unions gained hegemonic positions among the left in opposition to capitalist reconstruction, Western German communists entered an agony of de-legitimization and repression till the final prohibition of the ‘anti-constitutional’ Communist Party in 1956.

Two events with significant impact on the German labour movement and the socially committed critical labour studies symbolized the strength of neo-conservative restoration in Western Germany. The Works Constitution Act in 1952 meant the definitive defeat of all attempts towards industrial democracy. The trade unions even failed to extend the parity co-determination of the coal and steel industries, a concession of the de-legitimized industrial war lords facing expropriation or dismantling after the Second World War, towards the rest of the economy. A few years later, the intellectual left-wing leader and director of the trade union research institute WWI (Wirtschafts-Wissenschaftliches Institut), Viktor Agartz, was expelled from the German Trade Union Confederation and the Social-Democratic Party SPD under the pretext of conspiratorial relations to the German Democratic Republic.

Sociological research thus developed primarily at the margins of official state and university institutions. At a critical distance from the Human Relations movement (Mayo, 1975[1945]; Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1956[1939]), which reduced workplace problems to a technical socio-therapeutic question of motivation, the early post-war sociologists in Germany related their studies on industrial work with the general dynamics of industrial-capitalist societies. The three major research groups and empirical studies of the 1950s were all centred on the workers and working conditions of the co-determined steel plants.

Popitz et al. (1957a, 1957b) published two studies: one on the impact of technological modernization on industrial work and another on the societal image of the workers. The detailed empirical research – the authors lived for nine months in the workers’ residence area of the plant – represents a milestone in German post-war sociology. The authors identified a loss of societal experience and a growing gap between the daily living world and the societal context conditions that the workers filled with different forms of simple society images.

The study by Pirker et al. (1955) was pushed forward by the trade union research institute WWI and aimed to establish a new concept of social workplace policy around the co-determination model. The WWI developed the concept of ‘social rationalization’, being complementary to technological modernization and economic rationalization, and tried to establish a systematic cooperation among social scientists, managements and worker delegates (Lutz, 1952).

The third pioneer study, on workplace climate, realized by von Friedeburg, Becker, Teschner and Weltz, and coordinated by Theodor W. Adorno and Walter Dirks (1955) at the re-founded Institute of Social Research in Frankfurt, attempted to contrast the Pirker et al. study. It was commissioned and financed by the Mannesmann Corporation – a delicate circumstance given the close cooperation of the group with the Nazi regime on the one hand, and the dominance of formerly exiled Jewish scientists at the Institute on the other (Wiggershaus, 1988: 534–53). The Mannesmann management used the study to demonstrate its commitment to the well-being of its workers, whereas the trade unions responded with reproach because one of the findings indicated a low interest towards and valuation of works councils and co-determination among workers.

All of these early post-war studies on workers’ consciousness, job satisfaction and industrial atmosphere revealed the ambiguous state of the German working class, which was neither smoothly integrated in modern liberal capitalism, nor a conflict-oriented supporter of union struggles and social transformation. The empirical findings pointed towards a combination of a clear consciousness of class dichotomy and conflicting interests with a resignation towards the possibility of transforming the given power relationships.

In spite of ideological and methodological differences, these three research groups shared a lot of common interests and experiences, and belonged to the same generation (born in the 1920s). The search for a new social theory of the large industrial enterprise and its social and political environment, based on well-founded empirical knowledge, was the shared academic objective. Under conservative Christian-democratic governments and the pressure of Cold War anti-communism, the trade unions and their influence via co-determination rights in the large industries appeared as the only progressive forces acting as a counterweight to the restorative forces in West German society (Mickler, 2000). Three primary interlinked aims and interests were characteristic of the first post-war generation of industrial sociologists:

The intermediation of social research and empirical foundation with a general theory of industrial capitalist development and working class consciousness.

A methodological approach that overcomes the fragmentation of social reality and reveals the interrelationship between working process and societal context.

The implementation of the results of social research in a process of social change and democratic progress.

The firm in the sense of the physical work environment (Betrieb) had long been the centre of sociological interest in Germany and important sociologists such as Ralf Dahrendorf (1959) and Rainer Maria Lepsius (1960) developed in the 1960s a widely accepted concept of the firm as a ‘social system’ with two dimensions: the system of cooperation; and the system of domination and conflict (Lutz and Schmidt, 1977: 177–84).

