settb. .3, S. f c m” mmmh fir awn Nun Jaw i: 5.. Ti ‘wvthwfifi M... .. . fikwwbvfig ...¢c....m..n:5m., 17?, ég fl. .a v VHU. (.3 1:: .a. .MV: “UV... . I- 7.21.151») J 1 {3.3-3.}"51‘ t? I: \i--: .P. .3 .v 1 rxs :1 our.“ ‘ .11 : rim. . .i ~ (I ' . v. 1% $3.“ l‘nrt.l ill}! In. 0 ‘ vb. rlll'. .l 5.. \.|:h‘.| ..“o'...uv . . . ..:.’ Ill..- 'lv ..>\. ‘15\ $0: EDI. »v.'|!vlli.l|A .L‘a‘luJ .73. ‘Iol >v!v1\$p . . $7v.. .nl .1 :91: 1’. H. I, flu; “5 f.'. %. ii“ 'I 4 - I J, - . D um . L .sva. «.1\I.l...b.¥'4l nun? ill-Dru- . 0| lu‘o tfi‘v.l‘1vJ v ‘ a an. .3.., s" (o PAUHTAI I.. fibfi....3d . ‘ ctlrf..4‘n . (A: n 1vu.-‘I.)J \on‘u I .‘1; Livvl aal I." ll..- II. D. . t.‘,\|l’ I!‘ . ul.‘ it. ‘v- .lutltI-zilivn ‘lbl . It‘ll llutpva.|- vp‘vl‘ ~.|.1. It‘ll~l!-( || l '2 I..- “N ‘0‘... I‘ll! I I¢.h.| v.1.rolIIIt v:.v.a.-r.10\l0I9U...J..hl- ‘vhbl b. .l ... nulhwtw . . L :1... vi! |1Dl0.|nl‘.‘la .II. .C lint...“qu . . I It: Ill . I? . . ‘ I . :Il- le.l\d‘ . Cov.~v$cv:|"lln|I .l . A: 11011 »It l|l|5 \v§clvv pl-‘.n.n1|l})a\.-ltl I 1”}! II] N . '.o In: .o‘l‘.( pl.» - Ii -11.}.1‘ ‘ .ldflv oviiavhn Hulls?!» 1:1rll. vt .Ibtl. l‘oll 1.!\‘.~N n. ‘t‘ It'll iv ttnlll if}. 0. ultilnlln‘llyi: ‘ .. . . .1 .!- LI 1-1)...1gllkllx Lllxtl. . J n J T tblu...‘llz!|l.on_-I.I\l¢n iiHEas Z ESR SITY LIBRARIES IHIHHIIlllHilWUlllllllHl|Hl||l1|| W V 31293 0157 023.8". IARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Programmatic Outcomes Of An Educational Initiative: How "LEAP-2000" Influences Perspective Change Of Autoworkers On The Shop Floor presented by Sandra Kay Krug has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Adult & Continuing Ed. tkgnwin Department: Educational Administration MMJW M Major professor Date LN u; m 3» MS U it an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 PLACE II RETURN BOX to month!- chockoutfrotn your record. TO AVOID FINES totumaon or before 9an duo. —-—-v\—_. DATE DUE bushes bATE DUE MSU In An Nfinnatlvo ActiorVEqual Oppotumlty IMIII‘IOII Walla-n1 PROGRAMMATIC OUTCOMES OF AN EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVE: HOW “LEAP-2000” INFLUENCES PERSPECTIVE CHANGE OF AUTOWORKERS ON THE SHOP FLOOR By Sandra Kay Krug A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1997 ABSTRACT PROGRAMMATIC OUTCOMES OF AN EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVE: HOW “LEAP-2000” INFLUENCES PERSPECTIVE CHANGE OF AUTOWORKERS ON THE SHOP FLOOR By Sandra Kay Krug The purpose of this study is to explore how the perspectives of autoworkers on the shop floor are influenced by participation in an educational awareness initiative at a large manufacturing facility. In particular, how does LEAP-2000 change perspectives, values, and beliefs of workers in this group and thus change their decision- making process in relationship to work? The failure of American industry to adapt to the rapid changes that have beset the global economy has resulted in a dramatic reduction of the manufacturing base in this country. Concerns about US. competitiveness have focused the attention of policymakers on the work force and the means that could be used to enhance the quality of human capital in the workplace. If workers are to have more input in the decision- making process at the point of production, union and management leaders must address the autoworkers’ ability to assume this function. There is agreement between labor and management that the focus of response to competitive issues must shift from solutions involving physical capital to ones that incorporate an increase in the quantity and quality of human capital improvements. Moreover, this increase must occur within the formal education system as well as outside Of it. One of the results of rapid change is that peOple may lose their sense of meaning. This loss requires careful attention to issues of training and worker involvement. Because efforts to increase the level and quality of worker education in manufacturing facilities are relatively new, however, very little is known about the impact of these programs. The LEAP-2000 model is an example of a partnership that fosters the open exchange of information in a forum that encourages confidence in the credibility of the information. It is an opportunity for hourly and salaried employees at this General Motors facility to work together to restore competitive status and job security while improving the quality of their work lives. The results of this study demonstrate that participation in LEAP-2000 does influence perspective change of autoworkers. A primary theme that emerges is that of “predisposition” and how each respondent’s reaction to curriculum components is shaped by his or her work experiences prior to program attendance. Another significant conclusion is that production workers want knowledge and that they want to be empowered to make decisions using that knowledge. Copyright © by SANDRA KAY KRUG 1997 All rights reserved DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my grandfather, Wm. Fredric DeLong. In spite of his humble life, he always believed in me and thought I would do great things. I want to recognize and thank my husband, Daniel Krug, for his partnership and countless personal sacrifices that allowed me to achieve this lifelong goal. This work is also dedicated to my son, Fredric Wm. Krug, as his loving mother’s best example of “deferring immediate gratification for the long-term gain.” ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am most grateful to my dissertation chair, Dr. Mary Jim Josephs. She not only orchestrated the selection and function of the guidance committee; she made it possible for me to spend the last year and one half of this dissertation endeavor on the Michigan State University campus. I also want to acknowledge the other members of my dissertation committee: Dr. Robert Church, Dr. Gloria Kielbaso, and Dr. Daniel Kruger. Each of them imparted their unique expertise to my research and assured me of the worthiness of my work. I am indebted to another committee member, the late Dr. Casmer Heilman. He and I shared the same enthusiasm for education and training relating to autoworkers, and he more than anyone else helped shape my research questions. I thank Michele Whalen, Library Director of Baker College of Auburn Hills, and the staff of the Baker College of Flint Library for the prompt and thorough research assistance that they provided. Finally, I extend public acclaim and gratitude to the thousands of silent autoworkers; I trust that some of their voices have been heard in this work. vi CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM Need for the Study Background Statement Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study Research Questions Delimitation Definition of Terms CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW Work Force Trends Competitive Issues Cultural Change Perspectives, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values A Theory of Experience Theoretical Frameworks CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Experience and Narrative Inquiry The Constructivist Paradigm Research Design Data Collection and the Semi-Structured Interview Data Analysis and Interpretation Trustworthiness--The Goodness Criterion Researcher’s Preparation for the Study Field Procedures Data Coding and Analysis CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS OF THE STUDY The Respondents: “Tannyika” “1466,, “Michael” “KCith” “Elaine” £6106” vii 12 13 15 16 16 17 21 21 23 28 33 37 39 45 46 50 52 54 56 57 58 6O 62 62 62 63 63 64 64 64 “Junior” “Don” An Analysis of the Respondents’ Perspectives The Competitiveness Issue Perceptions Regarding Competition Culture Change Components Mission Statement and Strategic Planning Health and Safety Empowerment and Decision Making Affective Variables The Respondent’s Beliefs, Values, and Attitudes Beliefs Values and Attitudes The Study of Experience Respondent Work Experiences Summary CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION Summary of the Study Summary of the Results Conclusions Defining LEAP Program Success A Personal Perspective Relating the Results to the Literature Recommendations Suggestions for Future Study APPENDICES Appendix A: Copy of the Participant Consent Form Appendix B: Copy of the Pro-Interview Questionnaire Appendix C: Copy of the Interview Questions BIBLIOGRAPHY viii 65 65 65 66 67 7O 73 76 77 80 81 83 84 85 87 88 91 91 92 93 99 101 103 105 108 110 111 114 115 Chapter 1 THE PROBLEM “To live well is to work well Thomas Aquinas Auto analyst David Cole (1996) states, “These are tough times in the auto industry.” He describes the industry’s future as “not pretty” and “not easy” as it changes to com with relentless and unforgiving competition. Conflict has been a label fi'equently applied to the United Auto Workers-General Motors relationship. In recent discussions with the UAW, a General Motors official indicated that the company recognizes the need to make changes in its relationship with the union, but “we cannot correct everything overnight” (W ickham, 1996). He pointed to global trends and the fierce competition on cost, quality, and efficiency by asking that the union and management cooperate in finding ways to “fix those areas where General Motors is not competitive” (Wickham, 1996, p. A11). As a result of thinking like this, both union and management leadership at General Motors recognized they had to do something different. Weekley and Wilber (1996) point out that joint processes, such as Quality of Work Life, have been written into a succession of National Agreements. Furthermore, other training programs that are governed jointly by union and management, include such topics as training for displaced workers; training aimed at improving organizational operations (e. g. quality control, health and safety, benefits administration, just-in-time delivery, employee involvement); and training for personal development and career planning (F erman, Hoyman, Cutcher-Gershenfeld, & Savoie, 1991). These programs are a relatively new phenomenon and there is “great variation in the purposes driving the establishment of programs, in the structures that are created, in the scope of programs, and in the way programs and administrative structures evolve over time (F erman, et al., p. 5). For example, programs may be designed to deal with a specific manufacturing process or they might be part of an on-going effort to address a wide range of plant issues. This study explores how the perspectives of autoworkers on the shop floor at a large manufacturing facility are influenced by participation in an educational awareness initiative. The LEAP-2000 program is an open educational forum without any specific work-related performance objectives and it involves the participation of local academics who are not affiliated with General Motors. LEAP follows a previous educational initiative at this facility, the Paid Educational Leave program (PEL), which resulted fiom the national and local negotiated contracts between the UAW and General Motors (Dandaneau, 1996). PEL and LEAP share many surface similarities. They are both multi-disciplinary education programs that aim to provide a comprehensive overview of trends in the automobile industry. Concerns about manufacturing competitiveness have focused attention on the work force and the means that can be used to enhance the quality of human resources in the workplace. If workers are to have more input in the decision- making process at the point of production, they must have the ability to function at the decision-making level. Both PEL and LEAP are models of a UAW/General Motors partnership that foster the open exchange of information in a forum that encourages confidence in the credibility of that information. They offer an Opportunity for hourly and salaried employees to work together to restore competitive status and job security while improving the quality of their individual lives in relationship to work. The “Paid Educational Leave” provision included in the 1984 labor agreement became the vehicle for providing education aimed at implementing this agreement and the PEL stipulation provided for employees to take “selected training to enhance their skills” (p. 348). More than 2400 employees at this manufacturing facility have attended the PEL program between January, 1991 and September, 1995. LEAP, on the other hand, is an offshoot of the PEL program at this site. It consists of a series of seminars without any specific performance Objectives and it involves the participation of local academics who are not affiliated with General Motors. 