Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji 2003 1 (27)

LEISURE AT WORK, WHO CAN RESIST?
AN INVESTIGATION INTO WORKPLACE
RESISTANCE BY LEISURE SERVICE
EMPLOYEES
KEITH TOWNSEND*

T

his article compares and contrasts the findings of two case studies examining the
prevalence and manifestations of resistance within the leisure industry. This study
was based on workplace experience over a number of years and supported by thirty-six
semi-structured interviews with employees at all levels of the two organisations studied.
The author predicted that there would be a number of factors contributing to the
employees resisting managerial controls. It was expected that the size of the organisation
would, in part, determine managerial style. Managerial style would, in turn, influence
employee perceptions of what were appropriate behaviours while in the workplace.
However, the employment history and expectations of key managerial staff prove to be
interesting complications in one case. It was found that in one organisation where
middle-management culture was one of resistance to upper-managerial approaches,
so-called deviant behaviours became more covert and damaging.

INTRODUCTION
The field of industrial relations boasts a rich history of literature examining the
day-to-day interactions between employees and employers at the workplace level.
Following World War II industrial sociologists undertook a number of valuable
workplace studies on employee resistance to managerial controls in the workplace (see for examples: Roy 1952; Roy 1954; Lupton 1963; Blauner 1964;
Cunnison 1966). However, such first-hand studies of the employment relationship have slipped from vogue. In the 1970s and 1980s Labour Process scholars,
such as Braverman (1974) and Friedman (1977), offered a rich historical interpretation of workplace management behaviour strategies. However, the school
has largely abandoned the practice of placing the worker at the centre of the
analysis (Thompson & Ackroyd 1995).
This study returns to the traditions of the industrial sociologists and focuses
on the resistance to managerial controls and the informal behaviours of
employees at work. Firstly, this paper will examine theoretical perspectives
with regard to the control/resistance/cooperation framework. Two case study
organisations of differing sizes operating within a leisure industry in Australia
* PhD Candidate, School of Industrial Relations, Griffith University, Nathan Campus, Brisbane,
Queensland 4111. Email: K.Townsend@griffith.edu.au The author would like to acknowledge the
assistance of Associate Professor Bob Russell and Dr Cameron Allan in developing this paper.

THE JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, VOL. 45, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2003, 442–456

LEISURE

AT

WORK, WHO CAN RESIST?

443

will be outlined before this paper considers the manner in which resistance and
workplace behaviours are manifested in each organisation. Finally, this paper
will analyse the motivations behind the behaviours within a control/resistance/
cooperation framework.

THEORETICALLY

RESISTANCE?

Industrial relations scholars within Australia have traditionally focused upon
structural issues such as national labour market policy, trade unions and
employer associations, and the role of the law. When conflict is considered (in

the institutional realm) research is largely concerned with the way conflict is
regulated (Gardner & Palmer 1998). Hence, studies that place the worker at
the centre of analysis are largely absent from Australian industry studies and
the potential for studying resistance is marginalised.
The labour process framework of control/resistance/cooperation gathered
renewed vigour in scholarly debates following the publication of Braverman’s
Labour and Monopoly Capital (1974). Almost thirty years later, debate continues
as to the veracity of Braverman’s work. Certainly, it is widely agreed that labour
process theory does not fully explain the complex dynamics that occur between
actors in the workplace (Willmott 1993; Thompson & Ackroyd 1995; Sewell 1998;
Ackroyd & Thompson 1999). A question remains over the degree to which
employees are willing (and perhaps able) to resist managerial controls in the
workplace (see for examples: Sewell & Wilkinson 1992; Webster & Robins
1993; Knights & McCabe 1998; Sewell 1998; Findlay et al. 2000; Knights &
McCabe 2000; Callaghan & Thompson 2001; Ezzamel et al. 2001)
Managerially focused literature demonstrates a distinct tendency to view
workplace behaviours with rose coloured glasses. Where behaviours do not fit
the mould of being both conformist and positive, they are viewed as deviant. The
expectation is that these behaviours can be, and should be, rectified (Ackroyd &
Thompson 1999). However, Ackroyd and Thompson argue that there is much

more to employee behaviours than labour process theory and organisational
behaviour analyses can explain, a view supported by this research.
The focus of post-World War II industrial sociology was the low-skilled and
semi-skilled, blue-collar worker of mass production manufacturing workshops.
This work largely focused on employees and their experiences from the position
of the employee, and provided a rich tapestry of behaviours that demonstrated
employees resisting managerial controls (see for example: Roy 1952,1954; Lupton
1963; Blauner 1964; Cunnison 1966). Burawoy (1979) successfully returned to
this tradition, while situating his study within a labour process framework.
Burawoy detailed employees actively cooperating to resist managerial controls
and maintain group norms and accepted behaviours. Employees supported
each other to redress the power imbalance in the employment relationship and
perhaps surprisingly there was little mention of union involvement. Employees
used the strength of shopfloor cohesion to resist managerial controls and reduce
the subjective alienation of industry.
Interestingly, Burawoy recognised that not all work practices that varied from
the formal structured rules (henceforth considered informal work practices) would

