In Part 2, we continue exploring the case study of NASA in the 1960s. Having discussed the strategies used by President Kennedy to inspire NASA’s members to the ultimate goal of putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade, it was then up to the members to connect their work activities (many of which had nothing directly to do with spaceflight) to that ultimate goal. To what extent could this be replicated, we asked ourselves? Or was the moon shot so unique that replication is not really possible? Turn in and see what we have to say on the matter.

In this month’s episode, we examine a historical case study about how meaningfulness of work can be shaped by leaders’ actions. One frequently cited example of the solidarity felt among members of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) during the decade-long runup to the Apollo XI moon landing is the often-repeated—but apocryphal—story of a NASA janitor who, when asked by President John F. Kennedy what he was doing, replied, “I’m not just mopping the floors, I’m putting a man on the moon!” This is the title of an article by Andrew Carton, who examined thousands of documents to uncover how President Kennedy and NASA leaders instilled meaningfulness and purpose among workers, allowing them to connect their individual work activities to the overall organizational purpose. The janitor story may be a myth, but the general sentiments were real and this paper based on archival data shows how leaders can be architects of meaningfulness.

Coming soon! We will discuss Drew Carton’s 2018 article “’I’m not mopping the floors, I’m putting a man on the moon’: How NASA leaders enhanced the meaningfulness of work by changing the meaning of work” from Administrative Science Quarterly that delves into the reality behind the myth of the highly motivated NASA janitor during the 1960s.

In Part 2 of the episode on Mark Granovetter's 1985 paper, "Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness," we consider the meaning of embeddedness in contemporary practical situations and the significant body of research that followed forty years later. His framework provides a more nuanced and realistic explanation of economic life, accounting for both the guiding influence of social contexts and the capacity of individuals to act independently when necessary.

In this month’s episode, we discuss Mark Granovetter's 1985 paper, Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. Granovetter's work provided a middle ground between two overly simplistic perspectives presented respectively by economists and sociologists-- the undersocialized view that treated individuals as isolated, purely rational agents and the oversocialized perspective that viewed individuals as enmeshed in social norms and lacking personal agency. Embeddedness allows social ties, trust, and networks to mediate economic transactions—reducing uncertainties, lowering transaction costs, and facilitating cooperation.

Coming soon! We will discuss Mark Granovetter's 1985 paper, "Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness." He argued that economic behavior is not the product of isolated rational calculations, nor is it fully determined by social norms. Instead, individuals are embedded in a complex network of relationships that simultaneously provides structure and allows for personal discretion.

In Part 2 of the episode on Harry Braverman’s book Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the 20th Century, we consider the half-century since its publication and how things turned out rather differently from Braverman’s predictions at the end of the book. Algorithmic management, deunionization, globalization, and advances in technology have furthered conditions that Braverman argued against. Why is that, and what does it mean for his original thesis?

In this month’s episode, we discuss Harry Braverman’s book Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the 20th Century. Along with his criticism of how work had been systematically deskilled over time, he was also highly critical of many of the seminal authors and schools of thought that he felt enabled this shift. Among his targets were scientific management under Frederic Taylor, but also the human relations school, the Hawthorne Studies, Joan Woodward, and other seminal authors we have covered in this program. Hmm, what gives? Listen and find out.

Coming soon! We will examine Harry Braverman’s 1974 book Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the 20th Century. It is considered a foundational text on labor relations and the systematic ways that work has been deskilled over time and why. How well have his arguments stood the test of time to the present day?

In Part 2 of our episode on Barley, we conclude the discussion on the relationship that he drew among the institutionalized patterns of behavior in the hospitals, the actions that the radiologists and technologists undertook, and the subsequent changes to those patterns. How can we use these ideas to better understand work and technological change today? Are there other newer lenses with which we can make sense of on-going structuration?