- Email: [email protected]
Worker involvement in implementing new technology
Technouation, 4 (1986) 143-151 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.,
Amsterdam
-Printed
143
in The Netherlands
WORKER INVOLVEMENT IN IMPLEMENTING NEW TECHNOLOGY Thomas J. Hyclak and Michael G. Kolchin College of Busmess and Economics,
Lehigh University,
Bethlehem,
PA
18015
(U.S.A.)
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to explore the importance of worker involvement in the implementation of new technology. While academicians have long called for greater worker involvement in the change process, in practice it seems that organizations resist such involvement to any great degree. The review of the literature presented here suggests that worker involvement is even more critical in implementing new technology as such involvement not only results in less resistance to technological change but, more importantly, greater support and commitment from workers for technological change. This commitment from workers is necessary if new technology is to be successfully implemented.
INTRODUCTION
The widespread implications of microelectronics for the factory of the future have rekindled an interest in the literature on the unplanned human consequences of rapid technological change. Examples of such literature include Hunt and Hunt [l] , Katzman [2], Bamber [3], Skinner and Chakraborty [4], and Rothwell and Davidson [ 51 which all discuss various aspects of the human impact of new technology. In many ways the literature echoes that of the early 196Os, which was also a period of rapid technical change accompanied by slow macroeconomic growth. One particular commonality between the current and earlier discussions of the socioeconomic consequences of change is a repeated emphasis on the need for greater worker participation in the decision-making process concerning the implementation of new technology [6--g]. While calls for greater worker involvement are common in academic studies and part and parcel of union strategies, there is not much evidence that firms go much beyond early notification of change and communication about the need for change in involving labor in decisions about change [ 10, 111.
016649’72/86/$03.50
0 1986
Elsevier Science
Publishers
B.V.
This paper esamines this dichotomy between theory and practice. In order to accomplish this we first examine the foundations of the argument for greater participation of workers in the process of planning for the introduction of new technology at the plant level. Then, in the second half of the paper, we speculate about possible organizational barriers to worker involvement in change decisions with an eye toward explaining the circumstances under which involvement is likely to be used. THE GAINS
FROM
WORKER
INVOLVEMENT
There are two closely interwoven strands to the argument that greater worker participation in change decisions enhances the ability of a firm to introduce new technology in the factory. The first, older strand emphasizes the role of participation in offsetting worker resistance to change. A second, more positive, view that seems to be more prevalent in recent articles is that participation of workers in the systems design process promises to speed-up the “phasing-in” period by taking explicit advantage of the worker’s unique store of knowledge about the work process. 1. Overcoming
Resistance to Change
While most workers and union leaders are not unalterably opposed to technical change [12] it is clear that many fear the ramifications of change. These fears are not limited to concern over potential job losses but extend to changes in the content of jobs, the skill and responsibility required for jobs, the nature of plant supervision and managerial control over jobs, and the personal relations among workers in the plant [13, 141. While the end result of change often is an enhancement of the work experience [15], the great uncertainty among workers regarding the effects of change can lead to direct or indirect resistance. Direct resistance to change is most likely in plants with union representation and usually takes the form of a reactive attempt by a union to negotiate restrictions on a managerial decision to implement new technology. These attempts generally focus on obtaining guarantees of job security, limits on wage changes resulting from job reassignments, and, especially where computerization is involved, limits on the full use of the technology by management to enhance its control over the workplace [16]. The vast majority of articles on the labor effects of technological change focuses on these efforts of direct resistance to change. However, studies of the union reaction to technological change in Europe, Canada and Australia, where public policy seems to favor the negotiation of technology agreements, indicate that direct union resistance has had limited success and therefore limited impact on the firm’s ability to introduce new technology [17-211. Indirect resistance to change is subtler and can occur in plants without
145
organized union representation. Such indirect responses can be regarded as of two types. First, the expectation of or occurrence of adverse side effects can reduce job satisfaction, increase absenteeism and job-related injuries, and reduce individual effort and overall productivity after the introduction of new technology [22, 231. Second, in cases where computerization of the work process is involved, workers may react to the seemingly inevitable start-up and debugging problems [24, 251 in such a fashion that they can regain some control over the work process and limit the full effectiveness of the new technology [26]. Case studies of the reaction of workers to technological change lend support to this notion that indirect worker resistance to change can result in incomplete implementation of new technology and a reduced productivity payoff to such innovations [27-311. And a number of case studies demonstrate that worker involvement in the change decision can reduce worker resistance to change and even engender worker commitment to the success of the change process [ 32-341. These studies establish a fairly strong argument for what might be called prescription” a “weak participation reached by Coch and French [35]. That is, management effort to provide advance notification to workers and union leaders of impending change and to convince them of the necessity for change can overcome to some degree the resistance of these parties to change. The studies summarized in the next section seem to suggest the need for a stronger degree of worker participation than suggested here. 2. Inducing Contributions
to Change
A developing literature argues that worker involvement in decision-making about new technology can make a positive contribution to the successful introduction of new technology in the factory. This idea is based on the observation that new computer-based manufacturing systems encounter significant unexpected implementation costs due to start-up and debugging problems and the need to add equipment to adapt externally developed systems to the peculiar characteristics of a given workplace. These high and variable implementation costs have been cited as one explanation for the relatively slow pace of robotization and CAM adoption in U.S. factories [36, 371. It is hypothesized by Kelley [38], Nadler and Robinson [39], Brooks [40] and others that greater worker participation in the design process could reduce the implementation costs of new manufacturing technology in two ways. First, worker involvement in the early stages of the design process would tap a source of knowledge about a given work process and environment that is not generally included in the current processes for developing new technology in most firms. Second, active worker participation in the change process on the shop floor is needed to obtain the degree of cooperation and active intervention necessary to identify and help rectify problems as they occur to keep a new process in operation.
