WORK ECOLOGY. TECH-MEAL RELATWNS AND SOQlAL {NTERACTION IN AN AUTOMOBELE PLANT Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MECHEGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FPARCIS HGLLAND 1967 LIBRARY ?§HE:§I’5 Michxgan State University ABSTRACT WORK ECOLOGY, TECHNICAL RELATIONS AND SOCIAL INTERACTION IN AN AUTOMOBILE PLANT By Frank Holland This study attempts to ascertain the relationships between technology and ecology as they pertain to spatial dimensions of work, size of the work group and the amount of social interaction required or allowed at work. Fur- ther, it attempts to ascertain the relationship between socio-technical interaction and job satisfaction, union participation, and community involvement. The sample consists of 306 automobile workers of various skill levels. The research stems from the assump- tion that the technology of automobile production serves to set ecological boundaries for the worker which in turn affects his social interaction possibilities. The findings point to a general satisfaction with the work environment, job, union, and community of resi- dence. The data related to work environment satisfaction and interaction, while not statistically significant, indi- cate there is a tendency toward a positive relationship with technical interaction, and a tendency toward a negative as- sociation with total interaction. No discernable pattern Frank Holland occurs between social interaction and work environment satisfaction. Job satisfaction is somewhat associated with all dimensions of interaction, social, technical, and total, al- though the tendency in the data points to a negative rela- tionship between these variables. No distinguishable pattern is present between tech- nical interaction and union participation. There is a tendency for a positive association to exist between social interaction and union participation. The association between total inter- action and union participation is statistically confirmed. Finally, the index of social interaction tends to be positively associated with community involvement. A pattern is apparent between total interaction and the community in- volvement of the worker. WORK ECOLOGY, TECHNICAL RELATIONS AND SOCIAL INTERACTION IN AN AUTOMOBILE PLANT By Frank Holland A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Sociology 1967 7. ’7‘ C1O%;7J’/ 995/“ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my thanks to Professor William Form, my chairman and advisor, for his enduring patience, encouragement, and extensive aid throughout the preparation and writing of this thesis. Professor Form's council, help and friendship have been invaluable to me throughout the lengthy and often rocky journey toward the completion of this task: to him I am forever grateful. I would also like to thank my other committee members, Professor Donald Olmstead and Professor William Faunce, for their continued aid and scholarly advice. Finally, I am most appreciative of the help and encouragement of the students of the Department of 800106 logy, particularly Frank Mulvihill, Saghir Ahmad, John Pease, and Baldev Sharma, as well as the many others who have helped me gain a greater appreciation for the socio- logical enterprise. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 'ACKNOWLEDGMENT LIST OF CHAPTER I II III IV VI TABLES WORK ECOLOGY AND SOCIAL INTERACTION Focus: Technology, Ecology, and Verbal Interaction . . . . Technology and Work Satisfaction Technology and Ecology Summary . HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH DESIGN . Research Design Variables WORK ENVIRONMENT SATISFACTION Social Dimensions of the Work Environment. Social Interaction and Work Environment Satisfaction . Total Interaction at Work Conclusions INTERACTION AT WORK AND JOB SATISFACTION Intrinsic Job Satisfaction . Social Interaction and Job Satisfaction. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . PATTERNS OF WORK INTERACTION AND UNION PARTICIPATION Conclusions WORK INTERACTION PATTERNS AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Conclusions iii Page ii \‘JerUo ll 13 22 3O 38 Al AA A6 A8 51 6O 7O 72 77 CHAPTER Page VII CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 iv TABLE 10. ll. 12. LIST OF TABLES Satisfaction with the physical setting of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reasons for positive evaluation of work location Distance in yards one is able to move while working Skill level and the distance the worker can move from his work station while working . Functional classification associated with the distance one may move from the work station while working Number of workers with whom one must inter- act for technical reasons Functional classification associated with the number of fellow workers with whom one must interact at a technical level Skill level associated with the number of fellow workers with whom one must inter— act at a technical level Skill level associated with the number of fellow workers with whom one may talk while at work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Functional classification associated with the number of fellow workers with whom one may talk while working Skill level and work environment satis- faction Degree of technical interaction associated with the amount of work environment satis- faction Page 24 2A 2A 28 29 31 31 32 32 3A 3A 37 TABLE 13. 1A. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2A. 25. 26. 27. 28. Density of technical interaction associated with the amount of work environment satis— faction controlling for skill Association of social interaction on the job with work environment satisfaction Density of social interaction associated with work environment satisfaction Degree of total interaction associated with the amount of work environment satisfac— tion, controlling for skill Density of actual total interaction associated with work environment satis- faction . Satisfaction with actual job tasks in percent Distribution of job satisfaction according to skill . . . . . . . . . . . Functional classification and job satis— faction Distribution of job satisfaction according to the amount of social interaction at work Social interaction associated with job satisfaction and skill level Density of social interaction at work associated with job satisfaction Degree of technical interaction according to the amount of job satisfaction Amount of total interaction associated with job satisfaction . . . . . . . Union participation associated with skill level Technical interaction associated with union participation Density of technical interaction associated with union participation vi Page 37 39 39 A3 43 A9 A9 50 52 53 56 57 57 6A 6A 65 TABLE 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3A. 35. 36. 37. 38. FIGURE 1. Density of work place mates associated with union participation Degree of social interaction associated with the amount of union participation Degree of total interaction associated with union participation Friendly interaction outside the plant associated with union participation Friendly interaction outside the plant associated with union participation Skill level associated with community involvement Functional classification associated with community involvement Degree of total interaction associated with the degree of community involvement Density of total interaction associated with the degree of community involvement Summary of outcomes of hypotheses LIST OF FIGURES Table of the statistical interrelationships of all interaction indices vii Page 67 67 68 68 69 75 75 78 78 8A 20 CHAPTER I WORK ECOLOGY AND SOCIAL INTERACTION Men alone do not give mass production. Mass production is achieved by both men and machines. And while we have gone a long way toward perfecting our mechanical opera- tions we have not successfully written into our equation whatever complex factors represent man, the human element. Henry Ford II Mass production technology has given birth to a new environment for modern man. Although peOple feel the influ— ence of technology in the modern world in many ways, we shall examine only its impact upon men at work. The industrial worker spends much of his work day controlling or being con— trolled by machines. He lives in an environment which is conditioned directly by technology. We shall consider how work ecology, as determined by technology, affects the nature of social interaction at work. In addition we shall examine how technology and work ecology affect attitudes toward the job, work environment, union, and community. For many years mass production technology was almost disregarded by social scientists. It seemed to be the pre- serve of philOSOphers, propagandists, and businessmen. Many who had never been inside the walls of a factory denounced all elements of it as evil. The ideologist especially de— plored the process of dehumanization allegedly accompanying it. Those who people factories, do not feel them, (the noises and feelings of production rhythm) except in rare and fleeting moments, for they are not free. They can ex— perience them only when they forget that they are not free; but they can rarely forget, for the thousand and one little details which, in the work day, makes their servitude apparent. On the other hand, many big businessmen and indus- trial managers supported the point of View of Henry Ford, who idealized the human results of mass production. He stated: As to the contention that machines thus become the mas— ters of men, it may be said that machines have increased men's mastery of their environment, and that a genera- tion which is ceaselessly scrapping its machines exhibits few indications of mechanical subjection.2 In the early 1920's Elton Mayo began to study sys— tematically the human effects of mass production. Inspired by the work of the British Medical Council, Mayo focused his attention upon fatigue associated with repetitive work in a modern factory. He later was concerned with the problem of boredom and other clinical symptoms associated with repeti- 3 tive work. Other studies shortly thereafter pointed to "pacing" as a factor equally important in causing fatigue. Later many studies related repetition and pacing of work to other factors associated with mass production technology, such as job satisfaction, executive functions, communication, formal and informal groupings, alienation, motivations, and lsimone Weil, "Factory Work," translated by F. Giova- nelli, Politics, December, l9A6, pp. 369-370. 2Henry Ford, "Mass Production," EncyCIOpedia Briti— cannica, pp. 38—AO. 3Elton Mayo, The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization, New York, The Macmillian Co., 1933, pp. 1-95. productivity. Yet they avoided the specific question of the effects of different technologies on social interaction of workers in and outside the work situation. Focus: Technology, Ecology, and Verbal Interaction The effects of technologically shaped work ecologies in automobile assembly plants on the verbal interaction rates of workers is the subject of this paper. We intend to study how different technological requirements affect the distri— bution of workers in space, (ecology) and how this distribu- tion might affect the amount of verbal interaction among workers. It is hypothesized that these relationships will have a direct bearing upon worker satisfactions both within and outside the plant. Clearly, the ecology and technology of any given in- dustry conditions the kind of work groups which can emerge, as well as the patterns of interaction among the workers. We may illustrate two extremes. The giant furnaces within steel mills require the close c00peration of between five to twenty- five men as a team or as a series of teams to insure proper operations. On the other hand, the modern automated chemi- cal plant may isolate workers who monitor various instruments in control areas which are spatially separated. Between these extremes there is a wide range of variation both between and within different industries. Some workers may work in an ideal physical layout; one with a low noise level, and a favorable managerial orientation which permits them to interact freely. Others are limited in the nature and type of social interaction in which they may take part, because of the tech- nical demands of their assigned tasks. People on various kinds of assembly lines typically form weakly based work groups.” Here the technology frequently does not demand team action, nor does it provide much opportunity for social interaction. Technology and Work Satisfaction The basic assumption upon which this study rests is that certain historical changes in the structure and technol- ogy of industry have given rise to a differing form of pro- duction, factory social structures, and work relationships. Yet the recent literature in this area implies a uniform technology which causes the worker to be dissatisfied with his work role. It suggests that he rejects the impersonal, technologically dominated work world and seeks his identity outside the work environment. A number of scholars have asked whether work is in fact of central life importance to an individual. For exam- ple, Daniel Bell asks, if auto workers are no longer receiving their satisfactions and central life values from their world of work, where do they receive them? He answers his own ques— tion; Few auto workers today have a future beyond their job. Few have a chance for social advancement. But they are not radical: What has happened is that old values have been diSplaced, and the American Dream has been given a ”Leonard Sayles, Behavior of Industrial Work Groups, New York, John Wiley & Son, Inc., 1958. new gloss. Success at one's job becomes less important than success in one's life style.5 While a number of writers tend to accept the notion of the separation of the worlds of work and non—work, Nosow and Form emphasize that work is still a major link between men and their society. They state: The separation of work from the other realms of life has been erroneously interpreted by some as indication that work is no longer a central life interest of mod- ern man. The available evidence does not confirm this, for work continues to be the driving force giving direc- tion and meaning to contemporary living. While it is true that work satisfaction tends to decrease with the level of occupational skill, work still occupies a cen- tral role in the lives of most peOple. The primary reason for this is that there is no other activity which provides as much social continuity to life as does work. Certainly, leisure has not yet replaced work as a central organizing principle of life. It is work, not leisure, that gives status to the individual and his family.6 The conflict in VieWpoints is obvious. How does one settle the differences? First, it is obvious that work means different things to people in different occupational groups. Studies of different occupations by Dubin, Orzack, Morse and 7 Weiss, and Arensberg among others, document this observation. 5Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology, New Revised Edition, New York, Collier Books, 1961, p. 225. 6Sigmund Nosow and William H. Form, Man, Work and So- ciety, New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1952, p. 11 7Robert Dubin, "Industrial Worker's Worlds: A Study of the General Life Interests of Industrial Workers," Social Prob- lems, Jan. 1956; Louis H. Orzack, "Work as a Central Life In- terest of Professionals; Social Problems, fall, 1959; Conrad M. Arensberg, "Work and the Changing American Scene," Research in Industrial and Human Relations, New York, Harper and Bros., Inc., p. 58; Nancy C. Morse and R. S. Weiss, "The Function and Meaning of Work and the Job," American Sociological Review, April 1955, p. 191. Secondly, certain problems arise in the study of the meanings of work and work satisfaction, either in historical or contemporary analysis. Specifically, with respect to cur— rent studies, the data generally available are the results of directing questions to people asking what they like or dis- like about their work. But workers may not be able to ver— balize what work means to them. For example, Friedman and Havighurst found that semi-skilled workers said they worked for economic reasons and that they looked forward to their retirement. However, upon retirement, it became apparent that for most of them work was an integrative force in their lives. Third, a fundamental weakness of many studies on worker satisfactions is their lack of concern with non-work environment. Only recently has the meaning of work been ap— proached by evaluating the meanings of other related activi- ties such as leisure, retirement, and unemployment. We take the position that, regardless of other social activities, work continues to provide social continuity to an individual's life. We hypothesize that factors which affect work satisfaction affect other areas of life and vice versa, for example, com- munity involvement. Technology and Ecology We have chosen to investigate some technological as- pects of modern assembly production which affect the location 8E. A. Friedman and R. J. Havighurst, et al., The Meaning of Work and Retirement, Chicago, University of Chica- go Press, 195A, p. A1. of workers within an automobile factory. The technologically conditioned ecology sets limits and conditions social behav— ior such as the interaction potential, the size of the work group, friendship patterns, union activity, and the like. That is, the ecology affects a number of factors related to worker satisfaction. Contrary to pOpular belief, the work ecology of an automobile factory varies considerably. Some workers are, in effect, ecologically isolated. The technological requirements of their particular task allows them no physical mobility and very limited verbal interaction possibilities. Others are in ecological situations which permit them reasonable degrees of physical mobility and Opportunities for verbal exchange with fellow workers. Still others have a great deal of physical mobility within the department, the section or the entire plant. These have the greatest potential for social interac- tion with workers of varying social characteristics. Summary The technological requirements of production in some degree affect the ecological situation where work is done. Both the physical and social ecology of work are so affected. Varied amounts and types of interaction may be required by the very types of machine used and by their physical spacing. The interaction which is technologically provoked may of course also affect non-work behavior and attitudes. That is, the structural characteristics of work ecology may affect the worker's orientations toward his job, work environment, union and community. We shall examine how ecology and technology of an automobile factory affect the Spatial dimensions of work, the size of the work group, and the amount of interaction at work. We shall then ascertain whether socio-technical interaction affects job satisfaction, union participation, and community involvement.9 9The usage of the terms social and technical interac- tion serve as a shorthand method to express the particular orientation of the social interaction within which the actor is engaged. While patently true that all interaction at a verbal level is social, we shall distinguish as technical in- teraction that interaction which must occur in order for the worker to complete his task. Social interaction, on the other hand, is that interaction within which the worker par- ticipates freely and it is not required of him to perform his duties. CHAPTER II HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH DESIGN Eleven specific hypotheses are proposed in this study. They are formulated on the assumption that more work space, greater freedom of movement, and the greater interac- tion possibilities result in a larger network of choice of fellow workers with whom one may interact. Increased choice possibilities probably result in greater satisfaction with 1 While we cannot demonstrate the total environment of work. a direct relationship between more Opportunity for interac- tion at work and increased union, neighborhood,and community integration we assume that some carry-over may be Operating. That is, we expect that the greater amounts of verbal exchange allowed within the work situation, the greater will be the amount of satisfaction a worker experiences with his job, work environment, union and community. Further, we expect that varying degrees of technological freedom or control will con- dition the nature and type of the worker's verbal exchange. Finally we expect that skill levels will correlate positively with the degree of technological freedom or control. lThis proposition underlies much of human relations theory. See for example, Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Manage- ment; New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1961; Chris Argyris, Personality and Organization, New York, Harper Row, 1957; Elton Mayo, The Human Problems of an Industrial Civiliza— tion, New York, The Viking Press, 1933. 9 10 The eleven hypotheses are: 1. There is a positive relationship between the amount of technical interaction and the amount of satisfac- tion with the work environment. 2. There is a positive relationship between the amount of social interaction and the amount of satisfaction with the work environment. 3. There is a positive relationship between the total amount of interaction (technical and social) and the amount of satisfaction with the work environment. A. There is a positive relationship between the amount of technical interaction and the amount of satisfaction with the job. 5. There is a positive relationship between the amount of social interaction and the amount of satisfaction with the job. 6. There is a positive relationship between the total amount of interaction (technical and social) and the amount of satisfaction with the job. 7. There is a positive relationship between the amount of social interaction and the degree of participation in the union. 8. There is a positive relationship between the amount of technical interaction and the degree of participation with- in the union. 9. There is a positive relationship between the total amount of interaction (technical and social) and the degree of participation in the union. ll 10. There is a positive relationship between the amount of social interaction and the amount of involvement within the community. 11. There is a positive relationship between the total amount of interaction (technical and social) and the amount of involvement within the community. Research Design This research paper is based upon a secondary analy- sis of data collected for a larger project.2 The portion of data selected for analysis deals primarily with measures of social and technical interaction as they are related to the worker's attitudes and selected behavior patterns. The data are obtained from a stratified random sample of workers in selected department of an automobile factory in Lansing, Mich- igan. Lansing, capitol of Michigan, has a population of 120,000. A moderate percentage of this work force are em- ployed by the automobile industry. Approximately half of the working force of this city live outside the city limits. The proportion of workers in this study living outside the citylflmits is slightly greater than one-half. While Lansing is not a major metrOpolitan area, it is sufficiently representative to enable some application of these research findings to other industrial communities. The sample was not selected Specifically to study "blue collar 2William H. Form, Patterns of Social Integration Among Industrial Workers: A Comparative Analysis, in progress. 12 workers" or automobile workers in general. It was designed to investigate relationships between technology of a highly industrialized occupation and selected behavioral and atti- tudinal dimensions. The sample is overly represented in skilled workers. The breakdown is as follows: Number of Workers Interviewed as Classified by Skill Level Unskilled 1A2 Semi—skilled 82 Skilled __82 Total 306 Skill levels were defined as follows: Skilled: Skilled machine work, tool and die, ex— perimental design, etc. A skilled worker required apprenticeship and journeyman status. Semi—Skilled: Operators or on semi-automatic machines, stamping machines, and fashioning machines. Unskilled: Assembly line work, and other unskilled work which requires very little training. The workers' wages corresponded with skill level as defined by the organization. Wages for skilled workers are arrived at through collective bargaining by a separate bargain- ing unit. Membership in the United Auto Workers Local 652 num-‘ bered 9,100 workers in 1962. There were 1,700 in the skilled trades, and 7,A00 classified as unskilled production workers. The production worker category was divided into categories of assembly and non-assembly line workers. This latter distinc— tion was a factor in the determination of wage rates. The 13 sample included a number from each category of skill level. Those with less than one year of seniority were eliminated from the study. The remainder of the sample were contacted by letter and a time was arranged for an interview in the worker's home. The refusal rate was approximately 7 per cent of the sample. A comparison of those refusing to be interviewed with those who cooperated reveals little or no differences. The interviews were conducted in the homes of the workers, and lasted for a mean time of 1—1/2 hours. The in- terviewing was done within a two-month period in the summer of 1962. This was a period of changeover, retooling, and temporary lay-off for the factory.3 Dependent Variables Job Satisfaction Work Environment Satisfaction Union Participation Community Involvement Jl'UONH Independent Variables 5. Index of Total Potential Interaction 6. Density of Total Potential Interaction 3The interview schedules were coded and put onto IBM cards. The data were tabulated by the CD 3600 computer. The data representing interaction information had been coded in a manner whichvnusunacceptable to the computers' standard contingency table program ACT TWO Additional difficulties stemming from the same source were encountered in re-coding the data into a suitable form. These problems were finally solved through the extensive efforts of Mr. Frank Mulvihill, a graduate student in the Sociology department. The re-coding allowed us to construct indices with raw scores ranging from 000-999. The range was collapsed into three or four major categories for tabular presentation. The breaking points were established by an examination of the marginal frequencies. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 1A. 15. l6. 17. 1A Density of Work Place Mates Degree of Friendly Interaction at Work Degree of Friendly Interaction Outside the Plant Degree of Actual Total Interaction Density of Actual Total Interaction Degree of Technical Interaction Density of Technical Interaction Index of Potential Social Interaction Index of Actual Social Interaction Measure of Potential Social Interaction Density of Actual Social Interaction The explication of these variables and the listings of the questions used are found below. Dependent Variables Variable I: Job Satisfaction. This measure is con- structed from responses to these items: How about the operation you actually perform on your job? On the whole how do you feel about the work you are actually doing? Would you like, without a change in pay, to change the type of work activity once in a while? Variable II: Work Environment Satisfaction. This index was formulated from responses to these questions: On the whole, do you like the actual place or loca- tion where you work or not? How do you feel about daily contacts with fellow workers? Variable III: Union Participation. This measure is constructed from responses to these questions: Do Do Do Do you attend local meetings? you hold an office in the union? you participate 1J1 union activities? you know the names of the current union officers? 