470 employees have attended LEAP since its beginning in September, 1995. Most of those who have attended LEAP have also attended PEL at an earlier time. PEL and LEAP both represent a departure from preexisting training programs at the plant because of the type and scope of the classes offered. They are based on the assumption that worker education and personal development can lead to better quality products, increased productivity, and worker commitment, which in turn can translate into increased competitive status and job security (Scherer, 1989). Although there are many similarities between the two programs, there are also fundamental differences. PEL provides a comprehensive overview of trends in the automobile industry within the global environment, while LEAP’S primary focus is on competitive issues specific to manufactm‘ing operations at both this facility and the combined Operations of similar plants. In addition, emphasis is placed on understanding the implications of local union and management policies and practices (Dandaneau, 1996, p. 62). Following, in order of presentation, are the seminar modules of PEL and LEAP: PEL Introduction To PEL & Strategic Planning Auto Industry History Auto Industry In Transition Auto Industry: New Competitors The Economic Environment Government & The Political Process Changing Patterns In Industrial Relations Work Organization And New Technology Applied Strategic Planning Certificate Ceremony LEAP Intro. to LEAP/T rip To Sloan Museum Presentation Of Divisional Functions (forecasts, work allocation, etc.) Discussion of Environmental Survey Competition And World Markets Safety/Benefits Presentation Organization Of Work And Group-Based Systems Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) Analysis Political Process Joint Leadership Presentation (questions fi'om class participants) Certificate Ceremony Another important difference involves the primary focus of each program. The approach to PEL is for participants to learn about the institutional forces that impact their lives as autoworkers. In comparison, LEAP is uniquely focused on the potential of individual action to create positive change. Whereas PEL stresses the importance of institutions and economic theories, LEAP encourages each participant to think more broadly about the contribution he/she can make toward the attainment of common goals and group problem solving. Both of these programs serve a purpose, but each one approaches workplace education in a different way. PEL takes an institutional approach that points to what union and management Should do to make things better. LEAP, however, asks the participants to think about what they can do to make a positive difference, beginning at their job site in their own home plant. Considerable class time is devoted in each program to the discussion of joint programs at this site; the sessions conclude with a question-and-answer period involving a panel of the highest level of UAW/Management leadership from the plant. Scherer (1989) asserts that because the PEL and LEAP programs are operated jointly by both management and union representatives, they are part of a trend that “has the potential to transform industrial relations” (p. 229). Through the use of a pre-interview questionnaire and interview, this research will focus on the phenomenon of perspective change from the viewpoint of eight individuals. In particular, how does participation in an educational initiative affect the perspectives, values, and beliefs of this group and thus change their decision-making process in relationship to work? Subjects chosen for this study will be divided equally between ones who have participated in the educational program and ones who have not. The selected research participants are hourly production employees who represent a cross section of the plant population in terms of gender, age, and ethnicity. Wily Bassi (1994) posits that during the late 1970s and most of the 19808, the focus of US. competitiveness debates was on solutions that involved physical capital. By 1990, however, agreement was emerging that “competitiveness cures” must incorporate a “large dose of human capital improvement,” that simultaneously increases both its quantity and quality. Furthermore, this increase must occur at all levels--within the formal education system as well as outside of it (Bassi, 1994, p. 55). Berkeley Planning Associates (1991) note that concerns about the vitality and competitiveness of the United States’ economy has urged a recent and strong interest in workplace education programs. These programs are employer-sponsored efforts aimed at both hourly and salaried workers. Although they may include literacy and pre-GED programs, they are characterized by the generalizable nature of what is learned in comparison with in-house training programs which produce skills that are job related and targeted toward specific occupational groups (Berkeley Planning Associates, 1991, p. i). Small employers—those with fewer than 500 employees-- according to Berkeley Planning Associates (1991), are the source of nearly half of all jobs in our economy and are thus at the core of any trends facing the economy as a whole. Currently, most national attention to workplace education in terms of research, legislation, and grant funding is directed toward the needs of large employers. However, because there are few relevant studies of large employers, the Berkeley study involving manufacturing companies with 25 or less workers is an attempt to fill in the information gap. The study identified 12 case studies involving manufacturing companies that had been in operation for less than one year (Berkeley Planning Associates, 1991,p. ii). Measures of program success were found to be a function of the individual objectives of each program, which varied widely from firm to firm. The researchers found that many of the employers expected workplace education programs to have an immediate positive effect on 1291191114111: factors such as the quality and quantity of the work produced. They viewed the investment in education as having long-term payoffs in areas of worker morale, self-esteem, turnover, promotability, and opportunity to participate in more job specific training as the result of newly acquired skills (Berkeley Planning Associates, 1991, p.63). Because workplace education programs for hourly employees are relatively new within the small business community, the companies contacted for this study were in the early stages of program implementation. Typical evaluation methods asked participants and supervisors to respond to questionnaires; most programs were not in a position to have gathered significant quantities of data. F urtherrnore, Berkeley Planning Associates (1991) report that most of the companies studied were not inclined to promote significant data gathering, but instead, preferred the evaluation questionnaire. Using this format, the most concrete indicator of program success was employer interest in continuing the programs. In comparison, the strongest indicator of success fiom the participants’ viewpoint was the expressed desire to have programs continue and to be able to participate in them. The researchers explain that the evaluation questionnaires were Often circumscribed in nature (Berkeley Planning Associates, 1991, p. 65). Participants were sometimes reluctant to express their opinions due to affinity for the instructor or because they were concerned that such comments would reflect poorly on a program which, overall, they highly valued. Likewise, relying on written evaluations presents a problem for many non-native Speakers of English as well as those who have difficulty with expression in this form. There is agreement that the quantity and quality of human capital improvements must occur within the formal education system as well as outside of it. Bassi (1994) argues that widespread efforts to make reforms in schools has been underway for more than a decade, but efforts to increase the level and quality of education in the workplace are relatively new. Similar to the research findings of Berkeley Planning Associates (1991), Bassi reaffirms that very little is known about the impact of these programs. With few exceptions, most previous research has focused on portable, job-specific training skills rather than general education initiatives. According to Bassi (1994), the impact of workplace education programs is extremely difficult to quantify rigorously (p. 67). One research effort, in 1991, consisted of case studies of 72 firms. The study involved mail and telephone surveys that incorporated the information gathered from the case studies. Bassi (1995) reports that no single database could cost effectively provide all of the needed information. First, large samples of firms had to be surveyed to locate enough firms with education programs that would provide meaningful conclusions. Second, the survey was so lengthy that time constraints made it impossible to ask all of the questions of each individual, particularly supervisors and workplace education providers. Consequently, this data was less reliable than desired. Third, the nonrandomness of the response to the mail survey rendered it ineffective in estimating the incidence of workplace education programs. Because the workers who participated in the programs were interviewed in focus groups, their responses were largely anecdotal, which made it difficult to quantify the results. Schurman, Hugentobler, & Stack (1988) present another quantitative study of the UAW-GM Paid Educational Leave Program (PEL). The researchers assert that the acute consequences of global competition for American industry have focused attention on the relationship between organized labor and management. In addition, there is mounting pressure for both sides to modify their traditional adversarial relationship in favor of cooperation that will work toward restoring a competitive position in the market place. This pressure has already had a major impact on corporate and union human resource policies and practices and, likewise, has significant consequences for American post- secondary education--the providers of predetermined program instruction (Schurman, Hugentobler, & Stack, 1991, p. 72). Programs and assistance are needed to equip employees at all levels with the “knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform effectively in work activities characterized by broader participation in decision-making” (Schurman, Hugentobler, & Stack, 1991). The UAW and General Motors were one of the first companies and unions to experiment with the use of collaborative approaches to common problems. The 1984 national agreement between General Motors and the UAW contains a memorandum of 10 understanding concerning joint activities, whereby parties will “work together” in an “atmosphere of trust” making “mutual decisions” that respect the “concerns and interests” of all parties involved (p. 239). This contract language was the catalyst for the formation of the PEL program. The study by Schurman, Hugentobler, and Stack (1988) was based on an analysis of a pre- and post Auto Industry Assessment questionnaire filled in by 542 participants in a local PEL program at a General Motors Hydra-matic facility. The questionnaire was not a test of knowledge, but rather an attempt to report participants’ perspectives on the major problems facing the UAW and General Motors as well as possible solutions to these problems. The lengthy questionnaires contained identical key questions that were asked at the beginning as well as at the end of the program. In addition, each questionnaire contained a mix of closed and open~ended questions. Schurman, Hugentobler, and Stack (1991) admit that evaluating the impact of a program like PEL presents significant conceptual, methodological, and political problems in organizational contexts like those of the UAW and GM (p. 86). The size of the organizations and the rate of internal change make it difficult to determine where specific educational programming fits in. At best, the PEL study represents a collection of systematic data on participants’ reactions to the program that were used as an experimental approach to quantifying and assessing changes in participants’ perspectives on key issues.‘ The LEAP-2000 initiative is another extension of this 1984 UAW-GM negotiated agreement. It is an educational collaboration between General Motors and the UAW, and 11 Baker College, a private, post-secondary education provider. It involves hourly and salaried autoworkers in extensive study and discussion of the issues facing the union and the corporation. LEAP is underwritten by UAW-GM joint training funds and has recently been the recipient of a Title 107A, JTPA grant administered by the Michigan Jobs Commission. The grant is awarded on the basis of workforce development and job retention potential. At best, Schurman, Hugentobler, and Stack (1991) believe that this type of program represents a fragile innovation in an essentially hostile environment. It is, however, an opportunity for the autoworkers at this General Motors facility to work together to restore competitive status and job security while improving the quality of their individual work lives. It also points to the key role that post-secondary educators can play in this collaboration between the UAW and General Motors Corporation. Research indicates that the study of workplace education for hourly workers is a relatively new phenomenon (Bassi, 1995). Likewise, most of the studies that have been done are primarily quantitative in approach. This study of the LEAP program represents a departure from past endeavors because it is a qualitative study that involves the examination Of perspective change exclusively from the viewpoint of hourly employees. With this understanding, union and management training coordinators may be able to modify existing curricula and target specific programming to this designated population of workers. 