Walton 143.1 effectively argues that this heightened degree of worker participation could not only provide internal benefits from smoother introduction of new technology but also external benefits in minimizing the unplanned adverse human consequences of new technology. This possibility would result from the great flexibility of computers and the exploitation of that flexibility by those most directly affected by change to select the “optimal” vehicle for change. In Walton’s view, the current managerial perspective views technology as predetermined and the social costs as inevitable with the result that suboptimal decisions (from the human effects side) are more likely to be made. The arguments summarized above find some support in case studies although the evidence here is much weaker than that related to resistance. For example, Koshiro’s f42] study of the use of robots by a Japanese automobile equipment manufacturer attests to the importance of the complementary relationship between skilled workers and machines in insuring effective robot operations. Shaiken’s [43] study of computerization in U.S. metal fabricating plants concludes that computerized machine tools are unable to operate effectively without the assistance of skilled machinists and that machinists are willing to take a more active role in monitoring and programming computerized machine tools when they have been involved in the decision to implement the new process. LIMITS
ON WORKER
~NVULV~~ENT
There does seem to be some evidence that labor participation can enhance the ability of the firm to implement new technology. However, such participation does not appear to be high on the agenda of most firms, even those in countries where public policy generally favors labor-management cooperation [44, 453. While a number of factors can account for this, the remainder of this paper focuses on two structural aspects of firms that seem to place distinct limits on worker involvement in technology decisions. These structural aspects are the organization of management decision-making on technology and the overall framework of traditional labor-management relations. It. The Process af Technology
Planning
Descriptions of the way in which firms make innovations to their products and processes suggest a couple of limits to worker involvement that are inherent in the process of technology planning. The first limit to worker involvement lies in the great complexity of the innovation process which leads to strategic choices over techniques to generate innovations. This can be seen in the work of Walcoff, Ouellette and Cheremisinoff [46] _ They analyze case studies of current management
147
techniques used by large firms to overcome technical, organizational, financial and/or marketing barriers to change. While they cite Ford’s Quality of Work Life program as an effective strategy to overcome organizational barriers related to insufficient communication, it is clear from their analysis that strategies in addition to worker involvement directed at other barriers to innovation are considered higher priorities by most of the firms in their sample. A second limit in worker involvement in technology planning is prevalent in situations involving computerization of work processes. That is that firms tend to adopt ready-made software that has been developed by outside vendors who do not generally solicit or use worker input or the input of on-site managers [47, 481. As a result of these characteristics of decisionmaking and the fact that technical decisions often are centralized, the actual implementation and the personal consequences of a given decision are not usually considered until after that decision has been made [49] . Finally, managerial motivation for consideration of new technology is often to reduce direct labor costs [50] and is based on overly optimistic reliance on a technological fix [51] to the neglect of other means of increasing productivity [52]. All of these characteristics may make managers resistant or even oblivious to the advantages of worker involvement outlined in the first half of this paper. Walton [53] concludes that several organizational changes will be necessary to institutionalize worker involvement in change decisions. The most significant of these is an organizational commitment to identifying the human effects of change and to considering organizational “impact statements” for each potential systems design. 2. The Labor-Relations
System
In unionized settings, the adversarial nature of labor-management relations can erect barriers to the use of worker participation. In the first place, management tends to regard technological change as a strict management rights issue [54] and to use change to regain management rights waived in earlier negotiations [ 551. Secondly, the usual union stance in technological change is reactive and concentrates on bargaining for protection [56]. The effect of this is to make unions unlikely to take an active role in planning for changes and to condition the labor response on the vagaries of relative bargaining power. Kochan and Katz [57] suggest that hard management bargaining on work rules and experiments with quality-of-work-life programs portend major changes in the traditional role of the local union. One attempt at bringing unions into technology implementation decisions is the use of technology agreements (TAs). Such agreements have been used in many industrial countries outside of the U.S.A. The purpose of TAs is to provide practical procedures for dealing with issues related to technological changes that were beyond the scope of traditional collec-