444

THE JOURNAL

OF

I N D U S T R I A L R E L AT I O N S

December 2003

result in negative consequences for the production process. In fact, employees
would actively involve themselves in reaching workload targets and ‘making out’.
Indeed, Burawoy was puzzled to find himself ‘breaking my back to make out . . .
risking life and limb for that extra piece’ (Burawoy 1979, p. xi). According to
Burawoy, employees actively became involved in playing the game of ‘making
out’ and that ‘manufactures consent’ towards the production of surplus value.
However, employees are not provided with the opportunity to set the rules of
the game and will often feel dissatisfaction with, or alienated from the game. The
employee’s expansion of choices by way of informal work practices or resistance
within the narrow limits presented by the labour process constitutes the basis of
consent. Hence, the degradation of work pursues its course without continuing
crisis (Burawoy 1979, pp. 3, 94). The workers use informal behaviours as a means

of reducing alienation and dissatisfaction with the labour process without
presenting major challenges.
The world of employment has undergone dramatic changes and developments
in recent years, including a clear shift to service industries. The growing body
of literature examining new managerial regimes, such as Total Quality
Management, Just-In-Time Production, and Cultural Control, is further evidence
of the changing nature of the employment relationship. For this reason alone
there is a requirement to readdress the issue of resistance from the perspective
of workers.
After working in the leisure industry for some twelve years it was obvious
to the researcher that employee behaviours included resistance to managerial
controls. However such behaviours could not always be viewed as resistance.
A series of thirty-six interviews was undertaken with former employees of
the two organisations considered in this study. This data set represents more
than 80 per cent of the employees in the two organisations. The interviews were
semi-structured and conducted at a time and venue suitable to the interviewee.

THE

ORGANISATIONS

The organisations considered in this study operate within the aquatic leisure
industry in Australia. The first, Small Pools, was a stand-alone facility. That is,
unlike some ‘leisure centres’, the aquatic centre was the only source of revenue.
The Small Pools business held four consecutive five-year leases from the
municipal council. This tender and leasing arrangement contributed to a degree
of uncertainty within the organisation. The owner of Small Pools could not be
certain of retaining the lease beyond any five-year period. Indeed, in 1996 when
Small Pools’ lease was not renewed, the nine staff members at the time became
unemployed. The Small Pools organisation was a simple one in terms of its
workforce, its clientele and its product. Final responsibilities fell to the on-site
employer/manager of the organisation. All full-time and casual staff were trained
to liaise with the municipal council and corporate associates (such as swimming
and other social clubs, school groups and suppliers of kiosk requirements or
pool chemicals) to a basic level. For example, when the council was required
to perform maintenance, or when chemicals and stock were required, even
the most junior of staff was capable, when trained, of ordering, accepting and

LEISURE

AT

WORK, WHO CAN RESIST?

445

coordinating the process. The employer considered training the staff to execute
the majority of the differing aspects of the business to be necessary. However,
experienced staff had a tendency to quit as the employer explains:
You’d tend to employ young people that you know and trust and they work with
you through high school in the kiosk and then they do some extra lifeguarding when
they leave school and then they move on with their life and want more hours. If they
are really interested in the industry they want to get their own pool. So you really
train your staff to leave you and the better they are the more chance you have of
losing them. There’s a limited number of people that are good and are willing to
work for shitty pay (Interview, Employer, January 2000).

Hence, the employer accepted a balance between hardworking, highly skilled,
prospective staff and reliable long-term employees.
The second organisation considered in this paper operates within the same

city and the same industry. White Tower Leisure held the lease of three leisure
centres from the municipal council. With significant financial backing, White
Tower Leisure was able to negotiate long-term leases for their centres. As such,
the White Tower Leisure employees are not confronted with the industry-based
job insecurity faced by Small Pools employees. Unlike Small Pools’ 5-year lease,
White Tower negotiated a 30-year lease at Central Tower, a 15-year lease at
North Tower and a 10-year lease at South Tower. Also, unlike Small Pools,
the White Tower organisation committed to significant capital improvements to
the centres rather than the typical lease payments. At each centre, the capital
improvements included the transformation of the centre into a heated, indoor
facility operating year-round. The inclusion of water slides, tailored learn-to-swim
facilities and the refurbishment of existing buildings were negotiated at various
centres.
As a result of the extended leases negotiated, it may be expected that White
Tower would be in a stronger position than Small Pools to provide long-term
job security for employees. However, being in a stronger position to provide
long-term job security is not sufficient to ensure high staff retention rates
and low levels of staff turnover. Small Pools employees left due to industry
insecurity, that is industry turnover. White Tower employees indicate factors
within the company being significant in their decisions to leave the industry,

that is, organisational turnover. Currently, (some 5 years later) only 3 of
31 employees still work in the industry, and none of these is still employed
at White Tower Leisure.
An important point to stress is that White Tower Leisure was a venture in its
infancy. Many of the key management staff were recruited from Small Pools
or similar organisations. There was a general climate of mistrust within the
organisation stemming from the initial negotiating of contracts for management
staff. Management employees began their experience with the feeling of being
‘cheated’ and viewed the Board of Directors as opportunistic and untrustworthy.
The Board of Directors held a view that the employees were not to be fully trusted
and they made this view clear to the management team. As a consequence, the
management team in the main felt their allegiances to be more closely aligned

