Since the introduction of Toyota's Production System, the deployment of lean production systems (or lean manufacturing), and more advanced technological developments, Participatory Management Practices (PMP) have been viewed as lying at the heart of successful manufacturing workplaces. Studies on technology and PMP have concluded that the state of technology in a company unequivocally shapes PMP and can open spaces to enhance the wellbeing of workers regardless of the PMP dynamics. However, these claims are contested by studies that question the positive effects from PMP. These studies argue that workplaces are organized in such a way that workers are viewed as mere resources to be deployed in the production process, without paying attention to their human morale and agency. This research presents a case study of a food plastics packaging firm that contextualizes, describes, and analyzes: 1) PMP from a Socio-technical Systems Theory (SST) perspective to further our understanding of the role of participative dynamics in the wellbeing of workers; and 2) the dynamics of control-resistance in the workplace as a measure of dignity at work in the context of power relations. This research provides a rich exploration of a workplace that is facing and managing the challenge of automation and technological development. Using an extended case study research method (Burawoy, 2009), data are collected by observing workers' daily interactions with a combination of technologies. These observations reveal the importance of team dynamics in the production process. The observed PMP dynamics show conflictive, competitive, and cooperative behaviors that are negotiated through continuous human-machine, machine-machine, and human-human interactions in the production process. However, management is found to be indifferent to the impact that a combination of technologies and lean production approaches have on participation dynamics. This indifference inhibits managers from embracing and appreciating the value of PMP. All the identified expressions of what technology and PMP mean to workers, and their dynamics, show an ongoing negotiating process. This process comes from all types of participation in which a worker struggles for dignity. The organizational structure of the firm expects workers to display specific types of participation in team efforts, but workers are also provided with opportunities to negotiate their interests or struggle for dignity by changing their type of participation in team activities. The work processes and findings described in this dissertation generally support the theory of Hodson (2001). Further, this research develops the concept of "combination of technologies," which can be used to help observe workers' understanding of technology and participative dynamics. The research also identifies various types of participation based on the interactions of workers in the technology process and how workers manage or safeguard their dignity based on their engagement with different types of participation in team-based situations or events. Finally, this research identified how participative engagement by workers can be used as a power mechanism to retain their dignity. / Doctor of Philosophy / Modern manufacturing production is based on the increasing use of technology and workers' participation in problem solving when it comes to the production system. These types of production systems are called Lean Production Systems. These systems stem from the philosophy of doing more with less and are viewed as lying at the heart of successful manufacturing workplaces. However, studies on technology and teams have concluded that not only does technology shape the dynamics of teams, but the practices and dynamics of workers in teams can open spaces to enhance human wellbeing. Even so, some studies question the positive effects of worker participation in teams based on Participatory Management Practices (PMP). These studies argue that workplaces are organized in such a way that workers are viewed as mere resources to be deployed in the production process, without paying attention to human morale and agency. This research is a case study of a rigid food plastics packaging firm that contextualizes, describes, and analyzes: (1) the participation of workers in PMP from the perspective that workers and technology have a social relationship with deep contextual meaning; and (2) a measure of human dignity in the context of power relations and how control and resistance are met in these spaces. This research provides a rich exploration of a workplace that is facing and managing the challenge of automation and technological development. Using an extended case study research method (Bloomfield, 1994 as cited in Burawoy, 2009, p. 154), data are collected from workers' daily interactions with a combination of technologies. The importance of how people participate in teams during the production process, was observed and acknowledged to enhance workers wellbeing. A range of dynamics were observed and defined as conflictive, competitive, or cooperative behavior that are negotiated through the continuous human-machine, machine-machine, and human-human interactions that occur during the production process. However, management is indifferent to and disregards the impact that technology has on worker participation in teams and is unconcerned with contrasting meanings of technology from workers, which means they are not paying attention to how these factors impact the use of technology and participation dynamics. All expressions of what technology and worker participation means show an ongoing negotiating process in which workers struggle for dignity. This research follows Hodson (2001) categories of struggle for dignity as a measure of self-worth. This research develops concepts that can be used to help observe workers' understanding of technology and participative dynamics, as well as identifies different types of participation by observing the interactions of workers in the technology process. This research identified how workers manage or safeguard their dignity based on their engagement with different types of participation observed during team-based situations or events. Finally, the research identified how workers' ability to change their interactions in teams is used as a power mechanism to retain their dignity.