148
tive bargaining issues. The main focus of TAs concentrates on the following five main areas [58] : l Employment levels l Quality of work environment l Job design l Computer system design l Sharing the wealth created by improved productivity Unfortunately, TAs have not had the results they intended to provide {59, 601. Even where TAs have been legislated, their use has been minimal. However, the existence of the TA portends a movement in the direction of greater involvement of unions and employees in the decision-making process involving the implementation of new technology. In the U.S. setting, such agreements find precedent in the establishment of labor-management committees, plant production committees, Scanlon plans, and QWL committees. The distinctive feature of all of these cooperative actions is the emphasis on extending the collective bargaining process beyond traditional issues to deal with issues that are of mutual interest to both the employer and employee [61]. These non-wage issues include such things as energy conservation, work methods, employee morale, and waste reduction. It is not difficult to imagine that new technology could be included in this group as well and that new technology agreements could become a supplement to the collective b~gaining process in the U.S.A. CONCLUSION
This paper has attempted to make a case for the value of employee involvement in implementing technological change while highlighting the barriers that exist to such involvement. In short, early employee involvement in any change within the organization leads to more effective implementation and, certainly, technological changes are no different. However, in considering technoIogica1 change, managers are even more reluctant to involve employees as they do not feel workers are able to contribute anything to the decision and are most likely to resist any change which threatens job security. This low esteem for the American work force is not warranted. A recent Gallup Poll of U.S. workers show that the American work force is not only capable of contributing to performance improvement but is desirous of doing so [62]. In addition, there are numerous examples where participation of the work force has resulted in significant productivity improvements for the firms involved. Examples include Lincoln Electric [63 1, Motorola [64], and Donnelly Mirrors [65]. The problem is not that participation will not work; rather, it is the hesitancy of management to give up perceived control. This is unfortunate because, as Cole [66] asserts, increased participation at lower levels strengthens management and bureaucratic structures. Employees are willing to be more greatly influenced by their managers because they have participated
149
in the decisions that affect their jobs. At the same time, management maintains their prerogatives of establishing corporate-wide objectives. In essence, the style of management becomes more human and, at the same time, allows for maintenance of management control. Additionally, the union is not the obstacle to participation many companies claim it to be. Both Abel of the USWA and Bluestone of the UAW have pushed for greater quality of working life through cooperation while still maintaining the collective bargaining process [67]. The involvement of the unions in labo~m~agement cooperation programs has proven to be facilitative to the success of these programs 168, 691. What the union seeks is early involvement in the process of making changes. The success of participation in other areas of work life portends similar trends in the introduction of new technology. In fact, it is in this area of new technology that p~ticipation is most important; for, without the involvement of the union and the work force, the resistance to change is likely to be greatest and the need for support of the work force in the implementation of the technology is critical. Without support of a company’s employees, millions of dollars may be spent with resultant long delays and idle equipment. On the other hand, as noted by Peltu [?O] : “In a more cooperative environment technology agreements could provide the stability and concerted effort from management and employees needed to exploit technology humanely.”
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support for this project provided by the Northeast Tier Ben Franklin Advanced Technology Center.
REFERENCES 1 2 3 4
5
6
7
Hunt, HA. and Hunt, T.L., 1983, Human Resource Implications of Robotics. W.E. Upjohn Institute, Kalamazoo. Katzman, MS., 1983. When robots dominate the U.S. workplace. Supervisory Management, 83 (6): 37-42. Bamber, G., 1980. Microchips and industrial relations. Industrial Relations, 11 (5): 7-19. Skinner, W. and Chakraborty, K., 1982. The impact of new technology: People and organizations in manufacturing and allied industries. Work in America Institute Studies in Productivity: Highlights of the Literature 18, Pergamon Press, New York. Rothwell, S. and Davidson, D., 1982. Manpower matters: Technological change, company personnel policies and skill development. Journal of General Management, 8 (2): 87-93. Barkin, S., 1967. Personnel and industrial relations programs: Fart of an integrated national active manpower policy. Adjustment of Workers to Technological Change at Plant Level : Final Report, GECD, Paris, 95-l 11. Stanislao, J. and Stanislao, B.C., 1983. Dealing with resistance to change. Business Horizons, 26 (4): 74-78.
