THE E. W. HANCOCK PAPER

Human Relations in Industry-

"Men, Women and Work"

by LEWIS WRIGHT

Presented at the Production Conference, Olympia, London, 20th May, ! 958

O S T people today recognise that there is a1Y1 strong connection between productivity andimproved living standards. Most people know that asworld trading difficulties become more acute, andnational crises follow each other with depressingregularity, the need to produce more efficiently andmore abundantly becomes more urgent; not only toimprove living standards but even to maintain existingones.

The need for increased productivity is constantlybeing urged by the Government and the BritishProductivity Council; by economists and by a hostof others, many of whom merely want the otherfellow to work harder. Like human relations, pro-ductivity has become something of a band-waggonupon which all sorts of people have climbed, fordevious purposes. The fact remains that if we areto maintain our living standards, much less improvethem, we have got to produce more; we have got towork more efficiently. How do we propose to achievethese ends ?

new machines and new methodsThe obvious way is that of capital investment in

new machines. The scientist, the inventor, will con-tinue to present us with new machines and newtools and, if the necessary capital be available, theywill doubtless be used. The industrial engineer andthe technologist will produce an abundance of newideas on how to operate and improve the productivityof existing or traditional machinery. Inflation, creditsqueeze and fiscal policies have over the past fewyears made it more difficult to scrap old machinesand instal new ones as fast as national needsdemanded, and difficulties exist to prevent the opera-tion of existing machines at the optimum of

532

efficiency. But whether we are producing by auto-mated methods or by traditional machinery, waysmust be found of getting the most out of the machinewithout exploiting the worker in the worst sense ofthe term. Whilst all the exhortations, explanations,forebodings of disaster and pleadings continue, it isindustry that will have to achieve the change and itwill, in most cases, prove to be a major operation,involving everyone and involving almost everything.

Stuart Chase has said : " A factory performs twomajor functions — the economic one of producinggoods and the social one of creating and distributinghuman satisfaction among the people under its roof ".The first of these two functions has received deepand continued attention, as indeed it should, butthe second has been much neglected and generallysneered at as a sort of gimmick of long-hairedphilosophers. Stuart Chase goes on to say that if afactory's human organisation is out of balance, all theefficiency systems in the world will not improveoutput. Is the bottleneck of productivity likely to belack of understanding ? Do we possess enough" know how" greatly to improve productivity, pro-viding we acquire more " know how" of humanreaction to innovation ?

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that toolong have we neglected the human sciences, and ithas taken two World Wars and a shortage of labourto cause us to recognise their importance. It is asubject of which we know so little and has, as I saidearlier, become something of a band-waggon. It isinevitable that, under these circumstances, people ill-equipped to talk about them should be prepared todo so. People like myself who are not social scientists,realising the importance of the subject, are ready toexchange views and ready to learn.

the Hawthorne experimentIt is odd to reflect that this remarkable piece of

investigation was undertaken by Elton Mayo morethan 30 years ago; yet, probably because of a plentifulsupply of labour, it has been almost completelyignored by industry both in the U.S.A. and the restof the industrial world. What the Hawthorneinvestigation seemed to reveal was that there existedan element more important than the pecuniary orphysical conditions of work : an element which in-creased output no matter what was done or not doneabout physical conditions.

If this be true, clearly industry must take anotherlook at it, because it is going to help us to solvesome of our problems. It will be remembered that thebare facts of the Hawthorne experiment consisted ofexperiments carried out at the plant of the GeneralElectric Company in Chicago during the 1920's, whenin order to study the effects of changed illuminationon the production by girls on assembly work, twogroups were used for comparison. In one the illumina-tion was improved and increased, whilst in the otherit was not. The output from the first group went upas could be expected, but the puzzling feature wasthat output in the second group, where no change hadbeen made, also went up. The lighting of the firstgroup was then reduced to its original standard, butoddly enough, production went up once more. Itbecame clear that some factor unknown to theinvestigators was at work, and further experimentsbecame necessary.