The re-emergence of social protest and critical labour studies

The 1960s witnessed the emergence of a new post-war generation and the recovery of sociology as an instrument for critical reflection on social problems. The wave of social protests, strikes and conflicts in the period 1967–73 led to a sort of renaissance of Industrial Sociology and a dense network of research institutes and university departments undertaking industry studies (Lutz and Schmidt, 1977: 218). The recovery of Marxist theory helped to overcome the traditional theoretical deficit of a mere phenomenalist sociology. Important studies on trade unions (Bergmann et al., 1975) and workers’ consciousness (Kern and Schumann, 1970) tried to feed the thesis of a new militancy against capital with empirical findings. Marx’s concept of real subsumption of labour under capital in advanced capitalist production was linked with Max Weber’s concept of bureaucratic rationalization and Joseph Schumpeter’s idea of the self-destruction of capitalism through the substitution of innovative entrepreneurs by large industry administrations.

Against the dominant ideas of a general upgrading or de-skilling, Kern and Schumann (1970) defended the thesis of a polarization between highly qualified work in relation to the implementation of new automation technologies, on the one hand, and the persistence of huge areas of low-quality work on the other hand. Regarding workers’ consciousness, the authors reported an increasing fragmentation of work experiences among different occupational groups which impeded a shared class position.

The studies of Kern and Schumann (1970) and Mickler et al. (1976) showed very different forms of technological rationalization and its impact on work and qualification in different sectors and occupations with parallel trends of upgrading and de-skilling. The interest-driven application of technologies under profit-seeking management and the non-use of the emancipative potentials of new technologies came into view, relieving the neutral instrumental concepts of technology. These studies developed the basic elements for the later debate on ‘The End of Technological Determinism’ (Lutz, 1987). They argued that the development of work is not the automatic result of technological progress, but of the strategies and politics of rationalization. Technical development definitely became a social process.

The neo-Marxist view of the firm as an integral part of the capitalist value production process was contrasted with more traditional sociological views. The firm had to be analysed as a social process instead of a closed system or organization and was conceived as the intermediary institution between the individual capitalist and the societal production and accumulation process (Altmann and Bechtle, 1971; Altmann et al., 1978). This ‘Firm Approach’ tried to overcome the dominant structural deterministic view of the firm as an agency of capital. The firm is more than a realization of value for capital and has some autonomy as a historical and contextualized unit of different strategies with contingent results on the method of work organization and the implementation of technical and organizational innovations. It is the most concrete form of the implementation of capitalist dominance through two transformation strategies. The first consists of the transformation of external context conditions, such as market developments or legal frameworks, into ‘neutral’ framework conditions. The second transformation refers to the development of firm-specific strategies combining technology, work organization and skills. These nuanced approaches and empirical studies explain a critical distance of German industrial sociologists to the Anglo-Saxon ‘Labour Process Debate’ initiated by Harry Braverman’s (1974) thesis on the degradation of work in capitalist societies.

Industrial Sociology since the 1980s: post-Fordist uncertainties

The end of the Fordist class compromise in the 1970s again required a re-orientation of Industrial Sociology. ‘The sudden end of the dream of everlasting prosperity’ (Lutz, 1984) was the context for the pragmatic, theoretically less ambitious reorientation of Industrial Sociology in Germany. The social democratic government fostered a huge research programme on the ‘Humanization of Working Life’ similar to programmes in other countries such as Great Britain (Trist et al., 1997) and Sweden (Quality of Work Life Movement). The neo-Marxist idea of explaining industrial developments out of the logic of capitalist value production was widely abandoned, although a critical perspective on capitalist development remained under the influence of Piore and Sabel’s ‘Second Industrial Divide’ (1984) and the French Regulation School, with many followers among German social and political scientists (Hirsch and Roth, 1986; Mahnkopf, 1988).

Industrial Sociology in Germany entered the post-Fordist period as a largely consolidated discipline, but the changing contextual conditions, a more conservative political climate with increasing criticism towards the welfare state and collective industrial relations, together with the growing theoretical and methodological fragmentation of social sciences, provoked a profound ‘professional uncertainty’ among the German Industrial Sociology community (Braczyk et al., 1982: 18).