446

THE JOURNAL

OF

I N D U S T R I A L R E L AT I O N S

December 2003

with the general employees than the Directors. The ‘unmanned factory’ seemed
to be a concept quite attractive to the board of White Tower. The Board of
Directors level most certainly approached all employees (including their
management team) in a manner described by Gouldner as ‘handling the enemy
within’ (1954, p. 166).
Indicated throughout all of the interviews of White Tower employees is an
overwhelming frustration with many aspects of the organisation. Rating high
among these frustrations is the observation that the organisation’s structure was
far too convoluted. The Board of ‘Dictators’, as the managerial staff referred to
it, consisted of seven members of the one family. Regularly, decisions would
be made at a managerial level, only to be overturned at the board level. When
decisions would be reached at the board level, individual board members would
voice alternate strategies away from board meetings. As a result, managerial staff
found themselves in the position of weighing up the balance of power at the board
level before determining their actions. Every decision seemed to be driven by
manipulation and a struggle for control born at a family level rather than at an
organisational level.

SOLDIERING

AS RESISTANCE, OR MANAGERIAL CONDONED GO-SLOWS?

Although soldiering was commonplace in both organisations it was manifested
in differing ways. At Small Pools the restriction of effort was not necessarily to
evade managerial policies with which the employees disagreed. In fact, the
employer actively engaged in and encouraged effort restriction on various
occasions. Small Pools was seen by staff as being a rather ‘laid back’ place
of employment, and yet employees detail how important it was for them to
perform many duties simultaneously. For example, casual employee John
detailed the considerably varied workloads at Small Pools:
. . . pools are understaffed . . . you just have to be. You only have a limited amount of
days that you will really make money and so you work your arse off. Say, you have
a few rush in at once and you’re cleaning or something or you don’t have someone
out on deck watching the pool for whatever reason so you’ve gotta work the kiosk
and watch the pools and get back to the cleaning whenever. You’re always doing at
least two things at once, more often three or four things (Interview, John, February
2000).

And later, when asked specifically about times when employees could be
performing work but would not, John explained it this way:
. . . we’d get our stuff done, maybe not as quickly and efficiently as we could if we
didn’t talk to anyone, but that’s what was so good about the job, just really friendly
and relaxed. We kind of offset the success of the business a little for having an
enjoyable place to work. [The manager] didn’t mind, he wanted to enjoy working
as well . . . yeah, it was all pretty laid back (Interview, John, February 2000).

Employees recognised that there was an acceptable time for, and level of
restricting effort within the organisation. Informal group norms that were
beneficial to employers as well as employees contrast with findings in Roy’s

LEISURE

AT

WORK, WHO CAN RESIST?

447

(1952, 1954) research that found group norms sought were for the benefit of
the employees and not of the organisation. It is apparent that Small Pools’
employees used group norms for the realisation of different goals. That is, group
norms were not placing an upper limit on effort as with Roy’s groups, but
placing a lower limit on effort restrictions. Peter, a full-time employee explained
the treatment of those not adhering to group norms in terms of an accepted level
of effort restriction:
We did have one girl who’d just park her arse on the counter and we really hated
people sitting on the counter, but she’d just sit there and you’d say ‘how ‘bout you
do such ‘n’ such’ and she’d be like, just not interested. She just wanted to sit around
and do nothing and that pissed other people off. She wasn’t made feel very welcome,
nobody would talk to her and we’d give her shitty jobs . . . so she didn’t hang around
that long (Interview, Peter, February 2000).

Staff members quickly learnt the acceptable group norms when it came to effort
restriction. There was a realisation that some days were going to be extremely
busy and the staff would need to be prepared for an increased workload, and
other days would be ‘laid back’ days where withholding effort was acceptable.
Individuals who failed to adhere to the informal group norms were ostracised
from the group, limiting their future in the organisation. The employees had a
degree of semi-autonomous control and with that control they could withhold
effort that might have led to surplus value, but also maintain a high level of
output at other times, clearly more complicated than simple soldiering as
resistance.
As stated by one informant, systematic underworking may have adversely
affected Small Pools’ profitability. Yet the employer sanctioned this behaviour
that appeared to directly and negatively affected profitability. Hence, when the
employer explicitly sanctions a level of ‘soldiering’, it is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile these behaviours within the labour process resistance framework. When considered in totality with other informal work practices, the adverse
effect of effort restriction may be counterbalanced with a higher level of staff
morale, reduced organisational turnover, almost no absenteeism, and reduced
levels of pilfering.
Workers at White Tower were certainly aware of expectations to work hard,
even performing multiple duties at once.
When you’re lifeguarding there is always the expectation that you’re also keeping
the grounds clean. It can be a dilemma even for experienced lifeguards—at what
point is the pool safe enough to do some cleaning or whatever? Interview, Scotty,
July 2000.