12 W The failure of American industry to adapt to the rapid changes that have beset the global economy has resulted in a dramatic reduction of the manufacturing base in this country. Issues regarding United States’ competitiveness have focused the attention of policy makers on the work force and means that could be used to enhance the quality of human capital in the workplace (Bassi, 1994). By the early part of the 21st century, market forces will ensure that the quality of jobs and the incomes they produce are commensurate with the quality of the American work force (Chisman, 1989). Furthermore, Chisman (1989) contends that we have a choice of becoming a “high- income, hi gh-productivity nation based on a high-quality work force or a second-class economy based on a second-rate work force.” We are entering a post-industrial economy that demands we help people learn new roles along with new skills (Hirschhorn, Gilmore, & Newell, 1989). Companies competing in a global market can no longer define roles rigidly but must take a broad interest in the activities and decision-making abilities of others who contribute to the company’s overall success. Enrich (1990) argues that in order for the United States to remain competitive, higher levels of productivity and worker competence are crucial. Leaders of industry are realizing that “human capita ” may be more vital than physical resources for the knowledge society in which we live (p. 2). As Weekley and Wilber (1996) noted, we have to depend on the “intellectual curiosity and creativity potential” of every employee in order to succeed. Failure to harness the contribution of collective skills, talents, and innovations will mean failure for 13 a company. The Japanese have capitalized on this ability and that is the reason they have been so successful. Until companies in the United States tap their human resource potential, they will continue to fall short of their competition and sub-optimize (Weekley & Wilber, 1996, p. 367). A report by the Commission on the Skills of the American Work Force, Americalsfihgice (1990), underscores concern that American companies may face a disadvantage in global competition. Based on interviews with more than 2,000 employers, the report concludes that fundamental changes in our economy are required if we are to maintain our standard of living. Moreover, an argument is made for giving priority to the basic skills and training needs of currently employed workers as well as persons entering the work force. The report emphasizes not so much Skill deficiencies as the potential gains of continued training: We devote 90% of our educational resources to people during the first fifteen to twenty years of life. We wrongly assume that little learning will be required during the subsequent forty to fifty years of working life (p. 6). In sum, the report enjoins American companies to replace their current outmoded form of organization with a format that allows more independent judgment by all workers. W The problem addressed in this study is whether and how participation in an educational program influences perspective change and how this perspective change alters attitudes, values, and beliefs of hourly workers. Examining this problem from the employee’s viewpoint, in the context of participation in an educational l4 awareness program, will allow union and management training coordinators to make mutually desirable program modifications as future programs are developed. Marsick (1986) argues that most descriptions of learning in the workplace are derived from a paradigm that is based in behaviorism. The focus is on performance, which is interpreted as better control of cause and effect actions that can be measured by observable behaviors. Personal development is separated from work-related development and is often considered a fringe benefit rather than a legitimate intended outcome of training. Attitudes are considered important only in terms of how they can be manipulated to create and sustain new behaviors (Marsick, 1986, p. 1). The new paradigm of leaming in the workplace that is emerging emphasizes enhancement of a variety of skills and perspectives in each individual and calls for mutual participation Of labor as well as management in basic decisions about the organization’s directions and working practices (Marsick, 1986). Organizations that focus on learning and reflection by individuals and groups consider learning at work as important as any other factor in the production process (Kombluh & Greene, 1989). F urtherrnore, workplaces that provide employees with these opportunities to learn and change are the ones more likely to succeed in “turbulent” environments in this “post-industrial era” (Kombluh & Greene, 1989, p. 256). This research examines perspective change on the part of hourly workers at a sheet metal fabricating plant which employs approximately 3,650 employees. This facility produces large press metal parts that are shipped to assembly plants throughout the General Motors Corporation system. The average employee age is 47 years old and 15 the average seniority is 27 years. Specifically, this research focuses on employees who have attended or are possibly planning to attend the Local Employee Awareness Program (LEAP). It was reported (Harvey Stevens, UAW Training Coordinator, personal communication, October 13, 1996) that approximately 470 employees have attended LEAP Since its inception in September, 1995. Most of the employees who have attended LEAP have also attended PEL at an earlier time, although there are no available cross- attendance records. Pumamflhasmdx The purpose Of this study is to determine whether participation in an educational awareness program affects perspective change of autoworkers on the shop floor. It is with this intent, that the purpose is to develop a better understanding of the relationship between attitudes, values, and beliefs and perspective change by autoworkers. What is the role of work experience in perspective change? How does previous work experience affect a participant’s attitudes, values, beliefs, and opinions? Can the perspectives generated by work experience be altered and subsequently affect employee involvement in ways deemed favorable by both union and management? This study is important because it will explore perspective change from the employee’s viewpoint and the results will be used by joint (U AW/Management) training coordinators in making curricular modifications as future programs are developed. l6 Kmamhflnestinns THE PRIMARY RESEARCH QUESTIONS FOR THIS STUDY ARE: 1. Do LEAP-2000 programmatic outcomes influence perspective change of autoworkers on the shop floor? 2. How does this perspective change alter attitudes, values, and beliefs of hourly workers in this group and thus change their decision-making process in relationship to work? Analysis of the following issues is required to address the primary research questions: 1. To what extent have the perceptions of LEAP participants changed, as a result of attending the program, regarding major problems facing the UAW/Management at this site? 2. To what extent have the perceptions of LEAP participants changed regarding the burden of responsibility for quality, productivity, and profitability improvement measures? 3. To what extent have the LEAP participants altered their views regarding personal involvement in the change process at work? 4. To what extent have the perceptions of the LEAP participants changed regarding the relationship of joint (UAW/Management) programs to their best interests and job security? D l' 'I Ii This study is delimited to eight production autoworkers who represent a cross- section of the plant population in terms of gender, age, and ethnicity. These subjects will be divided equally into the following categories: 1. Employees who have recently attended LEAP and the preceding PEL program l7 2. Employees who have not attended LEAP or PEL but have expressed intent to attend During an interview with a training coordinator, it was reported that more than 2400 employees attended the PEL program between January, 1991 and September, 1995. Moreover, approximately 470 employees have attended LEAP Since its inception in September, 1995. Most of the employees who have attended LEAP have also attended PEL at an earlier time, although there are no available cross-attendance records. Verification of program attendance was determined during the research participant selection process. Although I recognize that employees can and do alter their perspectives in relationship to work without participating in organized instruction, this study will focus only on employees with a decided involvement or desire to participate in LEAP. Hourly Employee: represented by the UAW; may work in production, skilled, clerical, technical, or administrative capacity. Salaried Employee: not represented by the UAW; may work in clerical, technical, administrative, or management capacity. Joint Training Programs: are governed jointly by unions and employers; focus of the programs is on 18 training and personal development. These programs involve populations of workers who are not usually reached by unilateral programs aimed at Specific occupational groups, e.g., professional, technical, and top-level managers (Ferman, et al., 1991, pp. 2-3). Local Paid Educational Leave Program (PEL): a condensed version of the contractually negotiated, four-week national PEL program that began in 1985. A forerunner to LEAP--it is a week-long educational forum that exposes lower management and union employees to the history, economics, politics, and sociology of the US. auto industry (Dandaneau, 1996). Local Awareness Education Program (LEAP-2000): an open educational forum without any specific training objectives; designed as a series of awareness seminars that enhance worker knowledge about the national and local institutional forces that affect their lives as autoworkers. Quality Network: a jointly developed (labor union-management) and formalized partnership that focuses on a total quality process for General Motors. The partners have agreed to a commitment to product quality (Weekley & Wilber, 1996). l9 Attitude: the general and enduring evaluative perception of some person, object, or issue (Cacioppo, Petty, & Crites, 1994). a mental . . . state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive influence upon the individual’s response to all objects and Situations with which it is related (G. W. Allport, 1935). Belief: 1) a state or habit of mind in which trust, confidence, or reliance is placed in some person or thing: faith. Belief signifies mental acceptance of or assent to something Offered as true, with or without certainty. (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, 1966, p. 200). Perspective: accounts given by individuals as evidence of their representation of the world and that are shaped by the contexts in which they occur (Harnmersley & Atkinson, 1983). 2a) the aspect of an object of thought from a particular standpoint: CONFIGURATION. (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, 1971. p. 1687). Value: an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end state of existence 20 is personally or socially preferable to an opposite mode of conduct or end state of existence (Rokeach, 1973, p. 5). There is general agreement that values cause attitudes (Mueller, 1986). Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW “No longer can automotive companies rely solely on their labor for brown. If companies are to be internationally competitive, they must not only ask their production employees to think, but require them to do so. ” -- Smith, 1996, p. 14 W The US. work force has undergone dramatic changes that will continue to intensify throughout this decade (Hughes, Frances, & Lombardo, 1991). Job opportunities will increase significantly in some fields while they decrease markedly in others. AS the transition from an industrial society to an expanding infonnationlservice- based economy continues, the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in the work force will continue to change simultaneously. The United States is entering a new era of “intellectual capitalism” in which the most important asset of the business world is the knowledge of its workers (Hughes, Frances, & Lombardo, 1991). It is estimated that there will be 42.8 million new entrants to the US. work force between 1988 and 2000. During the same time period, 23.4 million individuals are projected to leave the work force, which will result in a net increase of 19.5 million workers. The size and shift in the composition of the labor pool (increased numbers of women and minorities) coupled with large variances in growth by geographic region, will result in elevated educational need and attainment levels, “since so many new entrants to the work force will be unprepared to meet the knowledge and productivity demands of the new jobs” (Hughes, Frances, & Lombardo, 1991, pp. 32-34). 21 22 The nature of both the workplace and the work force are changing at a rapid pace. Marsick (1986) argues that this means “workers require increasingly higher levels of preparatory education and will have to...continue learning to keep up with the knowledge explosion” (p. 4). She asserts that technological change is also challenging the fundamental assumptions on which organizations have been built, which causes employees and their employers to re-think their relationship to one another as partners in productive enterprise. Leaming associated with this kind of change cannot be reduced to the acquisition of another set of technical Skills, because many of today’s problems are embedded in complex personal, social, and organizational habits that are not subject to a quick fix. She concludes that “skills are still needed, but they are only part of a process that includes...consensual agreements about the nature of the problem and the way in which people should work together to solve it” (Marsick, 1986, p. 4). In his analysis of economic trends, Perelman (1984) contends that the agricultural, manufacturing, and service sectors are declining and that a fourth sector, the knowledge sector, is rising. Knowledge workers cannot accept education and training as an episodic venture, but instead, learning must become the “unifying focus of life’s projects” (Perelman, 1984, p. 43). He highlights the crisis of human capital brought about by the mismatch between rapid economic change and attention to worker development and v suggests a need for a new paradigm of learning that encompasses economic and organizational reality. Because the manufacturing base in this country is declining, workers require increasingly higher levels of preparatory education and will have to either retrain for new jobs or continue leaning just to keep up with their current jobs 23 (Marsick, 1986; Morrish, UAW Joint Activities Representative, personal communication, December 30,1996). Competitimlssues The number of Americans employed in the manufacturing areas of the economy has fallen steadily since the mid-sixties. Chester (1995) indicates that union membership as a proportion of private employment has declined from a high of 30 percent of the work force to less than 13 percent. Industries that America once dominated are no longer in existence in the United States. Production of other American inventions such as television and