150 8
Brooks, H., 1983. Technology, competition, and employment. The Annals, 4’70: 115-122. 9 Walton, R.D., 1982. Social change in the development of advanced information technology. Technology in Society, 4 (82): 41-49. 10 Lansbury, R.D., 1982. Technological change and employee participation in the retail industry. Work and People, 8 (3): 21-26. 11 Kelley, MR., 1984. Computer-controlled machines and the disruption of workplace productivity: Establishing a new labor-management relationship. Technology and the Need for New Labor Relations, Discussion Paper Series, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. 12 Weikle, R.D. and Wheeler, H.N., 1983. Unions and technological change: Attitudes of local union leaders. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting, IRRA, Madison, 100-106. 13 Katzman, MS. 1983. op. cit. 14 Stanislao, J. and Stanislao, B.C., 1983. op. cit. 15 Mueller, E., 1969. Technological Advance in an Expanding Economy. Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor. 16 Webb, ‘I’., 1983, Union tactics for the high-tech age. Personnel Management, 15 (5): 22-25. 17 Bamber, G. and Lansbury, R., 1983. A comparative perspective on technological change and industrial relations. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting, IRRA, Madison, 92-99. 18 Jain, H.C., 1983. Union, management, and government response to technological change in Canada. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting, IRRA, Madison, 85-91. 19 Lansbury, R.D. 1982. op. cit. 20 Peitchinis, S.G., 1983. The attitude of trade unions towards technological changes. Relations Industrielles, 38 (1): 104-119. 21 Schneider, L., 1984. Technology bargaining in Norway. Technology and the Need for New Labor Relations, Discussion Paper Series. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. 22 Lipstreu, 0. and Read, K.A., 1964. Transition to Automation: A Study of People, Production and Change. University of Colorado Studies, Series in Business No. 1, Boulder. 23 Argote, L., Goodman, P.S. and Schkade, D., 1983. The human side of robotics: How workers react to a robot. Sloan Management Review, 24 (3): 31-41. 24 Nadler, G. and Robinson, G.H., 1983. Design of the automated factory: More than robots. The Annals, 470: 68-80. 25 Shaiken, H., 1985. The automated factory: The view from the shop floor. Technology Review, 88 (1): 16-27. 26 Tolbert, P.S., 1984. Review of the shop floor politics of new technology, by B. Wilkinson. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 37 (4): 640-641. 17 Ibid 28 Sandkull, B., 1980. Practice of industry.mismanagement of people. Human Systems Management, l(2): 159-167. 29 Lipstreu, 0. and Read, K.A., 1964. op. cit. 30 Kjierulff, K., Counte, M.A., Salloway, J.C. and Campbell, B.C., 1983. Measuring adaptation to medical technology. Hospital and Health Services Administration, 28 (1): 30-40. 31 Schneider, L., 1984. op. cit. resistance to change. Human Rela32 Coch, L. and French, J.R.P., 1948. Overcoming tions, 1 (4): 5X2-532. Change: The Effect of Successful Leadership. 33 Guest, R., 1962. Organizational Dorsey Press, Homewood, IL. 34 Argote, L., Goodman, P.S. and Schkade, D., 1983. op. cit.
151
35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
43 44 45 46
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 5-1 55 56 57
58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
Coch. L. and French, J.R.P., 1948. op. cit. Skinner, W., 1983. Wanted: Managers for the factory 470: 102-114. Hymowitz, C., 1983. Manufacturers press automating Journal, 201 (70): 1. Kelley, M.R., 1984. op. cit. Nadler, G. and Robinson, G.H., 1983. OP. cit.
of the
future.
to survive.
The
The
Annals,
Wall Street
Brooks, H., 1983. op. cit. Walton, R.E., 1982. op. cit. Koshiro, K., 1983. Personnel planning, technological changes and outsourcing in the Japanese automobile industry. Discussion Paper Series, The Center for International Trade Studies, Yokohama National University, Yokohama. Shaiken, H., 1985. op. cit. Schneider, L., 1984. op. cit. Bamber, G. and Lansbury, R., 1983. op. cit. Walcoff, C., Ouellette, R.P. and Chereminisoff, P.N., 1983. Techniques for Managing Technological Innovation: Overcoming Process Barriers. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor. Schneider, L., 1984. op. cit. Nadler, G. and Robinson, G.H., 1983. op. cit. Rothwell, S. and Davidson, D., 1982. op. cit. Kelley, M.R., 1984. op. cit. Brooks, H., 1983. op. cit. Nadler, G. and Robinson, G.H., 1983. op. cit. Walton, R.E., 1982. op. cit. Peitchinis, S.G., 1983. op. cit. Skinner, W. and Chakraborty, K., 1982. op. cit. Straw, R.J. and Foged, L.E., 1983. Technology and employment in telecommunications. The Annals: 163-170. Kochan, T.A. and Katz, H.C., 1983. Collective bargaining, work organization and worker participation: The return to plant-level bargaining. Proceedings of the 1983 Spring Meeting, IRRA, Madison, 524-533. Peltu, M., 1980. New technology without strife. International Management, 35 (1): 49-51. Ibid. Webb, T., 1983. op. cit. Batt, W.L. and Weinberg, E., 1978. Labor-management cooperative today. Harvard Business Review, 56 (1): 96-104. Scott, W.B., 1981. Participative management at Motorola - the results. Management Review, 70 (7): 26+. Zager, R., 1978. Managing guaranteed employment. Harvard Business Review, 56 (3): 103-115. Scott, W.B., 1981. op. cit. Anon., 1977. Participative management at work: An interview with John F. Donnelly. Harvard Business Review, 55 (1): 117-127. Cole, R.E., 1979. Work, Mobility and Participation: A Comparative Study of American and Japanese Industry. University of California Press, Berkeley. Batt, W.L. and Weinberg, E., 1978. op. cit. Macy, B.A., 1980, The quality-of-worklife project at Bolivar: An assessment. Monthly Labor Review, 103 (7): 41-43. Tavernier, G., 1981. Awakening a sleeping giant: Ford’s employee involvement program. Management Review, 70 (6): 15-21. Peltu, M., 1980. op. cit., 51.
