ILPC 2027

Professional work is less likely to be susceptible to direct systems of control and supervision (Causer and Jones, 1996), nevertheless in the restructured organisation the specialist middle managers are subject to a combination of control practices. Such circumstances support a key proposition of the labour process theory, concerning the coexistence of workplace multiple forms of control (Thompson and Harley, 2010; Thompson and van den Broek, 2010).

This paper explores how various forms of control, namely: professional (a composite of self-control, discipline, duty, together with parameters established by regulatory bodies, as well as normative dimension (values, norms and standards)), bureaucratic and work intensification (i) function to reduce the indeterminacy gap between the middle managers’ potential input and actual output; (ii) how these managers deal with these types of control; and (iii) how these forms of control are interlinked.

Professional control with its normative aspect arises from the middle managers’ expert role, while bureaucratic rationalisation and work intensification are imposed from above, given that these managers are subordinated to an organisational hierarchy. Therefore, these forms of control give rise to different tensions because in distinct ways they strive to extract labour from the middle managers’ labour power, that is, their professional expertise (a combination of knowledge, skills, experience, dexterity and tact).

Professional control does put stress, anxiety and tension on the middle managers, but basically these managers have an interest to preserve the role they perform on the basis of their professional expertise, under professional control. An increase in professional control means a growth in their operational autonomy and technical discretion, a leading role in the labour process and the decreased likelihood of their role being devalued. Additionally, the normative dimension supports such a state of affairs. The more these managers strive to follow top-level standards and aim for a high-level reputation, the more they are protected against devaluation of their role.

Contrastingly, the formalisation and standardisation of work practices and processes, increased reporting, together with restrictions to comply with formally established standards, directly contradict the extent, creativity and flexibility required from the middle managers to perform their role. Therefore, an increase in bureaucratic control and work intensification leads to a reduction in their autonomy. In these circumstances, while the middle managers, on grounds of their professional expertise do not feel uneasy to at times bend rules as they deemed suitable, on other occasions they use aspects of bureaucratic control and work intensification either to mitigate personal responsibilities in case of mishaps, or to defend their decisions, and/or to express their efforts and abilities.

For this study 28 managers were interviewed (of which 22 were middle managers) employed in a large Maltese public sector organisation that is undergoing restructuring due to neo-liberal policies. The middle managers are recruited on the basis of their qualification in an area of specialisation. They do not get promoted through rank-and-file, thus their appointment marks the start rather than the end of their career.