radio has been greatly reduced. Real wages, that have been adjusted for inflation, have also fallen Since the 19705 (Bluestone & Harrison, 1982). Many of the reasons for this situation rest clearly with Americans--both management and non- management employees. Others, however, are indicative of the concerted efforts of our international competitors. In a presentation to the Greater Flint Economics Club, David Cole, Director of the Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation (1996), characterized the auto industry’s future as “not pretty” and “ not easy” as it tries to cope with “relentless and unforgiving” competition (Noble, 1996). He stressed that Flint’s efforts to keep GM jobs should focus more attention on education--“not just the basic skills but also values and ethics.” Cole also emphasized that “studies other than four-year degrees” can prepare 24 people for jobs in the auto industry and other businesses. His repeated enjoinder against encroaching competition was: “the auto industry must be prepared.” It has become increasingly clear that the United States is failing to maintain a competitive edge in many sectors of the economy (Bassi, 1994). In the late 1970s and most of the 19808, the debate on competitiveness centered mainly on issues involving physical capital. Bassi (1994) states, however, that by 1990 a consensus had emerged that “the competitiveness cure must include a large dose of human capital improvement, simultaneously increasing both its quantity and quality” (p. 55). Moreover, this increase must occur at all levels--within the formal education system as well as outside of it. The economic consequences of increasing global competition for American core industries have focused attention on the relationship between organized labor and management. Schurman, Hugentobler, and Stack (1988) contend that both sides are being pressured to ameliorate their traditionally adversarial relationships and to cooperate in the form of union and employee involvement in managing the business in order to restore a competitive position in the market place. The shifting nature of labor- management relations raises the question of preparedness for taking on new roles. The sharing of power requires new worker skills. Likewise, demands for management personnel to relinquish some of their traditional roles in favor of a less authoritarian leadership style, implies a different approach that emphasizes teamwork, joint decision- making, and power-sharing. During the last session of each LEAP seminar, union and management leaders set an example of the change in leadership philosophy at this plant by participating in a panel discussion and sharing responsibility for answering questions 25 from class participants. Even though agreement is not guaranteed, this format makes it difficult to diffuse responsibility for policy and procedural issues because both union and management factions are represented in a forum of checks and balances. Collaboration among educational institutions, business, labor, and government in time of crisis is not new. Worker education is now a headline issue because there is concern about the United States’ competitive position in the world economy (Enrich, 1990). The emphasis is not on learning as a “pleasant and enriching experience” but on growing acceptance that “improving productivity is directly and inevitably related to the skill of the work force.” Education has become a necessity if workers are to “perform adequately, find firlfillment in their lives, and contribute to our advancement as a country” (Enrich, 1990, pp. 1-2). Despite their promise and record of accomplishment, these educational partnerships are forged under difficult circumstances (Schurman, Hugentobler, & Stack, 1988). Each member of the collaborative effort brings different goals, values, and preferred methods of operation, which are often contradictory. The auto industry may be the leader in retraining and education programs for manufacturing employees because the companies have invested heavily in advanced technologies and workers need continuous upgrading of skills and understanding to adequately perform their jobs. Furthermore, most people who will be working in 2001 are now in the labor force, which demonstrates that retraining and education needs surpass all other industry demands (Enrich, 1990, pp. 130, 131, 266). 26 Weekley and Wilber (1996) argue that the American economy cannot exist on jobs that focus on making “hamburgers or pizza.” Instead, it must have an “industrial foundation of good, high-paying jobs” (p. 33). The United States’ automotive industry has traditionally provided these jobs. The authors also contend that competition is the catalyst that drives the industry forward and “the domestic auto industry’s continuing economic importance is proof of its ability to adapt to change” (p. 36). In earlier years, the union bargained for wage increases, a grievance procedure, and recognition of seniority in matters of layoff and recall (Weekley & Wilber, 1996). Likewise, the negotiated agreements between the UAW and General Motors emphasized the importance of product quality to both parties. The introduction to the 1940 GM- UAW National Agreement states: The management of General Motors recognizes that it cannot get along without labor any more than labor can get along without the management. Both are in the same business and the success of that business is vital to all concerned. This requires that both manage- ment and the employees work together to the end that quality and cost of the product will prove increasingly attractive to the public so that the business will be continuously successfirl. Weekley & Wilber (1996) explain that even though these words have been included in every UAW-GM national agreement Since 1940, the vision described is still in a formative stage. In the 19705 and 1980s, Quality of Work Life (QWL) programs were initiated to address social and environmental issues. But, they fell short Of expectations because there were no structured connections linking their efforts to tangible plans for productivity gains and quality improvements. In the early 19803, union leaders focused on the need for worker participation with the hope of retaining domestic jobs for 27 American workers (W eekley & Wilber, 1996). The implications of worker participation caused concern, however, among managers who thought that participation would promote higher levels of union involvement in running the business (p. 52). Recognizing the need for a formal process management system, General Motors launched its Quality Network during the months of January through March of 1989. It was jointly developed, by the UAW and General Motors, and was proclaimed to be the one total quality process for customer satisfaction. Both union and management have agreed to a commitment to product quality. The understanding is that if General Motors is not competitive and shrinks as a company, the represented membership will be adversely affected by potential job and wage losses (W eekley & Wilber, 1996). The Quality Network was initiated with a recognition by General Motors that there was a need to change the way people were perceived and treated; “people are an investment and a necessity to running the business” (W eekley & Wilber, 1996, p.118). Moreover, if corporate goals were going to be achieved, all of the work force must be included in the decision-making process. Once the working overview of this new “systems” approach was completed, a joint training design was developed to ensure uniform implementation. The LEAP-2000 program and its predecessor, PEL, fall under the Quality Network umbrella (Robert Morrish, UAW Joint Activities Representative, personal communication, December 30, 1996). 28 W Edgar Schein (1991) cautions that the word ‘cnlture’ has many meanings and connotations, especially when it is combined with another commonly used word, ‘organization’ (p. 5). People agree that ‘it’ exists but experience semantic confusion in defining what ‘it’ is. Preskill (1991) notes that “since the word ‘culture’ was redefined by anthropologists over 100 years ago, scholars have failed to reach consensus about its meaning,” resulting in 164 different definitions of the term (p. 8). Schein (1991) asserts that the term ‘culture’ Should be reserved for the deep level of basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of an organization, that operate unconsciously, and that define an organization’s view of itself and its internal and external environments. This shared view is a learned product of group experience that has worked long enough to have come to be taken for granted and to have dropped out of awareness. “Such learning is simultaneously a behavioral, cognitive, and an emotional process” (Schein, 1990, p. 111). Extrapolating from a functionalist anthropological viewpoint, Schein (1990) notes that the deepest level of culture is cognitive and contains the perceptions, language, and thought processes that a group comes to Share that are ultimately the determinants of feeling, attitudes, values, and overt behavior. Kihnann (1989) elaborates on culture as shared values, beliefs, expectations, and norms. He states that culture “is the social energy that moves the membership into action” (p.11). Likewise, Deal (1986) describes culture as “a closed circle Of assumptions, beliefs, and understandings. . . . Culture is what keeps the herd moving 29 west” (p. 27). He summarizes by stating: “The bottom line of culture is to give meaning to a nonsensical world” (Deal, 1996, p. 27). The traditional view of autoworkers who are represented by labor unions, according to Weekley and Wilber (1996) is that they are a burden. Under the Quality Network, this view has shifted to one wherein people are viewed as “assets.” The authors explain that “this is the biggest paradigm shift that cultural change must bring about” (p. 124). In traditional organizations the Shopfloor has been perceived as the source of problems or failure rather than the source for improvement. Shopfloor methods are viewed as stagnant and are predicated on the belief that “this is the way we’ve always done it and this is the way we’re going to keep on doing it” (W eekley & Wilber, 1996, p. 124). In comparison, the Quality Network approach recognizes the importance of productive change and the value of employee involvement in work process modifications. It may be that there are several sub-cultures operating within the larger unit known as the company or the organization. For example, occupationally based cultures, worker cultures, managerial cultures, and union cultures may co-exist within the same organization. Each of these is an evolving social unit within a larger host culture. Schein (1991) posits that because we are looking at evolving social units within a larger host culture, we can engage learning theories to develop a dynamic concept of organizational culture (p. 8). Culture is learned as it evolves with new experiences and it can be changed by understanding the rudiments of the learning process that pertain to the beliefs and assumptions that underscore social behavior (Schein, 1991. p. 8). 30 A strong culture cannot be created by simple executive action; it can only evolve through shared history and a consistent pattern of leadership over a long period of time. Preskill (1991) responds to those who may be concerned that organizational culture is just another fad that will fade away like other hot topics by suggesting that it is too important to be dismissed. He states that culture provides a “framework for making sense of the multiple realities that exist in every organization.” It is the “critical lens” that helps evaluators see what strategies Should be used to increase its potential use (Preskill, 1991,p.13) Bolrnan and Deal (1991) explain that “if the changes now rocking our environment were temporary, the slow, uncertain pace at which organizations are being revamped would matter less” (p. 371). But, because the reverse is true, there is tremendous pressure on organizations to alter existing policies, patterns, and practices. The authors consolidate key principles from organization theory into four perspectives or “frames” by examining the structural, human resource, political, and symbolic components relating to culture change. Bolrnan and Deal (1991) specifically extend the application of the frames to common management problems, including organizational restructuring and employee retraining. A mom is more than an organizational chart. It is an outline of the desired pattern of activities and exchanges among employees and customers and is dependent upon an organization’s goals, strategies, technology, and environment (Bolman & Deal, 1991, pp. 46, 77). The W is based on the premise that “people’s skills, insights, ideas, energy, and commitment are an organization’s most critical 31 resource” (p. 120). Many organizations, however, are so alienating and dehumanizing that these human talents are wasted. In comparison to the human resource frame that emphasizes the sometimes mismatch between the needs of organizations and the needs of individuals, the We confronts these issues directly. It describes organizations as “alive and screaming” political arenas that contain a variety of individual and group interests (Bolrnan & Deal, 1991, p. 186). This perspective implies that the goals and policies of an organization result from an ongoing process of bargaining and negotiating among major interest groups, and “there is no guarantee that those who gain power will use it wisely or justly” (p. 204). Finally, the symbolicjjame emphasizes the complexity of organizational phenomena and the ways in which symbols, e.g., rituals, ceremonies, metaphors, and hmnor mediate the meaning of organizational events and activities (p. 270). The challenge of “multifi‘ame thinking” is presented by Bolman and Deal (1991) as a means of thinking flexibly about organizations and seeing them from multiple