Despite the worker’s realisation of their employer’s expectation to perform
multiple tasks, reality appeared to be somewhat different. Management staff
were prepared to restrict their effort and spent much time avoiding working and
with this activity at the upper levels of the organisation, general staff followed
their superior’s lead. Casual employee Jane indicated common knowledge of
managerial soldiering when stating:

448

THE JOURNAL

OF

I N D U S T R I A L R E L AT I O N S

December 2003

They [the directors] all wanted to be the ones to control it and would undermine
the managers . . . for a while the managers would try to do their jobs but eventually
would give up . . . [and] didn’t care when jobs got done as long as they didn’t get in
the shit over things. The staff didn’t care if things got done just as long as no-one
drowned on their shift.’

There is a general opinion that managers are high performers and highly committed individuals who are bound together to achieve the corporate mission and
objectives of the organisation in which they are employed, driven by a sense of
ambition, teamwork, knowledge and flexibility (Noon & Blyton 1997; Biggs &
Horgan 1999). As part of their responsibilities, it is expected that managers are
empowered to adapt to the organisation’s needs; will always ‘be on call’ if the
need arises, and will work hours in a ‘whatever it takes’ style that meets the needs
of the business. This picture portrays middle managers as very hard-working and
dedicated to the goals of the organisation. However, Smith (1990) recognises that
this is not always the case for managers and certainly was not the case with the
managers at White Tower Leisure.
Smith details and questions organisational and class paradigms that see
managers simply as an extension of the capitalist without due recognition of
the divergences between (middle) management who manage the day-to-day
functions at the workplace and the upper levels of management who are
responsible for ‘strategies of accumulation’ and the measures for achieving
them (Burawoy, cited by Smith 1990).
In the context of the hostile White Tower environment, management staff
positioned themselves with other employees in their adversarial relationship with
the employers. All employees regardless of their position within the hierarchy
spoke of the employers in terms of ‘us and them’. The employees at White Tower
present a workforce with a surface level of solidarity based on a significant
dislike of their employers. For these employees, resisting organisational
expectations of required work effort was not simply redressing a perceived
wage/effort imbalance but a means of regathering some measure of personal
control they felt had been undermined. The general feeling can be summed up
with the notion that all employees throughout the organisation perceived that
the board felt the managers’ efforts were perpetually inadequate; the level of
respect proffered to employees was inadequate; the demands placed upon
employees were seen to be unreasonable. It was as a result of these factors that,
whenever possible, workers determined their own level of effort, rarely at a level
that was expected by the Board. Clearly, this is in stark comparison to the
reasons for effort restriction at Small Pools.

WHO

IS TO BLAME WHEN EMPLOYEES DON’T WORK?

The Small Pools employer explicitly sanctioned the ‘misuse of company time’
and to some degree trained staff to recognise when this informal work practice
was appropriate. James explains the approach to employee’s time this way:
When it was really quiet, you know, a rainy day or whatever, you could . . . have twenty
people come through and you can only clean and restock so much, so I’d sit and

LEISURE

AT

WORK, WHO CAN RESIST?

449

study. Steve encouraged it; he’d say ‘go on, bring your books, you’re not going to
be doing anything else’. You couldn’t always do it though—most of the time you
just wouldn’t even bother trying (Interview, James, January 2000).

The employer was certainly accommodating, allowing employees the time to
enjoy their workplace to an extent that employees developed a strong sense of
respect for the appropriate times to engage in such practices. The employer spent
many hours working in the complex. Hence, no differently from the employees,
the employer was confronted with some of the frustrating aspects of employment
within the industry. The employer’s involvement in the misuse of company
time was an attempt to minimise his own frustrations. Whether as a conscious
managerial decision or not, his leadership and readiness to engage in the misuse
of company time provided tacit authorisation to the employees to engage in this
informal work practice when he was not present. Hence, the personal use of
company time was not directly a form of resistance to managerial controls
but an attempt by employees to minimise frustrations with structural aspects
of their employment.
At White Tower the strained employment relationship uncovered in consideration of the wage/effort exchange was equally, if not more, influential on
determining employee’s use and misuse of company time. For example, (from
the management team through to the newest casual staff) every single employee
engaged in what could be considered significant misuse of company time, regardless of upper-management dictums. Board members continually reinforced the
idea that ‘time’ was to be spent ‘working’. Managers knew the position of the
Board and made sure the staff were also aware of the pronouncement. However,
the following comments indicate the attitudes the employees really took on a
daily basis.
The activities undertaken by employees ranged from ‘disappearing out to the
back office to make a few private phone calls’ (interview, Alicia, September 2000)
to some more deceitful and recalcitrant activities.
We had this cavity under the pool with all the plant equipment in it—it was a whole
level below ground and we used this one area but there was another entrance to this
place that nobody ever used. So anyway, I ducked down the back way one day and
I saw one of our staff members . . . well, can I just say in a very compromising position with a woman. Let’s just say I got the impression they had a close relationship
[laughing] (Interview, Douglas, July 2000).