Amsterdam
-Printed
143
in The Netherlands
WORKER INVOLVEMENT IN IMPLEMENTING NEW TECHNOLOGY Thomas J. Hyclak and Michael G. Kolchin College of Busmess and Economics,
Lehigh University,
Bethlehem,
PA
18015
(U.S.A.)
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to explore the importance of worker involvement in the implementation of new technology. While academicians have long called for greater worker involvement in the change process, in practice it seems that organizations resist such involvement to any great degree. The review of the literature presented here suggests that worker involvement is even more critical in implementing new technology as such involvement not only results in less resistance to technological change but, more importantly, greater support and commitment from workers for technological change. This commitment from workers is necessary if new technology is to be successfully implemented.
INTRODUCTION
The widespread implications of microelectronics for the factory of the future have rekindled an interest in the literature on the unplanned human consequences of rapid technological change. Examples of such literature include Hunt and Hunt [l] , Katzman [2], Bamber [3], Skinner and Chakraborty [4], and Rothwell and Davidson [ 51 which all discuss various aspects of the human impact of new technology. In many ways the literature echoes that of the early 196Os, which was also a period of rapid technical change accompanied by slow macroeconomic growth. One particular commonality between the current and earlier discussions of the socioeconomic consequences of change is a repeated emphasis on the need for greater worker participation in the decision-making process concerning the implementation of new technology [6--g]. While calls for greater worker involvement are common in academic studies and part and parcel of union strategies, there is not much evidence that firms go much beyond early notification of change and communication about the need for change in involving labor in decisions about change [ 10, 111.
016649’72/86/$03.50
0 1986
Elsevier Science
Publishers
B.V.
This paper esamines this dichotomy between theory and practice. In order to accomplish this we first examine the foundations of the argument for greater participation of workers in the process of planning for the introduction of new technology at the plant level. Then, in the second half of the paper, we speculate about possible organizational barriers to worker involvement in change decisions with an eye toward explaining the circumstances under which involvement is likely to be used. THE GAINS
FROM
WORKER
INVOLVEMENT
There are two closely interwoven strands to the argument that greater worker participation in change decisions enhances the ability of a firm to introduce new technology in the factory. The first, older strand emphasizes the role of participation in offsetting worker resistance to change. A second, more positive, view that seems to be more prevalent in recent articles is that participation of workers in the systems design process promises to speed-up the “phasing-in” period by taking explicit advantage of the worker’s unique store of knowledge about the work process. 1. Overcoming
Resistance to Change
While most workers and union leaders are not unalterably opposed to technical change [12] it is clear that many fear the ramifications of change. These fears are not limited to concern over potential job losses but extend to changes in the content of jobs, the skill and responsibility required for jobs, the nature of plant supervision and managerial control over jobs, and the personal relations among workers in the plant [13, 141. While the end result of change often is an enhancement of the work experience [15], the great uncertainty among workers regarding the effects of change can lead to direct or indirect resistance. Direct resistance to change is most likely in plants with union representation and usually takes the form of a reactive attempt by a union to negotiate restrictions on a managerial decision to implement new technology. These attempts generally focus on obtaining guarantees of job security, limits on wage changes resulting from job reassignments, and, especially where computerization is involved, limits on the full use of the technology by management to enhance its control over the workplace [16]. The vast majority of articles on the labor effects of technological change focuses on these efforts of direct resistance to change. However, studies of the union reaction to technological change in Europe, Canada and Australia, where public policy seems to favor the negotiation of technology agreements, indicate that direct union resistance has had limited success and therefore limited impact on the firm’s ability to introduce new technology [17-211. Indirect resistance to change is subtler and can occur in plants without
145
organized union representation. Such indirect responses can be regarded as of two types. First, the expectation of or occurrence of adverse side effects can reduce job satisfaction, increase absenteeism and job-related injuries, and reduce individual effort and overall productivity after the introduction of new technology [22, 231. Second, in cases where computerization of the work process is involved, workers may react to the seemingly inevitable start-up and debugging problems [24, 251 in such a fashion that they can regain some control over the work process and limit the full effectiveness of the new technology [26]. Case studies of the reaction of workers to technological change lend support to this notion that indirect worker resistance to change can result in incomplete implementation of new technology and a reduced productivity payoff to such innovations [27-311. And a number of case studies demonstrate that worker involvement in the change decision can reduce worker resistance to change and even engender worker commitment to the success of the change process [ 32-341. These studies establish a fairly strong argument for what might be called prescription” a “weak participation reached by Coch and French [35]. That is, management effort to provide advance notification to workers and union leaders of impending change and to convince them of the necessity for change can overcome to some degree the resistance of these parties to change. The studies summarized in the next section seem to suggest the need for a stronger degree of worker participation than suggested here. 2. Inducing Contributions
to Change
A developing literature argues that worker involvement in decision-making about new technology can make a positive contribution to the successful introduction of new technology in the factory. This idea is based on the observation that new computer-based manufacturing systems encounter significant unexpected implementation costs due to start-up and debugging problems and the need to add equipment to adapt externally developed systems to the peculiar characteristics of a given workplace. These high and variable implementation costs have been cited as one explanation for the relatively slow pace of robotization and CAM adoption in U.S. factories [36, 371. It is hypothesized by Kelley [38], Nadler and Robinson [39], Brooks [40] and others that greater worker participation in the design process could reduce the implementation costs of new manufacturing technology in two ways. First, worker involvement in the early stages of the design process would tap a source of knowledge about a given work process and environment that is not generally included in the current processes for developing new technology in most firms. Second, active worker participation in the change process on the shop floor is needed to obtain the degree of cooperation and active intervention necessary to identify and help rectify problems as they occur to keep a new process in operation.