angles. Union and management leaders are likely to fail when they take too narrow a view of the context in which they are working. “The ability to see new possibilities and to create new opportunities will enable leaders to discover choice even when their options seem severely constrained and to find hope even amid fear and despair” (Bolrnan & Deal, 1991, p. 450). Weekley and Wilber (1996) approach organizational change from the Quality Network viewpoint. The authors delineate three components of organizational change: the Mcomponent, which includes institutionalized behaviors and habits in the 32 internal environment that are resistant to change; the agtiye component, which advocates change; and the enabling component, which could be in the external environment or in a vision [statement]. As Weekley and Wilber (1996) note, the active component really wants change; there is desire to transform the organization. A strong active component in both the General Motors management and the UAW leadership was evident in the design and continuing delivery of the Quality Network initiative. Some participants (union presidents, plant managers, personnel directors, union bargaining committee members), however, were hesitant and, therefore, passive about accepting something that was different from “the way we have always done things;” they did not understand the urgency for change. Finally, the enabling component, that environmental factor or event that must be dealt with in some way, was the quality related business crisis that continues to confront this giant corporation (p. 59). This thinking is significant because General Motors Corporation has indicated that there may be excess manufacturing capacity that could adversely affect this manufacturing site (Plant Management, personal communication, September, 20, 1996). Weekley and Wilber (1996) assert that although traditional organizational structures and bureaucracy presented an obstacle to radical change, efforts continued to involve workers and their ideas in the manufacturing process. In spite of areas of disagreement, both union and management leadership realized that they had to do something about quality. A culture predicated on a work force that was trained to be “disenfranchised and excluded from the decision-making process” could not respond to 33 the call for better quality and efficiency (p. 71). Restructuring and retraining can be powerful levers for change (Bolrnan & Deal, 1991). However, creating new roles and developing new skills must be done in tandem. Retraining people without changing roles, or changing roles without retraining people almost never works (p. 375). Although it appears simplistic to say that change efforts must be accompanied with investments in training, many changes have faltered because companies have been unwilling to invest as much time and money on human resources as on technology. Organizational change has an effect on individuals’ sense of being valued and in control (Bolrnan & Deal, 1991). It brings about new kinds of structural alignment within the organization, which in turn, may cause conflict between those who will benefit and those who will not. Because change will result in a loss of meaning for some members of the organization, careful attention must be paid to issues of training and worker involvement. 2 |° Bl'l': lll'll Illil Studies in cognitive psychology Offer abundant evidence of the power of emotions to direct associative, interpretive, and attentional processes (Harre & Lamb, 1983). These studies have confirmed the well known clinical phenomenon of perspectim'm, “the organization of memories and other material into systems by reference to emotion” (p. 199). In addition, these studies have confirmed that information learned during one emotional state may or may not be available in other states, but that free associations and elaboration of stories are certain to focus around the highlighted 34 emotion. For example, an angry worker is likely to perceive a supervisor as hostile or a change in a production process as threatening. Later, when the same worker is happy, the supervisor may be perceived as fi-iendly and the production process change may be welcomed. Another view of perspectivity is presented by Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) in their reference to “accounts” and what they tell us about those who produce them. The authors explain that we can use the accounts given by people “as evidence of the perspectives of particular groups or categories of actor to which they belong.” These accounts, however, “are not simply representations of the world; they are part of the world [participants] describe and are thus shaped by the contexts in which they occur” (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983, pp. 106-107). This concept is particularly significant in the study of perspective change among autoworkers. Research has shown that the more effectively we can understand an account and its context, along with who related it and why-~the better able we are to anticipate account bias as a source of information. In this sense we can use complementary methods of information and perspective analysis to determine how participation in LEAP affects the autoworker’s decision-making process in relationship to work. Singer (1992) asserts that who people are in the sense of what they believe, think, and feel, as individuals and as members of social groups, is a critical concern for educational and other researchers of the human experience. Exploring this concern should be founded on some notion of “the other,” some desire to determine how others 35 go about doing, perceiving, knowing, and assessing phenomena from their own points of view, points of view that may be oblivious even to themselves (Singer, 1992, p. 215). Most educational research into others’ beliefs and thoughts, however, is based on methods of inquiry that assimilate the “other” into the researcher’s point of view, that “assess the other against the preconceptions of academic discourse” (p. 215). According to Mueller (1986), belief is a psychological construct, and like all psychological constructs, it is hypothetical. Because beliefs cannot be observed or measured directly, their existence must be inferred fiom their behavioral consequences. Codde (1996) posits that there are difficulties in collecting and analyzing data on beliefs because belief is primarily a symbolic activity rather than a cognitive one and can only be expressed in symbolic forms, of which speech is the most prOminent. Likewise, belief is normally expressed in reaction to precipitating events and varies in relation to those events. The same person may hold inconsistent or contradictory beliefs that come into play under different circumstances. For example, an autoworker may espouse a belief in “a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay,” yet, continue a personal practice of leaving work prior to the designated quitting time. Not all beliefs are as fleeting, however. Because we each hold many deeply rooted and pervasive beliefs that have developed over a lifetime, those beliefs may affect our educational experiences. Other theorists stress the importance of beliefs in their conceptualizations of attitude (Mueller, 1986; Sherif & Sherif, 1965). They contend that our beliefs about things contain an emotional component and affect how we feel about them and that these beliefs, in turn, are influenced by our affinities. It is the reciprocal relationship between 36 cognition and affect that is helpful in the measurement of attitude. While there is not total consensus among theorists regarding the definition of attitude, there is “substantial agreement that W is a critical component of the attitude concept” (Mueller, 1986, p. 2). On the other hand, behavior and attitude are separate psychological phenomena and while they may be highly related, they are not always and should not be expected to be. Sherif and Sherif (1965) define anitudes as the stands the individual upholds about objects, issues, persons, groups, or institutions. Social attitudes have motivational and emotional properties that define for individuals what they are and are not. Furthermore, they are enduring rather than momentary or transitory (Sherif & Sherif, 1965, p. 5). Each person performs many roles and each role is associated with a set of socially sanctioned attitudes (Douglass & Pratkanis, 1994). As an example, a factory worker who is promoted to the position of supervisor may subsequently develop pro- management attitudes. If a recessionary period causes the supervisor to return to the previous position, the earlier, pro-labor attitudes will most likely resurface. Milton Rokeach (cited in Mueller, 1986) states that yalue is an ‘enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end state of existence’ (p.5). Values involve evaluating and are more abstract constructs than are attitudes. Mueller ( 1986) argues that ualues cause attitudes because an attitude toward an object is a fimction of the extent to which that object promotes the attainment of important xalues. There is not, however, a one-to-one relationship between specific afiitudes and specific 37 yalues because a single or many attitudes could derive from many xalues or fi'om a single Blue. An issue that plagues research on attitude and value change concerns the relationship between an individual’s attitudes and values and their influence on individual action (Pascarelli & Terrenzini, 1991). Is a shift in values and attitudes reflected in subsequent behavior? Many theorists, including Douglass & Pratkanis (1994), note that holding attitudes helps people simplify the complexities of the world in which they live. In other words, people can divide the world into gem and bad categories and behave accordingly. Pre-existing attitudes, moreover, can influence the way people interpret new information and reconstruct past events. In the case of autoworkers, who may be concerned with asserting or maintaining membership in a particular occupational group, an individual may express attitudes that are prevalent among those group members rather than their own. It remains to be seen if a shift in workers’ attitude toward participation in the decision-making process in relationship to work and the values they hold affect their propensity to become involved. Wasting: Webster (1966) defines experience as the “knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in events: practical wisdom resulting from what one has encountered, undergone, or lived through” (p. 800). Therefore, experience includes participation in the event and the wisdom gained from that participation. Dewey (193 8) builds on that definition by stating that “the belief that all genuine education 38 comes about through experience does not mean that all experiences are genuinely or equally educative” (p. 25). Although experience is a universal word in education, experience and education cannot be directly equated to each other. Some experiences are “mis-educative” and this has the effect of “arresting” or “distorting” further experience (Dewey, 1938). Dewey (193 8) engages the “principle of continuity” as a criterion used to discriminate between experiences which are educative and those which are mis-educative (p. 37). He explains that every experience affects for better or worse the attitudes that determine the direction of finther experiences, by setting up certain preferences or aversions that make it easier or harder to act in certain ways. Moreover, Dewey (193 8) contends that every experience is an interaetien between the individual and his or her environment and that every experience prepares an individual, in some way, for later experiences of a deeper quality. The active union of continuity and interaction provides the educative Significance and value of an experience (Dewey, 193 8). Experience produces habit and the basic characteristic of habit is that it modifies the character of all subsequent experience; thus, experience is eentinugms. The direct concern of the educator should be with the situations in which that interaction takes place, specifically the seeial set-up of the situations in which students are engaged (Dewey, 193 8, p. 45). For Dewey (1938) growth is a matter of having certain sorts of experiences or transactions with one’s environment-mamer those that result in the formation of habits and attitudes that determine our way of dealing with problems as they arise. Dewey’s 39 (1 93 8) definition of education/ growth encompasses the reconstruction or reorganization of experience which adds to the meaning of experience and increases individual ability to direct the course of subsequent experience. Narrative inquiry, according to Clandinin and Connelly (1994), assumes that experience is the most valid basis for study of the way people make sense of their world. “The main claim for the use of narrative in educational research is that humans are storytelling organisms who, individually and socially, lead storied lives” (p. 2). The study of narrative is a study of the way that individuals experience the world, and translates into the notion that education is the construction and reconstruction of personal and social stories. Narratives are not to be written or interpreted according to a model of cause and effect, but according to the explanations garnered from the overall narrative and the change that is noted fiom beginning to end (Clandinin & Connelly, 1990, p. 7). Wm!