The seminal study by Burkhart Lutz (1984) analysed the conditions of post-war prosperous capitalism as an accidental exceptional historical moment in the overall discontinuous and crisis-driven capitalist development. The three decades of Fordist prosperity were the result of the final colonization (Landnahme), in Rosa Luxembourg’s sense, of non-capitalist social spaces and traditional economic spheres by the capitalist commodification of social life. This approach shared a lot of elements with the French Regulation School, which analysed the transition from a Fordist to a post-Fordist regime of accumulation and mode of regulation as a conflict-driven change of economic organization and societal institutions (Lipietz, 1987).

Three primary trends may be identified as shaping Industrial Sociology in Germany in the 1970s and 1980s. First, the influence of the French research group around Marc Maurice (Maurice and Sorge, 2000; Maurice et al., 1986) led to an institutionalist shift focusing on the institutional settings and complementarities in the specific national and sectoral articulations of industrial order. The second trend was more focused on the organization of firms and production, using concepts such as ‘new production concepts’ or ‘lean production’ in the context of a ‘second industrial divide’ (Piore and Sabel, 1984). The third trend referred to the retreat of traditional manufacturing replaced by growing service sectors and activities. German Industrial Sociology anticipated several issues that later dominated the Anglo-Saxon debates on national business systems and the varieties of capitalism. The debate on the ‘Model Germany Inc.’ conceptualized the specific institutional setting of Germany’s socio-economic constellation, underscoring what Hall and Soskice (2001) years later called ‘institutional complementarity’.

The institutionalist turn moved three primary institutional systems into the centre of analysis (Deutschmann, 2002: 143). The system of education and training and of occupations and qualifications structured the internal and external labour markets. The industrial relations system regulated individual and collective bargaining over employment conditions. Finally, the welfare system established security mechanisms against certain labour market risks for the labour force.

The very influential studies of the Sociological Research Institute in Göttingen in the 1980s meant a new shift towards a detailed empirical study of the organization of work and production. Under the label of ‘new production concepts’, the authors tried to identify new general trends in work organization due to the application of new technologies, new skills and hybrid occupational qualifications in manufacturing (Kern and Schumann, 1984a, 1984b) and service industries (Baethge and Oberbeck, 1986). The return of productive intelligence and the re-professionalization of industrial work characterized the new rationalization paradigm.

Baethge and Oberbeck (1986) investigated the impacts of a massive implementation of electronic data processing on administrative occupations. The results showed different trends, with some functions increasingly standardized (Taylorization of mental work), whereas others, particularly marketing and customer-orientated functions, were upgraded with new, interactive communication skills. The authors used a concept developed by their colleagues in Munich (Altmann et al., 1986), ‘systemic rationalization’, which became the dominant rationalization paradigm in German sociology in this period. In contrast to Taylorist rationalization, systemic rationalization focuses on the restructuring of the whole value chain and the combination of multiple potentials for the improvement of productivity and profit. German Industrial Sociology became aware that rationalization had outgrown the frontiers of the firm (Wittke, 1996).

The intention of many industrial sociologists to demonstrate the superiority of the German qualified industrial worker (Facharbeiter) and the German occupational and apprenticeship model, motivated a certain blindness towards the risks and problems of the new management techniques (Köhler, 1998). The ‘management by stress’ reports from workers, unionists and critical empirical researchers (Parker and Slaughter, 1993; Wannöffel, 1991) were long ignored or marginalized. The widespread de-skilling and re-Taylorization trends in the new production concepts threatened the German model of qualified work and high-track quality production.

The advocates of Marxist real subsumption theory came to similar, although more radical, conclusions in their studies on the increasing automation of work, the dominance of the cost-saving time economy, and flexible, market-driven production regimes (Benz-Overhage et al., 1982, 1985). According to these authors, the dominance of the capitalist production system became even more total and universal, and human work even more integrated and subordinated under capitalist value production logic.

The Sociology of Work in the period under scrutiny received two further enriching influences. Sociology recovered the subject and subjectivity as relevant concepts and analytical perspectives after many years of structuralist, functionalist or systemic dominance with subjects widely marginalized (Kleemann and Voβ, 2010). The strong emergence of gender as a fundamental category in social research also entered Industrial Sociology (Jürgens, 2010) and in 1979 the Section for Gender Studies of the German Sociological Association was founded. Beck-Gernsheim (1980) and Ostner (1978) developed the concept of a specific, socially determined ‘female labour force’, whereas Becker-Schmidt (1980, 1982), with her many followers, analysed the two-fold socialization of women as family and salaried workers. Work at home, in the family, and work in factories and offices are interlinked identity-building life experiences that make a claim for a wider concept of work than that found in traditional Industrial Sociology. The so-called ‘Domestic Work Debate’ (Hausarbeitsdebatte; see Beer, 1990) opened the horizon for an extended concept of work and working life for the post-Fordist sociology of work and for the following feminist stream of gendered capitalist society analysis (Aulenbacher, 2012).