15 Did you vote in the last local election? Variable IV: Community Involvement. This index is designed from responses to these questions: Do you like living in ? Are you a member of a voluntary association? Problems of the community, mentioned, not see, other? Independent Variables The independent variables refer to the various dimen- sions of interaction. The indices which follow may be ex- pressed in formula form. W = the number of workers located within the work space as indicated by the respondent. The size of the space is indicated by the respondent as the dis- tance within which he may freely move during the course of work. The range will vary according to the degree of physi- cal mobility the respondent has. This will vary from the absolute restrictions on his movement to free mobility through- out the plant. WI = the number of workers located within the respondent's workspace with whom the respondent may actually talk (interact) during the work day. The measure does not include scheduled breaks within the work day such as coffee or lunch. Furthermore, it does not distinguish between social as Opposed to technical interaction. WT = the technical dimension of the respondent's in- teraction. It refers to the number of workers the respondent must talk with in order to do his job. W = the actual number of workers the respondent inter- A acts with during the work day. 16 S = the spatial distance within which the worker may freely move during the day. The distance ranges from no mobility or a few feet or yards to mobility in the shop, section, department or plant. F = the number of confidants and intimate friends I a worker has within the plant. FP = the number of friends the respondent has with the plant. FO = the number of plant friends the respondent has who continue this relationship outside the plant. In other words, it distinguishes plant based friendships from other associates the respondent may have. The interaction indices are as follows. Index of Total Potential Interaction. The index is constructed from responses of this question: How many of these (workers located about the respon- dent) can you talk with, for one reason or another during actual working hours? While working? = WI Density of Total Interaction. This measure is de- rived from responses to these questions: How many of these (workers located about the respon- dent) can you talk with, for one reasons or another during actual working hours? While working? How far from your work place can you freely move about during work? (Yards in each direction-—not at lunch, etc.) W .1 s Density of Work Place Mates. The number of workers located within the respondent's work space (W) divided by 17 the space in yards within which the respondent may freely move (S) yields this formula. Density of Work Place Mates W =s Degree of Friendly Interaction at Work. This index is constructed utilizing responses to these questions: If you had a very important and delicate personal problem and you wanted to confide in someone, are there among your fellow workers, peOple in whom you could confide and be certain that they merited your trust and would keep your secret? (If yes, how many) In general, how many good friends wouldyou say you had in the entire plant? The number of intimate friends or confidants within the plant (FI) divided by the total number of plant friends (FP) yields .F the following formula. Friendly Interaction at Work = —l. FP Degree of Friendly Interaction Outside the Plant. This index is derived from responses to this question: Do you have the occasion to meet with some of these (Plant friends) outside of work? With how many in 9 = all. FO Degree of Actual Total Interaction. This index is constructed from responses to the question: With how many do you actually talk? (number of work— ers with whom interaction is possible) = WI Density_of Total Actual Interaction. This index is composed of responses to these questions: With how many do you actually talk? (number of work— ers with whom interaction is possible) How far from your work place can you freely move during work? (yards in each direction--not at lunch, etc.) 18 The number of workers with whom the respondent actually talks (WA) divided by the distance the respondent may freely move while working (S) gives this formula. Density of Total WA Actual Interaction = §—. Degree of Technical Interaction. This index is com- posed from responses to the question: With how many fellow workers must you talk during the work day? = WT Density of Technical Interaction. This measure is composed from responses to these questions: With how many fellow workers must you talk during the work day? How far from your work place can you freely move about during work? yards in each direction—-not at lunch) Dividing the number of workers with whom the respondent must talk to accomplish his work (WT) by the space in yards with- in which the respondent may freely move while working (8 ) WT yields the formula. Density of Technical Interaction =-§— Index of Potential Social Interaction. To obtain an index of purely social interaction we simply subtracted the degree of technical interaction required of a respondent (WT) from the index of potential total interaction W The for- I. mula is, Index of Social Interaction = WI - WT. Index of Actual Social Interaction. This index re- fers to actual social interaction. It is derived by subtract- ing the number of workers with whom the respondent has to talk to accomplish his work (WT) from the number of workers the l9 respondent actually talks to during the work day. The for- mula is, Index of Actual Social Interaction = WA - WT. Density of Potential Social Interaction. This density index is constructed by dividing the index of potential social interaction (WI - WT) by the space in yards within which the respondent may freely move while working (S). The formula WI — WT is, Density of Potential Interaction = S Density of Actual Social Interaction. This density index is constructed by dividing the index of actual social interaction (W - WT) by the space in yards within which the A worker may freely move while working (S). The formula is, W - W Density of Actual Social Interaction —A—§—;£. Figure 1 shows that a majority of the interaction in- dices are interrelated at statistically significant levels. We should not be very surprised that there is such a high degree of relationship among the indices. Basically, there are two indices, social and technical interaction. Each in- dex can be analysed for the amount of potential interaction, amount of actual interaction, and density of interaction. Figure 1 suggests that social and technical interaction are related to each other and that the potential and actual amounts of interaction also strongly correspond. Two dimensions which appear to be unrelated are; l. friendly interaction at work, and 2. social interaction in transit to work. We may speculate as to why these indexes appear to be unrelated to the others. The index of social 20 FIGURE l.--Interrelationships of the interaction Density Total Interaction Density Work Place Mates Friendly Interaction at Work Density Actual Total Interaction Number have to Talk To Degree of Technical Interaction Potential Social Interaction Actual Social Interaction Density Potential Social Interaction Density Actual Interaction Social Interaction in Transit KEY .01 .05 .10 I+$O II II II II Density Total Interaction Friendly Interaction at Work Number You have to Talk To indices* Actual Social Interaction 0 Density Work Place Mates * c> Potential Social Interaction o c: Density Potential Social Interaction -+ Social Interaction in Transit o :3 Density Actual Total Interaction o c: Degree of Technical Interaction 0 CD Density Actual Social Interaction * _ _ _ ._ * _ .. _ .. _ - - + 00- _00000r __..- o***-- 00-00 000+- o+—o*0 000- -—-0*00 00- 00-0*00 0- 00-0-+0 0 - +_+*---- - not significant *Many highly positive relationships occur because of the common- ality of several elements which are utilized in the formulation of these several indexes. 21 interaction in transit to work is not related to the others probably because more than 80 per cent of the workers drive to work alone in their own cars. The journey to work may not be a social phenomenon. Absence of correlations between the indexes dealing with friendly interaction within and outside the plant and the other indexes is more difficult to explain. It suggests a lack of carry over of friendship in the inter- action complex. In sum, notwithstanding the presence of common elements, these interaction measures developed through the utilization of many dimensions of interaction at work and outside the plant are positively associated with each other and suggest a strong relationship exists among the various dimensions of interactions be they technically or social oriented. CHAPTER III WORK ENVIRONMENT SATISFACTION The physical environment of this research site is a modern automobile plant. Its efficiency, hygenic and safety standards, medical facilities for on—the-job accidents, modern lighting, and good ventilation markedly contrast with the factory environment of previous eras. However, some con- ditions remain which have traditionally been sources of dis— satisfaction to workers. Large noisy workshops and dirty production processes have not been completely eliminated, and modern ventilation systems do not yet adequately control the environment to everyone's satisfaction. These physical conditions may become sociologically important for their effect on the overall pattern of worker satisfaction, however, their effect is limited. Once a cer- tain standard has been achieved in the physical setting of work, it is unlikely that further improvements would generate increased worker satisfaction. If the standard falls below certain levels, dissatisfactions are likely to appear. The human environment of work is also important to the worker. Undoubtedly there is an interaction effect be— tween the physical and social environments, and we should not neglect one in favor of the other. As suggested in the previous 22 23 chapter, the physical environment to some extent shapes the social ecology of the factory. Walker states, "The techni— cal nature of the work on the assembly line neither suggests nor compels interaction.l Nonetheless, production jobs often require workers to interact frequently because articulation of functions is needed to accomplish the assembly process. As Blauner's work indicates, variations in rates of interac- tion exist across industries, within the same department.2 This variation may range from a job which neither requires nor permits verbal exchange, to jobs which require frequent exchange, communications and team work. We have called the type of verbal exchange required by the job,technica1 interaction. We shall now examine some data on the physical as— pects of the automobile factory as reported by workers in our sample. The distribution of their attitudes toward the physical environment is reported in Table 1. Approximately eight-tenths of the workers reported they liked their actual place of work. The reasons most often mentioned in Table 2 are good physical conditions, (light, airy, clean, etc.) the convenience of the work site, and work associates. The question arises whether the amount of control the worker has over technology affects his evaluation of the work environment. First the distinction should be noted between 1Charles R. Walker, The Foreman on the Assembly Line, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1956, p. 129. 2Robert Blauner, Alienation and Freedom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 196A. 2A TABLE 1.--Satisfactions with physical setting of work Category N Percent Likes Work Place 2AA 79.7 Does Not Like Work Place 50 16.3 Always Changes 10 3.3 No Answer 2 0.7 Totals 306 100.0 TABLE 2.-—Reasons for positive evaluation of work location Category N Percent Good Physical Conditions 159 52.0 Convenient Location AA 1A.A Good Work Associates 31 10.1 Other 52 17.0 No Answer 20 6.5 Totals 306 100.0 TABLE 3.--Distance in yards one is able to move while working Category N Percent Cannot Move 27 8.8 1-2 yards 17 5.6 3-5 yards 29 9.5 6—10 yards 19 6.2 More Than 10 yards 66 21.2 Move Freely in Section 31 10.1 Move Freely in Department 52 17.0 Move Freely in the Plant 59 19.3 No Answer 6 2.0 H O O O Totals 306 25 control over the technological process and skill level. As noted above, the sampling procedure selected departments with varying degrees of control over technological factors asso- ciated with production. In these departments there was some variation in the distribution of skills. The skill level of the individual is associated with a wage-rate which is fixed according to the type of Operations performed, the time re- quired for training, and necessity for or lack of an appren— ticeship. Skill level is strongly associated with the degree of control a worker has over the technological process. The relationship is particularly strong for skilled and unskilled workers. It is slightly weaker for the semi—skilled because this category is not as internally homogeneous as the other two skill levels. A separate classification is used to evaluate the de- gree of control the individual has over the technological process. The four categories of this functional classifica- Eieg are: (1) Assembly; (2) Machine Operator; (3) Testing, Repair; (A) Trades. Each level indicates a higher degree of control over the production technology. Spatial mobility is importantly related to the level of control over production technology. A worker confined to a particular machine has‘ less potential for social interac- tion than one who does not have to attend his machine closely and constantly. The question to ascertain the workers degree of physical mobility was, "How far from your work Space can you freely move about during work, in yards?" 