Walton 143.1 effectively argues that this heightened degree of worker participation could not only provide internal benefits from smoother introduction of new technology but also external benefits in minimizing the unplanned adverse human consequences of new technology. This possibility would result from the great flexibility of computers and the exploitation of that flexibility by those most directly affected by change to select the “optimal” vehicle for change. In Walton’s view, the current managerial perspective views technology as predetermined and the social costs as inevitable with the result that suboptimal decisions (from the human effects side) are more likely to be made. The arguments summarized above find some support in case studies although the evidence here is much weaker than that related to resistance. For example, Koshiro’s f42] study of the use of robots by a Japanese automobile equipment manufacturer attests to the importance of the complementary relationship between skilled workers and machines in insuring effective robot operations. Shaiken’s [43] study of computerization in U.S. metal fabricating plants concludes that computerized machine tools are unable to operate effectively without the assistance of skilled machinists and that machinists are willing to take a more active role in monitoring and programming computerized machine tools when they have been involved in the decision to implement the new process. LIMITS
ON WORKER
~NVULV~~ENT
There does seem to be some evidence that labor participation can enhance the ability of the firm to implement new technology. However, such participation does not appear to be high on the agenda of most firms, even those in countries where public policy generally favors labor-management cooperation [44, 453. While a number of factors can account for this, the remainder of this paper focuses on two structural aspects of firms that seem to place distinct limits on worker involvement in technology decisions. These structural aspects are the organization of management decision-making on technology and the overall framework of traditional labor-management relations. It. The Process af Technology
Planning
Descriptions of the way in which firms make innovations to their products and processes suggest a couple of limits to worker involvement that are inherent in the process of technology planning. The first limit to worker involvement lies in the great complexity of the innovation process which leads to strategic choices over techniques to generate innovations. This can be seen in the work of Walcoff, Ouellette and Cheremisinoff [46] _ They analyze case studies of current management
147
techniques used by large firms to overcome technical, organizational, financial and/or marketing barriers to change. While they cite Ford’s Quality of Work Life program as an effective strategy to overcome organizational barriers related to insufficient communication, it is clear from their analysis that strategies in addition to worker involvement directed at other barriers to innovation are considered higher priorities by most of the firms in their sample. A second limit in worker involvement in technology planning is prevalent in situations involving computerization of work processes. That is that firms tend to adopt ready-made software that has been developed by outside vendors who do not generally solicit or use worker input or the input of on-site managers [47, 481. As a result of these characteristics of decisionmaking and the fact that technical decisions often are centralized, the actual implementation and the personal consequences of a given decision are not usually considered until after that decision has been made [49] . Finally, managerial motivation for consideration of new technology is often to reduce direct labor costs [50] and is based on overly optimistic reliance on a technological fix [51] to the neglect of other means of increasing productivity [52]. All of these characteristics may make managers resistant or even oblivious to the advantages of worker involvement outlined in the first half of this paper. Walton [53] concludes that several organizational changes will be necessary to institutionalize worker involvement in change decisions. The most significant of these is an organizational commitment to identifying the human effects of change and to considering organizational “impact statements” for each potential systems design. 2. The Labor-Relations
System
In unionized settings, the adversarial nature of labor-management relations can erect barriers to the use of worker participation. In the first place, management tends to regard technological change as a strict management rights issue [54] and to use change to regain management rights waived in earlier negotiations [ 551. Secondly, the usual union stance in technological change is reactive and concentrates on bargaining for protection [56]. The effect of this is to make unions unlikely to take an active role in planning for changes and to condition the labor response on the vagaries of relative bargaining power. Kochan and Katz [57] suggest that hard management bargaining on work rules and experiments with quality-of-work-life programs portend major changes in the traditional role of the local union. One attempt at bringing unions into technology implementation decisions is the use of technology agreements (TAs). Such agreements have been used in many industrial countries outside of the U.S.A. The purpose of TAs is to provide practical procedures for dealing with issues related to technological changes that were beyond the scope of traditional collec-