German Industrial Sociology since the unification

Since the early 1990s there has been a clear consciousness of some fundamental social transformations in sociological analyses. In Germany, this awareness was even stronger owing to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the unification and the end of the Cold War. The Fordist dream of stable class compromise, social progress, increasing welfare and democratic participation was definitively abandoned.

The deregulation of the financial system and the complementary neoliberal reforms led to the steady erosion of the institutional pillars of the German business model. Banks converted into investment agencies and retired from their industry commitments, there was a decline of cross participation, a new market for corporate control, US accountability standards, management remuneration linked to the stock market, and financial market indicators dominated the business strategies. Such authors as Martens and Bluhm (2007) interpreted financialization as the third wave of the Americanization of European corporate governance after Taylorism (first wave in the interwar period) and the marketing-oriented American management style of the post-war boom period (1950–1970).

Leading German and international scholars entered a debate on the crisis or end of the German production model (Kern and Sabel, 1994; Streeck, 1997). Several general trends in employment and work organization, such as deregulation, precarization, the decline of the trade union and employers’ organization membership and collective bargaining, regime shopping, etc., were reinforced in the process of the unification of two completely different social and economic systems. The new eastern federal states had no tradition of free association, collective bargaining or democratic participation and suffered from economic underdevelopment, loss of population and problems of regime transformation.

German Industrial Sociology thus entered a new challenge with new technological and organizational systems and networks but very old normative and research questions: How to control technological innovation in a way that combines economic and social progress and allows the German industry to maintain its competitive advantages while employing highly skilled and participative workforces? Since 2007, the German Confederation of Trade Unions DGB organizes a yearly survey on the quality of work and elaborated a synthetic index on ‘good work’. This campaign refers explicitly to the humanization movement in the 1970s (mentioned above; see also Sauer, 2011), although content and context differ a lot. The social consensus and reform orientation of the 1970s have been removed by the neoliberal hegemony and the concept of decent or ‘good work’ is broader and more individualistic, going beyond the working conditions and including work–life balance and social services issues.

Among German industrial sociologists remain important voices that claim the ongoing change in capitalist industrial society and the industrialization of immaterial production processes as the main contents of the current socioeconomic transformation (Hack and Hack, 2005). Software, culture and communication industries do not lose their industrial capitalist character, even when working in abstract and global systemic networks integrating scientific and productive activities.

Inspired by current gender studies, a new dimension of work as subjectivating action (Böhle, 2013; Lohr, 2013) was developed that distinguishes between objectivating social action, based on rational planning and decision making, and subjectivating social action, based on practical dialogue, sensorial perception and environmental interaction. Practical experience beyond rational analysis acquires ever more relevance for the analysis of work in the context of the new systemic, all-encompassing rationalization strategies and new types of workforce such as the ‘labour force entrepreneur’ or ‘entreployee’ (Voβ and Pongratz, 1998).

Under the label of ‘integrated production systems’ and in the context of the ‘Industry 4.0’ programme, implemented by the German Government in 2012, the current debate in Germany tries to bundle a wide range of organizational concepts, which seek to integrate productive, logistical and inter-organizational value-chain operations into coherent management and rationalization strategies (Hirsch-Kreinsen, 2013).

After many years of dispersed empirical research in post-Fordist heterogeneity, the worldwide crisis of global capitalism in 2008 and its ongoing consequences provoked a kind of wake-up call among German industrial sociologists. Capitalism ceased to be a faceless abstract context metaphor and became a concrete and conflictive societal form. ‘Bringing capitalism back in!’ was the programmatic title of a conference organized by several leading industrial research institutes in 2009 (Dörre et al., 2012). They attempt to recover the lost connection between workplace analysis and capitalist critique in a situation where the contradictions and damages of the global capitalist system once more become evident. Nies and Sauer (2012) argue in favour of the combination of ‘social critique’ (precariat, social exclusive labour markets, increasing inequality) and alienation critique of the working conditions.

