THE BASICS 6: HUMAN RELATIONS MOVEMENT

Due to a heavy study schedule (I passed my exam last week by the way) writing blog posts went on the back-burner for a short period, but I will catch up !! Today the next episode of my series The basics on the Human Relations Movement.

In the last episode I wrote about the Hawthorne studies which made clear that social aspects of work were as important as the “technical” aspects of work for the increase of productivity. Although attention for the social aspects were present in the sidelines even before, the Hawthorne studies was one of the major triggers for a new movement, the Human Relations movement, which appeared in the ’40s.

The relation between the Human Relations Movement and Scientific Management is often seen as a “good cop – bad cop”-relationship, with Human Relations as the good guy, with attention for the quality of work and the social aspects, and Scientific Management as the bad guy, with its attention for productivity, hard work and boring tasks. But this is not completely correct.

The Second World War is of paramount importance for the development of the Human Relations Movement; during this period things like motivation, leadership and cooperation was essential to support the war effort. And, as was noticed in the Hawthorne Studies, it appeared in that period that a more democratic type of leadership was better for the motivation, cooperation and work climate and in the end for productivity than a more authoritarian as we knew from the Scientific management period.

Important in this context was a famous study by the German-American psychologist Kurt Lewin, which he conducted in the period 1939-1947 in the Harwood Manufacturing Corporation, a new plant in Virginia (USA) which manufactured pyjamas. This was a new plant which was set up according the Scientific Management lines; the new staff were enthusiastic to start, but productivity was low and turnover was high. What to do about it ? Lewin suggested some adjustments that proved in hindsight to be typical of the Human Relations Movement:

• give the group the feeling that realistic goals are set and that, with a combined effort, these goals can be met;
• treat employees as part of a small group/team, rather than as an individual;
• stop putting the employees constantly under pressure;

source: meredecoy; youtube.com

It turned out that a group in which all members of the group had a say in the design of the production and the production schedule had a considerable larger output than a group in which a superior instructed the members what to do. The results of research like this were then developed further into the extent and manner in which an individual was aware of social processes within groups and organisations.

Although there were some initiatives which went considerably further along the social lines (f.e. the T-group courses in 1947 which were based on the idea that if you change interpersonal behaviour of members of an organization automatically organizational changes would follow), in essence the Human Relations Movement is not that different from Scientific Management.

In both theories increasing productivity is key as well as control over the work force. Only the means how to achieve the control is different: in Scientific Management it was through optimizing the production process / specialization and in Human Relations by human relationships.

On our journey through times we now have come to the 1950s and another famous study: the research of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in the UK.

IT’S THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION

In times of change strange things happen. The markets change, competition is fierce, the workforce is too old, too young, too masculine, too feminine (and so on …), there are innovative new products coming to the market every day. In short, it is necessary to change the organisation and/or the attitude of the workers.

And before you know it, there is a solution for a problem that has not been (well) defined yet: we have to fire manager X, we have to merge several departments, we have to leave the European market. Heaven knows where it came from and is it the right solution to the right problem or, as we call it these days, challenge ?

I experienced too often that a solution already appeared before a to-the-point question was asked. Even in case of major (and expensive) adjustments to the organisations a diagnosis of the problem was lacking or several options were not considered, for example to introduce a whole layer of managers because the CEO does not like to deal with issues from the work floor.

OK, the CEO is head of the organisation and as such, he has a large say in what is going on, but he is for his success also largely dependent on the motivation and the productivity of those around him. And to give it all a sense of objectivity, let’s hire a consultant firm to write it all down. Although you may doubt the professional honor of the consultant in such a case, but business is business and times are tough !

To transform from the status quo to the desired situation it is essential for management to deal with the natural resistance to change. Therefore you need:

• a good and therefore to-the-point and convincing story to explain to the workforce why a change is necessary and why is chosen for a specific option;
• deal with emotions etcetera caused by the presented changes; what might be developed on a managerial level in weeks or months, is an unexpected blow for others;
• involve people in the decision-making process or the design of the changes; people are less likely to resist if they took part in developing;
• make processes and procedures as fair as possible – in times of uncertainty people interpret any bending of the rules as a threat to their position;

In practice though these “soft” tactics are often combined or replaced by some “hard” tactics: the use of direct threat or power to let people comply, to manipulate and use “political” games to get it your way and, last but not least, to get rid of people who are superfluous or simply difficult.

copyright http://www.appetiteforchange.net

A good diagnosis and analysis of the problems at stake make the story to tell and decisions to take much more convincing and gives them more credibility. Solutions have now a more solid foundation and are less seen as “another whim of management”. Resistance to change will be impossible to eradicate though; but you can make it manageable.