148
tive bargaining issues. The main focus of TAs concentrates on the following five main areas [58] : l Employment levels l Quality of work environment l Job design l Computer system design l Sharing the wealth created by improved productivity Unfortunately, TAs have not had the results they intended to provide {59, 601. Even where TAs have been legislated, their use has been minimal. However, the existence of the TA portends a movement in the direction of greater involvement of unions and employees in the decision-making process involving the implementation of new technology. In the U.S. setting, such agreements find precedent in the establishment of labor-management committees, plant production committees, Scanlon plans, and QWL committees. The distinctive feature of all of these cooperative actions is the emphasis on extending the collective bargaining process beyond traditional issues to deal with issues that are of mutual interest to both the employer and employee [61]. These non-wage issues include such things as energy conservation, work methods, employee morale, and waste reduction. It is not difficult to imagine that new technology could be included in this group as well and that new technology agreements could become a supplement to the collective b~gaining process in the U.S.A. CONCLUSION
This paper has attempted to make a case for the value of employee involvement in implementing technological change while highlighting the barriers that exist to such involvement. In short, early employee involvement in any change within the organization leads to more effective implementation and, certainly, technological changes are no different. However, in considering technoIogica1 change, managers are even more reluctant to involve employees as they do not feel workers are able to contribute anything to the decision and are most likely to resist any change which threatens job security. This low esteem for the American work force is not warranted. A recent Gallup Poll of U.S. workers show that the American work force is not only capable of contributing to performance improvement but is desirous of doing so [62]. In addition, there are numerous examples where participation of the work force has resulted in significant productivity improvements for the firms involved. Examples include Lincoln Electric [63 1, Motorola [64], and Donnelly Mirrors [65]. The problem is not that participation will not work; rather, it is the hesitancy of management to give up perceived control. This is unfortunate because, as Cole [66] asserts, increased participation at lower levels strengthens management and bureaucratic structures. Employees are willing to be more greatly influenced by their managers because they have participated
149
in the decisions that affect their jobs. At the same time, management maintains their prerogatives of establishing corporate-wide objectives. In essence, the style of management becomes more human and, at the same time, allows for maintenance of management control. Additionally, the union is not the obstacle to participation many companies claim it to be. Both Abel of the USWA and Bluestone of the UAW have pushed for greater quality of working life through cooperation while still maintaining the collective bargaining process [67]. The involvement of the unions in labo~m~agement cooperation programs has proven to be facilitative to the success of these programs 168, 691. What the union seeks is early involvement in the process of making changes. The success of participation in other areas of work life portends similar trends in the introduction of new technology. In fact, it is in this area of new technology that p~ticipation is most important; for, without the involvement of the union and the work force, the resistance to change is likely to be greatest and the need for support of the work force in the implementation of the technology is critical. Without support of a company’s employees, millions of dollars may be spent with resultant long delays and idle equipment. On the other hand, as noted by Peltu [?O] : “In a more cooperative environment technology agreements could provide the stability and concerted effort from management and employees needed to exploit technology humanely.”
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support for this project provided by the Northeast Tier Ben Franklin Advanced Technology Center.
REFERENCES 1 2 3 4
5
6
7
Hunt, HA. and Hunt, T.L., 1983, Human Resource Implications of Robotics. W.E. Upjohn Institute, Kalamazoo. Katzman, MS., 1983. When robots dominate the U.S. workplace. Supervisory Management, 83 (6): 37-42. Bamber, G., 1980. Microchips and industrial relations. Industrial Relations, 11 (5): 7-19. Skinner, W. and Chakraborty, K., 1982. The impact of new technology: People and organizations in manufacturing and allied industries. Work in America Institute Studies in Productivity: Highlights of the Literature 18, Pergamon Press, New York. Rothwell, S. and Davidson, D., 1982. Manpower matters: Technological change, company personnel policies and skill development. Journal of General Management, 8 (2): 87-93. Barkin, S., 1967. Personnel and industrial relations programs: Fart of an integrated national active manpower policy. Adjustment of Workers to Technological Change at Plant Level : Final Report, GECD, Paris, 95-l 11. Stanislao, J. and Stanislao, B.C., 1983. Dealing with resistance to change. Business Horizons, 26 (4): 74-78.
