Although some associate Marx with failed communist revolutions, early Marxist writings described industrial factory workers and can provide an insightful—albeit highly pessimistic—view of work in a capitalist structure. Our aim with this commentary is to connect one theoretical orientation presented in Mumby’s (Reference Mumby2019) conceptual overview to phenomena that organizational scholars regularly study. Focusing on worker control and reactance, we provide possible Marxist interpretations of counterproductive work behaviors and modern careers.
A Marxist view of capitalism, power, and worker control
In their writings about capitalism and industrial workers, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels described two classes of people: the bourgeoisie who owned the means of production (i.e., factories, raw materials) and the proletariat working class. The working class had very little power, control, and autonomy over their work. This is most evident in the choice, or lack thereof, to work. With no direct means of supporting themselves, proletarian workers were “reduced to selling their labour-power in order to live” (Marx & Engels, 1888/Reference Marx, Engels and Tucker1978, p. 473). A worker may enter into a contract with a capitalist seemingly of his own volition but would soon find “he was no ‘free agent,’” and was compelled to keep working “so long as there [was] a muscle, a nerve, a drop of blood to be exploited” (Marx, 1887/Reference Marx2015, p. 195).
Marx and Engels described the dehumanizing and alienating effect of capitalism on workers. The capitalists dictated the duration of the work day, pay rates, and working conditions. Moreover, workers became alienated from their outputs, playing a rote, menial role in production, resulting in finished products with which the worker had little connection. In this system, workers were not valued as individuals but instead were interchangeable commodities, “nothing more than personified labour-time” (Marx, 1887/Reference Marx2015, p. 168).
An inherent desire to resist
Embedded in this perspective of capitalism is reactivity and resentment on the part of workers. Engels stated that resistance to working conditions under capitalism began alongside industrial development—one proceeding immediately and rationally from the other. Workers would naturally “strive to escape from this brutalizing condition,” trying to “secure for themselves a better, more human position” (Engels, 1969/Reference Engels1998, p. 150). Workers struggled against what exploited them: the instruments of production, the machinery, and the factories.
It is this instinctive desire to revolt against an oppressive system that may be quite useful in describing organizational behaviors. To put this into psychological terms, people often experience a negative emotional state of reactance when freedom or autonomy are threatened. This psychological feeling can result in resistant behaviors that attempt to reassert one’s sense of freedom or can provoke aggressive responses toward the source of the control (Brehm, Reference Brehm1966).
Continuing resistance
Although the evolution of workers under capitalism did not progress as described by Marx, the sense of unrest and reactance arguably remains. Worsley (Reference Worsley2002, p. 99) stated that capitalism “remains vulnerable” to revolution, as “resentment of the rich, and massive gaps in consumption, provide a permanent breeding-ground for discontent.” Discontent is evident in social movements such as Occupy Wall Street, wherein what could be described as the proletariat class calling itself the 99% rallied against a growing class of wealthy bourgeoisie dubbed the 1%.
The Marxist view of workers, particularly the instinctive reactance described above, can be applied to a range of phenomena observed by organizational scholars. We focus on counterproductive work behaviors and modern careers, but this paradigm could apply to other individual- and group-level behaviors as well (e.g., sabotage, unionization).
Example 1: Counterproductive work behaviors
Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) run counter to the goals of an organization, with examples including failing to follow instructions, damaging workplace property, theft, and destructive interpersonal behaviors. CWBs can be described as negative emotion-laden reactions to work-related stimuli (Fox, Spector, & Miles, Reference Fox, Spector and Miles2001). A Marxist view may hold that CWBs result from the natural reactance and resistance of workers toward the conditions of a capitalist system. Tentative support for this comes from evidence that CWBs occur in reaction to organizational constraints, injustice, and a lack of autonomy (Berry, Carpenter, & Barratt, Reference Berry, Carpenter and Barratt2012; Dalal, Reference Dalal2005; Fox et al., Reference Fox, Spector and Miles2001). Of course, these variables target perceptions of workers’ current organizations rather than perceptions of the social system of capitalism. Future theorizing or research could expand this line of inquiry, determining if a broader discontentment with work, embodying the feelings described by Marxist theory, may explain additional variability in CWB occurrence. A related avenue would be to examine whether particular workers are especially sensitive to this form of discontent.
