Abstract
The Future of Work Environments looks back before it looks forward, devoting its first half to a history of post-war European employment and using the problems of the past to underpin arguments for a better future. Eichhorst argues this from the perspective of institutions (policy), management, and individuals, addressing what he argues is a shortcoming of the current debates that tend to look at these layers in isolation. Throughout the book is a geological-inspired exploration, laying the ground for his dams, polders, and dykes (the infrastructure through which policy directs practice) guiding the workplace(s) of the future.
The early chapters describe three phases of working environments in Europe. The Golden Age reflects the era of standard and stable employment and strong unions, where much work involved full employment and loyality to an employer, with few at the periphery. Management structures were exemplified by bureaucracies, which he describes as an “unpleasant phenomenon” [23] that he links to routine work and compares to feudal power; workers were “safely trapped” in the Ancien Regime. The Great Flexibilisation reflects the growth in globalization and the decline in traditional employment, leading to an increase in workforce flexibility through a more flexible core and a growing (more expendable) periphery. This is explored in the context of an expanding welfare state and the relative (in)security between core and periphery. In an effort to produce jobs, quality was sacrificed, and the periphery grew, as did the need for state compensation. This was also the era of management by measurement, affording a little more autonomy in practice, if not less intensity. The Fluid Era explores the growing fluidity of work and new, often digitially-aided, developments, such as the platform economy, measurement by algorithm, and hybrid working. The growth in agile team working and self-responsibility further enables autonomy (for some), but one geared to extract productivity; a humane façade for a new control. Throughout, Eichhorst sets the ground for rethinking autonomy and seeking equality.
Looking forward, Eichhorst argues that adaptability, rather than protectionism, is the response to change (although social protection remains important). He concludes that digital technology will require adaptation, not reduction in labour; we need a highly-skilled and adaptable workforce benefiting both the organization and the individual (and society) – achieving labour protection through resilience. This necessitates a policy framework that supports equitable skill development, while not creating the conditions for benefit reliance or disincentivizing skill development and entrepreneurialism that facilitates choice and autonomy.
There is a political thread throughout that contrasts power-dominated (or vertical) capitalism with a horizontal “humane capitalism”. Eichhorst argues that a sharing of power leads to better, more humane, and socially equitable outcomes. He explores this through human, management, economic, and political capital, considering the relative power in each and how this can be better distributed. Earlier threads (e.g., less hierarchy, more autonomy) ground a strategy in collaboration for mutual benefit. This strategy requires policy to enable the relevant requirements (e.g., workforce participation), support (e.g., minimum income), and training (e.g., a skills – or ‘individual choice’ account). It requires a shift in management practice to engage with participation and distributed ownership – sharing information, loyalty, and outcomes. The notion of the craft-based workshop is used to envisage the collaboration of skilled, autonomous, and engaged workers in meaningful work. Eichhorst grounds workforce flexibility in security and equality, starting from the position of social benefit (rather than management, as per history), arguing how this benefits all in an era of co-production and understanding. Beyond the scope of this review, it should also be noted that fair reward and the boundary between work and non-work is also addressed. Although not explicitly gendered, the flexibility and control of work boundaries (choice) may have other equality benefits.
As Eichhorst acknowledges, there are long passages that are unreferenced, which he assures us are underpinned by extensive research. This is not a book without references. There are points that have multiple references, following passages without any; however, the contrast is noticeable and where sources might be of interest – to question the assertion or to learn more – readers may be frustrated. Eichhorst also avoids the risks associated with giving real-world examples of organizational practices exemplifying his favoured working habitats. Although understandable, it consequently lacks concrete insight into how these practices might be made manifest beyond the assertion that ‘there are examples’.
The book strikes a utopian note and it can be difficult to imagine its realization, particularly as Eichhorst notes that models that work well in one context may not translate well to another. But such challenges do not negate the need for rethinking the future of work in its full complexity.