Cette étude dresse un bref historique du concept de la dignité humaine pour observer sa dualité et sa multiplicité à travers les époques. Peu présente dans la littérature, la dignité au travail, tout aussi dichotomique et plurielle, s’inscrit néanmoins dans un cadre singulier, où s’ajoute des paramètres spécifiques à l’organisation du travail. Elle s’avère particulièrement problématique pour les employés atypiques, incluant entre autres les employés à contrats à durée déterminée, les employés saisonniers et les employés temporaires. Effectivement, malgré l’augmentation significative de leur embauche au sein du marché du travail canadien depuis la fin des années 1990, les employés atypiques représentent un groupe peu étudié, vulnérable et plus enclin à subir les répercussions de pratiques contraignantes et nuisibles à la dignité selon la précarité rattachée au statut, d’où la pertinence de s’y intéresser. En ce sens, si la dignité appelle à l’autonomie par la considération de la valeur intrinsèque et inaliénable de l’individu, et que le travail implique qu’il réalise des finalités autres que les siennes, s’interroger sur la dignité au travail, principalement chez un groupe marginalisé par sa présence éphémère, prend tout son sens. La méthodologie de cette étude est basée sur l’analyse interprétative d’entretiens semi-structurés réalisés avec douze employés atypiques. Comparées à la littérature existante et suite à la mise en place d’une typologie du travail spécifique aux employés atypiques et à la dignité, les données recueillies ont montré une réappropriation de la dualité du concept par l’inclusion de l’opposition entre l’être et l’action de la part des participants. Plus encore, ils ont ajouté trois dimensions supplémentaires : l’interaction, les systèmes du travail et le temps. Concept central et pivot, l’interaction permet l’établissement de relations dans l’ensemble des dimensions. L’organisation du travail dans les systèmes et l’éphémérité du statut des employés atypiques, éléments différentiels, banalisent les pratiques nuisibles à la dignité des employés atypiques, où ces derniers finissent par percevoir leur situation comme un rite de passage dans l’attente d’un avenir meilleur. / This study begins with a brief historical overview of the concept of dignity. Despite the multiple meanings given to the notion of dignity over time, a clear duality appears between definitions that privilege the intrinsic, inalienable nature of dignity and those that attribute dignity according to the quality of an individual's actions. While dignity at work has received far less scholarly attention, the emergent literature replicates the same dichotomy that is found in studies of dignity. The question of dignity at work is particularly important for atypical employees who, due to their precarious status, are especially vulnerable to workplace indignity. Surprisingly, atypical workers, a category that includes seasonal workers, temporary workers, workers on short-term contracts, and permanent part-timers, remain on the sidelines of much academic research, despite constant growth in their numbers as a proportion of the Canadian labour market since the late 1990s. The importance of studying dignity at work appears clearly in the following conundrum: how can we understand dignity at work when dignity implies that one recognizes the unique value of every human person based on his/her autonomy to choose his/her own ends, yet the context of work requires that workers commit themselves to attaining objectives imposed by someone else? Using an interpretive methodology to explore the meanings of dignity at work, this study is based on semi-structured interviews with twelve atypical employees. The findings show how participants reconciled the duality between being and doing as a source of dignity. Participants added three other dimensions that are not present in the extant literature: interaction, work systems, and time. These five dimensions are combined to create a typology of dignity at work that is specific to atypical employees. Interaction acts as a core concept that links all of the other dimensions together. The organization of work systems and the ephemeral status of atypical employees work together to trivialize workplace practices that undermine the dignity of atypical employees, who come to perceive their situation as a rite of passage to be endured while waiting for a better future.