From employee to 'entreployee'.
Towards a 'self-entrepreneurial' work force?
Hans J. Pongratz/ G. Günter Voß
Concepts and Transformation, Volume 8, Number 3, 2003 , pp. 239-254 (16)
Abstract: This paper presents the argument that we are currently witnessing a fundamental
transformation in society's disposition of labor capacity, as witnessed in changes in the labor
strategy of large employers. This may be leading to new type of labor power that – because of
its particular features – could be called 'self-entrepreneurial'. In the paper's first part the
concept of the 'entreployee' (Arbeitskraftunternehmer) is presented briefly, after which, in the
second part, several important theoretical objections to the concept – raised in the course of
current German debate – are examined.
Key words: employee autonomy, new forms of work, labor relations, New Capitalism, work
force, labor power, labor process
Translated and revized edition of „Erwerbstätige als Arbeitskraftunternehmer" in SOWI – Sozialwissenschaft-
liche Informationen, 2001: 42-52. We thank Monika Baumunk and Stefanie Springer of Stuttgart Academy of
Technology Assessment for a basic translation and Franz Zurbrugg for his intensive final corrections.
An intensive debate on new kinds of entrepreneurial working conditions for
employees has been emerging in Germany during the last ten years. A great
amount of public interest was stimulated by an argument, put forth in the neo-
liberal program of the German “Commission for Future Problems of Bavaria
and Saxony” (Kommission … 1996/97, 1998), and later, in the
recommendations for German labor reform presented by the so-called “Hartz
Commission” (Kommission … 2002) with its highly controversial slogan "Ich-
AG" ('Me Inc.'). Independently of these recommendations and with different
scientific and political intentions, the present authors elaborated the idea of an
increasing 'entrepreneurial' handling of one’s own work capacities into the thesis
that we are now facing a fundamental transformation of the character of labor:
the typical 'employee' prevalent until now in most sectors is being replaced by a
new active type of labor power (Marx)**, the Arbeitskraftunternehmer (called
here 'entreployee') (see Voß/Pongratz, 1998; Pongratz/Voß, 2000; Voß, 2001;
Pongratz/Voß, 2003). This formulation caused broad debate in industrial
sociology in Germany and eventually far beyond. In the first part of the
following paper, this thesis is explained and the 'ideal type' of the
Arbeitskraftunternehmer characterized. In the second part the scope and
consequences of related developments are assessed by considering some of the
significant objections made in the subsequent sociological discussion.
The socio-diagnostic basis of the thesis of an emerging 'self-
entrepreneurial' type of labor power is the supposition that we are not
experiencing the "end of working society", as some sociologists postulated in
the 1980s, but instead, a transition to a hyper-working society and highly flexible
New Capitalism (cf. Sennet, 1998), characterized by more gainful employment
in all spheres, but an employment assuming new forms, some of whose
foreseeable effects seem highly problematic (see Appelbaum, 2002). One of
** 'Labor power' is the usual term in English for the abstract Marxian category 'Arbeitskraft', i.e. the 'power' of
labor in a general sense (similar to work capacity), but meaning neither the individual working person, nor
collectively, 'personnel' or 'work force' in society or an enterprise (Ger. 'Arbeitskräfte'), nor even the actual
execution of the work (Marx's 'expenditure' or 'application' of 'labor power').
these effects may be an intensified (but altered) capitalist interest in the use of
labor power (the subjectification of labor), resulting in a new logic of corporate
labor control, and therefore in a fundamental change in the nature of
From employee to 'self-entrepreneurial’ labor power
Structural changes in the organization of the labor process
In recent years processes of corporate reorganization of a hitherto unknown kind
have been taking place in almost all sectors of modern economies. They are
comparable to the fundamental economic and social changes of 19th and early
20th-century industrialization. Mainly because of the aggravation of competitive
conditions corporate management is increasingly forced to reduce costs
massively and, more importantly, increase their companies' possibilities for
flexible and innovative reaction to turbulent business environments. The strategy
of subjecting employees to a highly rigid and detailed surveillance of work
activities (often based on Taylorist principles) that has prevailed in most firms
up to now, is now increasingly considered a severe obstacle. Today the attempt
is taking place – not everywhere, but at least in several areas – to free up the
usual boundaries of the traditional employee in the workplace in nearly all
dimensions – time, space, content, qualifications, cooperation etc. – and enhance
their own responsibility through strategies of increased flexibility and 'self-
organization' in the workplace (for the German discussion of this see for ex.