“ Human beings are designed for learning. Senge (1990) states that “children come fully equipped with an insatiable drive to explore and experiment” but, unfortunately, the major institutions of our society are oriented toward controlling rather than learning (p. 7). Our primary institutions reward individuals for performing for others rather than promote their natural impulse to learn. It is ironic, Senge (1990) contends, that the focus on performing for someone else’s approval creates the very conditions that predispose corporations to mediocre performance. Confonnity rather than risk-taking is too often the benchmark when it comes to performance appraisal. Senge (1990) argues, however, 40 that in an ever changing and unpredictable world, “it is no longer possible for anyone to ‘figure it all out at the top’” (p. 7). He quotes former Citibank CEO Walter Wriston: “The person who figures out how to harness the collective genius of the people in his or her organization is going to blow the competition away” (p. 8). In forming the Quality Network, UAW and General Motors’ management leadership recognized that a common set of beliefs and values, focused on people, was needed to establish the basis of a cooperative relationship that would move the company toward increased competitive status (W eekley & Wilber, 1996). These codified values and beliefs of the Quality Network provide constancy Of purpose: “Customer Satisfaction and Enthusiasm through People, Teamwork, and Continuous Quality Improvement” (p. 122). Inherent in this statement is a joint recognition of “people as our greatest resource,” acceptance of “responsibility for leadership,” and acknowledgment of “change as an opportrmity.” Wickham (1996) reports that new work was recently allocated to an affiliate Of the manufacturing facility serving as the site Of this research. The allocation was the result of the strong labor-management relationship that has been forged between the union and management during the past few years. In August, 1996 the local union agreed to a “living agreement contract,” which has no expiration date; issues must be dealt with as they arise. Furthermore, “either party may give 60 days notice to reopen the contract and negotiate changes in the language” (p. F1). Education and training programs will need modifications and delivery methods that fit the values that individuals are bringing to their jobs (Enrich, 1990). According to 41 Daniel Yankelovich (cited in Enrich, 1990), “people want more self-expression...they want to feel a part of the work effort...and to have opportunities for growth” (p. 7). The new worker is seeking creativity and greater participation in the process. The continuing shift from a hierarchical to a flatter corporate structure that gives more responsibility to the worker may be one way to accommodate the desire to participate more fully, but it also underscores the awesome educational task before us. Education is more than schooling. Bowman (1993) posits that “it is all sorts of investments in learning” (p. 163). Change is everywhere and education has played and continues to play a significant role in that process. Indeed, education itself contributes to change, even as it is also a response. Thus, as noted by Bowman (1993), a world of change calls for learning both within and outside of schools. It calls for “general education as a preparation for future learning, for specializations that can cope with change, and for both applied and theoretical learning” (p. 173). Rather than training people for particular jobs, education should focus its efforts on preparing people to be good “adaptive learners,” so that they can perform effectively in unpredictable situations when tasks demand change (Resnick, 1987, p. 18). Kornblnh and Greene (1989) think that, for blue-collar workers, the opportunity to “learn and grow in the work situation itself is extremely important given their frequently experienced lack of success in previous schooling situations” (p. 258). In addition, the authors emphasize the building of an “educative work environment,” wherein people can move from “learned helplessness” to “empowered actors.” This milieu calls for a work climate that is 42 committed to learning and one that has meaningful participatory processes. Peter Jarvis (1992) smnmarizes this thought: Life is a flow of experience, frequently moving between public and private space, between space that is controlled and that over which there is little or no control. Sometimes that flow of experience appears continuous and actors presume on the world, confident that they can cope with the Situation. At other times the flow seems to stop, and an action is planned or another reflected on. These are the moments when new knowledge might be learned, new skills and different attitudes acquired, and new perspectives gained....ThiS is the way that everyday knowledge is learned and everyday beliefs are acquired (p. 195). Recent education-for-work initiatives continue to rely on highly technical, rational, and instrumental views of work while excluding or ignoring the affective and psychosocial meanings which many of us attach to our work (Dirkx, 1995). Moreover, these newer initiatives display a reluctance to let go of outmoded beliefs about work and the workplace. That we “live to work” does not seem to be a premise upon which many of these initiatives are grounded (Dirkx, 1995, p. 64). Dirkx (1995) purports that education-for-work initiatives must reevaluate the meaning of work. This evaluation must take place in the context of how we think about the meaning of work and how we reorganize the structures of work to accommodate a more spiritual attitude toward that work (p. 65). He elaborates on the idea of “vocational integration” as being grounded in a deeper sense of the person as worker and encourages educators to emphasize ‘inner’ knowledge and skills through which one comes to perceive the meaning and value of one’s work. Dirkx (1995) contends that the instructional processes in most education-for-work programs are based on a rational, 43 technical view of learning. “The implicit message is that the true source of knowledge and wisdom is the head rather than the heart” (p. 65). He cautions educators to pay attention to the strong affective meanings that shape our relationship to and attitudes about what we do for a living. The process of perspective transformation is key to the issue of workplace learning and has been discussed by a variety of researchers, including Jack Mezirow (1990). He asserts that adulthood is often the time for reassessing personal assumptions that have resulted in distorted views of reality. Perspective transformation can occur in response to an externally disorienting dilemma such as a change in job status. The dilemma may be evoked by an “eye-opening discussion” like those that are presented at the LEAP seminars regarding plant closures and worker layoffs. Mezirow (1990) notes that when the disorienting dilemma occurs, old ways of knowing that do not make sense anymore become ‘trigger events’ that precipitate critical reflection and transformation (p. 14). Moreover, a concomitant change in corporate social norms makes it easier to entertain and sustain changes in alternative perspectives. At this plant research site, the Quality Network set the stage for a radical change in social norms, thereby encouraging the development and support of new worker perspectives. Chapter 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY “The culture of a people is an ensemble of texts, themselves ensembles, which the anthropologist strains to read over the shoulders of those to whom they properly belong. ” --Clifford Geertz, 1973, p. 452 This study was conducted using qualitative research methods. The aim of this inquiry is understanding how the perspectives of autoworkers on the shop floor are influenced by participation in an educational awareness initiative. An interview coupled with a pre-interview questionnaire enabled the researcher to probe deeply and to gain insight into the perspectives of selected autoworkers. It is difficult to avoid internal defenses and possible misconceptions with an impersonal, precoded questionnaire. Taylor (1977) reports that it is difficult to obtain information about an individual’s values, concerns, fears, and ambitions from a distance. A trusting, collaborative relationship between the respondent and the interviewer facilitates the sharing of such privileged information. Therefore, face-tO-face individual interviews were selected as the most appropriate methodology for this study. Robert Donmoyer (1990) summarizes the symbolic interactionists’ point of view regarding how human understanding develops and occurs by stating that “human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings things have for them” (p. 180). Meanings are not static, neither do they follow the traditional cause-and-effect approach to explanation. They are a product of social interaction and, therefore, “must constantly be constructed and reconstructed by actors” in the course of their dialogue and actions with 44 45 one another. This qualitative research study is concerned with understanding the phenomenon of perspective change and the impact that attitudes, values, and beliefs have on the decision-making process in relationship to work. The responses from semi- structured interviews teach us how selected autoworkers make sense of their work experiences and the factors that affect their attitude change and subsequent decision- making process at work. Exmflenceandflarrafinlnuuim Although narrative inquiry has a long history both in and out of education, it is increasingly used in studies of educational experience (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990). According to Connelly & Clandinin (1990), the study of narrative is the study of the ways humans experience the world. “The educational importance of this line of work is that it brings theoretical ideas about the nature of hmnan life as lived to bear on educational experiences as lived” (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990. p. 3; Codde, 1996, p. 35). The basis for the use of narrative in educational research is that “people by nature lead storied lives and tell stories of those lives, whereas narrative researchers describe such lives, collect and tell stories of them, and write narratives of experience” (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990; Codde, 1996). Therefore, educational research is the construction and reconstruction of personal and social stories. Crites (1986) cautions against “the illusion of causality” in narrative research, which can become a powerful interpretive force for the writer (p. 168) (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990, p.7). Connelly & Clandinin (1990) affirm that narratives are not 46 adequately written according to a model of cause and effect but according to the explanations gleaned fi'om the overall narrative or, as Polkinghorne (1988) said, on ‘change from beginning to end’ (p. 116) (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990, p. 7). This finding is relevant to this research, which attempts to Show the relationship between LEAP participation and attitude change rather than a direct causal link. Denzin (1994) asserts that “in the social sciences there is only interpretation” (p. 500). Moreover, no researcher embarks on any research situation with a completely open mind as to what might be expected. Guba and Lincoln (1994) explain that the investigator and the object of investigation are assumed to be interactively linked and, therefore, the values of the investigator inevitably influence the findings of the inquiry (p. 111). Because “nothing Speaks for itself,” the qualitative researcher faces the difficult and challenging task of “making sense” of what has been learned and translating it into a textual work that communicates these understandings to the reader (Denzin, 1994, p.500) IthnnsmictIEisLParadigm Guba and Lincoln (1994) posit that questions of method are secondary to questions of paradigm, which they define as the “basic belief system or worldview that guides the investigator, not only in choices of method but in ontologically and epistemologically fundamental ways” (p. 105). In other words, a paradigm may be viewed as a set of “basic beliefs” that defines for the researcher the nature of the world and the individual’s place in it as well as the range of possible relationships to that world 47 and its parts. “Inquiry paradigms define for inquirers what it is they are about, and who falls within and outside the limits of legitimate inquiry” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 108). A major theme in the constructivist paradigm, according to Bruner (1990), is that learning is an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts upon their current/past knowledge. The learner selects and transforms information, consn'ucts hypotheses, and makes decisions, relying on a cognitive structure (mental model) to do so. The cognitive structure provides meaning and organization to experiences and allows the individual to “go beyond the information given” (Bruner, 1990). The research process inherent in the constructivist paradigm follows three lines of questioning: (1) the entelegiealeuesfien that establishes the form and nature of reality; (2) the epistemelegiealeuestien that establishes the relationship between the knower and the known; and (3) the methodelegiealeuestien that addresses how varying constructions can be elicited and refined in specific ways. ONTOLOGY: The ontological view of the constructivist paradigm is that of a relativist (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). According to Denzin and Lincoln (1994): Realities are apprehended in the form of multiple, intangible mental constructions, socially and experientially based, local and Specific in nature (although elements are often shared among many individuals and even across cultures), and dependent for their form and content on the individual persons or group holding the constructions. Constructions are not more or less ‘true,’ in any sense, but simply more or less informed and/or sophisticated. Constructions are alterable, as are their associated ‘realities’ (pp. 110-111). 