ILPC 2026

View Abstract

Author: Michael Moran

Engaging with the Labour Process – Comparing front-line hospitality in two market economies

Traditional Labour Process (LP) Theory (Braverman 1974) is often criticised for its rigid view of the employee relations process. However, micro processes of LP perspective combined with the macro comparative capitalism models such as Varieties of Capitalism (VoC) (Hall and Soskice 2001) can provide a powerful insight. This is particularly evident with regard to the second wave of the LP (Burawoy 1979, Edwards 1979, Friedman 1977) which proposed softer controls and ‘responsible autonomy’.

The Need for Engagement and Employee Retention

Globally the front-line hospitality is perceived as precarious and an extreme example of the movement of control from employee to employer. This ranges from, the deskilling from technology (e.g. Point of Sale systems) reducing front-line employees to degrading terms such as ‘runners’, to the widespread use of cameras to monitor employees. Emotionally, the LP involves acting and emotion regulation and these are viewed as extremely fatiguing activities for  employees  (Beal et al. 2013, Hochschild 1983). High-end organisations require considerable ‘flexibility’ along with ‘efficiency’ (Leibenstein 1966). This can be compared to the more ‘scripted responses’ of ‘fast food’ (Lashley 1998). The transient nature of the hospitality industry with high turnover results in strains such as supervision duties, knowledge loss and moral implications for career focused employees (Iverson and Deery 1997).  Erosion of identity from both the public ‘low skill profession’ perception of and the ‘non-standard work times’ add further to this worker alienation. Engagement, which has been described as the antithesis of alienation, promotes meaningfulness in ones work and can be characterised by vigour, dedication and absorption (Kahn 1990, Schaufeli et al. 2002).

Voice and Vocational Training

This paper contributes to theory in that it uses the LP processes of ‘deskilling’ and ‘responsible autonomy’ as a micro employment relationship lens for the VoC dimensions. From VoC’s five spheres (Employee relations and Industrial relations, Vocational training and education, Corporate governance, Inter-firm relations), LP focuses on three. These are examined as Voice (Employee relations and Industrial relations) and Vocational Training and Education with regard to two organisational outcomes; proximal (i.e. Engagement) and distal (i.e. Employee retention).  A suitable example of both a Liberal Market Economy (LME) and a Coordinated Market Economy (CME) were selected to ensure extremes in each dimension. Ireland, despite attempts at wage agreements is a typical LME (Regan 2012) with high levels of ‘general education’ and an ‘over-educated’ workforce in many areas. Sweden, with its school system-embedded ‘specific’ training and high levels of collective voice, is a typical CME (Gonzalez and Almond 2012).

The methodology involved questionnaires targeting front-line employees in ‘high-end’ establishments in both Sweden and Ireland across the industry sectors of restaurant, hotel, bar and café. This ‘high-end’ sample was determined from rankings such as 4 and 5 star hotels and guides such as Michelin and White Guide. The surveys measured work engagement (Schaufeli et al. 2002), voice mechanisms (Brewster et al. 2007) training, education and perceived skill match. In addition to this, retention was established from recording the previous year’s turnover as a function of the organisational size.

References

 Beal, D. J., Trougakos, J. P., Weiss, H. M. and Dalal, R. S. (2013) Affect spin and the emotion regulation process at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(4), pp. 593-605.

 Braverman, H. (1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital, New York. Monthly review

 Brewster, C., Croucher, R., Wood, G. and Brookes, M. (2007) Collective and individual voice: convergence in Europe? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(7), pp. 1246-1262.

Burawoy, M. (1979) Manufacturing consent: Changes in the labor process under monopoly capitalism, University of Chicago Press.

Edwards, R. (1979) Contested terrain: The transformation of the workplace in the twentieth century, Basic Books.

Friedman, A. L. (1977) Industry and labour: class struggle at work and monopoly capitalism, Macmillan London.

Gonzalez, M. C. and Almond, P. (2012) Flexible work practices. in  Handbook of Research on Comparative Human Resource Management. pp. 322.

Hall, P. A. and Soskice, D. (2001) Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage, Oxford University Press.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983) The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling, University of California Press.

Iverson, R. D. and Deery, M. (1997) Turnover culture in the hospitality industry. Human Resource Management Journal, 7(4), pp. 71-82.

Kahn, W. A. (1990) Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work. The Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), pp. 692-724.

Lashley, C. (1998) Matching the management of human resources to service operations. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10(1), pp. 24-33.

Leibenstein, H. (1966) Allocative efficiency vs." X-efficiency". The American Economic Review, pp. 392-415.

Regan, A. (2012) The political economy of social pacts in the EMU: Irish liberal market corporatism in crisis. New Political Economy, 17(4), pp. 465-491.

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V. and Bakker, A. B. (2002) The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness studies, 3(1), pp. 71-92.