Informants detail numerous other similar incidents. However, managers were
reluctant to carry out disciplinary measures amongst employees. One White
Tower manager reflected this when he stated
if the managers are doing what they can to get out of their own work what could
you legitimately do to stop the staff from doing it? Besides, what motivation was
there to try? (Interview, Douglas, July 2000).

Many times the facility managers would meet at Central Tower before travelling
to their monthly commitment with the municipal council. After the meeting, the

450

THE JOURNAL

OF

I N D U S T R I A L R E L AT I O N S

December 2003

managers would have a two or three hour lunch. Why? Because none of
them really wanted to go back to work and they could justify their actions quite
readily. If questioned they could describe the lunch as a management meeting.
Needless to say, after the initial complaints about the latest initiatives from the
board of dictators, discussions would not relate to anything relevant to the White
Tower organisation. Managers removing themselves from their designated work
area was indeed an act of resistance to employer control.

PERKS,

PILFERING OR THEFT?

When examining this area of resistance to managerial controls, the misuse of
organisational goods, the most telling difference between the Small Pools case
and the White Tower case becomes apparent. The camaraderie at Small Pools
contributed to the development of informal guidelines for the use of effort and
time. Resistance to managerial controls did not seem to be a particular motivation for such behaviours. It is also this camaraderie that contributed to a very
low level of product misuse within the organisation. In fact, sabotage and quite
separately, pilfering, were essentially non-existent at Small Pools.
You could rip that place off like you wouldn’t believe. There was nothing
stoppin’ you except your conscience . . . and really, I guess that’s what stopped
us . . . you’d be stealin’ from a mate, you know . . . it’s all about trust. That’s why
it was so good workin’ there, we all trusted each other and we’re all mates with
[the manager]. You wouldn’t take money from his pocket (Interview, James,
February 2000).
While pilfering was certainly frowned upon by employees, it did occur on
a very small scale. The use of the telephone for private phone calls and the
unstructured manner of paying for products used by staff resulted in the misuse
or reappropriation of goods, similar to what Ditton called ‘perks’ (1976). Staff
did take some small items, but there was a strong notion of loyalty among staff
members to their employer. Hence the reappropriation of goods remained at the
level of ‘perks’:
Uhm . . . I guess I used to grab a lolly every now and then, but just say I bought a
drink that cost a dollar fifty, I’d drop in two bucks . . . it would have all sorted itself
out. If I was buying a pair of togs or something like that (the manager) would give
us discount so we’d just go to him and he’d give us a good price (Interview, Kerri,
February 2000).
Oh . . . yeah . . . some of us did okay. Yeah, we’d never pay full price, and I never
run out of chlorine at my home pool. I didn’t always ask him [the employer], but I
never thought it’d be a big deal anyway. Occasionally, I’d take a mate or someone
for a swim late at night and we’d get something to eat and not pay, but it was
never anything of substance, you know? Just all little stuff (Interview, Peter,
February 2000).

This evidence indicates an employment relationship where the employer did
not hold a hard-line approach to the use of company goods. In return the
employees did take advantage of the freedoms to their own favour, however
they did not appear to exploit their employer’s stance.

LEISURE

AT

WORK, WHO CAN RESIST?

451

Within White Tower Leisure, the convoluted chain of command places
a physical and bureaucratic barrier between the board of directors and the
general staff. Here a paradoxical contrast is presented for the White Tower
hierarchy. Long-term and experienced employees within the industry
traditionally have roots in single operations such as Small Pools where close
relationships are formed. However, employees felt that the employer at White
Tower was not interested in them and this alienation manifested itself in
resistance. Informants admitted to pilfering goods, varying from small levels
of stock to large sums of money, stock and equipment, and ‘food was common,
everyone would take food. You never went hungry on this job’ (Interview, Jordan,
July 2000).
The managers and staff appeared to be aware that employees at all levels were
pilfering goods. The fact that this was occurring largely unchecked indicates
significant problems for the organisation in terms of communication and staff
morale, not to mention profitability implications.
Oh, the managers knew—of course . . . nobody really hid it did they? I mean, I can
remember plenty of times you’d waltz into the coffee shop and grab a salad roll and
. . . say you’d pay for it later. I’m not sure if it’s a big surprise . . . but nobody really
. . . did. So I guess some just figured it was open slather. You know if it wasn’t bolted
down then within reason . . . (Interview, Jenny, May 2000).