Two girls were selected and asked to chooseanother four to make up a group of six. The girlswere assembling telephone relays and were subject tovarious changes of production methods. Undernormal conditions, with a 48-hour week and no restpauses, production was 2,400 relays. When the girlswere put on piece-work, production increased. Giventwo five-minute rest pauses morning and afternoon,output again went up. Rest pauses were increased to10 minutes each, and again output improved. Thegirls stopped work at 4.40 p.m. instead of 5 p.m.Output increased further. They then stopped work at4 p.m. and output was maintained. Finally, all theimprovements were taken away and the girls wentback to the original 48-hour week with no rest

pauses, and over the next 12 weeks whilst the exp r-ment continued a record output of 3,00J rcla/s aweek was maintained. '!

Over the years, sociologists and interne-* la,m>nhave drawn different conclusions from thes. exper-ments. But none would deny that any element cap blof improving productivity is worthy of investigationThe conclusions drawn by Chase seem to be the mostlikely explanation. He suggested that by asking thgirls to co-operate they had been made to feelimportant. They were no longer mere cogs in asoulless machine wheel, but were human being'helping the company to solve a problem. Theycounted. They had found job satisfaction. They hada clear and intelligible function to perform, and theyknew precisely what they were doing and why theywere doing it. In the experiment only during aportion of the time were the girls on piece-work, sothat it would suggest that the feelings of the girlswere to them more important than wages. As MissPearl Jephcott, a factory worker, wrote in 1948 :" I've a hunch that we women are incurably altruistic.We've a passion to be useful — to a person. Andsome of us would extend this feminine vice from ourprivate life to our job if we realised that anyone'swell-being depended upon us in the national economiccrisis, or even in (this) unintelligible concern ". It istrue that the experiment involved only women, butmany similar studies revealing similar unknown ele-ments can be found dealing with men, such asinvestigations into the high labour turnover of mulespinners in a Philadelphia spinning mill, and theexample given by Dr. Robertson, of Unilever Ltd.,concerning lighting changes in a drawing office.

When reading of Mayo's work in America duringthe 1920's, a trades unionist is struck by theabsence of any reference to trades unions. Indeed,it is known that the General Electric Company wereas anti-trades union in those days as most employersthen were. It was not until 1936-1937, with thedevelopment of the Congress for IndustrialOrganisation, that workers, other than craftsmen,began to be organised and probably the lack ofreference was due to the absence of anything towhich to refer.

It is interesting to speculate as to what might havebeen the outcome had there existed a trade union

Mr. Wright is Chairman of the British Productivity Council,

and General Secretary of The Amalgamated Weavers

Association.

53.,

with whom the employers could have negotiated theterms of the experiment. Would communications viathird parties have tended to vitiate the confidencegenerated between workers and management ? Wouldthe desire to be part of a group have been sufficientlysatisfied by trade union membership to have re-moved the urge to become part of something else ?It is difficult to form a conclusion, but what evidencewe have today suggests that whilst trades union com-munications are not all that one can expect, theimportant part of industrial communications is withinan undertaking itself, with trades unions playing aminor role. Once the trades unions endorse asuggested change, the really important line of com-munications is from top management to shop floor :up and down and sideways. I will refer more to theproblem of communications later.

How do most employers and management viewthese human considerations ? Most of them protestthat they have no time for such theoretical abstrac-tions, and are fully occupied in producing the goodsand making profit. They get some support, too,from sociologists and economists. Sargant Florencein his book " Labour" says : " There has been atendency in American psychology, sociology, andschools of social work to concentrate on the mentalattitude both of the employed and unemployedworker, quite apart from the consumer's needs ordemand for his work ". I suppose the short answerto this would be : " That is the function of thepsychologist and sociologist".

