The Organizational and Social Foundations of Worker Resistance

TLDR

Worker resistance research has traditionally split between organizational attributes and shop‑floor social relations, a division shaped by methodological and theoretical preferences. The article argues that organizational features, interpersonal relations, union presence, and collective action history jointly and conditionally shape workers’ resistance strategies, and discusses implications for future research. Analysis of 82 workplace ethnographies using QCA and quantitative methods shows that the influence of organization and union presence on resistance depends on shop‑floor social relations; union presence combined with supervisor conflict heightens collective resistance, while poor organization and lack of collective action history drive individual resistance.

Abstract

The study of worker resistance has tended to focus either on organizational attributes that may alter actors' capacity to respond or on influential shop-floor social relations. This divide, partially driven by analytical and methodological preference, is also a function of different theoretical traditions. In this article, we suggest that organizational attributes and interpersonal relations in the workplace, in concert with union presence and collective action history, may be simultaneously but also conditionally meaningful for workers and their potential resistance strategies. Findings, derived from analyses of unique data on 82 workplace ethnographies and that merge Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) techniques and more conventional quantitative methods, largely support these expectations. Most notably, the impact of workplace organization and even union presence on worker resistance varies depending on social relations on the shop floor. Where there is union presence and significant interpersonal conflict with supervisors, the likelihood of collective resistance in the form of strike action is heightened. This pattern also holds for certain more individualized forms of worker resistance (i.e., social sabotage, work avoidance, and absenteeism). More central to individual resistance, however, are workplace contexts characterized by poor organization and a lack of collective action legacy. We conclude by discussing the implications of our results for future analyses of workplace social relations, workplace structure, and collective and individual resistance-oriented actions.