Within this organisation managers have little training and are offered little
assistance to engage in formal managerial training. Employees were chosen to
be managers for their experience within the industry, but few, if any were chosen
with proven managerial experience. As a result of this, many staff members placed
in managerial positions felt intimidated by the expectations placed upon them
and the bullish behaviour of the organisation’s directors.
It really makes you bitter though, you know, to be put in this position of responsibility but not be given any positive responsibility or encouragement. I might as
well have been scrubbing the shithouses for all the respect I was given. And when
you’re treated so poorly I think it’s just human nature to want to protect yourself. I
guess the only way a lot of these managers knew how to protect themselves was to
adopt sort of guerrilla tactics. You know, screw them before they screw you (Interview,
Julie, May 2000).

As has been suggested, managers at White Tower are likely to resist organisational
controls and engage in informal work practices at a higher level. They have greater
scope and more opportunities to misuse time, effort and goods and, it is argued
by former employees, more reason to do so. The following quotes provide
examples of known and alleged activities undertaken by managers in this
organisation.
The company wouldn’t buy tools we needed and I was tired of borrowing my father’s
electric drill to work at the pool so over a few days I skimmed the till and bought
one. It was for the company and stayed at the pool so I thought it was justified at
the time. When I quit I was so pissed off that I figured that they didn’t know they
had the thing and I figured I might as well keep it myself. A bit of a severance

452

THE JOURNAL

OF

I N D U S T R I A L R E L AT I O N S

December 2003

payment if you like. The same thing happened with the whipper snipper, I’ve got
it at home now, too (Interview, Bobbie, June 2000).

On one occasion there was a break-in and a ride-on mower, a whipper snipper
and an industrial sized pool vacuum was stolen. The safe was also opened and
the day’s takings totalling thousands of dollars was stolen. Julie offered the
following explanation:
I was sure it was an inside job and I spoke to one of the other managers and he agreed
with me . . . we kind of thought we knew who was most likely to have done it and
we thought it was probably a bit of pay-back for the way this guy was being treated.
We didn’t tell anyone though . . . (Interview, Julie, May 2000).

Douglas tells of the minimal benefits of selling chlorine and other pool
chemicals to mates. He also details a more structured group system utilised
by some staff members to regularly fiddle the till:
We’d have a couple of guys that’d work the same shift working together skimming
the till. You might get fifty or a hundred dollars a day. That adds up . . . especially
over a year (Interview, Douglas, July 2000).

As intimated prior to these quotes, managers often felt quite aggrieved in regard
to three different things: the volume of work placed on them; the lack of respect
from their employers; and the pressure to place what the managers considered
unrealistic expectations upon lower level staff. As a result, the reappropriation
of goods was manifestly obvious, even barefaced in comparison to the insignificant
levels at Small Pools.

LEISURE

AT WORK OR RESISTING LEISURE WORK?

Within these case studies, there are three significant factors that influence the
level of behaviours that may be viewed as resistance. These include: the style of
management used, the size of the workforce, and the perception the employees
hold of how they are treated by management.
Small Pools employees see their place of work necessarily understaffed to
maintain profitability. Conversely, White Tower employees have a perception of
the classic class struggle. They see themselves as overworked and underpaid, while
the owners arrive in their expensive motor vehicles and spend large sums of money
on capital improvements. As a result, employees form the perception that the
company is quite successful and feel staffing levels should be at a level preventing
the overworking found at Small Pools. Nevertheless, like Small Pools employees
who state they work in a ‘stressful’ workplace where staff are ‘always doing at
least two things at once’, White Tower employees feel they too are required to
exceed expected norms.
However, employees at Small Pools have periods of time that involve
employer-sanctioned effort restriction. This cannot be viewed as soldiering
and certainly not ‘resistance’. The manager accepts that there are times when
his staff are overworked and makes an effort to encourage ‘down-time’. As a result,

LEISURE

AT

WORK, WHO CAN RESIST?