But there is more to it than that. Most employersor managers haven't the faintest idea how to achieveresults making for the maximum efficiency for pro-ducing for " consumers' needs and demands ". Anyproblem that cannot be worked out on a slide rule isdismissed as " labour trouble", and the cure pre-scribed is " a dose of unemployment to bring themto their senses ", or an offer of more money. It is notimpossible that lack of understanding of how to dealwith human problems has made a greater contributionto inflation than is realised. In any case, and forwhatever motive, a closer study of workers' mentalattitudes is calculated to increase satisfaction in bothproducer and consumer. There is every reason tobelieve that in those undertakings in the U.K., wherecareful attention is paid to this problem, a contribu-tion towards lowering costs results. Indeed, some ofthe firms have demonstrated remarkable results ofincreased efficiency. What puzzles most people iswhy, even if employers are not moralists or altruists,they do not use the advice of the sociologists as toolsof management. The answer probably lies in the factthat it rs no-one's job to look into this matter. Topand middle management are too busy, and thePersonnel Manager is taken up completely with day-to-day problems. This is to be regretted, for muchgood could come to everyone if top managementwould seek advice as to how to approach the problem.

communicationsOne of the outstanding defects in the organisation

of undertakings is the lack of adequate communica-tions. Most competent firms can pass information

down the line, but have no means of receivingincoming messages. Not only must links ofcommunication go up and down, but they mustspread outwards. The Works Council can help inthis, but it has been discovered in many instancesthat information given to the Works Council is notalways passed on down to the shop floor. This isespecially the case where large numbers are employed,and it is impossible for the workers' representativesto pass the information round. Sometimes the factsbecome distorted in the passing, with unfortunateresults.

At the same time that communications are sentdown it is important that management should knowof the workers' reaction to their conditions of employ-ment and to their employer. Opinion surveyscan prove to be a very tricky business and need theexpert to draft. They can prove useful in helpingmanagement to anticipate troubles that may ariseand take steps to remove the cause. I very muchdoubt whether any manager really knows what hisworkers think or feel, except in those cases of verysmall undertakings where management are inpersonal day-to-day touch with them. Most managersthink they know and others neither know nor care.Benge, in his " How to Make a Morale Survey",quotes the case of a textile mill where the managerclaimed that he had his finger on the pulse of hisworkers and that they were one big happy family.Two weeks later the workers went on strike, damagedthe machinery, and the mill closed, never to re-open.Scores of cases can be quoted to show how managersthink they know what is happening, and find to theircost that they did not. The trouble with opinionsurveys, and sometimes also with oral questioning, isthat the truth of replies can be judged only againstthe background of the firm's relationship with theworkers. Workers will give subjective answers whenoften management hope for objective answers. Notalways will replies to questions convey the workers'real opinion. If the atmosphere in an undertaking isbad, the answer might be given merely to work offsome other grievance. If the question is not clearlyunderstood, a surprising answer can result. Answersin a single word of one syllable are not uncommon.But whilst it is most important for management toseek information, it is also important to give it. Lastyear the B.I.M. published a Report " PresentingFinancial Information to Employees ". It has alreadybeen suggested earlier in this Paper that workerslike to know what is going on. They like to feel theybelong and they are, if not flattered, at least pleasedwhen management takes the trouble to tell themthings about the firm's activities. One would imaginethat by now this might have been consideredelementary. But the B.I.M. survey discloses that nomore than 20% of all companies in Britain areannually giving financial information to their workers,against an estimated 46% in the U.S.A.

It is interesting to note from the survey whatinformation workers feel is important. Almost asgreat a percentage were interested in costs as wereinterested in profits. By far the greater percentagewere interested in new developments and trade

534

prospects, and the smallest percentage of all wererecorded as being " interested only in informationaffecting them personally ". There is little doubt thatgiven the opportunity, workers will interest themselvesin matters other than their own close personalinterests, and that if given the information they willreact in a responsible way. The Report emphasisesthat disclosure of financial data can play animportant part in improving industrial relationshipsand joint consultations, but I must add as a tradesunionist that I believe it to be reasonable also thatsuch information should be disclosed to help incollective bargaining. The B.I.M. also drew attention(in their " Outline of Work Study") to the viewthat the drive must always come from the top, andthat management must make it clear to all what it istrying to do. This implies, of course, that managementdoes know what it is doing, and why. It comes asrather a shock to learn that this is not always thecase. One study, details of which may be publishedthis year, revealed that the management had no clearidea as to what they wanted, but " thought thatconsultants might do something". Towards whatshould have been the end of the operation, manage-ment realised that what was being done was not whatthey had thought would be done. As managementhad no clear idea as to the purpose of the exercise,no clear idea could be conveyed to the workers.The result was utter failure.