Conclusions

Two principal conclusions emerge from the reconstruction of German Industrial Sociology. The first regards the influence of specific historical and institutional contexts on social theory building and research methods. The second refers to the problems of current critical labour studies and public sociology (Burawoy, 2005; Durant and Stewart, 2014) highlighting the richness of comparative debates and competitive research approaches against the trends towards dominant Anglo-Saxon standardization. German Industrial Sociology successfully resists conversion into a management or business theory.

The trajectory of German Industrial Sociology offers a considerable number of concepts, methods and perspectives that have not lost their interest and usefulness for current social research. The firm as a public constitutional social community, the concept of ‘social rationalization’, the social and micro-political content of technological innovation, integrated production systems and ‘Industry 4.0’ are some of the issues and approaches developed by German Industrial Sociology to cope with the complex world of capitalist production and employment regimes.

The possibility to learn and get inspired by alternative national and cultural research traditions represents an important resource for critical social studies in a globalized academic world under neoliberal hegemony. German industrialism, French statism and British marketism are not only distinct conflicting social realities but also complementary sociological thought traditions.

Half a century ago it was the mission of research on industrial relations and the world of work to teach capitalism how to respect a growing sphere of social rights and flourish nevertheless, as a condition of social stability and political support for democracy. (Streeck, 2008: 19)

In an era of neoliberal globalization, this identity-building mission has been lost and German industrial sociologists lack a common normative ground. Nevertheless, the conceptual and methodological tools for a critical sociological analysis of the world of work, elaborated over the intense seven decades since the Second World War, are worth keeping and further developing.

Footnotes

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Holm-Detlev Köhler is Professor of Sociology at the Department of Sociology, University of Oviedo (Spain) and participant in the Marie Curie programme ‘Changing Employment’. His main research interests include comparative industrial relations, management and innovation in transnational corporations, and local and regional development. Co-author of the main handbook on ‘Sociology of Work and Industrial Relations’ in Spanish (with Antonio Martín Artiles: Manual de la Sociología del Trabajo y de las Relaciones Laborales, Delta Publicaciones, Madrid, 3rd edition 2010), some of his recent publications in English are: ‘They don’t represent us! Opportunities for a Social Movement Unionism Strategy in Spain’, Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 70(2), 2015; ‘Industrial relations in European hypermarkets: Home and host country influences’, European Journal of Employment Relations, 20(3), 2014; and ‘Transformations in Spanish trade union membership’, Industrial Relations Journal, 43(3), 2012.

References

Adorno

Dirks

(eds) (1955) Betriebsklima. Eine industriesoziologische Untersuchung aus dem Ruhrgebiet. Frankfurt am Main: EVA.

Altmann

Bechtle

(1971) Betriebliche Herrschaftsstruktur und industrielle Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main; New York: Campus.

Altmann

Bechtle

Lutz

(1978) Betrieb – Arbeit – Technik. Elemente einer soziologischen Analytik technisch-organisatorischer Veränderungen. Frankfurt am Main; New York: Campus.

Altmann

Deiβ

Döhl

Sauer

(1986) Ein ‘Neuer Rationalisierungstyp’– neue Anforderungen an die Industriesoziologie. Soziale Welt 37: 189–207.

Aulenbacher

(2012) Gegenläufige Blicke auf Kapitalismus und Arbeit – Feministische Kapitalismusanalysen im Verhältnis zu Kapitalismustheorie und Arbeitssoziologie. In: Dörre

Sauer

Wittke

(eds) Kapitalismustheorie und Arbeit. Frankfurt am Main; New York: Campus, 113–26.

Baethge

Oberbeck

(1986) Die Zukunft der Angestellten. Neue Technologien und berufliche Perspektiven in Büro und Verwaltung. Frankfurt am Main; New York: Campus.

Baethge-Kinsky

Birke

Bluhm

Mayer-Ahuya

Wittemann

(2014) Alte Konturen – Neue Arbeitswelt? SOFI Mitteilungen 8(21): 2–8.

Becker-Schmidt

(1980) Widersprüchliche Realität und Ambivalenz. Arbeitserfahrungen von Frauen in Fabrik unnd Familie. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 32(4): 705–25.

Becker-Schmidt

(1982) Lebenserfahrung und Fabrikarbeit: Psychosoziale Bedeutungs-dimensionen industrieller Tätigkeit. In: Schmidt

Braczyk

Knesebeck

(eds) Materialien zur Industriesoziologie. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie SH 24: 297–311.

10.