Kratzer, 2003; Minssen, 2000; Voß, 1998).
These 'new forms of labor', with greater necessity for the 'self-
organization' of employees in this sense, are manifold (see Overview 1), but it is
difficult to assess their exact quantitative scale. In Germany the amount of work
done in teams or groups was estimated at up to 12% for 1998 with a definite
upward tendency (see Nordhause-Janz and Pekruhl, 2000); project-based work
has meanwhile become a fairly normal form of labor control in many corporate
sectors. We believe this change is significant in quantity and quality because the
structural relation between company and labor is essentially different: the former
detailed, hierarchical structure of work supervision is being increasingly
replaced by market-like relations (see Moldaschl, 1998). This means that
employees are permitted – and in fact must organize their work more
independently than ever before. This more or less far-reaching 'autonomization'
of work does not always entail any real new freedom for the people involved.
More often than not the independence is of limited scope, is always in
accordance with company goals and often accompanied by considerable
pressure. Nevertheless the 'new forms' of work represent a substantial increase
in opportunity for many, and therefore should be an important topic for future
work-related research, as well as for unions and labor policy makers (cf. Peters,
Overview 1 - Forms of work characterized by enhanced 'self-organization'
in conventional employment:
- group and team work
- management by objectives
- Cost Center, Profit Center
- highly flexible working hours (time accounts, trust time)
- new forms of computer-based telework, mobile work , etc.
in relations between businesses:
- outsourcing to pseudo-independent occupations
- cooperation with freelancers, self-employed, subcontractors, etc.
- virtual companies, etc.
As a theoretical aside, industrial sociologists realized early on – drawing on
Marx's important though long undervalued idea – that by employing personnel
companies acquire actually only the right to their capacity for work for a definite
period of time (see Braverman, 1974 and the “labor process debate”;
Knigths/Willmott 1990). Although this right is assured in labor contracts, it does
not guarantee that the expected performance will actually follow. Thus
companies are faced with the fundamental problem of 'transforming' the
purchased 'latent' working potential into real or 'manifest' performance by means
of specific measures, e.g. directives and monitoring, in short: by 'labor control'
(Braverman). For a long time rigid forms of technological and organizational
labor control in this sense have been considered the ideal 'transformation'
strategy for most firms. While exceptions exist, especially for some types of
expert and managerial jobs where strategies of 'responsible autonomy' are
applied instead of 'direct control' (see Friedman, 1977), rigid surveillance after
Taylorist principles has been the more or less leading orientation in theory as
well as in practice for nearly all other categories of labor (especially mass labor
in production and administration). Yet this strategy has always encountered
limits in many work situations: monitoring costs are considerable, and employee
innovation and flexibility discouraged.
At present, we are seeing in many business sectors an actual reversal of
what was considered up to now standard practice: a focused reduction of direct
labor control practices and the active promotion of employee responsibility.
This does not mean anything like an abdication of central governance in
corporations, but a systematic extension of indirect forms through the strategic
targeting of performance parameters and goals such as costs, turnover, quality,
customer satisfaction etc. This development means turning over increasingly to
employees themselves the complicated task of transforming their labor potential
into concrete performance, i.e. the previous management functions of work
control. In other words, management seeks to externalize, on a new structural
level, the notorious transformation problem. 'Outsourcing' is also an
externalizing strategy, well known for more than two decades, but this is
outsourcing of a special kind: it affects a key business function – employee
management – of the capitalist enterprise. Paradoxically, it hands the problem
over to those who cause it – and have to resolve it while coping with the
The entreployee – a new 'entrepreneurial' type of labor power
If the tactic of shifting the transformation problem to those working in new
forms of employment were extended systematically (and there are many
indicators supporting this supposition), it would have not only consequences for
individual groups of employees, but (our central thesis) also for the general
disposition of labor capacity in society.