THE BASICS 5: THE HAWTHORNE STUDIES

The next episode in most handbooks is then the introduction of work in a social context; slowly moving away from the rational “scientific” approach of Taylorism and towards a more psychological approach: the employee as a social human being.

One of the most influential research projects which lead to this shift were the so-called Hawthorne Studies, named after a large production site of the Western Electric Company in Chicago, and which took place between 1924 and 1932.  The results of the study were not published before 1939 though.

A fascinating video from the AT&T archives (former Western Electric) on youtube.com (copyright by ATTTechChannel)

Originally they were a study in the tradition of the taylorist approach; to examine the effects of the length of working hours, the length and frequency of work breaks and the effects of illumination on the productivity.

Especially the results on the effect of illumination were quite surprising. From the present point of view one would expect a brighter work environment would raise motivation and productivity, but in the Hawthorne studies even less light, even to the level of a moonlit night, raised productivity of the experimental group.  How could that be ?

This was a difficult one to explain. In several follow-up experiments in which a small group of female workers were isolated and were then put under several working conditions different from that of the main body of workers. They experimented with working hours, light and so on; every time the working conditions changed productivity went up – even when working conditions were less positive. Absenteeism and sickness were also considerable lower in the experimental group.

Researchers concluded that the manipulated conditions could not be responsible for the increase of productivity. It had to be something else. Actually it proved to be the special attention the members of the experimental group received as a group; they felt special and researchers were paying attention to what they were doing. A new experience for them.

Later this effect became known as the Hawthorne-effect: the behaviour of people is influenced by the fact that they know that they are being researched and their interpretation of what is happening around them.

Another Hawthorne study researched the effect of economic rewards on productivity; this took place by observing a group of men which produced a telephone apparatus. This study showed that there are social norms within the group, especially on what is a fair level of production of the group. Employees that did more or less than what they were “supposed” to do, were forced to comply with these social norms. It also showed that there were informal groups within the group.

It proved to be possible to raise production by giving employees a voice to air their complaints on the working conditions and by giving them the impression that they were taken seriously.

And  a new movement was born: Human Relations. Also the start of personnel work. In the next version of the Basics: the Human Relations movement.

M

9 FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO OFFICE POLITICS

Nobody likes it, but everybody does it anyway: office politics. You walk into the office of your colleague because you want him to support you in the meeting later on; you tell your manager how much you like his report (actually you have not even read it) knowing that the performance appraisals are coming up; you threaten your secretary to get her replaced if she does not have an intercontinental video-meeting organized within the next minute. Some methods are subtle, some less subtle.

Before we start with the 9 factors which contribute to a flourishing office politics, first the question: is it possible to create an organization without any office politics ? And the answer is yes, but … But is almost impossible to get all the conditions met: there has to be an almost unconditional trust between members of the organisation and everyone has to have the same goals and objectives. And that is almost impossible without unlimited resources available (read: money). So the answer on the question earlier should in fact be “no”  (read also my blogpost: https://em2psychoatwork.wordpress.com/?s=constructive ).

Just for fun: a scene from The Office UK  – from bad to worse (from JGatsby on youtube.com)

Ok, here we go:

• organisation culture that enables or even stimulates office politics

Everybody does it, so if I don’t participate I will be the victim here. Especially the men and women at the top set an example and they often see life at the top as one single power struggle – this feeling and the accompanying actions trickle down into the organisation.

• if you believe you have a influence on your environment

If you believe you are a victim of the “system” and you have no power to change or influence it, why bother getting involved in the nitty-gritty of politics.

• there is no trust between members of the organisation

The most effective method to suppress office politics is to stimulate a feeling of trust in each other. I know, this is easier said than done and would be a good theme for one of my up-and-coming blog posts. If you know the other’s motives, personality traits, objectives etc you can predict what is going to happen.