Example 2: Modern careers
Modern career behaviors represent a move away from traditional long-term, full-time, 9-to-5 employment and toward alternatives like shorter term jobs, independent contracting, gig work, and side hustles. Modern careers are often described using positive terms like enhanced meaning and growth (Wrzesniewski, LoBulgio, Dutton, & Berg, Reference Wrzesniewski, LoBulgio, Dutton and Berg2013) or resilience (Lyons, Schweitzer, & Ng, Reference Lyons, Schweitzer and Ng2015). A Marxist perspective, in contrast, could suggest that some workers are reactively escaping the constraints of traditional employment. For example, boundaryless careers (Arthur & Rousseau, Reference Arthur and Rousseau1996) can be viewed as an attempt to avoid the constraints of being confined to a single organization. Indeed, some people exhibit a persistent organizational withdrawal driven by a negative reactivity to work (Lake, Highhouse, & Shrift, Reference Lake, Highhouse and Shrift2018). Again, researchers tend to study variables (e.g., withdrawal) targeting one’s current organization rather than the broader social system of capitalism. Future theorizing or research could determine if a broader work withdrawal variable or desire for freedom can explain shifts away from traditional employment.
Marxist theory also posits that employers will lower worker wages when possible to maximize capital. The rise of alternative forms of employment, then, may be understood not as active entrepreneurship but as a necessary patchwork of employment required for basic subsistence. Researchers may wish to examine variables like real wages or cost of living in relation to modern career behaviors to better understand this possibility.
Conclusion
Our goal with this commentary is not to call for a proletarian revolt or to describe the act of work in purely derogatory terms. Obviously work can be very fulfilling and satisfying for many people. Our goal, instead, is to follow Mumby’s (Reference Mumby2019) lead by helping organizational scholars to put some organizational and occupational phenomena in a broader social context that is rarely considered. Doing so may result in greater understanding of many work-related behaviors.
You have
Access
Although some associate Marx with failed communist revolutions, early Marxist writings described industrial factory workers and can provide an insightful—albeit highly pessimistic—view of work in a capitalist structure. Our aim with this commentary is to connect one theoretical orientation presented in Mumby’s (Reference Mumby2019) conceptual overview to phenomena that organizational scholars regularly study. Focusing on worker control and reactance, we provide possible Marxist interpretations of counterproductive work behaviors and modern careers.
A Marxist view of capitalism, power, and worker control
In their writings about capitalism and industrial workers, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels described two classes of people: the bourgeoisie who owned the means of production (i.e., factories, raw materials) and the proletariat working class. The working class had very little power, control, and autonomy over their work. This is most evident in the choice, or lack thereof, to work. With no direct means of supporting themselves, proletarian workers were “reduced to selling their labour-power in order to live” (Marx & Engels, 1888/Reference Marx, Engels and Tucker1978, p. 473). A worker may enter into a contract with a capitalist seemingly of his own volition but would soon find “he was no ‘free agent,’” and was compelled to keep working “so long as there [was] a muscle, a nerve, a drop of blood to be exploited” (Marx, 1887/Reference Marx2015, p. 195).
Marx and Engels described the dehumanizing and alienating effect of capitalism on workers. The capitalists dictated the duration of the work day, pay rates, and working conditions. Moreover, workers became alienated from their outputs, playing a rote, menial role in production, resulting in finished products with which the worker had little connection. In this system, workers were not valued as individuals but instead were interchangeable commodities, “nothing more than personified labour-time” (Marx, 1887/Reference Marx2015, p. 168).
An inherent desire to resist
Embedded in this perspective of capitalism is reactivity and resentment on the part of workers. Engels stated that resistance to working conditions under capitalism began alongside industrial development—one proceeding immediately and rationally from the other. Workers would naturally “strive to escape from this brutalizing condition,” trying to “secure for themselves a better, more human position” (Engels, 1969/Reference Engels1998, p. 150). Workers struggled against what exploited them: the instruments of production, the machinery, and the factories.