453

employees have no hesitation in reappropriating effort should the opportunity
arise. However, there is recognition among staff that the reappropriation of effort
is an activity that is only possible at suitable times. Rather than resistance, these
behaviours can be viewed as an employer making a concerted attempt to reduce
the subjective alienation that an employee may feel.
The sense of being overworked is similar in both organisations, and the
patterns of effort restriction and performing multiple tasks are similar in the
two workplaces. However the similar activities mean different things within
each organisation. The close relationships employees enjoy with the Small
Pools employer are not apparent at White Tower. In fact, quite the opposite is
evident. The employees at White Tower present a workforce (of general staff
and managers) with a surface level of solidarity insofar as they share a resistance
to their employers’ control, and the workers engage in covert effort-restrictive
practices as a means of redressing the perceived control imbalance.
Small Pool’s managerial style is certainly accommodating to the employees
using company time for their own benefit. As a result of this attitudinal approach
from management and an unstructured programme that teaches employees
expected behaviours, the employees develop a strong sense of respect for the
appropriate times to engage in such practices. Again, this cannot be viewed as
resistance, rather an employee sacrificing the potential labour power by indirectly
developing measures that aim to limit the style of behaviour that employees are
likely to attempt regardless. In contrast, at White Tower the employers actively
limited and minimised staffing levels to reduce ‘down-time’.
Perhaps one of the most striking influences on employee behaviours at White
Tower stems from the fact that at the time of this research White Tower as an
organisation is in its infancy. Many key managerial employees had been recruited
from organisations similar to Small Pools. Hence, along with valuable industry
experience, these employees bring to White Tower a culture supportive of
informal work practices. As a result of the experienced employees’ expectations,
and in resistance to White Tower employer expectations, staff manipulate
their labour process to maximise their opportunities to engage in informal
work practices. This is clearly resistance in the control/resistance/cooperation
framework. Employees seek duties that provide opportunities to turn a ‘fifteen
minute job into an hour job’ (interview, Danny, July 2000). Further, managerial
staff members cooperate with each other to engage in work avoidance whenever
an opportunity should arise.
Certainly the misuse of organisational goods is present in both organisations;
however, the practice manifests itself with significantly diverse results. Many of
the Small Pool’s employees enjoy ‘perks’ that are discounted prices and an
informal method of payment that falls in their favour, while some employees are
guilty of what Ditton (1976) refers to as ‘pilfering’; that is, the use of company
goods on a small-scale and seen by employees as part of wages. White Tower
employees engage in both small-scale pilfering and much larger-scale theft; a
self-determined pay-off for perceived poor treatment (Ditton 1977, p. 3).
Ditton notes that scope and opportunity are key variables that contribute to
the extent of pilfering or stealing within an organisation (Ditton 1977, pp. 81–4).

454

THE JOURNAL

OF

I N D U S T R I A L R E L AT I O N S

December 2003

Small Pools employees have a smaller scope in that the organisation is much
smaller. They also have much less opportunity, as the employer is present for
most hours of the day. White Tower employees are faced with greater scope in
terms of the size of the organisation. With a much smaller level of direct managerial supervision, lower level employees have a greater degree of opportunity.
Staff members higher in the organisational hierarchy have both the scope and a
greater level of opportunity due to the additional freedom in their position.
This increased scope and opportunity, coupled with dissatisfaction with their
employers, results in a high level of reappropriation of goods at the upper echelons of the organisation with the levels tapering off as scope and opportunity
decreases.
Within the smaller organisation, the staff worked on a daily basis with
their employer. Intimate relationships were formed and friendships flourished.
Workers were institutionalised into an established structure of work practices that
could be viewed as resistance in another organisation. The guidelines offered by
the employer and more experienced staff were generally accepted by employees.
Any resistance was often perceived to be directly against a friend rather than a
faceless organisation.
Small Pools employees enjoy the fact that their employment is not one
with a traditional employer/employee relationship with strict demarcations
and controls. The employer is in a position to use direct control measures
(Edwards 1979) to maintain a level of discipline within the workforce. However,
the control measures are relaxed and relationships are friendly rather than
antagonistic. Employees in this organisation offer their commitment to their
employer as an individual person, largely removed from any organisational
structure.
By contrast, many White Tower Leisure staff rarely, if ever, meet their
employers. This in itself may not seem significant, but a majority of senior
employees arrived at this organisation from an employment relationship similar
to that of Small Pools. Hence, their expectations were somewhat different to
the reality of working at White Tower. The employees arrived with industry
experience and knowledge along with expectations of an appropriate level of
informal work practices. When these practices were maintained at White Tower,
conflict arose between the employers and the employees. Each party has significantly differing expectations of the role the other would play in the organisation.
The employers are perceived to be disrespectful to their employees, including
their managerial staff, and as a result employees hold no emotional attachment
to the organisation or the people for whom they work. As much as the employers
attempt to promote a ‘team’ environment, the employees see this as a manipulative façade and remain highly individualistic in their approach to work.
Certainly much of the discussion provided relates to the perception held by
the staff members involved in informal work practices. Consistent throughout
the White Tower interviews was the notion of the employees being treated poorly,
not respected or appreciated, and not having control. The employees within this
organisation perceive their employers’ priority of profit coming at the expense
of staff wellbeing and public safety. As a result the employees actively resist

LEISURE

AT

WORK, WHO CAN RESIST?