• there is a round of promotions due

If there are some more senior positions coming available, then the political machinery is on full force. Colleagues which got along fine are now suddenly each other’s worst enemy. All the tricks are played.

• more participation in the decision-making process

In the “good old days” when the boss decided everything and you simply had to do what you were told to do, there was no use for office politics. Why manipulate, why butter someone up? In the end you have to do it anyway. Now employees are more involved in the decision-making process and in the development of instruments, policies etcetera, which also means that they have to take a position on issues, secure their influence, form coalitions and so on.

• involvement and commitment

For people who have invested more in their job the stakes are higher. They might have based their whole vision of a career on this specific job and/or company or they have moved cross-country just to start this job. Or alternatives are not easy to find: the job market is in a crisis or your employability is not optimal. In all these cases you want the situation to work and are inclined to use political manoeuvres to let the turn of events go in your direction.

• downsizing or relocation

Another ideal opportunity to use your political talents: major changes in the daily operation. An office is closed down or relocated to another town or there is a merger or downsizing planned. The situation is vague and the future is uncertain: fertile ground.

• you think it will work

This one might be so obvious, that you almost might forget to mention it. You have to balance the pros and cons. The pros being that there is a bigger chance that you might get what you want; the cons being that your relationship with others might suffer if you use your tactics. If the pros in your perception outweigh the cons, there might be a bigger chance for success.

• you are a high self-monitor

A self-monitor is in psychology a person, who is capable to “read” the situation and the other persons involved. He knows what is going on and how to deal with it. Usually these persons are also more aware of their position, the impression they make and how they fit in the system.

From all the above you might draw the conclusion that it is wrong, unethical, unjustifiable and what have you to use methods to influence other people and turn the situation in your favor. That is not my message; nothing more human than to look after your interests and to, to use a Dutch saying in translation,”not let someone else eat the cheese of your bread”. It is up to you how far you want to go and it is up to the other or the organisation how far they let you go. And if you go to far, your out, banned or ostracized.

M

MAKE A LASTING FIRST IMPRESSION

Although it might sound like a superficial remark, first impressions are very important. I know, that “you should not judge a book by its cover” and its “the character that counts”. But psychological research has shown that people tend to remember best the first and last impression; so the minute you walk into the door and the minute that you leave. The period in between, which deals with the content of the interaction is unfortunately easily forgotten.

And what use is a great character, if a person does not want to get to know the character because of a lousy first impression.

It is way harder to correct a negative first impression, than to ruin a positive first impression.

In a business setting there are numerous first impressions on an average day; it is not only the application interview or the first day at a new job, but also a first meeting with that new colleague or a potential new customer. And there is only one first impression you can make.

Just a few elements to take into account in a first meeting:

• Know your non-verbal communication. Do not cross your arms in front of you (closed position – defensive attitude);  do not sprawl in your chair (not interested, not respectful); make eye-contact; do make supporting arm or hand movements if you speak (supports what you say and can show some enthusiasm), etc.

• Watch your appearance. You don’t have to wear the latest fashion trend, but your appearance should match the type of occasion without pushing your personality out of the picture. If you never wear a suit and tie, people notice that that is not the real you and you might come across as not genuine;

• Show interest in the other person; you are seen in a more positive light if you show interest in what the other has to say – ask questions or see their point of view and concentrate on what is actually said; you must make the other one feel good about you and about himself  or herself;

• Stay who you are; meaningful first impressions are the first step in, hopefully, lasting relationships; if you presented yourself the first time as totally different from the real you, you will be judged a fake once the other knows you better; of course it is no more than natural to focus on your “strong” points and to smooth over your “weak” points.

THE BASICS 4: FORDISM

In every handbook on work psychology or organisational psychology you examine you get first Taylor with his scientific management (see the basics 3: https://em2psychoatwork.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/the-basics-3-scientific-management-taylorism-what-does-it-teach-us/) and then immediately after that Henry Ford with his addition to Taylor’s theory. Although I am far from pretending to write a handbook, I  can only but follow.