26 Data in Table 3 reveal that only about one-tenth of the workers are fixed at their work station. About four—’ tenths are able to move from their work position from one to ten yards in either direction, and half can move an even greater distance. This amount of mobility in the automobile plant runs contrary to popular notions that the worker is frozen to one spot. True, the technology of the assembly line workers permits only a limited degree of physical mobil— ity. Yet only a slight minority of workers are so circum— scribed as to have no mobility. These workers may be situated at machines which are isolated or they may monitor control equipment at a stationary locale. We felt that the greater distance a worker was able to move from his work station the greater would be his satis- faction with his work environment. Skill level and type of function were thought to be positively related to amount of mobility. Table A presents the relationship between the skill level of the worker and the distance in yards he may move from his workspace; Table 5 presents the relation between the functional classification of his job and the distance he can move. Table A clearly indicates a strong relationship be- tween the skill level of the worker and the amount of physical mobility he has while working. The unskilled worker (mostly on the assembly line) generally cannot move from his work sta— tion or is allowed a distance of one to ten yards. The fact that some unskilled workers are able to move freely about their 27 section or department results from the fact that not all of the unskilled work on the assembly line. Those who have more physical mobility may be relief men, utility men, line supply men or other types of unskilled labor. The data show that the semi—skilled indicated they have a greater degree of freedom from production technology than the unskilled. The majority of the semi-skilled are able to move about their work station. The skilled worker indicates a relative independence from the technological re- strictions of his work station. Virtually no skilled worker is absolutely confined to his work station. Table 5 presents the relationship between the func- tional classification of the workers' job and the distance within which he may move while working. The table offers an independent measure of control over production, as well as a verification of the utility of skill level as an index of control over the production technology. The data clearly indicate that those who have the least amount of control over production technology also have the least amount of freedom to move from their work station. On the other hand, those in the trades have most control over technology and exhibit the highest amount of physical mobility. The curvilinearity of the data for the assembly workers, machine workers, and testers indicate that the distance within whichtflmnzmay move is generally limited to their particular work section of the plant.3 3The association between the distance one can move and work environment satisfaction is x = 11.2, df = 6, P < .10. Hoe. v a .0 n so .mm.moa u mx 28 Aoomv AHHHV Asmv Ammv Asmv masses Aow v H.ooH o.mb w.ma o.oH m.H ooaafixm Aom V o.ooH 0.0m m.~m m.m w.m ooaafimeHEom Aozav o.ooH m.mH ©.wm n.mm :.ma poaaflxmco z newspcmosom mepoB mommw osoe so mopmw com ow mopmw OHIH o>oz Ho>mq Haflxm oomloom meouomm Lo OSICOHpoom poccmo .pdmo pzoszOLQB psonwsoan mpsmw CH mocmpmfim HO>OH HHme mo wcflxsoz oaflgz coapmpm xpoz man Eosm o>oE cmo poxpoz mocwpmflall.: mqm¢e 29 Hoe. v a .m u so .ow.ms u mx Aoomv AHHHV Asmv Ammo Asmv masses Ammv o.ooH 2.5m 5.0m m.OH H.H mmomse Asmv o.ooa s.mm :.ws m.ma H.m sesame .sasatm Assv o.ooa s.mm w.sm m.:m m.mH soussmao ocfinomz Aosv a.ma s.ma H.sm s.mm :.Hm saaaamma z mommpcmosom mampoe mopmw egos so mosey oom op mpsmw OHIH m>oz COAOBOHmHmmmHo cowloom mL0pomm so QUICOHpoom poccwo HBQOHpocsm .pdom psonwsopse psocmsosgfi mohww CH mocmpmflm wcflxsoz mafia: COHpmpm xsoz mflc Eomw m>oE smo Loxsoz conspmfio mo COHOBOfimHmmmHo thOHpocsmll.m mqm¢e 30 The utility of skill levels as a measure of control over production technology is supported by Table 5. Social Dimensions of the Work Environment The amount of satisfaction with the social setting of work was determined by responses to questions related to daily contacts with fellow workers. A degree of satisfac- tion with daily contacts is expected because we assume that few people can tolerate complete social isolation or con- tinued dissatisfaction with the people with whom they are working. When asked how they felt about their daily contacts they had with fellow workers, over nine-tenths indicated that they were satisfied; furthermore, seven—tenths said that they always felt that way. These figures refer to satisfaction with the total amount of daily contacts with fellow workers. The amount of technical interaction, i.e., required interaction, is the number of fellow workers with whom the respondent must talk in order to perform his job. The fre— quencies for technical interaction are found in Table 6. One quarter of the workers did not have to interact with anyone to accomplish their jobs. Approximately three-quarters did. Although the large majority of workers are involved in required interaction, significant differences should occur for various functional classes of jobs. Data in Table 7 indicate this relationship. A large percentage of workers (over 80 percent) at both the assembly and machine operator levels report either no required technical interaction, or a minimal amount of in- teraction with one to five fellow workers. The jobs performed 31 TABLE 6.--Number of workers with whom one must interact for technical reasons Number N Percent None 53 17.3 1—5 workers 99 32.A 6-10 workers 27 8.8 -11 or more 29 9.5 Not Ascertained 98 32.0 Totals 306 100.0 TABLE 7.--Functional classification associated with the number of fellow workers with whom one must interact at a technical level Number of Workers Functional Classification None 1—5 6-10 11 or more Totals % % % % % N Assembly 33.3 50.0 A.8 11.9 100.0 (A2) Machine Operator 38.0 A8.0 10.0 A.0 100.0 (50) Repair, Tester 29.3 A1.5 12.2 17.1 100.1 (A1) Trades 10.7 A9.3 20.0 20.0 100.0 (75) Totals (53) (99) (27) (27) (208) 9 X‘ = 22.5, DF = 9, P < .01 32 TABLE 8.--Number of fellow workers with whom one must inter- act at the technical level according to skill level Number of Workers Skill Level None 1-5 6—10 11 plus Totals Unskilled A0.9 A0.9 10.2 8.0 100.0 (88) Semi-Skilled 22.2 51.9 11.1 1A.8 100.0 (5A) Skilled 7.6 53.0 18.2 21.2 100.0 (66) Total N (53) (99) (27) (29) (208) TABLE 9.--Number of fellow workers with whom a worker may talk at work according to skill level Number of Workers Skill Level None 1-5 6-10 11 plus Totals Unskilled 18.3 Al.6 16.2 23.9 100.0 (1A2) Semi-skilled 9.9 3A.6 18.5 37.0 100.0 (81) Skilled 1.2 25.9 18.5 5A.3 99.9 (81) Total N (35) (108) (53) (108) (30A) 2 x = 29.8, DF = 6, P < .01 33 by repairmen, testers, and trades men require more technical interaction with fellow workers as these functions are more technological complex. We turn from the required interaction for various functional groups to an examination of the potential inter- action available for the several functional classifications. The nature of time production technology sets certain limits to the physical dimensions of the work space. Aside from the physical elements of noise, lighting, heat, etc., produc— tion machinery because of its immobility, serves to set limits on possible social groupings and interaction patterns. The assembly line spaces men along a narrow band or ribbon. This in effect limits their possible interaction to workers on either side or directly across from them. The machine Operator, however, may be even more limited in his potential social interaction. He must work at a station- ary machine; the number of people with whom he may talk is determined by the positioning of the machines and the noise level in the section. The repair man or person in the trades has a greater potential for social interaction because be con- trols his machine and can potentially contact a greater number of fellow workers. Table 10 presents the relationship between the functional classification of jobs and the number of workers with whom the worker can talk while working. This measure differs from the technological interaction measure because it is the total number of peOple the worker can talk to for any reason. The data clearly show that those who have a greater 3A TABLE 10.-—Functional classification for number of fellow workers with whom worker may talk while at work Number of Workers Functional Classification None 1-5 6—10 11 or more Totals Percentages N Assembly 10.1 AA.9 20.3 2A.6 99.9 (69) Machine Operator 3A.2 35.1 1A.9 17.6 100.0 (7A) Repair, Testing 3.0 37.9 19.7 39.A 100.0 (66) Trades 2.1 27.A 15.8 5A.7 100.0 (95) Totals N (35) (108) (53) (108) (30A) X2 = 63.39, DF = 9, P < .001 TABLE ll.-—Skill level and work environment satisfaction Work Environment Satisfaction Skill Level Low Medium High Totals Percentages N Unskilled A.A 18.3 77.A 100.0 (137) Semi—skilled 3.7 19.8 76.5 100.0 (81) Skilled 0.0 20.7 79.3 100.0 (82) Total N (9) (58) (233) (300) X2 = 3.67, DF = A, .50 < P < .30 *(Collapsing unskilled and semi-skilled yields x2 = 3.5A, DF = 2, .10 < P < .20) 35 degree of control over their jobs are able to interact with potentially more fellow workers. An interesting finding in this table is that machine operators or tenders are more re— stricted than assembly line workers with respect to possible interaction. We have examined the physical and social dimensions of the work site separately and have seen that assembly work- ers and machine Operators are limited in their physical mobility, by technological factors. This condition in turn affects the number of workers they can and do talk to while working. The worker who has a limited degree of control over production technology requires a limited amount of communication to do his job. Further, the physical mobility is more limited and this also restricts the number of fellow workers with whom he may talk. The combination of the evaluation of the physical work site and the evaluations of contact with fellow workers comprise an index of satisfaction with the work environment. We expect that the higher skilled worker will exhibit a greater level of satisfaction with both, than his less skilled work mates. However, Table 11 indicates that the major portion of all workers, regardless of skill, are moderately or highly satisfied with their work environment. The expected relation- ship is only slightly supported. It is more clearly seen when 3 functional classifications are used. 3The association between work environment satisfaction and functional classification is statistically significant at the .05 level of confidence; x2 = 13.82, DF = 6, P < .05. 36 It has been noted that varied technologies require differential amounts of interaction among workers. Data on _the relationship between technical interaction and work en- vironment satisfaction are found in Table 12. Although the data do not satisfy the requirements of statistical signifi— cance (P = < .05), a trend is apparent. Excepting at the level of no interaction, an increase in the degree of tech— nical interaction is generally accompanied by an increase in work environment satisfaction. Those most satisfied with the work environment are at opposite ends of the technical interaction continuum. A check on this relationship using skill levels as a control factor offers little additional information. The association between the density of technical in— teraction and work environment satisfaction fails to yield any recognizable pattern or trend.5 When we introduce skill as a control variable, as in Table 13, a slight inverse relationship occurs. Although the table is not statistically significant, there may be a slight trend. Higher densities of technical interaction tend to be associated with more work environment dissatisfaction as one moves from the un- skilled to the skilled worker categories. These findings sug- gest that high densities of technical interaction may be more important to the unskilled worker than to the skilled worker. A . . . . . However, a strong assoc1at1on 1s 1n ev1dence when the functional classification of the job is associated with required technical interaction. x2 = 33.7; DF = 9; P < .001. 5x2 = 0.05; DF = 1; P < .80. 37 TABLE l2.—-Amount of technical interaction associated with the amount of work environment satisfaction Degree of Work Environment Satisfaction Density of Technical Interaction Low High Totals .Percentages N None 21.2 78.9 100.1 (52) Low 28.u 71.6 100.0 (95) Medium 1A.8 85.2 100.0 (27) High 17.2 82.8 100.0 (29) Totals (A7) (156) (203) x2 = 3.22, DF - 3, .30 < P < 50 TABLE l3.--Density of technical interaction associated with the amount of work environment satisfaction controlling for skill level Density of Technical Interaction Low High Totals Percentages N Low 21.A 78. 100.0 (A2) Unskilled Workers High 19.2 80. 100.0 (26) 2 X, = 0.0A, .80 < P < .90 Low 31.3 68. 100.0 (16) Semi-skilled Workers High 22.2 77. 100.0 (18) x2 = 0.35, DF = 1, .50 < P < .70 Low 31.6 68. 100.0 (19) Skilled Workers High uu.u 55. 100.0 (9) xi = 0.uu, DF .50 < P < .70 Total N (33) (97) (130) 38 Less meaningful unskilled tasks may be compensated by a greater degree of social interaction whether it be techni- cally required or voluntary in nature. Closely associated with factors of work environment satisfaction and density of technical interaction is the density of work place mates. We eXpect that greater densi- ties of workers are associated with more satisfaction with the work environment. Greater densities should give rise to greater potentials for social interaction. However, the data do not support this assumption. Even when density is controlled by skill level, no relationship appears. Social Interaction and Work Environment Satisfaction This section will examine the degree of social in- teraction the worker has with his work mates considered apart from contact required for technical reasons. We hypothesized that the greater the amount of voluntary social interaction permitted to a worker the more likely he would be satisfied with his work environment. The measure of social interaction is derived by simply subtracting the number of verbal exchanges required for tech— nical interaction from the total amount of verbal exchange while working. Table 1A shows that there is no association between the amount of satisfaction with the work environment and the amount of social interaction. The possibilities for 6x2 = 5.16; DF = 6; .50 < P < .70. 39 TABLE lA.--Association of social interaction on the job with work environment satisfaction Work Environment Satisfaction Degree of Voluntary Social Interaction Low High Totals Percentages N No voluntary Social Interaction 17.7 82.3 100.0 (62) 1-5 fellow workers 25.5 7A.5 100.0 (55) 6-10 fellow workers 25.0 75.0 100.0 (20) 11 or more fellow workers 26.8 73.2 100.0 (Al) Totals N (A1) (137) (178) 2 x = 1.5A, DF = 3, P < .70 *Collapsing the table in terms of no verbal social interaction and some verbal social yields x2 = 1.50, DF = 1, P < .70. TABLE 15.