150 8
Brooks, H., 1983. Technology, competition, and employment. The Annals, 4’70: 115-122. 9 Walton, R.D., 1982. Social change in the development of advanced information technology. Technology in Society, 4 (82): 41-49. 10 Lansbury, R.D., 1982. Technological change and employee participation in the retail industry. Work and People, 8 (3): 21-26. 11 Kelley, MR., 1984. Computer-controlled machines and the disruption of workplace productivity: Establishing a new labor-management relationship. Technology and the Need for New Labor Relations, Discussion Paper Series, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. 12 Weikle, R.D. and Wheeler, H.N., 1983. Unions and technological change: Attitudes of local union leaders. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting, IRRA, Madison, 100-106. 13 Katzman, MS. 1983. op. cit. 14 Stanislao, J. and Stanislao, B.C., 1983. op. cit. 15 Mueller, E., 1969. Technological Advance in an Expanding Economy. Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor. 16 Webb, ‘I’., 1983, Union tactics for the high-tech age. Personnel Management, 15 (5): 22-25. 17 Bamber, G. and Lansbury, R., 1983. A comparative perspective on technological change and industrial relations. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting, IRRA, Madison, 92-99. 18 Jain, H.C., 1983. Union, management, and government response to technological change in Canada. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting, IRRA, Madison, 85-91. 19 Lansbury, R.D. 1982. op. cit. 20 Peitchinis, S.G., 1983. The attitude of trade unions towards technological changes. Relations Industrielles, 38 (1): 104-119. 21 Schneider, L., 1984. Technology bargaining in Norway. Technology and the Need for New Labor Relations, Discussion Paper Series. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. 22 Lipstreu, 0. and Read, K.A., 1964. Transition to Automation: A Study of People, Production and Change. University of Colorado Studies, Series in Business No. 1, Boulder. 23 Argote, L., Goodman, P.S. and Schkade, D., 1983. The human side of robotics: How workers react to a robot. Sloan Management Review, 24 (3): 31-41. 24 Nadler, G. and Robinson, G.H., 1983. Design of the automated factory: More than robots. The Annals, 470: 68-80. 25 Shaiken, H., 1985. The automated factory: The view from the shop floor. Technology Review, 88 (1): 16-27. 26 Tolbert, P.S., 1984. Review of the shop floor politics of new technology, by B. Wilkinson. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 37 (4): 640-641. 17 Ibid 28 Sandkull, B., 1980. Practice of industry.mismanagement of people. Human Systems Management, l(2): 159-167. 29 Lipstreu, 0. and Read, K.A., 1964. op. cit. 30 Kjierulff, K., Counte, M.A., Salloway, J.C. and Campbell, B.C., 1983. Measuring adaptation to medical technology. Hospital and Health Services Administration, 28 (1): 30-40. 31 Schneider, L., 1984. op. cit. resistance to change. Human Rela32 Coch, L. and French, J.R.P., 1948. Overcoming tions, 1 (4): 5X2-532. Change: The Effect of Successful Leadership. 33 Guest, R., 1962. Organizational Dorsey Press, Homewood, IL. 34 Argote, L., Goodman, P.S. and Schkade, D., 1983. op. cit.
151
35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
43 44 45 46
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 5-1 55 56 57
58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
Coch. L. and French, J.R.P., 1948. op. cit. Skinner, W., 1983. Wanted: Managers for the factory 470: 102-114. Hymowitz, C., 1983. Manufacturers press automating Journal, 201 (70): 1. Kelley, M.R., 1984. op. cit. Nadler, G. and Robinson, G.H., 1983. OP. cit.
of the
future.
to survive.
The
The
Annals,
Wall Street
Brooks, H., 1983. op. cit. Walton, R.E., 1982. op. cit. Koshiro, K., 1983. Personnel planning, technological changes and outsourcing in the Japanese automobile industry. Discussion Paper Series, The Center for International Trade Studies, Yokohama National University, Yokohama. Shaiken, H., 1985. op. cit. Schneider, L., 1984. op. cit. Bamber, G. and Lansbury, R., 1983. op. cit. Walcoff, C., Ouellette, R.P. and Chereminisoff, P.N., 1983. Techniques for Managing Technological Innovation: Overcoming Process Barriers. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor. Schneider, L., 1984. op. cit. Nadler, G. and Robinson, G.H., 1983. op. cit. Rothwell, S. and Davidson, D., 1982. op. cit. Kelley, M.R., 1984. op. cit. Brooks, H., 1983. op. cit. Nadler, G. and Robinson, G.H., 1983. op. cit. Walton, R.E., 1982. op. cit. Peitchinis, S.G., 1983. op. cit. Skinner, W. and Chakraborty, K., 1982. op. cit. Straw, R.J. and Foged, L.E., 1983. Technology and employment in telecommunications. The Annals: 163-170. Kochan, T.A. and Katz, H.C., 1983. Collective bargaining, work organization and worker participation: The return to plant-level bargaining. Proceedings of the 1983 Spring Meeting, IRRA, Madison, 524-533. Peltu, M., 1980. New technology without strife. International Management, 35 (1): 49-51. Ibid. Webb, T., 1983. op. cit. Batt, W.L. and Weinberg, E., 1978. Labor-management cooperative today. Harvard Business Review, 56 (1): 96-104. Scott, W.B., 1981. Participative management at Motorola - the results. Management Review, 70 (7): 26+. Zager, R., 1978. Managing guaranteed employment. Harvard Business Review, 56 (3): 103-115. Scott, W.B., 1981. op. cit. Anon., 1977. Participative management at work: An interview with John F. Donnelly. Harvard Business Review, 55 (1): 117-127. Cole, R.E., 1979. Work, Mobility and Participation: A Comparative Study of American and Japanese Industry. University of California Press, Berkeley. Batt, W.L. and Weinberg, E., 1978. op. cit. Macy, B.A., 1980, The quality-of-worklife project at Bolivar: An assessment. Monthly Labor Review, 103 (7): 41-43. Tavernier, G., 1981. Awakening a sleeping giant: Ford’s employee involvement program. Management Review, 70 (6): 15-21. Peltu, M., 1980. op. cit., 51.