Heretofore a type of work force has predominated that was trained to put
standard capacities at a company’s disposal for a flat-rate of remuneration;
expected advancement according to standard professional patterns; been subject
to heteronomously fixed requirements; enjoyed very limited scope for
independent decisions and creativity; and had to do with fixed resources. Now,
we are witnessing the actual reversal of this orientation, towards an active, self-
actuating behavior for the 'general good' of the enterprise, job requirements that
sometimes must first be defined, and for which not rarely resources must be
found by those directly involved. In this reorientation process the hitherto
passive 'employee' is becoming a much more active worker, not only
continuously redefining their own capacities and potentials within the company
by organizing the work process in a self-determining, 'entrepreneurial' manner,
but also on the larger labor market. This new type of labor power, which we call
the 'entreployee' ('Arbeitskraftunternehmer'), being a product of quasi-
entrepreneurial efforts, requires the same entrepreneurial development and
commercialization (of personal and professional capacities) as does any product
of a business enterprise. Entreployees exhibit three important characteristics (see
(1) Workers now control the process of the transformation of their own
potential into concrete performance, enriching the commodity ’labor power’ by
one decisive element: the control of work, that until now rested in the hands of
the company, is becoming a new and substantial qualitative part of the acquired
labor. Thus the commodity 'labor power' becomes a substantially higher-value
factor of production: a higher-level work capacity organized to a large extent by
the self-control of the employee. All characteristics of work are ultimately and
profoundly affected: the organization of the actual work performance,
flexibilization of working hours, relaxation of spatial ties, weakening of
traditionally assumed social ties, job-motivation. Therefore often the attitude of
companies towards these employees could be characterized by the new slogan:
“It doesn’t matter how you manage your job and what you do in detail, the main
thing is you achieve at least the goals set!”
(2) Entreployees must change their viewpoint not only towards their work
as such, but also come to regard their own capacities as a commodity. The
hitherto largely passive 'owner' of labor power, present only occasionally on the
labor market, is increasingly becoming a high-level, strategic actor, developing
and actively exploiting their only available 'capital' to secure a living – the
capacity to work – in a focused, continuous effort towards potentially gainful
economic usage on the larger labor market as well as within the company. The
attitude of business towards the entreployee in this respect might well be
expressed thus: “You'll stay only as long as you prove that you're needed–by
(3) The above means a new higher level of self-‘commercialization’ of
labor power in two ways: On one hand, in autonomous forms of work
employees must actively and consistently generate capacities and performance,
thus creating a deliberate 'production economy' of their work capacities. On the
other hand, they must also 'market' their capacities on the company level to
ensure that their capacities are needed, acquired, and effectively used and – paid
for. The formerly passive employee is becoming, in the strict economic sense,
the 'entrepreneur' of his or her own potential, in the 'individual' market-economy
(as well as, of course, industry-wide).
If employees are to practice active 'production' and 'commodification' of
their capabilities and potentials, it will entail profound changes in the lives of the
persons concerned. The entire context of life will be 'commercialized' out of the
need to systematically reorganize all individual resources. The drastic increase
in privately accessed organization and communication tools (not only for
managers) is evidence for this development (for similar arguments see Sennet,
1998; Hochschild, 1997). No wonder that the traditional advice to employees
'Keep your job and life strictly separate!' no longer applies, and becomes now :
"We need you totally, exclusively, anytime and anywhere, so you'll have to
manage your life perfectly! We want people who are completely under control!"
What the 'producers' and 'salesmen' of their own work capacity do to
rationalize their lives may be compared to the activities of those offering other
commodities: they transform the production and sale of products from a rather
unorganized form into a well-coordinated one, and in doing so, generate a kind
of 'business'. Of course, the entreployee's 'business' is not a company in the usual
sense; it is production and commercialization of a special product under specific
conditions: their individual work capacities and expertise, but within the context
of their daily life.
Overview 2 - Characteristics of the 'entreployee':
Intensified independent planning, control and monitoring of work by the person
Intensified active and practical 'production' and 'commercialization' of one’s own
capacities and potential on the labor market as well as within companies
Self-determined organization of one's daily life and long-term plans, and the
tendency to accept willingly the importance of the company (employer) as an
integral part of life
Proletarians–employees–entreployees: the historic types of labor power
The entreployee or 'self-entrepreneurial' employee is a potentially new social
model of labor power for the increasingly market-driven businesses of the late-
Taylorist era of work organization. Previous stages of industrial society were
based on other types. In a rough characterization we can distinguish three types
of labor power (see Overview 3):
(1) In the early stage of modern industrial capitalism a very restrictive
form of labor control dominated, as labor was a new commodity being only just
established systematically, in an emerging 'labor market'. Former peasants and
craftsmen – poorly qualified to be industrial workers – were recruited primarily
from nearly feudal living conditions for factory employment. The working
capacity of the proletarian worker was in a sense only 'raw'; above all, the
ability to perform disciplined work within large organized structures was
limited. Thus companies sought to enforce continuous work performance by
regimens of repressive control. The everyday life of those workers was highly
insecure, its main feature being severe exploitation of their working capacity
with only very reduced opportunities for physical recovery.