48 In this study, participants have a personal construction of work experiences and the resulting perspectives, values, and beliefs that shape their decision-making process in relationship to work. Furthermore, research indicates that the mind is active in the construction of knowledge. In this sense, human beings do not find or discover knowledge, but rather, construct or make it in an attempt to make sense of or to interpret experience (Schwandt, 1994, pp. 125, 129). EPISTEMOLOGY: In the constructivist’s paradigm, the epistemology is transactional and subj ectivist (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). The authors argue that the observer cannot be “disentangled from the Observed in the process of inquiring into constructions” (p. 143). The researcher and subject are assumed to be interactively linked so that the findings are literally created as the research progresses (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Furthermore, there are multiple and often conflicting constructions, but all are meaningful. The question of whether or not a construction is true is relative and subordinate to the best informed construction on which there is consensus at a given time. Thus the findings of an inquiry, according to Lincoln and Guba (1994), are a “literal creation or construction of the inquiry process” (p. 143). The following research questions will result in a better understanding of the relationship between participation in an educational awareness initiative and the perspective change that affects the decision-making process of autoworkers in relationship to work: 49 THE PRIMARY RESEARCH QUESTIONS FOR THIS STUDY ARE: 1. How do LEAP-2000 programmatic outcomes influence perspective change of autoworkers on the shop floor? 2. How does this perspective change alter attitudes, values, and beliefs of hourly workers in this group and thus change their decision-making process in relationship to work? METHODOLOGY: Constructions are attempts to make sense of or to interpret experience (Schwandt, 1994; Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Therefore, in a constructivist’s paradigm, the methodology is both hermeneutic and dialectical (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). The personal nature of constructions “suggests that individual constructions can only be elicited and refined through interaction between and among investigator and respondents” (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, p. 111). Schwandt (1994) suggests that to understand the “world of meaning” one must interpret it. Similarly, Clifford Geertz (1973) asserts that “there is no world of social facts ‘out there’ waiting to be Observed. Rather, the inquirer constructs a reading of the meaning-making process (p. 19) A “thick description” gives the context of an experience and states the meanings that organize the experience. In this study, the researcher explores what is real in the minds of the participants and compares those meaning constructions with that of others in the research groupings. Whatever the findings may be, the principle is the same: “Societies, like lives, contain their own interpretations. One has only to learn how to gain access to them” (Geertz, 1973, p. 453). 50 Remnhnesign By using the case study design to examine participant perspectives, individual constructions can be elicited and refined through interaction between the investigator and the subject. Merriam (1988) posits that case study is a basic research design that can “test theory or build theory, incorporate random or purposive sampling, and include quantitative and qualitative data” (p. 2). Moreover, she references Kenny and Grotelueschen (1980) who recommend that a case study may be appropriate when information gathered fi'om participants is ‘not subject to truth or falsity but can be subject to scrutiny on the grounds of credibility’ (p. 30). For example, a researcher who is interested in employees’ opinions on the effectiveness of their company’s training program, is most concerned with the individual employee’s perspective, not how true or accurate the recall is. Another rationale for the selection of a single-case design, according to Merriam (1988), is the uniqueness of the situation. Because the case study lends itself to a common language approach, as opposed to “scientific or educational jargon,” it allows the results of the study to be communicated more easily to nonresearchers (Merriam, 1988, p. 31). At the time of this study, no other known General Motors manufacturing facility has conducted an educational initiative similar to LEAP. Both UAW and management training coordinators have expressed intent to use the study results to sustain and appropriately modify future programming. Gorden (1987) asserts that there are many ways to collect information about human behavior, including: empathy, participation, and Observation. In this context 51 empathy points to understanding how another person feels about something; participation means deingeemething with people in their regular activities; observation refers to visual and sensory pexeepjigm of any external cues that help us understand human behavior. Interviewing and the use of a questionnaire are seen as two specific forms of empathizing, participating, and Observing, which takes place between two people. In this context, moreover, Gorden (1987) notes that the questionnaire is not so much a unique data-gathering method as it is simply a technique for expanding the interview process. Interviewing, according to Gorden (1987), is most useful when we are interested in knowing people’s beliefs, attitudes, values, or any other subjective orientations. The question of whether the interview is more valuable than the questionnaire depends upon the extent of what we want to know and what the possible range of answers could be. Recognizing that the questionnaire serves a valuable complementary fimction to the interview, Gorden (1987) and Herbst (1994) identify five advantages of the personal interview over the exclusive use of the questionnaire: 1. The interview provides more opportunity to motivate the respondent to supply accurate and complete information immediately. 2. The interview provides more opportunity to guide the respondent in his interpretation of the questions. 3. The interview allows a greater flexibility in questioning the respondent. 4. The interview allows greater control over the interview situation. 52 5. The interview provides a greater opportunity to evaluate the validity of the information by observing the respondent’s nonverbal manifestation of his/her attitude toward supplying the information. This researcher considers each of these advantages important. The use of the questionnaire provides an opportunity for the respondent to establish a fiamework and readiness for the interview session. The use of the interview allows the researcher to sense respondent uncertainty regarding a particular question and thus the researcher is able to explain or reword that specific question. DICIII' lllS i-SI I III . The researcher selected a convenience sample for this study. Gay (1992) notes that convenience samples are also referred to as “accidental sampling,” which means that sampling involves whoever happens to be available. The Joint Activity Directors assisted the researcher in identifying eight hourly autoworkers to be interviewed that represent a cross section of the plant population. The sample was selected on the basis of approaching every fifth employee who entered the plant cafeteria during an hour period on two separate occasions. This process continued until an equally divided sample of eight, that meets the following criteria, was selected: 1. Employees who have recently attended LEAP and the preceding PEL program 2. Employees who have not attended LEAP or PEL, but have expressed intent to attend 53 Each group consists of four hourly employees. The researcher and Joint Activities Directors briefly described the purpose and format of the research study to each potential interviewee. Upon agreement by the researcher and the interviewee for possible inclusion in the study, the interviewee signed the interview consent form. The name and telephone number of each participant was available to the researcher for purposes of follow up outside of the employee’s scheduled working hours. Plant management committed to release time fiorn the job for respondents to participate in the interview. Interviews were conducted with the eight participants in a conference room specifically designated for that purpose at the plant site. The methods employed to gather information included a comprehensive pre-interview questionnaire (designed to collect information including demographics and program content retention), a semi-structured interview, and conversation. With respondent permission, all interviews were tape recorded. Prior to the interview, the respondents were given a written statement guaranteeing confidentiality and including an explanation of the purpose for this research. In addition, the research subjects were given the option of withdrawing from the study at any time. Although the interview questions were semi-structured, they were open-ended and non-directive, which allowed the subjects considerable freedom in forming their responses. Each respondent was given the support of an interview guide and each person was encouraged to explore and articulate the affective component of the topic under discussion. 54 W In the very act of constructing data out of experience, a qualitative researcher makes choices in looking at some firings and not at others, and in reporting some things rather than others (Wolcott, 1994). As the researcher, my account of the respondents’ experiences is filtered through my own perceptions, although I have made a concerted effort to make them fiee of bias. Although there are multiple ways to analyze and interpret the results of this study, it is important that the methods selected invite the voices of the respondents themselves and explore the perspectives, meanings, understandings, descriptions, and interpretations that the respondents bring forth. The hennenuetic approach addresses the way that two people in conversation mutually transform each other’s ideas through continuing interaction (Love, 1994). Therefore, by tapping “features of significance” the hermeneutic methodology can be used to derive a better understanding of the context and meaning of perspective change on the part of autoworkers. Another approach to data analysis is espoused by Patricia Cole (1994). Cole describes the conceptual framework of the “Chenail Qualitative Matrix” in terms of data analysis as well as presentation. The four main concepts of the matrix are: central tendencies, ranges, expected, and unexpected. Using the following categories, emerging interview patterns can be organized into central tendencies and ranges: I. Centraljmdeneies describe how the data chunk together into common themes. 55 2. Ranges allow for the differences within those categories to be discussed. The matrix provides a basis for coding the data and addresses the dilemma of transforming these materials into an organized pattern that insures a relationship between data presentation, data analysis, and the literature review. The terms “expected” and “unexpected” are used to organize the data presentation: 1. Exneetgzl refers to data that confirms the ideas of the authors in the literature review or the researcher’s assumptions. 2. Ungrpeeted refers to data that departs fi'om the authors’ ideas in the literature review or the researcher’s assumption. The matrix approach, as described by Cole (1994), cautions the researcher against the inclination to manipulate research findings into “tidy categories” that are organized by only the Similarities or central tendencies of the stories. By juxtaposing the unexpected data with the expected results, research possesses a certain robustness that might not otherwise be possible. A third methodological approach to this study involves thematieanalysis. Love (1994) relates that in thematic analysis, “interviews are recorded and transcribed with the focus on identifiable themes and patterns.” In addition, the researcher is advised to identify themes by using several features of significance, including: 1. Wm Ideas, beliefs, concerns, and issues that respondents discuss repeatedly throughout the interview or/and are brought up at least once in a interview and are then again noted in other 56 interviews are considered significant. 2. Leyelsandnanireefafl’eet, This includes emotion that is evident through nonverbal cues such as a sudden rise in vocal volume, change in facial expressions and other bodily movements all noted concomitantly with particular content that lend significance to that content or theme. 3. WWW Stories of the past that explain and justify present behaviors and meanings are considered significant. 4. Expfiefiandjmpfieitjmerpreiafiens, These require the respondent to make connections between thoughts and activities and meanings ascribed to them whether they be direct or implied. 