|
There is clear-cut evidence
that, for a period of at least one year, supervision, which increases the
direct pressure for productivity can achieve significant increases in
production. However, such short-term increases are obtained only at a
substantial and serious cost to the organisation.
To what extent can a manager
make an impressive earnings record over a short period of one to three
years by exploiting the company’s investment in the human organisation in
his plant or division? To what extent will the quality of his organisation
suffer if he does so? The following is a description of an important study
conducted by the Institute for Social Research designed to answer these
questions.
The study covered 500 clerical
employees in four parallel divisions. Each division was organised in
exactly the same way, used the same technology, did exactly the same kind
of work, and had employees of comparable
aptitude.
Productivity in all four of the
divisions depended on the number of clerks involved. The work entailed the
processing of accounts and generating of invoices. Although the volume of
work was considerable, the nature of the business was such that it could
only be processed as it came along. Consequently, the only way in which
productivity could be increased was to change the size of the workgroup.
The four divisions were
assigned to two experimental programmes on a random basis. Each programme
was assigned at random a division that had been historically high in
productivity and a division that had been below average in productivity. No
attempt was made to place a division in the programme that would best fit
its habitual methods of supervision used by the manager, assistant
managers, supervisors and assistant supervisors.
The experiment at the clerical
level lasted for one year. Beforehand, several months were devoted to
planning, and there was also a training period of approximately six months.
Productivity was measured continuously and computed weekly throughout the
year. The attitudes of employees and supervisory staff towards their work
were measured just before and after the period.
Turning now to the heart of
the study, in two divisions an attempt was made to change the supervision
so that the decision levels were pushed down and detailed supervision of
the workers reduced. More general supervision of the clerks and their
supervisors was introduced. In addition, the managers, assistant managers,
supervisors and assistant supervisors of these two divisions were trained
in group methods of leadership, which they endeavoured to use as much as
their skill would permit during the experimental year. For easy reference,
the experimental changes in these two divisions will be labelled the ‘participative
programme’.
In the other two divisions, by
contrast, the programme called for modifying the supervision so as to
increase the closeness of supervision and move the decision levels upwards.
This will be labelled the ‘hierarchically controlled programme’. These
changes were accomplished by a further extension of the scientific
management approach. For example, one of the major changes made was to have
the jobs timed and to have standard times computed. This showed that these
divisions were overstaffed by about 30%. The general manager then ordered
the managers of these two divisions to cut staff by 25%. This was done by
transfers without replacing the persons who left; no one was to be
dismissed.
Result of the Experiment
Changes
in Productivity
Figure 1 shows the changes in
salary costs per unit of work, which reflect the change in productivity
that occurred in the divisions. As will be observed, the hierarchically
controlled programmes increased productivity by about 25%. This was a
result of the direct orders from the general manager to reduce staff by
that amount. Direct pressures produced a substantial increase in
production.
A significant increase in
productivity of 2O°/o was also achieved in the participative programme, but
this was not as great an increase as in the hierarchically controlled
programme. To bring about this improvement, the clerks themselves
participated in the decision to reduce the size of the work group. (They
were aware of course that productivity increases were sought by management
in conducting these experiments.) Obviously, deciding to reduce the size of
a work group by eliminating some of its members is probably one of the most
difficult decisions for a work group to make. Yet the clerks made it. In
fact, one division in the participative programme increased its
productivity by about the same amount as each of the two divisions in the
hierarchically controlled programme. The other participative division,
which historically had been the poorest of all the divisions, did not do so
well and increased productivity by only 15%.
Changes
in Attitude
Although both programmes had
similar effects on productivity, they had significantly different results
in other respects. The productivity increases in the hierarchically
controlled programme were accompanied by shifts in an adverse direction in
such factors as loyalty, attitudes, interest, and involvement in the work.
But just the opposite was true in the participative programme.
For example, Figure 2 shows
that when more general supervision and increased participation were
provided, the employees’ feeling of responsibility to see that the work got
done increased. Again, when the supervisor was away, they kept on working.
In the hierarchically controlled programme, however, the feeling of
responsibility decreased, and when the supervisor was absent, work tended
to stop.
As Figure 3 shows, the
employees in the participative programme at the end of the year felt that
their manager and assistant manager were ‘closer to them’ than at the
beginning of the year. The opposite was true in the hierarchical programme.
Moreover, as Figure 4 shows, employees in the participative programme felt
that their supervisors were more likely to ‘pull’ for them, or for the
company and them, and not be solely interested in the company, while in the
hierarchically controlled programme, the opposite trend occurred.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
thank you for visiting my blog and for your nice comments