(2) With the establishment of welfare state institutions – social security,
vocational training and industrial relations – a new type of labor power
developed: the considerably higher, more comprehensive, standardized and
specialized work qualification commonly known as 'occupation' or 'vocation'
(Ger. Beruf), obtained by means of systematic education including more
fundamental and general virtues valued in work such as diligence, discipline and
accuracy. Within companies, repressive control was replaced by structural,
technical and organizational control. The new disciplined type of 'vocational'
employee increasingly won the trust of management, supported by psycho-social
management methods. The basis of this form of labor application, exemplified
in the so-called Fordist production (and societal 'regulation') regime, is a well-
functioning social security system with increasing wages, decreasing working
hours, and a gender-separation of work within the family: women mainly
support their employed husbands by caring for household and family. Thus, a
way of life developed characterized by the bourgeois small family enjoying
consumption-oriented leisure time in the modern sense (see Jurczyk, 1992,
(3) This vocational form of labor power, predominant in western
industrial societies until now, could be being gradually replaced by the new
model of entrepreneurial labor, and direct control of the labor process, by
individual self-control in combination with emerging forms of indirect labor
control. Individual discipline and integrative ability, elements already
recognizable in the employee model, are becoming now central qualifications.
Professional, specialist qualifications are still essential, but new forms of
competence, such as the active production and commercialization of one’s own
labor capacity, and the willingness to adjust and organize one’s own
requirements and private life to the requirements of a company, described by the
term 'entreployee', are becoming preconditions to a successful work career
(Plath, 2000). With that the standardized vocation or profession, until now a
relatively rigid form of qualification, will be transformed into what we call the
individual vocation (Ger. Individualberuf; see Voß, 2001): a personalized model
of specific competence and experience, integrated in a rationalized, though
individual, way of life.
Overview 3 - Historic types of labor power in capitalism
proletarian worker (early industrialization)
- raw working capacity
- rigid direct control of work
- severe exploitation, no social protection
vocational employee (fordism)
- standardized qualifications, basic work virtues
- structural control of work on the basis of scientific knowledge
- milder exploitation, greater protection by the state
- individualized qualifications
- systematic self-control of work
- self-exploitation, precarious social security
Scope and consequences of developments thus outlined
Our thesis of the 'entreployee' has given rise to broad discussion in German
industrial sociology and far beyond (see e.g. Deutschmann, 2001; Kuda/Strauß,
2002; Schumann, 1999). Some critics maintain that, while there may be a few
forms of labor consistent with the new type of labor power postulated, these are
not prevailing trends and thus have to be considered marginal social phenomena.
This criticism is understandable from the perspective of the present, but it does
not do justice to our thesis as a characterizing prognosis, as we explain later.
There are a lot of indicators that employees with a high level of autonomy are
confronted with raising demands to act in an entrepreneurial manner
(Pongratz/Voß, 2003). They are to be found in economic sectors with great
importance for the future of modern capitalism (e.g. service economy, IT sector,
cultural professions). But above all it is important to realize that the 'entreployee'
in our description above is a scientific construct, a theoretical model which helps
clarify an ongoing empirical – and with that – historical development.
The entreployee as ideal type
The three historical types of labor power are purified 'ideal types' (in the strict
Weberian sense), i.e. they represent a high density of characteristics that prevail
in various and changing combinations in the empirical world. Thus the new type
of entrepreneurial labor power is intended as a first step towards an analytically
trenchant model, more or less near reality depending on the individual case, not
a description of reality. The ideal type of the entreployee combines the various
elements of the new forms of labor exploitation already apparent in different
contexts of the present transformation of the capitalist economic order, with the
theoretical reconstruction of that development's logic.