For a lot of people it might be surprising that Henry Ford, the famous American entrepreneur and pioneer in the car industry, is mentioned as one of the pioneers of organisational psychology. At least for me it was. And he owes it to the invention of the assembly line, which changed the organisation of the work processes completely.

Now the workers did not have to move around anymore to assemble a product, like a car, but they could remain on the same spot. No valuable time was lost and they could speed up production. Workers were reduced to mere little machines who were turned on and off by switching the conveyor belt. The workers did not have any discretionary power left; beautifully illustrated by the video clip of the Lucy Show in The Basics 3.

Although from an economic point of view the assembly line was hugely successful – production skyrocketed; a car became a familiar sight on the roads and was affordable for a considerable part of the population. But the economic drawback came when people started to ask for more diversity. The T-Ford was available only in black. That triggered further technological developments.

I found this video on youtube which illustrates the production line of T-ford; youtube.com by autotuningnews

But from a psychological point of view Fordism taught us that workers wanted and needed more from work than just doing the same movements over and over, without any intellectual challenge and without any decision-making rights, even on the tiniest part of their daily activities.

Even although Ford paid very well, money would prove not to be the only motivator. People needed more. The developments lead to widespread opposition from workers and a downturn in the work morale, not surprising if you have to do the same boring activities all day. And, although there was a financial crisis in full swing in the ’20s and ’30s a part of the workforce could simply not cope with the pressure and dullness of assembly line and comparable production work.

For comparison the modern-day manufacturing of Renault Megane; youtube.com by renault (I hope they don’t mind me using this video; it is extra exposure though!)

But like all major developments in this field, also Fordism has had a lasting influence on the organisation of work and work processes. The assembly line is still the leading production process in the car manufacturing industry, but now in a more humanized form and with robots replacing human workers. And that expresses exactly the feeling the workers in the heyday of Fordism in the ’20s and ’30s (and also in later years) might have had.

In the next episode of the Basics I turn towards a study that, although not intentionally, contributed to the development of the more people centred factors in work: the Hawthorne Studies.

M

HOW TO COPE WITH BOREDOM

How exciting a job may be and, even if you jump out of bed each morning because you are allowed to do every day what you like best, there comes a day in everyone’s life that you have to do a boring task or, imagine, have a boring day.

In most cases it is just a matter of grin and bear it;  in a few hours it will all be over and tomorrow is a next day. But what if it is a recurring state of mind ? Ask yourself a couple of questions.

• is feeling bored part of my character ?

Not everyone reacts the same to the message that you have to fold 1000 letters,  put them in envelopes and have them posted within 3 hours. But one person starts the task with a smile, puts his mind on hold and simply does it (even if he does not like it) and the other person sighs, thinks of how horrible the next few hours will be and is already behind before he even started it. Your mindset is crucial here – continue to the next questions.

• can I delegate the task ?

Now, there is an attractive thought. Is there no secretary available or another staff member ? Tedious tasks are not very popular though, but may be what is boring for one is exciting or at least less boring for the other ? You never know.

• is it a fundamental or recurring part of the job ?

Suddenly you start realizing that you did this task more often and all-in-all it did not inspire you much; was it actually part of the job description or did you “misunderstood” some things in the application interview or are you slowly pushed onto a sidetrack ? Investigate what makes you bored – may be there is something more fundamental going on.

• can I somehow make it more enjoyable ?

Yes, there are ways to make a tedious task more enjoyable. But it largely depends on the question whether you have to use your mental capacity and/or concentration to do the task.

If yes, it is much more difficult – may be you can talk things through with a co-worker or plan the task at a moment your biological clock is most ideal for intense but boring tasks, for example between 10 and 12 in the morning.  Unfortunately there will be a lot of competing activities; be strong: make a commitment to yourself to get it done.

If no, put on some music, sit down in a nice spot, chat with colleagues (and may be let them join in the fun …), pour in a nice cup of coffee, finish the task when you are up to it. Or what is usually seen as the best option: get it over with as quick as possible. Set the timer and play a game: to get as much done as possible in 15 minutes ! Often seen as the secret recipe for any boring activity (the gym anyone ?) – make it into a game.

But be aware of the risk. Usually quality suffers if you work under time pressure.  And if you are playing the game too often or for too long, your health might suffer as well. Stress is lurking around the corner.

M