Beck-Gernsheim

(1980) Das halbierte Leben. Männerwelt Beruf – Frauenwelt Familie. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.

11.

Beer

(1990) Geschlecht, Struktur, Geschichte. Soziale Konstituierung des Geschlechterver-hältnisses. Frankfurt am Main; New York: Campus.

12.

Benz-Overhage

Brandt

Papadimitriou

(1982) Computertechnologien im industriellen Arbeitsprozeβ. In: Schmidt

Braczyk

Knesebeck

(eds) Materialien zur Industriesoziologie. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie SH 24: 84–104.

13.

Benz-Overhage

Brumlop

von Freyberg

(1985) Neue Technologien und alternative Arbeitsgestaltung. Auswirkungen des Computereinsatzes in der industriellen Produktion. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

14.

Bergmann

Jacobi

Müller-Jentsch

(1975) Gewerkschaften in der Bundesrepublik. Frankfurt am Main; Köln: EVA.

15.

Böhle

(2013) Subjektivierendes Arbeitshandeln. In: Hirsch-Kreinsen

Minssen

(eds) Lexikon der Arbeits- und Industriesoziologie. Berlin: Edition Sigma, 425–30.

16.

Braczyk

Knesebeck

Schmidt

(1982) Nach einer Renaissance. Zur gegenwärtigen Situation von Industriesoziologie in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In: Schmidt

Braczyk

Knesebeck

(eds) Materialien zur Industriesoziologie. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie SH 24: 16–55.

17.

Braverman

(1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York; London: Monthly Review Press.

18.

Burawoy

(2005) 2004 American Sociological Association presidential address: for public sociology. British Journal of Sociology 56(2): 259–94.

19.

Dahrendorf

(1959) Sozialstruktur des Betriebes – Betriebssoziologie. Wiesbaden: Gabler.

20.

Deutschmann

(2002) Postindustrielle Industriesoziologie. Weinheim; München: Juventa.

21.

Dörre

Sauer

Wittke

(eds) (2012) Kapitalismustheorie und Arbeit. Frankfurt am Main; New York: Campus.

22.

Durant

Stewart

(2014) The birth of French labour sociology after the war: some reflections on the nature of the corporate state and intellectual engagement for the sociology of work in the UK today. Work, Employment and Society 28(6): 1003–15.

23.

Frege

(2008) The history of industrial relations as a field of study. In: Blyton

Bacon

Fiorito

Heery

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Industrial Relations. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 35–50.

24.

Hack

(2005) Wissen, Macht und Organisation. Berlin: Sigma.

25.

Hall

Soskice

(2001) Varieties of Capitalism. The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

26.

Hirsch

Roth

(1986) Das neue Gesicht des Kapitalismus. Hamburg: VSA.

27.

Hirsch-Kreinsen

(2013) Wandel von Industriearbeit. Herausforderungen und Folgen neuer Produktionssysteme in der Industrie. Soziologisches Arbeitspapier Nr. 32. Dortmund: Lehrstuhl Wirtschafts- und Industriesoziologie, TU Dortmund.

28.

Jürgens

(2010) Arbeit und Leben. In: Böhle

Voβ

Wachtler

(eds) Handbuch Arbeitssoziologie. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 483–510.

29.

Kern

Sabel

(1994) Verblaβte Tugenden – Zur Krise des deutschen Produktionsmodells. In: Beckenbach

Treeck

(eds) Umbrüche gesellschaftlicher Arbeit. Soziale Welt SB 9: 605–24.

30.

Kern

Schumann

(1970) Industriearbeit und Arbeiterbewußtsein. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

31.

Kern

Schumann

(1984a) Das Ende der Arbeitsteilung: Rationalisierung in der industriellen Produktion. München: Beck.

32.

Kern

Schumann

(1984b) Neue Produktionskonzepte haben Chancen. Soziale Welt 35(1–2): 146–58.

33.

Kleemann

Voβ

(2010) Arbeit und Subjekt. In: Böhle

Voβ

Wachtler

(eds) Handbuch Arbeitssoziologie. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 415–50.

34.

Köhler

(1998) Der Betrieb, die Sozialwissenschaft und die deutsche Linke. In: Goerg

Roth

(eds) Kein Staat zu machen. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot, 404–26.

35.

Lepsius

(1960) Strukturen und Wandel im Industriebetrieb. München: Carl Hanser Verlag.

36.