If the empirical observation of particular sectors of labor shows however
only a few elements of this type, this does not refute the analytic power of the
categorization, as long as elements occur in typical combinations. In an
empirical survey (Pongratz, 2001, Voß/Pongratz, 2003) we showed in how far
employees’ attitudes towards team and project work were consistent with the
entreployee type: the greatest correlation was found in the dimension of self-
control (see above), while identification with self-rationalization was weaker,
and with self-commercialization, the weakest.
The scope of empirical indicators
As an ideal type, the concept of the 'entreployee' can be useful as an analytical
instrument only if it can be related to a broad spectrum of real cases. Although
up to now there have been empirical indications of an actual expansion of the
self-entrepreneurial employee type in just a few sectors, these examples were
found in various sectors of labor, so that we can conclude that this is a general
development. Distinctive forms of the entreployee can be discovered in some
sectors of employment, primarily in the intensely project-oriented IT sector (see
Baukrowitz/ Boes, 2002, Eichmann/Kaupa/Steiner, 2002) as well as in media
and cultural professions combining dependent and freelance work, as in
journalism and television production (see Geesterkamp, 2000,
Gottschall/Schnell, 2000). Similar trends are visible in areas such as adult
training and education, consulting, academics and research.
The entreployee is obviously most suited to key future-oriented work
sectors. These jobs are often in prestigious, high-qualification areas especially
interesting to young university graduates. Even if in many fields of work the
typical vocational employee still prevails, a tendency towards change is
becoming apparent in the sectors of 'normal' labor in industry and services. The
fact of reverse tendencies in a few sectors, as 're-Taylorization', (Springer, 1999)
does not refute our prognosis, but simply shows that the process will not be
homogenous. The extent and speed of the development remain open parameters.
The entreployee as normative model
Our thesis formulates the prognosis that the entreployee could act in the long
term as a normative model, gaining importance as its implementation is closely
linked with organizational changes in companies. Thus, elements of the
entreployee type are being already generally proposed as the future model in
many management concepts (Deutschmann, 2001). The most incisive example
(but also especially problematic) are the present schemes in human resource
development in Germany, propagated under the slogan “Selbst GmbH”
("Myself Ltd. Co.") by personnel managers of respected German companies, or
the term “Ich AG” ("Me Inc.") proposed by a governmental commission for
reform of the labor market in Germany – the so-called Hartz Commission (see
In stark contrast to our viewpoint, such management or governmental
concepts do not focus enough on possible problems and risks of changes to labor
structures; and furthermore they offer highly ideological models but no well-
considered descriptions or analyses. Their concepts fit, at best, into the general
trend of ideologizing individual success and personal performance that can be
associated with the reorganizational measures of the 1990s. The possibility of
becoming a freelancer and working independently is propagated as a model of
success, open to all those willing and able, after the slogan: 'Be the architect of
your own fortune.' And, vice versa, all professional failures and setbacks,
although often inevitable for structural reasons, are to be interpreted as
individual failure and thus perhaps even a legitimation of social inequality. Our
thesis of the 'entreployee' on the other hand points to the broad range of
problematic effects and contradictions that the development is obviously going
Ambivalence, paradoxes, risks and contradictions
A preliminary assessment of the possible effects of implementing the
entreployee model is highly ambivalent: Employees with the necessary
individual, social and economic resources may become successful
'entrepreneurs' of their own labor power, but under unfavourable initial
conditions the model's disadvantages – reduced regulation and job security –
could accumulate, likely producing not so small a group of – less successful –
'self-entrepreneurial’ day-laborers, selling piecemeal their labor capacity, a new
class of the 'working poor' (see Ehrenreich, 2001). The new forms of work may
contribute, in any case, to a general individualization of the employment
situation because of the unfavourable and isolated market position of the
individual working person vis-à-vis companies.
But often even those – at first sight – successful entreployees may
experience relatively new and unpleasant side-effects of their increasing self-
control and self-marketing: workoholism, estrangement and stress can result and
many, even the most ambitious, will not be able to cope in the long term. To the
opportunities and risks of the new type of labor power – already closely linked
to well-known predisposing factors such as education, existing wealth, social
contacts, national or social origin and gender – an important new dimension of
inequality might be added: the unequal distribution of capacities to cope with the
specific dilemmas of self-organized work (see Plath, 2000).