This temptation to put in work study and try andmeet problems as they arise is not conducive tosuccess, for problems are bound to follow in quicksuccession, whereas with careful thought, a littleplanning, and a modicum of imagination, the cause ofmost of the problems could have been removed at thebeginning. Any contemplated change in an under-taking, whether by work study methods, newmachines, or new organisation, has an immediateeffect upon workers. It may or may not have apecuniary effect, but it is bound to affect the workerin a personal way. He may have to do things in adifferent way. His personal relationships with peoplemay change. The method of computing wages maybe altered. Such changes can be smoothly effectedonly where sound communications exist, and eventhen great care and understanding are needed. It hasbeen said that " resistance is not to change itselfas much as it is to resentment or anxiety over theway the change is introduced ". To impose change isfolly. To expect change to occur smoothly withoutgiving those most personally affected a chance totake a positive interest and part in the change is toexpect too much. Adequate communication involves" putting the worker in the picture", and is theantithesis of the " carrot and the stick " technique.

redundancy

A word must be said about redundancy, or peoplelosing their jobs. Whilst all change has a personalimpact upon the workers, that of losing their jobs isthe one change most clearly understood. Anxiety orresentment about changes within a worker's job

cycle can be removed by explanation and by willing-ness to discuss the need for the change. No amountof discussion or explanation will satisfy a worker thatit is in the general interest that he should lose hisjob. It is the one matter upon which all workersthink subjectively, but upon which they are con-stantly being exhorted to think objectively, which tome does not make sense. Indeed, a little moresubjective thinking by us all need be no bad thing.Too many people think of human factors as anobstacle to technical and scientific progress. Wherethey could safely be ignored, no notice has beentaken of them. Progress to many has become a formof devil worship where the worker is subordinateto the machine. This has been the pattern ofindustrial life up to the beginning of the SecondWorld War, but times and minds have changed, andmore and more people are beginning to realise thatthe machine is for man, not man for the machine.

No worker can recall the inter-war years and thehunger marchers of Jarrow without a twinge of fearlest history repeat itself. Most workers cannot under-stand why swift progress should bring with it moremisery; and something that is not understood isgenerally avoided or even opposed. It is true thatfull employment means that most people are ableto find alternative employment. No responsible tradesunion official imagines that there will always be thesame job at the same factory. There may be adifferent job at the same factory, or the same jobat a different factory; or even a different job at adifferent factory. But merely to accept this as thenatural industrial pattern, and to take no steps tomitigate the personal problems of workers within anundertaking contemplating change, is to make theexercise more difficult and offends against moralresponsibility.

The wise employer will recognise that close jointconsultation is a good thing. The problems of workersshould be considered at the same time as technicalchanges are considered. The effect upon labourshould receive the same consideration as the effectupon production. Often normal labour turnover cantake care of reduced labour needs, but too oftenthis is not even considered. Generally the technicalexercise is carefully planned and then as an after-thought someone says : " I suppose we shall havetrouble with the unions ". Had they thought of thisat the beginning, much trouble might have beenavoided. It is foolish to create opponents of technicalprogress when it can be largely avoided. It is badto create 20th century Luddites when there is littleneed to do so. If workers are treated as human beingsthey will, in most cases, react as human beings. Treatthem as parts of an industrial machine and they willreact as pieces of iron.