-—Density of social interaction associated with work environment satisfaction Work Environment Satisfaction Density of Social Interaction Low High Totals Percentages N Low 21.0 79.0 100.0 (81) High 38.5 61.5 100.0 (26) Totals N (27) (80) (107) x2 = 3.19, DF = 1, .05 < P < .10 A0 explaining this finding seem limited. There may be, in fact, no relationship between the variables, or there may be a re- lationship, but it is not evident because of the low numbers in several of the cells. More likely the workers' attitudes toward their work environment may be evaluated on other bases of combinations of factors, social and technical, or social alone. Yet a striking fact is that eight-tenths of the work- ers who have no social interaction have a high degree of satisfaction with their work environment. The lack of relationship between the size of the work group and work environment runs contrary to the findings of Ammassari.7 He showed that in an Italian automobile factory the workers in groups of one to five workers displayed the most satisfaction with their work environment. This size group may permit a sustained pattern of interaction. Larger groups may disrupt social interaction. Ammassari also found that there was an increase in social interaction and work satisfaction when the number of workers with whom one is able to interact expands beyond ten.8 He attributes this to an increase of choice possibilities. However, he quickly adds that this opportunity to interact with others is circumscribed by work technology. 7Paolo Ammassari, "Worker Satisfaction and Occupational Life: A Study of the Automobile Worker in Italy," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 196A. 8Ibid., pp. 179-80. Al One further explanation exists. Research conducted by Robert Dubin in three Midwestern plants was designed to determine, among other things whether work was a central life interest.9 He found that the work place does not provide the worker with social experiences which are more highly valued than those obtained elsewhere. He also found that a large proportion of industrial workers were non—job oriented with respect to informal group experiences, and that only nine per- cent preferred the informal group 1ife that is centered in the job.10 The second dimension of social interaction we wish to examine includes a spatial factor. We hypothesize a posi- tive association between the density of actual voluntary social interaction and the amount of work environment satis— faction. Data in Table 15 present this relationship. The direction of the relationship suggests that lower densities of social interaction are somewhat related to higher amounts of satisfaction with the environment. This finding harmonizes with Ammassari's. Total Interaction at Work When we combine both dimensions of verbal interaction, the required and the voluntary, (social and technical) we arrive 9Robert Dubin, "Industrial Workers' Worlds: A Study of the Central Life Interests of Industrial Workers," Social Problems, January 1956. 10Robert Dubin, "Industrial Workers' Worlds" op.cit, p. 61. A2 at a measure for the total amount of verbal exchange within which the worker takes part while working. We hypothesized that the amount of total interaction is positively associated with the amount of work environment satisfaction. However, the data do not support this.11 Yet there is a Slight nega— tive tendency, the workers having low total interaction rates seem to have higher work environment satisfaction. Skill level is introduced as a control variable in Table 16. There is a Slight tendency for an increase in total interaction to be accompanied by higher work environment satisfaction as we move from the unskilled to the skilled workers. The relationship between the density of total inter— action and work environment satisfaction is statistically significant. The direction of the relationship is contrary to that expected. The data indicate that work environment satisfaction tends to decrease as the density of total inter— action increases. This finding is consistent with the findings dealing with the densities of social and technical interaction. The combined factors indicate that work environments charac— terized by high densities of interaction are negatively re- lated to the amount of work environment satisfaction. This suggests that the smaller sized groups of workers wherein densities of interaction are limited are more conducive to an expression of work environment satisfaction. These find— ings and their implications are consistent with those of Ammassari. 11x2 = 0.22; DF 1; P < .90. A3 TABLE l6.--Degree of total interaction associated with the amount of work environment satisfaction controlling for skill level Degree of Total Interaction Low High Totals Percentages Low 19.2 80.3 100. (52) Unskilled High 24.7 75.3 100. (85) x2 = 0.56,DP = 1, .30 < P < .50 Low 7.1 92.9 100. (1A) Semi-Skilled High 22.6 77.u 100. (62) x2 = 1.71, DF = 1, .10 < P < .20 Low 25.7 75.3 100. (35) Skilled High 15.6 8u.u 100. (32) x2 = 1.03, DF = 1, .30 < P < .50 Totals N (60) (220) (280) TABLE 17.-—Density of total interaction associated environment satisfaction with work Work Environment Satisfaction Density of Total Interaction Low High Totals Percentage None 19.A 80.6 100.0 (36) Low 23.2 76.8 100.0 (99) Medium 2A.l 75.9 100.0 (29) High 33.3 66.7 100.0 (36) Totals N (A9) (151) (200) x2 = 18.8, DF = 3, P < .01. AA Conclusions We have seen that auto workers express a general satisfaction with their work environment in both its physi- cal and social dimensions. Surprisingly few workers are totally constrained by the physical location of their work and similarly few are not permitted by reason of the work ecology to participate in some form of social interaction. Other findings of this chapter point to a positive relation- ship between the degree of physical mobility allowed a worker and his Skill level. The skilled worker has considerably more physical mobility than the unskilled or semi-skilled worker. The amount of physical mobility allowed is related to the potential amount of social interaction in which he may engage. This finding is further substantiated by the posi- tive relationship between the amount of physical mobility and the functional classification of the job. The more highly skilled workers have a greater degree of control over produc- tion technology, are able to move about physically over a greater distance, and require more interaction of a technical nature to complete their job than the less Skilled worker. While all workers, regardless of Skill level or func— tional classification, indicate a positive work environment satisfaction; Dubin's doubts about the social meaning of work for the industrial worker suggest that further research is in order. In sum, we note that the hypotheses related to work environment satisfaction and the nature and type of social A5 interaction are only weakly supported by the data. It is however evident that work environments characterized by a high density of technical and social interaction tend to foster dissatisfaction with that environment. While neither the measure of density of technical interaction, nor that of density of social interaction yielded statistically Signifi- cant results; their combination pointed to a statistically Significant relationship with work environment satisfaction. The direction of the relationship is opposite that hypothesized. Finally, the findings indicate that there is a need for more rigorous methods of determining the relative impor— tance of social and technical interaction with respect to work environment satisfaction. CHAPTER IV INTERACTION AT WORK AND JOB SATISFACTION This section deals with the factor of job satisfac- tion and its relationship to verbal interaction on the job. Job satisfaction as used here differs from the related con— cept of occupational satisfaction. Occupation refers to a task which is performed in several industries such as agricul- ture, business, and manufacturing, whereas job refers to a specific routine found only in a particular process in speci- fic industries. Increased specialization in some industries has virtually eliminated some occupational trades. Other trades are now being eliminated by more specialized equipment and advanced technologies.1 At one time, a worker in a given occupation could move from one industry to another and find that his Skill could be readily utilized. Today this becomes increasingly difficult. In the auto industry many jobs are limited to it alone. They require a limited training period and little knowledge of the general production process. Increased in- dustrial Specialization also gives rise to a condition where one would find highly Skilled jobs which are unique to the auto industry. lSee Everett C. Hughes, "Personality Types and the Division of Labor," The American Journal of Sociology, March 1928, pp. 75A-768. A6 A7 The concept of job satisfaction refers to the amount of satisfaction the worker experiences with the actual Opera- tions he performs. He may be required to perform only a single operation throughout the day, or he may be required to perform a series of different operations to complete his task. The level of satisfaction he experiences is called "intrinsic" job satisfaction. The particular job of a worker links him to various systems associated with the production process. It links him not only to the technological systems of the production process, but also to larger social systems. His job may so situate him within a physical environment where the potential for interaction is extremely limited by virtue of the technol— ogy. On the other hand, his job may be less circumscribed permitting him a considerable degree of physical mobility. This freedom to move about exposes him to a potentially larger social environment. The technical factors associated with the job are but one part of the work Situation which affects behavior. The worker must also relate to his fellow workers, the organiza- tional hierarchy of supervisors and foremen, and various union officials. In essence, physical, social, and technical factors associated with the job all bear some relationship to the amount of satisfaction derived from it. The factor of technological control over a given job has been well documented by Blauner.2 The lack of control 2Robert Blauner's, "Worker satisfactions and Industrial Trends in Modern Society," in W. Galeson and S. M. Lipset (edi- tors) Labor and Trade Unionism, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1960, p. 3A6. A8 over the pace of one's work, and the lack of autonomy in the selection of tools leads to a general feeling of dissatisfac— tion with assembly Operations. The physical dimensions of the job, the range of operations required by the job, the variety of Operations required, the relationship of the par— ticular job1XDthe entire production process, the degree of supervision, age and seniority, are also factors which have some relationship to the amount of job satisfaction. Intrinsic Job Satisfaction In order to ascertain the amount of intrinsic job satisfaction, we asked workers the following questions: On the whole, how do you feel about the operations you actually perform on the job, the work that you are actually doing; very satisfied, satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, dissatisfied, very dissat— isfied? Data in Table 18 indicate that about eight—tenths of the workers felt that they were satisfied with their job tasks. Less than one-tenth said they were dissatisfied. The second major question used to obtain a measure of intrinsic job satisfaction asked, "Would you like, without a change in pay, to change your type of work activity once in a while?" Slightly more than half of the workers reported that they were satisfied with their task and would like to continue the same type of work activity. The reason most frequently mentioned for desiring a change in the type of work activity was relief from monotony. The remainder selected other reasons including a desire to learn another Skill, and not liking the present activity. A9 TABLE 18.-—Satisfaction with actual job tasks in percent N Percent Very Satisfied 69 22.5 Satisfied 188 61.A Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied 29 9.5 Dissatisfied 1A A.6 Very Dissatisfied 5 1.6 No Answer 1 0.3 Totals 306 99.9 TABLE l9.—-Distribution of job satisfaction according to skill level Job Satisfaction Neither Satisfied Skill Level Dissatisfied nor Dissatisfied Satisfied Totals Percentages N Unskilled 16.7 39.1 AA.2 100.0 (138) Semi—skilled 13.6 A5.7 AO.7 100.0 (81) Skilled 3.7 38.3 58.0 100.0 (81) Totals N (37) (122) (1A1) 5(300) x2 = 10.8, DF = A, P <.05. 50 TABLE 20.--Functiona1 classification and job satisfaction Job Satisfaction Neither Functional Dis— Satisfied Classification satisfied nor Satisfied Totals Dissatisfied Percentage Assembly 22.9 AA.3 32.9 100.0 (70) Machine Operator 11.1 Al.7 A7.2 100.0 (72) Repair, Tester 12.5 35.9 51.6 100.0 (6A) Trades 5.3 A0.A 5A.3 100.0 (9A) Totals N (37) (122) (1A1) (300) 51 The combined responses to these questions comprised the index of intrinsic job satisfaction. Generally speaking, slightly less than half of the workers interviewed said that they were satisfied with their job.3 The data in Table 19 clearly indicate that the skilled worker has a higher amount of intrinsic job satisfaction than either the semi—skilled or the unskilled worker. Similarly the functional classifi- cation of work and its association with job satisfaction is statistically significant. Table 20 presents this data. Social Interaction and Job Satisfaction We hypothesized that there would be a positive rela— tionship between the amounts of social interaction on the job and job satisfaction. We Shall first examine the degree of association between actual social interaction of a voluntary nature and the amount of job satisfaction.” Although the data in Table 21 show no Significant relations, a trend is apparent. The largest proportion of the satisfied workers work alone and the largest percentage of the dissatisfied workers work with one to five people. The largest percent of those neither satisfied nor dissatisfied are found among those interacting with the most people. This is somewhat of 3For additional information concerning the relation- ship between skill level and job satisfaction see, Steven E. Deutsch, "Skill Level, Social Involvments, and Ideology: A Study of Automobile Workers," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 196A. “The association between potential interaction and job satisfaction is as follows: x2 = 9.12, DF = 6, 20< P .10. TABLE 2l.