Another characteristic of the entreployee is the frequent change of job
situation in the course of a person’s working life. Whereas the traditional course
of an employee's career is based on continuous professional advancement in
position, power, income and job security, persons working in 'flexible' work
situations must reckon with – occasionally at least – setbacks as well as
advancements. The given situation on the 'entrepreneurial labor market'
continuously creates the necessity to prove oneself, for example in project teams
or in the acquisition of orders, situations where success or failure must be
frequently redefined. Individuals experience and manage this necessity
differently each according to their possibilities, yet all face considerable
personal existential risk, especially in later career periods.
The entreployee as entrepreneur?
The term 'entrepreneur' used in the concept 'entreployee', should make clear that
a new stage in the commercialization of individual labor power has been
reached, closely linked with specific risks, well-known to freelancers, of self-
exploitation and failure. The term 'entrepreneur' denotes more than just the
popular models of the successful big businessman or trendy 'start-up founder' of
capitalist industrial society; it comprises also 'freelancers' in agriculture,
independent professions, trades and small businesses, amounting (in Germany)
to 11% of all persons in gainful employment. These groups demonstrate that
entrepreneurship does not always mean as much 'power and success' as frequent
long hours, little profit, financial strain and fear for economic survival over long
The idea of 'self-entrepreneurial' labor power should not be interpreted
merely in the metaphorical sense, but as the expression of a partial equivalent to
other categories of entrepreneurship: the calculation of profitability, especially
important in the commodification of products and services, is becoming more
and more relevant to individuals commodifying their own capacities and
abilities. While important differences between categories of entrepreneurs
should not be overlooked in the analogy – freelancers frequently base their
activities on financial resources, professional rights (e.g. physicians and
pharmacists), but only to a limited degree on the ability to acquire labor from
outside; capitalist entrepreneurs establish corporate hierarchies to organize the
exploitation of labor for profit – the traditional contradiction between the
interests of capital and labor is not eliminated with the shift to ‘self-
entrepreneurial’ labor power, but is transformed into a structural contradiction
between entrepreneurs of different kinds.
To limit the risks and problems of ‘self-entrepreneurial’ labor power is difficult
because its development has manifold causes, even if the dynamic stems
primarily, as we have postulated, from certain reorganization strategies of
companies. On the part of working persons, the tendency towards a general
change of values (cf. Inglehart, 2003) as well as an individualization of lifestyle
and life-course (cf. Beck, 1992) – especially in the mid-70s – must be mentioned
as decisively influential factors. In socio-political terms, this means a weakening
of so-called 'normal working conditions' – with the advent of globalization and
neo-liberalism – which gave stability to the 'vocational' employee's existence.
Yet, all in all, these developments were not homogenous, for counter-tendencies
such as intensified direct control may not only be found in several production
sectors (Springer, 1999) but also in newly-established service sectors (such as in
'call-centers'), leading to working conditions of an early capitalist style. As a
result in the medium-term there is a broad spectrum of work and employment
forms among employees and entreployees, with extremes that may endure for
the time being, thus encouraging a new variety of different working conditions
and employment models. General statements about entreployees here and
employees there can thus only serve as a rough orientation. Individual cases will
need exact consideration of the given intermediary forms and constellations of
variables which require differentiated treatment.
Challenges for Social Theory
The tendencies we have described show that the innovative capacity of capitalist
economic logic is not exhausted with the Fordist production regime. On the
contrary, instead of an erosion of corporate hierarchies and work relationships in
society, a new stage in the development of the relation between capital and labor
is emerging that can no longer be adequately interpreted using previously
dominant analytical methods and assessment criteria. Therefore a social critique
of capitalism cannot do without developing innovative concepts of its own (cf.
Baumann, 1999; Sennet, 1998).
To do this, one prerequisite above all is the consistent further development
of theoretical approaches to the analysis of social developments. Here the work
of Marx is still a significant point of reference, although it cannot offer a
comprehensive analytical system, not to speak of any monopoly on
interpretation. But from our perspective there is no doubt that the new emerging
type of labor indicates a significant increase in the 'productive powers',
combined with a fundamental change in practical production regimen, and thus
in the Marxian 'societal means of production'. Marx developed the most
important social theory of the 19th century, revealing the decisive aspects of the
developmental phases of capitalist society. In the 21st century we are faced with
further developments that will be understood only by creating largely new
theoretical instruments based, to a greater or lesser extent, on classical
theoretical elements and thought.