Lipietz

(1987) Mirages and Miracles. London: Verso.

37.

Lohr

(2013) Subjektivierung von Arbeit. In: Hirsch-Kreinsen

Minssen

(eds) Lexikon der Arbeits- und Industriesoziologie. Berlin: Edition Sigma, 430–7.

38.

Lutz

(1952) Industriesoziologische Untersuchungen des Wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Instituts der Gewerkschaften. WWI-Mitteilungen 5(3): 58–63.

39.

Lutz

(1984) Der kurze Traum immerwährender Prosperität. Frankfurt am Main; New York: Campus.

40.

Lutz

(1987) Das Ende des Technikdeterminismus und die Folgen. In: Lutz

(ed.) Technik und Sozialer Wandel. Frankfurt am Main; New York: Campus, 34–52.

41.

Lutz

Schmidt

(1977) Industriesoziologie. In: Daheim

Lutz

Schmidt

(eds) Beruf, Industrie, sozialer Wandel in unterentwickelten Ländern. Stuttgart: Enke, 101–262.

42.

Mahnkopf

(ed.) (1988) Der gewendete Kapitalismus. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.

43.

Martens

Bluhm

(2007) ‘Shareholder Value’ ohne Aktionäre? Diffusion und mögliche Folgen wertorientierter Unternehmenssteuerung im industriellen Mittelstand (Working Paper). Jena: University of Jena.

44.

Maurice

Sorge

(2000) Embedding Organizations. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing.

45.

Maurice

Sellier

Silvestre

(1986) The Social Foundations of Industrial Power. Cambridge; London: MIT Press.

46.

Mayo

(1975[1945]) The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

47.

Mickler

(2000) La sociología del trabajo en Alemania Occidental. Sociología del Trabajo 39: 135–52.

48.

Mickler

Dittrich

Neumann

(1976) Technik, Arbeitsorganisation und Arbeit. Eine Untersuchung in der automatisierten Produktion. Frankfurt am Main; New York: Campus.

49.

Nies

Sauer

(2012) Arbeit – mehr als Beschäftigung? In: Dörre

Sauer

Wittke

(eds) Kapitalismustheorie und Arbeit. Frankfurt am Main; New York: Campus, 34–62.

50.

Ostner

(1978) Beruf und Hausarbeit. Die Arbeit der Frau in unserer Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main; New York: Campus.

51.

Parker

Slaughter

(1993) Management-by-Stress: Die dunkle Seite des Teamkonzepts. In: Lüthje

Scherrer

(eds) Jenseits des Sozialpakts. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot, 50–64.

52.

Piore

Sabel

(1984) The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. New York: Basic Books.

53.

Pirker

Braun

Lutz

Hammelrath

(1955) Arbeiter, Management, Mitbestimmung. Stuttgart; Düsseldorf: Ring.

54.

Popitz

Bahrdt

Jüres

Kesting

(1957a) Technik und Industriearbeit. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

55.

Popitz

Bahrdt

Jüres

Kesting

(1957b) Das Gesellschaftsbild des Arbeiters. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

56.

Roethlisberger

Dickson

(1956[1939]) Management and the Worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

57.

Sauer

(2011) Von der ‘Humanisierung der Arbeit’ zur ‘Guten Arbeit’. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 15: 18–24.

58.

Schmidt

(1980) Zur Geschichte der Industriesoziologie in Deutschland. Soziale Welt 31: 257–78.

59.

Schumann

(2013) Das Jahrhundert der Industriearbeit: Soziologische Erkenntnisse und Ausblicke. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.

60.

Streeck

(1997) German capitalism. Does it exist? Can it survive? New Political Economy 2: 237–56.

61.

Streeck

(2008) Industrial relations today: reining in flexibility. MPIfG Working Paper 08/3. Köln: Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung.

62.

Trist

(ed.) (1997) The Social Engagement of Social Science: A Tavistock Anthology, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Available at: http://moderntimesworkplace.com/archives/archives.html (accessed 10 October 2015).

63.

Voβ

Pongratz

(1998) Der Arbeitskraftunternehmer. Eine neue Grundform der Ware Arbeitskraft? Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 50(1): 131–58.

64.

Wannöffel

(1991) Sachzwang Japan. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.

65.

Wiggershaus

(1988) Die Frankfurter Schule. München: DTV.

66.

Wittke

(1996) Wie entstand industrielle Massenproduktion? Berlin: Sigma.