—-Distribution of job satisfaction according to the amount of social interaction at work Job Satisfaction Neither Voluntary Satisfied Social nor Interaction Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Totals Percentages N None 7.9 39.7 52.A 100.0 (63) 1-5 fellow workers 19.3 38.6 A2.1 100.0 (57) 6 or more fellow workers lA.5 A3.5 A1.9 99.9 (62) Totals (25) (7A) (83) (182) 2 X = A.O2, DF , .30 < P < 53 TABLE 22.—-Social interaction associated with job satisfaction and skill level Job Satisfaction Neither Voluntary Satisfied Social nor Interaction Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Totals Percentages N Unskilled No Social Interaction 7.7 38.5 53.8 100. (26) 1-5 fellow workers 2A.2 36.A 39.A 100. (33) 6 or more fellow workers 20.0 36.0 AA.0 100. (25) X3: 3.05, DF = A, *violated 20% expected assumption Semi—skilled No Social Interaction 5.9 A7.1 A7.1 100. (17) 1-5 fellow workers 25.0 33.3 Al.7 100. (12) 6 or more fellow workers 23.5 A1.2 35.3 100. (17) X2 = 2.68, DF - A, *violated 20% expected assumption Skilled No Social Interaction 10.0 30.0 60.0 100. (20) 1-5 fellow workers 0.0 50.0 50.0 100. (12) 6 or more fellow workers 0.0 55.0 A5.0 100. (20) X2 = 5.16, DF = A, *violated 20% expected assumption Totals N (25) (72) (8A) (182) 5A a reversal of expectation, for we expected the largest group to be in the satisfied sector. The relationship between the amount of social inter- action and job satisfaction is controlled by skill level in Table 22. The data are not conclusive, but some trends ap- pear. Of the unsatisfied workers, slightly less than one tenth of the unskilled and semi-skilled are isolated, while all of the unsatisfied skilled workers worked in isolation. In essence, greater percentages of skilled workers who are either satisfied or dissatisfied have no social interaction on the job, while the greater percentage of unskilled and semi—skilled workers are found among those having some volun- tary social interaction. The differences are small, the trend is not clear, but the assumption that skilled workers have more freedom and therefore have more social contacts and are more satisfied with their job is not confirmed.5 Next we examine the relationship of density of social interaction with job satisfaction. Data in Table 23 Show that isolated workers tend to be somewhat more satisfied than those in higher density interaction situations, but the relationship is not strong or statistically significant. We now turn to examine the relationship between the required technical interaction of the job and job satisfaction. We hypothesized that there would be a positive relationship between the two variables. The data in Table 2A Show no sta- tistically significant results, for the pattern of satisfaction 5The relationship between job satisfaction and the dis- tances one can move while working is statistically significant. x2 = 15.A5, DF = 6, P < .01. 55 for those whose jobs require no technical interaction and for those who require a great deal is the same. An examination of the relationship between the den— sity of technical interaction and the amount of satisfaction with the job yields no significant findings. A slight trend may be discerned, that higher densities of technical inter— action appear to be a source of dissatisfaction. This is a reversal of the hypothesized relationship. The introduction of a control variable, skill level, to the above relationship does little to clarify the nature of the association. The trends indicate that skilled workers have higher amounts of satisfaction with lower densities of technical interaction: among the semi—skilled workers no pattern is apparent; however a higher percentage of satisfied. workers is found in high density situations. Finally for un- skilled workers, the highest percentage of satisfied workers is found in high density situations. The tentative conclusions one can draw for the data which are not statistically Significant is that, while there are highly irregular patterns, a greater proportion of the satisfied workers are found among the isolated. That is, an increase in the density of required technical interaction generally is accompanied by an increase in job dissatisfaction. This same reversal has been noted by Ammassari among the Fiat workers. 6See Ammassari, Op. cit., Chapter 5 and 6 are parti- cularly relevant to this point, but the entire dissertation notes this pattern. TABLE 23.——Density of social interaction at work associated with job satisfaction Job Satisfaction Density of Neither Voluntary Satisfied Social nor Interaction Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Totals Percentages N None 2.8 52.8 AA.A (36) Low 22.A A2.9 3A.7 (A9) High 19.2 38.5 A2.3 (26) Totals N (17) (50) (AA) (111) 2 X = 7.01, DF A, .10 < P < .20. 57 TABLE 2A.——Degree of technical interaction according to the amount of job satisfaction in percentages Job Satisfaction Neither Amount of Satisfied Technical nor Interaction Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Totals None 17.0 3A.0 A9.1 100.0 (53) Low 11.3 A2.3 A6.A 100.0 (97) Medium 11.5 A6.2 A2.3 100.0 (26) High 10.3 37.9 , 51.7 99.9 (29) Totals (26) (82) (97) (205) x2 = 2.A5, DF = 6, .90 < P < .80 TABLE 25.--Amount of total interaction associated with job satisfaction in percentages Job Satisfaction Neither Satisfied Total nor Interaction Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Totals None 12.5 50.0 37.5 100.0 (16) Low ll.A A3.9 AA.7 100.0 (11A) Medium 19.6 A5.l 35.3 100.0 (51) High 7.8 37.7 5A.5 100.0 (77) Total N (31) (110) (117) (258) x2 = 5.12, DF = 6, .50 < P < .30 58 The final index of interaction examined is the amount of total interaction. The data in Table 25 offer no statisti- cally significant relationship between actual total interaction and the amount of job satisfaction. These slight differences in the table must be inter- preted with caution, however, for the major portion of the workers sampledlunmaeither a neutral or generally satisfied attitude toward the job. It is suggested that situations which are characterized by low to moderate amounts of social and technical interaction are generally more conducive to meaning- ful interaction which can be controlled by the worker. Conclusions An examination of the amount of intrinsic job satis- faction of the auto workers sampled indicated that the vast majority (83%) was satisfied with their jobs. Skilled workers had a higher degree of satisfaction with their job than the unskilled or semi-skilled. Those who worked alone or in a small group tended to be more satisfied with their jobs. Ap- parently the size of the work group had a greater effect upon the social interaction and job satisfaction of the skilled workers than unskilled or semi-skilled workers. As the size of the work group increased, the percentage of satisfied Skilled workers decreased. With respect to density of social interaction the data showed that those in high density social interaction situations tended to be more dissatisfied with their jobs than those in 59 isolated work situations. Moreover, Situations character— ized either by no required interaction or by a high degree of interaction are viewed as more satisfactory than others. In general, the data suggest that extremes of technical in- teraction, high or none, tend to promote feelings of job satisfaction. All these generalizations must be viewed as tenta- tive for several reasons. First, since most workers seem to be satisfied with their jobs, the trends reported are for a minority of the workers. Second, the complexity of the concept of job satisfaction presents some difficulties in properly assessing the role which interaction plays in con- tributing significance of the data at acceptable standards. Lastly, insufficient data made generalizations hazardous. CHAPTER V PATTERNS OF WORK INTERACTION AND UNION PARTICIPATION Worker participation in the labor union may be stimu- lated by dissatisfactions experienced in the plant, by aspira— tions to improve the work situation, and other reasons. Dissatisfactions generated by isolated work situations, by over crowding, or other socio—technical factors may stimulate union participation. Deutsch's investigation showed that three-quarters of the unskilled workers had average or little interest in union problems, and one—sixth had a strong in- terest.1 He also showed that no significant difference occurred between semi-Skilled and skilled workers in awareness of union problems. Moreover, there was no association between the age of the worker and his interest in unions, although there was a tendency for younger workers to be slightly more interested than older workers. While the majority of union members were relatively uninterested in union problems, the vast majority did recognize the need for a union and had favorable attitudes toward it. __._ lSteven Deutsch, "Skill Level, Social Involvements and Ideology: A Study of Automobile Workers," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 196A, p. 55. 61 Even though the skilled workers were not interested in union problems, they evaluated the union more favorably than lower Skilled workers. Since skilled workers tended to be the older, they had worked in non-union shops and they compared the present very favorably to earlier periods. Sayles and Strauss suggest that skill is associated positively with amount of union participation and participa- tion in informal groups in the shops.2 Our measures of socio- technical and verbal interaction tap "informal" participation. These measures, along with the union participation index, are useful in evaluating worker behavior.3 Deutsch summarizes Dean's research: Participation in the union may be predicted by the extent of his social integration with fellow workers away from the factory. Kyllonen, Seidman, et a1.; Sayles and Strauss; Rose; Tannenbaum; and Kahn all saw union activity as special activity and related to worker social cohesion or social activity.Ll 2Leonard Sayles and George Strauss, The Local Union, Its Place in the Industrial Plant, New York, Harper Brothers, 1953. Also see, Joseph Kouner and Herbert Lahne, "Shop Society and The Union," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, October, 1953, p- 31A. 3For a summary of related literature see, William Spinrad "Correlates of Trade Union Participation: A Summary of the Literature," American Sociological Review, April, 1960, pp. 237—2AA. See also, Jack Stieber, Governing the U.A.W., New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1962. “Deutsch, op. cit., p. 62. He cites: "Social Intergra— tion, Attitudes, and Union Activity," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Oct. 195A, pp. A8-58; Toimi E. Kyllonen, "Social Characteristics of Active Unions," American Journal of Sociology, May, 1951, pp. 528-533; Joel Seidman, et al., The Worker Views His Union, Chicago, The University of Chica— go Press, 1958; Leonard R. Sayles and George Strauss, The 62 Therefore it seems reasonable to expect skilled workers to exhibit a higher rate of participation within the union and higher rates of interaction in the plant than the less Skilled worker. The index of union participation was constructed from the responses to these questions. "How frequently do you attend union meetings?" "Do you now hold office in the union?" "Do you participatein union activities?" "Do you know the names of current local union officials?" The index was cross tabulated with the various measures of interaction. Table 26 displays the data on the association 5 between skill level and union participation. The findings clearly indicate that Skilled workers participate more in the union than do the unskilled and semi-skilled workers. Addi- tional data on union voting support this finding. About A9 percent of the unskilled workers, 65 percent of the semi—skilled workers, and 78 percent of the Skilled workers reported they voted in the last election .of'union officials. These findings 6 conform to expectation. Local Union: Its Place in the Industrial Plant, New York, Harp- er Brothers, 1963; Arnold Rose, Union Solidarity, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1952; Arnold S. Tannenbaum and R. L. Kahn, Participation in Union Locals, Evanston, Illinois, Row Peterson and Son, 1958. 5The association between union participation and func— tional classification is as follows: x2 = 18.09, DF = 6, P < .05. 6Actually one fifth of the local membership voted and an even smaller percentage regularly attend local union meetings, therefore data on union participation must be regarded with some caution. 63 We turn now to data on the relation between union participation and sociotechnical interaction. We hypothe- sized that higher levels of technical interaction are posi- tively associated with union participation. The data in Table 27 do Show a strong tendency in the direction of the hypothesis.7 There is a tendency for those with a low degree of technical interaction to participate less in the union than those having higher amounts of technical interaction. We turn to the hypothesized relationship that higher densities of technical interaction are positively associated with the degree of union participation. Data in Table 28 support the hypothesis. However, whether there is a causal relationship between dissatisfaction with highly dense work Situations and active union participation cannot be demonstrated. Data on density of work place mates and its associa- tion with union participation are found in Table 29. Although the relationship is not statistically significant it appears in the expected direction; higher densities are associated with higher participation.8 A considerable amount of research dealing with union participation suggest that a major factor influencing partici- pation in the union is informal interaction within the plant. We hypothesized that there would be a positive association 7X2 - l2.A, DF 6,.10 < P < .05. 3.81, DF 2, .10 < P < .20. 6A TABLE 26.