The thesis of the entreployee is not – and never will be – a replacement
for such a social theory, but it can help formulate relevant ideas and questions.
One of these is an intensified consideration of the subjectivity of the workers in
order to understand the present development of working society. New scientific
approaches to the 'subjectification' of work (see Moldaschl/Voß, 2002; for
similar ideas see Boltanski/ Chiapello, 1999; Hardt/ Negri 2001) are significant,
as is the reappraisal of practical experiences of workers, as in the campaign
"Work Without End?" (Ger. ‘Arbeiten ohne Ende’) propagated by the German
metalworkers' trade union IG-Metall (see Glißmann/ Peters, 2001).
The discussion of the subjectification of work centers on the resulting new
ambivalence and contradictions experienced increasingly by those involved in
market-based labor structures. In that process they are neither helpless victims
nor revolutionary actors, but co-participants in a fundamental and for them
unusual development. Socio-theoretical efforts may contribute to a better
understanding of this and related problems, creating a basis not only for new and
instructive forms of knowledge, but also dialogue and adequate socio-political
strategies for coping with them.
Appelbaum, E. 2002. Transformation of Work and Employment and New Insecurities. In P.
Auer and Ch. Daniel (eds.), The Future of Work, Employment and Social Protection. The
Search for New Securities in a World of Growing Uncertainties. Geneva: International
Institute for Labour Studies, 15-37.
Baukrowitz, A. and Boes, A. 2002. Arbeitsbeziehungen in der IT-Industrie. Erosion oder
Innovation der Mitbestimmung? Berlin: edition sigma.
Baumann, Z. 1999. Modernity as History of Time. Concepts and Transformations 4 (3): 229-
Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society. Towards a New modernity. London: Sage (first German ed.,
Boltanski, L. and Chiapello, E. 1999. Le nouvel esprit du capitalism. Paris: Gallimard.
Braverman, H. 1974 Labor and Monopoly Capital. The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth
Century. New York, London: Monthly Review Press.
Deutschmann, Ch. 2001. Die Gesellschaftskritik der Industriesoziologie - ein
Anachronismus? Leviathan 29: 58-69.
Ehrenreich, B. 2001. Nickel and Dimed. On (not) getting by in America. New York:
Eichmann, H./ Kaupa, I. and Steiner, K. (Hg.) 2003. Game Over? Neue Selbständigkeit und
New Economy nach dem Hype. Wien: Falter.
Friedman, A.L. 1977. Responsible autonomy versus direct control over the labor process.
Capital and Class, (1): 43-57.
Gesterkamp, Th. 2000. "Coole Leute mit heißen Jobs". Neue Selbständige in einer
Vorreiterbranche. Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, H. 3: 350-357.
Glißmann, W. and Peters, K. 2001. Mehr Druck durch mehr Freiheit. Die neue Autonomie in
der Arbeit und ihre paradoxen Folgen. Hamburg: VSA.
Gottschall, K. and Schnell, Ch. 2000 „Alleindienstleister" in Kulturberufen. Zwischen neuer
Selbständigkeit und alten Abhängigkeiten. WSI-Mitteilungen, 53: 804-810.
Hardt, M. and Negri, A. 2001. Empire. Harvard, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Hochschild, A.R. 1997. The Time Bind: When Work becomes Home and Home becomes
Work. New: York: Henry Holt.
Inglehart, R.L. (ed.) 2003. Human Values and Social Change: Findings from the World
Values Surveys. New York: Brill.
Jurczyk, K. 1992. How people organize their everyday life: The impact of flexibilization of
work. Women in Organization and Management, 4: 3-7.
Jurczyk, K. 1998. Time in Womens´s Everday Lifes. Time and Society, 7 (2): 283-308.
Jurczyk, K. / Treutner, E. /Voß, G.G. and Zettel, O. 1985. Die Zeiten ändern sich –
Arbeitszeitpolitische Strategien und die Arbeitsteilung der Personen. In S. Hradil (ed.),
Sozialstruktur im Umbruch. Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 147-167.
Knights, D. and Willmott, H.(eds.). 1990: Labor Process Theory. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Kommission für Zukunftsfragen der Freistaaten Bayern und Sachsen (1998). Erwerbstätigkeit
und Arbeitslosigkeit in Deutschland. Entwicklung - Ursachen – Maßnahmen. München:
Olzog (first 1996/1997).