Sir George Schuster has written : " If man is totake the right course at the most crucial moment inthe history of humanity, then it is essential not to bemisled by false ideas about what science can da.Science cannot explain for him the meaning of hisexistence. No scientific discovery can give him a scaleof values or rules to regulate the dictates of hisconscience

535

Nor, might I add, will any technical achievementor innovation persuade a worker that his life mustbecome less full than it was yesterday.

conclusionWhether we are moving towards a second

industrial revolution or not is a matter of opinion. Buttalk of automated factories, of computing machines,and servomechanisms or " press button " productionor digital computers, leads one to believe that giventhe available capital, technical innovation is likely togather momentum. With it will come humanproblems for which we must ourselves be equipped todeal. The speed of progress is likely to be governed bythe extent of our understanding of human motives andour willingness to meet the problems involved. Thereare signs that fear of deflation is already causingworkers to think in terms of " working themselves outof a job". There are reports of certain collieryworkers refusing to work overtime because, theyclaimed, if they did they would be out of work muchsooner. This may or may not appear rational, butfrom a subjective point of view it is understandablewhy workers take action to safeguard their incomefor as long as possible.

We must take time by the forelock and interestourselves in these human considerations, for upon ourunderstanding depends so much.

Who in any undertaking is to be responsible forattempting to create such a climate ? In practice itmust be a team approach, but someone at the top

has first to initiate and engender the will. Each ofyou will know who that " someone at the top " maybe. He and his staff will not find it easy. The socialsciences have been so sadly neglected that not enoughis known. Nor have managers much time to read thesociological works that exist.

The Department of Scientific and IndustrialResearch is able to give advice in these matters, andthe Institute of Industrial Psychology has done someuseful work. Most universities have departments ofSocial Studies, so that avenues of enquiry andassistance do exist.

Few of us know very much about the subject; but Iam aware of the problem and recognise itsimportance. I very much hope you, too, will wantto find out more about it.

I would like to end this Paper by quoting StuartChase in his book " Men at Work ", because I feelthat his words sum up all that I have tried to say :

" Factory managers are going to realise thatworkers are not governed primarily by economicmotives. Underneath the stop-watches and bonusplans of the efficiency experts, the worker isdriven by a desperate urge to find an environ-ment where he can take root, where he belongsand has a function; where he sees the purpose ofhis work and feels important in achieving it.Failing this he will accumulate frustrations andobsessions. For their neglect of the humanfunctions of production, managers have paid ahigh price in strikes, restricted output, and avast sea of human waste."

REPORT AND DISCUSSION

In the Chair:The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Halsbury,

F.R.I.C., F.Inst.P., M.I.Prod.E.,President of the Institution.

r pHE Chairman said it was his pleasure to welcome1 and introduce the speaker, Mr. Lewis Wright, and

also Mr. E. W. Hancock, O.B.E., Past President ofhe Institution, in whose honour the Paper had been

established.Mr. Wright was one of those distinguished leaders

of organised labour who combined the working man'spoint of view with a humanism characteristic of thebest academic tradition. One was equally likely tofind him sitting in a Conference in Paris onAutomation, negotiating on behalf of his trade union,or taking the Chair at the British ProductivityCouncil.

By way of background to the Paper, for some timethe Institution had been introducing into their annualprogramme a number of Named Papers, honouringthose who had given distinguished service to the

cause of production engineering. At the meeting ofthe Institution's Council in January, 1958, it wasannounced that the long and distinguished servicerendered to the Institution by Mr. E. W. Hancockwould be recognised in this way.

Mr. Hancock would be familiar to all as LordHalsbury's predecessor in the office of President. Itwas his wish that the invited speaker should takethe subject of human relations in industry. In viewof the fact that he had only recently retired asPresident, his occupancy of the Presidential Chairmay have somewhat- blurred in members' minds allthe other things he had done for the Institution.

Mr. Hancock, who was Director of Special Projectsfor the Rootes Group and also a Director of HumberLtd., was one of the most distinguished engineers inthe United Kingdom. He was one of the far-sighted

536