ABSTRACT

As noted by Barker (1993: 409), ‘control’ has been a central concept in organizational theory for a long time and remains a key issue “that shapes and permeates our experiences of organizational life.” In his seminal study, Edwards (1979) elucidated three types of workplace control that have been implemented to manage workers and their behavior and attitudes: (a) simple control; (b) technical control; and (c) bureaucratic control. These are presented in historical sequence, although remnants of the old control practices coexist with the new. ‘Control’ was defined as the “ability of capitalists and/ or managers to obtain desired work behavior from workers. Such ability exists in greater or lesser degrees, depending upon the relative strength of workers and their bosses” (Edwards, 1979: 17). What is interesting for our purposes is that these models of control are

claimed to commonly result in such experiences as dependency, incapacity, lack of motivation and disengagement that have been seen to have negative effects on people’s health and well-being (Green et al., 2000; Parish, 1995; Koelen and van den Ban, 2004). In contrast to these traditional modes of control, the currently popular ‘concertive’ control strategy that is based on the idea of generating involvement, activity, enthusiasm and commitment among people, is said to empower employees and positively affect their health and well-being (Friedman, 2008a: 2008b; Luthans, 2002; Sonnenstuhl, 1986). In this chapter, we will discuss each model with a view of their alleged consequences for employee health and well-being. This discussion provides the foundation for the main argument of the next chapter, which revolves around the idea that popular worksite health promotion practices among employers can be seen as mechanisms of control, i.e. management.