Kommission “Moderne Dienstleistungen am Arbeitsmarkt”. 2002. Moderne Dienstleistungen
am Arbeitsmarkt – Bericht der Kommission. Berlin: Ministerium für Arbeit und
Kratzer, N. 2003. Arbeitskraft in Entgrenzung. Grenzenlose Anforderungen, erweiterte
Spielräume, begrenzte Ressourcen. Berlin: edition sigma.
Kuda, E. and Strauß, J. (Hg.) 2002. Arbeitnehmer als Unternehmer? Herausforderungen für
Gewerkschaften und berufliche Bildung. Hamburg: VSA.
Minssen, H. (ed.). 2000. Begrenzte Entgrenzungen. Wandlungen von Organization und
Arbeit. Berlin: edition sigma.
Moldaschl, M. 1998. Internalisierung des Marktes. Neue Unternehmensstrategien und
qualifizierte Angestellte. In IfS, INIFES, ISF, SOFI (ed.), Jahrbuch
sozialwissenschaftliche Technikberichterstattung '97. Berlin: edition sigma, 197-250.
Moldaschl, M. and Voß, G.G. (eds.). 2000. Subjektivierung von Arbeit. München, Mering:
Nordhause-Janz, J. and Pekruhl, U. 2000. Managementmoden oder Zukunftskonzepte? Zur
Entwicklung von Arbeitsstrukturen und von Gruppenarbeit in Deutschland. In J.
Nordhause-Janz and U. Pekruhl (eds.), Arbeiten in neuen Strukturen? München, Mering:
Peters, K. 2001. Individual autonomy in new forms of work organization. Concepts and
Transformation 6 (2): 141-158.
Plath, H.-E. 2000. Arbeitsanforderungen im Wandel, Kompetenzen für die Zukunft.
Mitteilungen aus der Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung, 33: 583-593.
Pongratz, H.J. 2001. Spaß an mehr Leistung? Die Mitbestimmung, 6: 26-29.
Pongratz, H.J./ Voß, G.G. 2000. Vom Arbeitnehmer zum Arbeitskraftunternehmer. Zur
Entgrenzung der Ware Arbeitskraft. In H. Minssen (ed.), Begrenzte Entgrenzungen.
Wandlungen von Organization und Arbeit. Berlin: edition sigma, 225-247.
Pongratz, H.J./ Voß. G.G. 2003. Arbeitskraftunternehmer. Erwerbsorientierungen in
entgrenzten Arbeitsformen. Berlin: edition sigma.
Schumann, M. 1999. Das Lohnarbeiterbewusstsein des „Arbeitskraftunternehmers". SOFI-
Mitteilungen, 27: 59-63.
Sennet, R. 1998. The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the
New Capitalism. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Springer, R. 1999. Rückkehr zum Taylorismus? Arbeitspolitik in der Automobilindustrie am
Scheideweg. Frankfurt/Main, New York: Campus.
Voß, G.G. 1998. Die Entgrenzung von Arbeit und Arbeitskraft. Eine subjektorientierte
Interpretation des Wandels der Arbeit. Mitteilungen aus der Arbeitsmarkt- und
Berufsforschung, 31 (3): 473-487.
Voß, G.G. 2001. Auf dem Weg zum Individualberuf? Zur Beruflichkeit des
Arbeitskraftunternehmers. In Th. Kurtz (ed.), Aspekte des Berufs in der Moderne. Opladen:
Leske + Budrich, 287-314.
Voß, G.G. and Pongratz, H.J. 1998. Der Arbeitskraftunternehmer. Eine neue Grundform der
Ware Arbeitskraft? Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 50: 131-158.
Hans J. Pongratz, Dr. phil., born 1957, studied sociology, psychology and social history at
Munich University and works now as a social scientist in the Dept. of Sociology, Munich
Technical University (Germany).
Technische Universität München
Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Lehrstuhl für Soziologie
Lothstr. 17, D-80335 München (Germany)
G. Günter Voß, Prof. Dr. rer.pol. habil., born 1950, studied sociology, psychology and
political sciences at Munich University and is now Professor for Industrial Sociology and
Sociology of Technology in the Dept. of Sociology, Chemnitz Technical University
Technische Universität Chemnitz
Institut für Soziologie, Professur Industrie- und Techniksoziologie
Reichenhainerstr. 41, D-09107 Chemnitz (Germany)