It is this instinctive desire to revolt against an oppressive system that may be quite useful in describing organizational behaviors. To put this into psychological terms, people often experience a negative emotional state of reactance when freedom or autonomy are threatened. This psychological feeling can result in resistant behaviors that attempt to reassert one’s sense of freedom or can provoke aggressive responses toward the source of the control (Brehm, Reference Brehm1966).
Continuing resistance
Although the evolution of workers under capitalism did not progress as described by Marx, the sense of unrest and reactance arguably remains. Worsley (Reference Worsley2002, p. 99) stated that capitalism “remains vulnerable” to revolution, as “resentment of the rich, and massive gaps in consumption, provide a permanent breeding-ground for discontent.” Discontent is evident in social movements such as Occupy Wall Street, wherein what could be described as the proletariat class calling itself the 99% rallied against a growing class of wealthy bourgeoisie dubbed the 1%.
The Marxist view of workers, particularly the instinctive reactance described above, can be applied to a range of phenomena observed by organizational scholars. We focus on counterproductive work behaviors and modern careers, but this paradigm could apply to other individual- and group-level behaviors as well (e.g., sabotage, unionization).
Example 1: Counterproductive work behaviors
Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) run counter to the goals of an organization, with examples including failing to follow instructions, damaging workplace property, theft, and destructive interpersonal behaviors. CWBs can be described as negative emotion-laden reactions to work-related stimuli (Fox, Spector, & Miles, Reference Fox, Spector and Miles2001). A Marxist view may hold that CWBs result from the natural reactance and resistance of workers toward the conditions of a capitalist system. Tentative support for this comes from evidence that CWBs occur in reaction to organizational constraints, injustice, and a lack of autonomy (Berry, Carpenter, & Barratt, Reference Berry, Carpenter and Barratt2012; Dalal, Reference Dalal2005; Fox et al., Reference Fox, Spector and Miles2001). Of course, these variables target perceptions of workers’ current organizations rather than perceptions of the social system of capitalism. Future theorizing or research could expand this line of inquiry, determining if a broader discontentment with work, embodying the feelings described by Marxist theory, may explain additional variability in CWB occurrence. A related avenue would be to examine whether particular workers are especially sensitive to this form of discontent.
Example 2: Modern careers
Modern career behaviors represent a move away from traditional long-term, full-time, 9-to-5 employment and toward alternatives like shorter term jobs, independent contracting, gig work, and side hustles. Modern careers are often described using positive terms like enhanced meaning and growth (Wrzesniewski, LoBulgio, Dutton, & Berg, Reference Wrzesniewski, LoBulgio, Dutton and Berg2013) or resilience (Lyons, Schweitzer, & Ng, Reference Lyons, Schweitzer and Ng2015). A Marxist perspective, in contrast, could suggest that some workers are reactively escaping the constraints of traditional employment. For example, boundaryless careers (Arthur & Rousseau, Reference Arthur and Rousseau1996) can be viewed as an attempt to avoid the constraints of being confined to a single organization. Indeed, some people exhibit a persistent organizational withdrawal driven by a negative reactivity to work (Lake, Highhouse, & Shrift, Reference Lake, Highhouse and Shrift2018). Again, researchers tend to study variables (e.g., withdrawal) targeting one’s current organization rather than the broader social system of capitalism. Future theorizing or research could determine if a broader work withdrawal variable or desire for freedom can explain shifts away from traditional employment.
Marxist theory also posits that employers will lower worker wages when possible to maximize capital. The rise of alternative forms of employment, then, may be understood not as active entrepreneurship but as a necessary patchwork of employment required for basic subsistence. Researchers may wish to examine variables like real wages or cost of living in relation to modern career behaviors to better understand this possibility.
Conclusion
Our goal with this commentary is not to call for a proletarian revolt or to describe the act of work in purely derogatory terms. Obviously work can be very fulfilling and satisfying for many people. Our goal, instead, is to follow Mumby’s (Reference Mumby2019) lead by helping organizational scholars to put some organizational and occupational phenomena in a broader social context that is rarely considered. Doing so may result in greater understanding of many work-related behaviors.