455

managerial controls. This is in stark contrast to the perception of Small Pools
employees, who commonly cited friendly relations and being part of a team as a
core benefit of their employment. The perception among these employees was
that they were appreciated and respected, and, perhaps most importantly, that
they as individuals were important to the employer. Again, in stark comparison
to White Tower employees, among Small Pools staff there is the perception that
profit at all costs is not the sole aim of their employment.
Two important points have become apparent throughout this research. Firstly,
the three factors initially considered to play a major role in the determination of
why employees resist managerial controls are important. They are: the style of
management used, the size of the workforce and the perception the employees
hold of how they are treated by management. Secondly, and perhaps the most
important factor in the comparative analysis, is the role management staff
played at White Tower Leisure. While the organisation was in its infancy, many
experienced leisure centre staff were recruited to managerial positions. With
this experience came a culture of acceptance and expectance of a workplace
with informal work practices. When confronted with a different expectation
from the employers in the context of the previous three factors, informal work
practices became more covert and hence appeared to be more deviant—clearly
resistance.
This paper reinforces many of the findings of labour process literature in
relation to the control/resistance/cooperation framework. In terms of behaviours
and acts of resistance, the employees seem to behave in ways that they perceive
as being appropriate to the situation in which they find themselves. However,
the Small Pools case study illustrates that behaviours that scholars would often
situate within the control/resistance/cooperation framework simply do not fit.
This reinforces one aspect of the ‘organisational misbehaviour’ thesis forwarded
by Ackroyd and Thompson: ‘the best that can be achieved by management is the
containment of misbehaviour in discrete and manageable packages’ (1999, p. 7).
Academic discourse within the field of industrial relations requires a reconsideration of informal work practices. Individual resistance is a significant area of
analysis with both positive and negative results for individuals and organisations.
In the meantime, employees within the leisure industry, as with many other
industries, will continue to engage in informal work practices, sometimes
condoned, but often condemned, by their employer.

REFERENCES
Ackroyd S, Thompson P (1999) Organisational Misbehaviour. London: Sage Publications.
Biggs S, Horgan K (1999) Time On, Time Out: Flexible Work Solutions to Keep Your Life in Balance.
St Leonards: Allen and Unwin.
Blauner R (1964) Alienation and Freedom: The Factory Worker and his Industry. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Braverman H (1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Burawoy M (1979) Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process under Monopoly Capitalism.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Callaghan G, Thompson P (2001) Edwards Revisited: Technical Control and Call Centres. Open
Discussion Papers in Economics, The Open University.

456

THE JOURNAL

OF

I N D U S T R I A L R E L AT I O N S

December 2003

Cunnison S (1966) Wages and Work Allocation: A Study of Social Relations in a Garment Workshop.
London: Tavistock Publications.
Ditton J (1976) Perks, pilferage and the fiddle: the historical structure of invisible wages. Theory
and Society 4(1), 39–70.
Ditton J (1977) Part-Time Crime: An Ethnography of Fiddling and Pilferage. London: Macmillan.
Edwards (1979) Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century.
London: Heinemann.
Ezzamel M, Willmott H, Worthington F (2001) Power, control and resistance in ‘the factory that
time forgot’. Journal of Management Studies 38(8), 1053–1079.
Findlay P, McKindlay A, Marks A, Thompson P (2000) In search of perfect people: teamwork and
team players in the Scottish spirits industry. Human Relations 53(12), 1549–1571.
Friedmann A (1977) Industry and Labour: Class Struggle at Work and Monopoly Capitalism. London:
Macmillan.
Gardner M, Palmer G (1998) Employment Relations. South Melbourne: Macmillan Education
Australia.
Gouldner A (1954) Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Knights D, McCabe D (1998) What happens when the phone goes wild? Staff, stress and spaces
for escape in a BPR telephone banking work regime. Journal of Management Studies 35(2),
163–194.
Knights D, McCabe D (2000) ‘Ain’t misbehavin’? Opportunities for resistance under new forms
of ‘quality’ management. Sociology 34(3), 421–436.
Lupton T (1963) On the Shop Floor: Two Studies of Workshop Organisation and Output. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Noon M, Blyton P (1997) The Realities of Work. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Roy D (1952) Quota restriction and goldbricking in a machine shop. The American Journal of
Sociology 57, 427–442.
Roy D (1954) Efficiency and ‘the fix’: informal intergroup relations in a piecework machine shop.
American Journal of Sociology 60.
Sewell G (1998) The discipline of teams: the control of team-based industrial work through
electronic and peer surveillance. Administrative Science Quarterly 43, 397–428.
Sewell G, Wilkinson B (1992) Someone to watch over me: surveillance, discipline and the
Just-In-Time labour process. Sociology 26, 271–289.
Smith V (1990) Managing in the Corporate Interest: Control and Resistance in an American Bank.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Thompson P, Ackroyd S (1995) All quiet on the workplace front? A critique of recent trends in
British industrial sociology. Sociology 29(4), 615–632.
Webster F, Robins K (1993) ‘I’ll be watching you’: comment on Sewell and Wilkinson. Sociology
27(2), 243–252.
Willmott H (1993) Strength is ignorance; slavery is freedom: managing culture in modern
organisations. Journal of Management Studies 30(4), 515–552.