—-Union participation according to skill level Union Participation Skill Level Low Medium High Totals Percentages N Unskilled 22.7 A5.5 31.8 100.0 (132) Semi-skilled 21.1 A7.A 31.5 100.0 (76) Skilled 8.8 37.5 53.8 100.1 (80) Totals (53) (126) (109) (288) x2 = 1A.l, DF = A, P < .01. TABLE 27.—-Technica1 interaction according to union participation Union Participation Technical Interaction Low Medium High Totals Percentages None 25.0 A0.A 3A.6 100.0 (52) Low 15.2 AA.A A0.A 100.0 (99) Medium 11.1 29.6 59.3 100.0 (27) High 3.A 3A.5 62.1 100 0 (29) Totals (32) (83) (92) (207) x2 = l2.A, DF = 6, .10 < P < .05. 65 TABLE 28.--Density of technical interaction associated with union participation Density of Technical Interaction Low Medium High Totals Percentages N Low 28.0 36.0 36.0 100.0 (50) Medium 13.8 A6.2 A0.0 100.0 (65) High 10.5 26.3 63.2 100.0 (19) Totals N (25) (53) (56) (13A) x2 = 8.20, DF , .05 < P < .10. 66 between these variables. Although the data in Table 30 do not offer firm statistical support they are in the predicted direction; workers who associate with larger numbers of fel- low workers tend to participate more in the union. An aspect of social interaction closely related to the index used above is the measure of the density of social interaction. We hypothesized that the greater the density of social interaction in the plant, the greater the amount of participation in the union. However, no association was found.9 The final two dimensions we Shall examine are total interaction within the work situation and the amount of friend— ly interaction workers engage in outside the plant. Table 31 shows that workers with low total interaction also have the lowest amount of union participation; those with a moderate level of total interaction tend to have a moderately high amount of union participation; and the highest interactors have the highest percentage of union participation. The basic trend seems to be moderate interaction, high union participation, moderate union attendance, favorable attitudes toward the union, agreement on the necessity of the union, and moderate interest in union problems.10 The last measure of social interaction with which we Shall deal is the amount of social interaction a worker has 9x2 = A.2, DP = 6, .70 < P < .50. 10The association between the density of total inter- action and union participation is x2 = 9.2, DP = 6, .20 < P < .10. 67 TABLE 29.—-Density of work place mates according to degree of union participation Union Participation Density of Work Place Mates Low High Totals Percentages N Low 31.A 68.A 100.0 (35) Medium 16.9 83.1 100.0 (118) High 17.5 82.5 100 0 (57) Totals N (A1) (169) (210) 2 x = 3.81, DF = 2, .10 < P < .20 TABLE 20.—-Degree of social interaction according to degree of union participation Union Participation Degree of Voluntary Social Interaction Low Medium High Totals Percentages N None 17.2 A3.8 39.1 100.0 (6A) 1-5 fellow workers 21.1 A5.6 33.3 100.0 (57) 6 or more fellow workers 12.9 32.3 5A.8 100.0 (62) Totals (31) (7A) (78) (183) x2 = 6.28, DF = A, .10 < P < .20 68 TABLE 31.—-Degree of total interaction according to amount of union participation Union Participation Degree of Total Interaction Low Medium High Total None 31.3 56.3 12.5 100.1 (16) Low 20.A A9.5 30.1 100.0 (103) Medium 25.5 Al.2 33.3 100.0 (51) High 10.A A0.3 A9.A 100.1 (77) Totals (A7) (112) (88) (2A7) x2 = 1A.A1, DF = 6, P < .05 TABLE 32.--Friendly interaction outside the plant associated with union participation Union Participation Friendly Interaction Outside The Plant Low Medium High Totals No 25.9 A9.A 2A.7 100.0 (77) Yes 15.6 Al.7 A2.7 100.0 (288) Totals (53) (126) (109) (288) 69 TABLE 33.—-Friendly interaction outside the plant associated with union participation Union Participation Friendly Interaction Outside The Plant Low Medium High Totals 1—5 15.6 A6.7 37.8 100.1 (90) 6-10 27.9 .39.5 32.6 100.0 (A3) ll-plus 8.9 37.2 ' 53.8 99.9 (78) Total N (33) (88) (90) (211) x2 = 11 1, DP = A, P < .02 70 with his fellow workers outside the plant. The data are found in Tables 32 and 33. The data in Table 32 clearly indicate that the majority of workers get together with fellow workers at least occasionally. They indicate fur- ther that there is a tendency for workers who do become involved in friendly interaction outside the plant to parti— cipate in their union in moderate or high degrees. The data in Table 33 attempts to examine the relation— ship and relative extensity of off—the-job interaction for workers who have indicated that they do get together with fellow workers outside the plant occasionally. The associa- tion is statistically significant. The data suggest that those who interact with fellow workers outside the plant tend to participate more in the union. Conclusions We have attempted to ascertain the degree of associa— tion existing between the various dimensions of social inter- action and union participation. We have seen that while the majority of workers expressed an average or slight interest in their union problems, they nonetheless exhibited a favorable attitude toward their union and felt that it was necessary. Skilled workers tended to have higher rates of union partici- pation than unskilled or semi-skilled workers. This finding was consistent with other research. The dimensions of interaction as developed by our in- dexes offered no statistically acceptable measures of association 71 with union participation. Yet they pointed to certain ten- dencies. Workers with low degrees of technical interaction tended to participate less in the union than fellows with higher levels of interaction. Increased density of technical interaction also tended to raise union participation. Crowd- ing may have aggravated feelings of dissatisfaction toward management and increased union participation. With respect to the social interaction variables and union participation, the data indicated that those in work groups containing one to five workers had higher percentages of moderate union participators. This is consistent with other data which showed that the majority of workers had a moderate degree of union participation as measured on several dimensions. Our data also showed that as the size of the group withvhich workers were able to interact increased, so did union participation. For the index of Eegel interaction, those with moderate and high degrees of it have the highest amounts of union participation. The amount of friendly in— teraction outside the plant is related to union participation. In sum, there was a weak but general relationship be— tween technical, social, and total interaction rates and degree of union participation. CHAPTER VI WORK INTEGRATION PATTERNS AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT In chapter I we stressed that the larger social sys- tems in which the automobile worker lived (community, state and nation) should be related to their world of work. While the worlds of work and non—work may appear to be distant, there is, we hypothesized, a theoretical if not empirical re- lationship between them. In this chapter we shall focus upon the degree of association between a worker's interaction at the plant and the degree of his community involvement. Studies by Kornhauser,l Stokes,2 and others indicate that the participation of auto workers in such associations tends to be low. Deutsch's findings Show a high positive relationship between the occupational skill level of the auto worker and 3 participation in voluntary associations. A study by Form and lRuth Kornhauser, "Some Social Determinants and Con— sequences of Union Membership," Labor History, Winter, 1961. 2Donald Stokes, "Political Communications to Union Workers," unpublished study, University of Michigan, undated. 3Deutsch, op cit., p. 107. 72 73 Dansereau attempted to ascertain the links between plant life and community integration.Ll They found a relationship be- tween these variables and patterns of union orientation. Deutsch's extensive analysis on participation empha- sizes the importance of ecological factors. He states, "Less than ten percent of those interviewed stated that friends that they got together with live in their neighborhood, and just over half get together with friends in their towns. About one—third meet socially with friends who live in other towns."5 This finding, contrary to expectations may be accounted for in ecological terms. The auto workers commute to the plant from areas within a radial distance of 60 miles of the plant. A number of small towns are located within this area. Thus, extra plant social life is affected by the community of resi- dence of friends. The index of community involvement was developed from responses to a series of questions which may be found in appen- dix A. The first area we shall examine is the association between the skill level and the amount of community involvement. Data in Table 3A indicate a clear relationship between the two variables. This finding is consistent with other studies which stress that skilled workers are more frequently members of voluntary associations than unskilled or semi-Skilled workers. “William H. Form, and H. K. Dansereau, "Union Member Orientations and Patterns of Social Integration," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, October, 1957, p. 3-12. 5Deutsch, Ibid., p. 112. 7A Participation in voluntary associations accounts for most of the variance in our index of community participation. Recalling that functional classifications of the workers tend to be associated with skill levels, degree of physical mobility within the plant and voluntary social in- teraction, we shall examine the relationship between func— tional categories and the degree of community involvement. Table 35 presents the association which reaches a level of statistical acceptability. The data for the first three cate- gories, assembly, machine operator, and repair, exhibit a pattern in the Shape of an inverted J. That is, there is a steady increase from low to moderate community involvement and then a falling off at the highest level. A plurality of assembly, machine Operators, and repair men tend to have moderate levels of community involvement. This situation for hose in the trades probably reflects their greater degree of physical mobility in the plant and their ability therefore to interact with a larger number of fellow workers on the job and off the job. The association between the size of group the worker interacts with and the amount of community involvement was explored but no statistically Significant relationship was found. We noted, however, that workers who are able to in- teract with six to tenféllow workers have the largest repre- sentation among those highly involved in the community. Those in smaller groups and isolated workers exhibit the lowest de— gree of community involvement. 75 TABLE 3A.—-Ski11 level associated with community involvement Community Involvement Skill Level Low Medium High Total Unskilled 20.1 56.1 23.1 99.9 (139) Semi—skilled 13.A A3.9 A2.7 100.0 (82) Skilled 7.A 37.0 55.6 100.0 (81) Totals N (A5) (1AA) (113) (302) x2 = 2A.98, DP = A, P < .001 TABLE 35.——Functional classification associated with community involvement Community Involvement Functional Classification Low Medium High Total Assembly 2A.6 50.7 2A.6 99.9 (69) Machine Operator 12.2 51.A 36.5 100.1 (7A) Repair Tester 15.6 53.1 31.3 100.0 (6A) Trades 9.5 38.9 51.6 100.0 (95) Totals N (95) (1AA) (113) (302) 2 X = 17.7, DF = 6, P < .01 76 We then examined the association between the density of social interaction and the amount of community involve— ment. We hypothesized that the greater the degree of density of social (non—technical) interaction, the greater the degree of community involvement. The data, however, did not support the hypothesis. However, those who work in moderately dense situations tend to have greater community involvement. An examination of the degree of association between community involvement and other dimensions of verbal interac- tion was undertaken. The relationship between the amount of technical interaction6 as well as the density of technical 7 interaction and community involvement offer no statistically significant results. The last two tables contain data on the relationship between the degree and density of the total interaction at work and community involvement. We hypothesized that the greater the degree of and the density of total interaction a worker experienced, the greater the degree of community in— volvement. Table 38 shows a statistically acceptable rela— tionship between the degree of community involvement, and total interaction. While the majority of workers indicate a low or moderate range of total interaction and a moderate degree of community involvement, we nevertheless are able to 6Degree of Technical Interaction Associated with Com— munity Involvement: x2 = 6.66, DF = 6, P < .50. 7Density of Technical Interaction Associated with Com- munity Involvement: x2 = 8.00, DF = 6, P < .30. 77 discern a trend wherein community involvement tends to in— crease with amount of total interaction at work. Table 39 indicates a curvilinear relationship between the density of total interaction and the level of community involvement. Workers in sectors which are either sparsely populated on the one hand or somewhat crowded on the other, are less involved in the community than those who work in moderately dense environments. It appears as though the den- sity extremes negatively affect the degree of community involvement. Perhaps workers in situations of moderate den- sity are more able to control interaction on both the technical and social levels. This satisfying situation may carry over into community Situations, although we have no direct evidence for this. Conclusions We have found that skilled workers are most likely to have a higher amount of community involvement than their less skilled associates. This involvement is mostly in voluntary associations. Another factor which may affect the amount of community involvement is the pattern of ecological residence of workmates. The auto workers live in many small towns which are located within a radius of sixty miles from the plant. Initially we felt that those living in the small towns might know one another, ride to work together and participate more in local community life. However, we found that sixty percent of the workers rode to work alone and no differences were found among the categories for these variables. 78 TABLE 38.——Degree of total interaction according to the degree community involvement Community Involvement Degree of Total Interaction Low Medium High Totals Percentages N None 20.0 A0.0 A0.0 100.0 (15) Low 18.6 A8.7 32.7 100.0 (113) Medium 3.7 59.3 37.0 100.0 (5A) High 15.2 39.2 A5.6 100.0 (79) Total N (38) (12A) (99) (261) TABLE 39.——Density of total interaction associated with the degree of community involvement Community Involvement Density of Total Interaction Low Medium High Totals Percentages N None 29.7 A3.2 27.0 99.9 (37) Low 9.0 A5.0 A6.0 100.0 (100) Medium 13.8 AA.8 A1.A 100.0 (29) High 29.7 51.A 18.9 100.0 (37) Total N (35) (93) (75) (203) x2 = 17 7, DP = 6, P < .01 79 Our data suggested that those with low degrees of community involvement were found in Situations characterized by isolation or high degrees of social interaction. Situa- tions which are either crowded or sparsely pOpulated tend to have a negative effect upon social interaction and there may be a carry over of this into the community. A statistically significant association was obtained between degree of total interaction and the degree of com- munity involvement, as well as the density of total interac— tion and community involvement. The clearly indicated curvi- linear relationship of the density of total interaction adds support to the earlier findings regarding low and high density work situations. In sum, the workers tended to exhibit dif- ferential amounts of involvement in the community as they varied in skill level, functional classification and the amount and density of social interaction at work. CHAPTER VII CONCLUSIONS We have attempted to evaluate the relationship be- tween technical and social (verbal) interaction patterns of automobile workers of varying skill levels on such dimensions of work as work environment satisfaction, job satisfaction, union participation, and community involvement. While the data offer little conclusive evidence, they offer some cre- dance to the hypothesized relationships. Generally, the workers are satisfied with their work- places, their jobs, their daily contacts with fellow workers, their union, and their community of residence. An examina— tion of the several dimensions of verbal interaction and work environment satisfaction, job satisfaction, union participa- tion, and community involvement yielded little empirical evidence as to the nature of these relationships. Table 38 shows that three of the original eleven hypotheses were rejected for the lack of supporting data. Only one hypothesis met our statistical tests but six others were in the expected direction. Hypothesis one posited a relationship between techni— cal interaction and work environment satisfaction. The trend in the data indicates that an increase in the degree of technical 80 81 interaction is accompanied by an increase in work environ- ment satisfaction with the one exception at the level of no technical interaction. Hypothesis two expected a positive relationship be— tween degree of social interaction and work environment satisfaction. This hypothesis is rejected. Hypothesis three suggested a positive relationship between the total interaction (social and technical) and the degree of satisfaction with the work environment. There is no statistical relationship between these variables although there seems to be a slight negative tendency present in the data. The worker who has a low degree of total interaction seems to have higher work environment satisfaction. The next three hypotheses were formulated about the variable of job satisfaction. Hypothesis four states there is a positive relationship between technical interaction and job satisfaction. Although the relationship is not statisti- cally significant, a trend is apparent; higher densities of technical interaction tend to be associated with job dissatis- faction. Hypothesis five posits a positive relationship between social interaction and job satisfaction. The trend suggests the largest proportion of satisfied workers work alone, while the largest prOportion of dissatisfied are found in groups of one to five workers. Further, the largest proportion of those neither satisfied nor dissatisfied are among those interacting with the most people. This is a Slight reversal of expectations. 82 Hypothesis Six stated that there would be a positive relationship between the total amount of interaction and job satisfaction. A trend is apparent although the direction is reversed; the greater the amount of total interaction, the greater the degree of dissatisfaction. Hypotheses seven through nine dealt with union parti- cipation. We predicted a positive relationship between social interaction and union participation in hypothesis seven. The trend is for workers who associate with larger numbers of fel- low workers tend to participate more in their union. Hypothesis eight which suggested a positive relation- ship between technical interaction and union participation was rejected. Hypothesis nine asserts that there is a posi- tive relationship between the total amount of interaction and the degree of union participation. A tendency is apparent in which those with low amounts of total interaction tend to have moderate participation levels, and the highest inter- actors have the highest percentage of union participators. Hypothesis ten stated that there is a positive rela- tionship between social interaction and community involvement. A trend is apparent wherein workers able to participate in a work group of six to ten fellow workers have the highest pro— portion of those highly involved in the community. Hypothesis eleven suggested a positive relationship between the total amount of interaction and community involve- ment. This is statistically significant. 83 Although the data fails to lend empirically Signifi— cant support for the hypothesize relationships, an abandonment of the general theory seems premature. The evidence available tends to support the general hypothesized relationships. A more adequate test of the theory needs to be formulated. The hypothesis, presently in a very general form, need to be more clearly and narrowly delimited; intervening variables need to be specified and controlled in cross tabulations, and the possitilities of curvilinearity of the data also need to be specified. The influence of such variables as skill level, functional classification of the job, situs location within various departments of the plant, and technological require- ments of particular jobs needs to be accounted for in a more rigorous manner. Criticisms of this research are many. One of the major Shortcomings was the low total number of cases avail- able in various cross runs. Incomplete schedules, missing data, and general "vague" answers resulted in many cases being dropped from some tables. Such problems can only be rectified at the initial stages of research. Clearly a modification of the study design would lead to a clearer understanding of the relationship between tech- nology and interaction. The major limit to the present design is that it focused on reported interaction patterns only. The incorporation of several dimensions of Meissner's thesis would aid our understanding;l Meissner's thesis is lMartin Meissner, "Worker's Communications and the Means of Production," mimeographed, to be published in the Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, forthcoming. 8A TABLE 38.—-Summary of outcomes of hypotheses Hypothesis Confirmed Trend Apparent No Relationship Work Environment Satisfaction 1. * 2. * 3. * Job Satisfaction A. * 5. * 6. * Union Participation 7. * 8. * 9. * Community Involvement 10. * that at different levels of technology the opportunities for communication among workers is modified by the technical de- mands through which a worker's action is linked into the design of the production process. Meissner devised some scales to describe, (a) the differences in operations by which one work piece is converted from one state to another, and (b) the dif- ferent methods of moving such work pieces. The elements in the scale are energy supply, tool and work piece manipulations during operations, feeding, loading, assembling, control over the work cycles, planning, and feedback.2 The mediating variable between the things a worker has to do in order to get his job done, and the technical character of the work station is the attention requirements for coordinate 2Ibid., p. 5. 85 activity. Meissner distinguishes five major kinds of atten- tion: (1) low, (2) surface, (3) detailed, (A) external focus, and (5) watching.3 The benefits of categorizing the technical dimensions of the work space as well as the attention requirements of thehnnflnn°are obvious. An additional value of Meissner's work is the attention he gives to the various rates and kinds of communications existing among the workers. By observing a particular work station he is able to determine the frequency of communication units sent and received per hour. The types of communication classes he coded were speech, (where direct talking or Shouting occurred without the aid of technical de- vices), eigge, (clues emitted by an individual other than speech) signals, (produced by a technical transmitter and re- ceived by sight or sound such as light indicators, telephones, or chalk marks on a piece of work) and objects, (cues produced by control over the positioning of a material object and re— ceiVed by sight, sound or touch.Ll The incorporation of the major dimensions of Meissner's paper into the present design would greatly aid the understand— ing of the relationship between technology and interaction patterns in this industrial setting of the automobile factory. 3Ibid., p. 7,8. ”Ibid., p. 12. APPENDIX A Do you like living in your community? Response Percent Yes 90.8 No 8.0 N.A. 1.2 Total 100.0 Do you belong to any voluntary associations? Response Percent Yes A3.0 No 57.0 Total 100.0 What are the problems of your community?* Response Percent Problem mentioned 83.5 None seen, don't know 16.5 Total 100.0 *Rather than list the complete set of coded responses, we shall select a few which appeared more frequently; 9.2% said there were no problems; 23% mentioned health services; 9.2% said auto traffic control, parking and public transportation; 7% mentioned taxes and finances; 7% mentioned sanitary services. 86 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Argyris, Chris. Personality and Organization. New York: Harper Row, 1957. Bell, Daniel. The End of Ideology. (New Revised Edition) New York: Collier Books, 1961. Blauner, Robert. Alienation and Freedom. Chicago: The Uni- versity of Chicago Press, 196A: Friedman, E. A. and R. J. Havighurst, et al. The Meaning of Work and Retirement. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 195A. Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company Inc., 1961. Mayo, Elton. The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. New York: The Macmilliam Co., 1933. Nosow, Sigmund, and William H. Form. Man Work and Society. New York: Basic Books Inc., 1952. Rose, Arnold. Union Solidarity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1952. Sayles, Leonard. Behavior of Industrial Work Groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958. Sayles, Leonard and George Strauss. The Local Union, Its Place in the Industrial Plant. New York: Harper Brothers, 1953. Seidman, Joel. The Worker Views His Union. Chicago: The Uni— versity of Chicago Press, 1958i Tannenbaum, Arnold and R. L. Kahn. Participation in Union Locals. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson and Son, 1958. Walker, Charles. The Foreman On the Assembly Line. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956. Walker, Charles and Robert H. Guest. The Man On the Assembly Line. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952. 87 88 Articles Arensberg, Conrad M. "Work and the Changing American Scene." in Research in Industrial and Human Relatione, New York: Harper Brothers. Blauner, Robert. "Worker Satisfactions and Industrial Trends in Modern Society." in W. Galeson and S. M. Lipset, (editors) Labor and Trade Unionisml_New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1960. Dubin, Robert. "Industrial Workers Worlds: A Study of the General Life Interests of Industrial Workers." Social Problems, January, 1965. Ford, Henry. "Mass Production," Encyclepedia Briticannica. Form, William H. and H. K. Dansereau. "Union Member Orienta- tions and Patterns of Social Integration." Industrial and Labor Relations Review, October, 1957. Hughes, Everett C. "Personality Types and the Division of Labor." The American Journal of Sociology, March, 1928. Kornhauser, Ruth. "Some Social Determinants and Consequences of Union Membership." Labor History, Winter, 1961. Kouner, Joseph and Herbert Lahne. "Shop Society and the Union," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Octo- ber, 1953. Kyllonen, Toimi. "Social Characteristics of Active Unions." American Journal of Sociology, May, 1951. Morse, Nancy C. and R. S. Weiss. "The Functions and Meaning of Work and the Job," American Sociological Review, April, 1955. Orzack, Louis H. "Work as a Central Life Interest of Profes- ' sionals." Social Problems, Fall, 1959. Spinrad, William. "Correlates of Trade Union Participation: A Summary of the Literature." American Sociological Review, April, 1960. Weil, Simone. "Factory Work," translated by F. Giovanelli, Politics, December, 19A6. 89 Unpublished Works Ammassari, Paolo, "Worker Satisfactions and Occupational Life: A Study of the Automobile Worker in Italy," unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 196A. Deutsch, Steven. "Skill Level, Social Involvements, and Ideology: A Study of Automobile Workers," unpub- lished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 196A. Meissner, Martin. "Worker's Communication and the Means of Production." Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthro— pology, forthcoming. Stokes, Donald. "Political Communications to Union Workers." unpublished study, University of Michigan, undated. A ATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 11);," MIN m 93 015 4339 MICHIG All 12 3