5. Serendipity. Behaviors and expressions of the participants that are different from what was expected, based upon my reading and experience. These unexpected surprises are significant since they allow the researcher to recognize ideas that are new and possibly novel. Wench Trustworthiness is a general term representing what positivists label as internal and external validity, reliability and validity, and objectivity (Rudenstarn & Newton, 1992). In comparison, qualitative researchers need to be mindful of the “goodness criterion,” which includes truth/value (internal validity) and neutrality (objectivity). In 57 other words, we need to establish “truth” in our findings in relation to the context we are studying. In the constructivist paradigm, the criterion for truth/value is credibility. This can be established by conducting periodic checks with participants for purposes of continuing and reconsidering interpretations of the data. Rudenstarn and Newton (1992) also elaborate on the importance of transferability of results, which calls for comparisons with other studies and supportive examples. Consistency, the third criterion for credibility, focuses on the replication of the study under similar circumstances. In this regard, Rudenstam and Newton (1992) suggest that consistency is achieved through coding data in ways that other researchers can understand subtle connections and relationships and arrive at similar conclusions. R I , E l' E II S l l The researcher has undertaken considerable preparation before engaging in this study. The topic chosen fits into a group of activities that the researcher has been involved in for many years. Two independent studies and a research practicum, focusing on partnerships between industry and post-secondary educational institutions, represent the formal part of that preparation. Before the collection of data, the researcher audited a forty-hour LEAP class and interviewed the seminar instructors regarding their perceptions of the fit between curriculum objectives and instructional strategies. A pilot study of this research project was conducted in the Fall of 1996. Throughout the four-month duration of the pilot, the researcher met on a regular basis 58 with UAW/Management leaders at the site where this study was conducted. Moreover, the plant manager, personnel director, chairman of the Shop committee, Skilled trades’ shop committee chairman, joint activities directors, and education and training directors have endorsed the pilot study as well as the intended research. As a result of the pilot study, research documents have been modified and expanded in an effort to more closely align this present inquiry with relevant plant issues. General Motors is hesitant to allow “outsiders” into the plants. The feeling is that GM has incurred so much negative publicity that it would not be in their best interests to risk potential problems. Because the inquirer was an “insider” for eleven years as well as a college instructor at this particular facility, the researcher is sensitive to the UAW/GM concerns and feels privileged to have pursued this project. Wm Interviews of LEAP participants were conducted within one year of the time of program attendance. All respondents were asked to complete a pre-interview questionnaire one week prior to the scheduled interview. The purpose for this questionnaire was to prompt the production workers to think about the issues that would be discussed during the interview process. Only one respondent did not complete the questionnaire. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants that ranged from forty-five minutes to one hour and fifteen nrinutes. By conducting an extensive interview with each research participant, the researcher was able to obtain the type of data needed to understand whether and how worker participation in an educational program can influence attitudes, 59 values, and beliefs and how those attributes impact perspective change and decision-making in relationship to work. The intent of the study is to answer the question of how perspectives of the workers who participate in LEAP compare to what they would be if this program did not exist. Hollenbeck (1996) refers to this as determining “net impact” rather than “gross impact.” He contends that a gross impact study would focus solely on program outcomes and answer questions such as what specific points of curricular information do participants retain or what changes in job- related performance are demonstrated. Net impact, in contrast, addresses questions such as what is the change in participants’ attitudes, values, and beliefs and what is the change in employees’ perceptions regarding plant culture as the result of LEAP. Many scientific disciplines determine net impact by randomly assigning some subjects to experimental treatment and others to control groups (Hollenbeck, 1996, p. 35). Random assignment allows the researcher to attribute differences in outcome between the experimental and control groups to the treatment because the groups are otherwise identical. This method is used infi'equently in program evaluations because, in essence, it denies participation to part of the population. Thus, this study uses a comparison group design for the net impact analysis. According to Hollenbeck (1996), a comparison group design constructs a group of participants who are very similar to the LEAP participants, except that they have not attended the LEAP program. Then the educational and employment experiences are probed for the LEAP and comparison group employees and it is assumed that any differences in outcomes can be attributed to LEAP. The strength of this design depends on how similar the members of the comparison group are to the LEAP participants (Hollenbeck, 1996). 60 Each of the eight interviews were conducted at the plant site in a classroom designated for that purpose. Each interview followed the same basic format. After the respondent left the classroom, the researcher made informal notes that consisted of personal reflections and Observations regarding the behavior and mindset of the interviewee during the interview process. Several of the interviewees appeared to be nervous and hesitant to speak at the beginning of the interview, but each of them became more comfortable with the process as the interview progressed. Wing—Emmi! A verbatim transcript of each tape was typed by a transcriptionist within a few days after the interview. Each transcript, however, was verified by the researcher. Data analysis, which began following the transcription of data, continued with several reviews of the initial findings. The unit of analysis was the individual production worker who either did or did not attend the LEAP program and its precursor, PEL. In qualitative research, the criterion for truth/value is credibility, which can be established by conducting periodic checks with participants for purposes of confirming and reconsidering interpretations of the data (Rudenstarn & Newton, 1992). The researcher met with each interviewee on at least two occasions for this purpose. Although some technical terminology was clarified, no significant changes in the original data were noted. Yin (1984) argues for the use of multiple sources of evidence in case studies that allows an investigator to address a broader range of historical, attitudinal, and behavioral issues 61 (p. 92). The researcher engaged in data triangulation by interviewing two joint activities representatives and a salaried personnel administrator. These individuals were presented with the same interview questions that were asked of the production workers; however, they were. asked to respond as they hoped the workers had responded. The most important advantage in using these multiple sources of evidence is the development of “converging lines of inquiry” that provide a more convincing assessment of LEAP program outcomes as they relate to perspective change of autoworkers on the shop floor. The researcher devised a two-staged data coding system. The first stage involves words and phrases that correspond to specific LEAP curriculum components. For example: Goals, Competition and World Markets, Strategic Planning, Health & Safety, Divisional Functions, Quality & Cost, Team Process, and Joint (UAW/Management) Presentation are the codes that were used. The second stage of coding pertains to perspective change and draws on the work of Bogdan & Biklen (1992). It employs overlapping themes and patterns that include: Context, Definition of Situation, Perspectives Held, Ways of Thinking, Process, Activity/Event, Strategy, and Relationship and Social Structure (pp. 167-171). After all of the questions and responses were coded, the researcher examined the data from a broader perspective to determine recurrent themes and conclusions. Chapter 4 RESULTS OF THE STUDY "Something happens when an ordinary person gets the experience that ‘I have words to say about the world, ’ and ‘I will be attended to ’ When they feel so empowered, their learning capacities express themselves in multidimensional, unpredictable ways. It is not too far-fetched to say that they begin to sense an ethical right to have access to such experiences. ” --A.G. Wirth, 1983, p. 184 The purpose for this study is to explore whether participation in an educational awareness program affects perspective change of autoworkers on the shop floor. Specifically, how does a change in perspective alter attitudes, values, and beliefs of hourly workers in this group and thus change their decision-making process in relationship to work? This is a study of eight hourly-rated production workers that represent a cross section Of the plant population in terms of gender, age, and ethnicity. The average employee age is 47 years old and the average seniority is 27 years. Four of the respondents have recently attended LEAP and the preceding PEL program. Four of the respondents have not attended LEAP or PEL but have expressed interest in attending. Each respondent is identified by a pseudonym. “Tannyika” Tannyika is 50 years old, divorced, and has two adult children. She has 20 years of seniority at this plant and is the only person in her immediate farrrily to have worked at General Motors. She has held several line positions, including small-part assembler and 62 63 Sheet-metal welder. She is currently a weld technician, responsible for operating a robot that performs a welding operation on the line. Tannyika hasanended PEL and LEAP. cs Lee” Lee is 50 years old, divorced, and has two adult children. He has 32 years of seniority and is currently working as an in-house, truck driver who is responsible for multiple tasks, including stocking the line with sheet metal. He has held previous jobs as a boxcar loader as well as a person who “catches” the finished product fiom the end of the line for delivery to the shipping boxcar. Lee has an associate degree in Industrial Relations. Lee basanended PEL and LEAP. “W” Michael is 48 years old, married, and has three grown children. He has 29 years of seniority. Michael served in the military and has previously attended a community college, where he studied business law. He has worked as a line operator, salvage repairman, and a union representative for a specific manufacturing area. He is currently a line representative to quality improvement activities. Michael has_anended PEL and LEAP. “m” Keith is 38 years old, married, and has three children. He has 20 years of service with this company and is currently working as an in—house truck driver. Keith has held previous production positions as a product handler and a line welder. He has accumulated 35 credit hours in English, math, and basic electronics at a local community college. Keith hasanended PEL and LEAP. a Elm” Elaine is 53 years old, divorced, with no children. She has 28 years of seniority at this plant and is one of two people in her immediate family to work at General Motors. She has held various line positions including press operator, product handler, quality inspector; she is currently working as a floor checker for the radiator support assembly line. She has recently enrolled in a computer science degree program at a local college. Elaine hasneL attended PEL or LEAP. a 10.9” Joe is 57 years old and married with 30 years of seniority. He left public school in the 10'“ grade to assist with the support of his nine siblings. Joe has worked as a press operator and a metal finisher, and is currently employed as a sanitation worker assigned to floor operations. 65 Joe hasnet attended PEL or LEAP. “Mitt!” Junior is 47 years old, married, and has two grown children. He is a Vietnam veteran and is the only person in his immediate family to work for General Motors. Junior has 25 years of seniority; he transferred to this site fi'orn another assembly plant. He has worked as a spot welder, press operator, product handler, and quality inspector. He is currently working as an in-house truck driver supplying stock to a welding line. Junior hasnet attended PEL or LEAP. “mm” Don is 47 years old, married, and has two children. He is a veteran and has 29 years of seniority. Don is one of several immediate family members to work at General Motors. He has held various production positions including press operator, product handler, quality inspector, materials truck driver, and is currently assigned as a sanitation worker. Don has accumulated the equivalent of two years Of college at a local institution. Don hasnet attended PEL or LEAP. AnAnalysiuLtheRcsmndentsiltersnecfixes Following Love’s (1994) principles of thematic analysis, the researcher identified themes by looking for features of significance that were repeated within and across respondent interview questions. Interview questions formed around specific issues and 66 concerns of the UAW/GM Management at this site. Furthermore, these issues parallel the LEAP program agenda and the corresponding interview questions were based on expressed UAW/GM Management desire to know. Information gathered during the semi-structured interviews document the respondents’ perspectives across a broad array of issues including: competition; culture change; attitudes, values, and beliefs; and the influence of prior work experiences. Ihsfiumpetitixcnesums A report from the University of Michigan’s Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation, WW (1996), indicates that Michigan is celebrating the “one hundredth anniversary of its special relationship with the automobile” (p.3). Although nearly five hundred thousand Michigan residents are directly employed by the automotive industry, Michigan’s share of total world automotive employment is less than 10 percent. Furthermore, the report explains that Michigan’s automotive workforce faces potential competition from at least one new international competitor per year for years to come. “Never has the state’s premier industry faced such fierce and diversified competition” (Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation, 1996, p.3). From a broader perspective, in the late 19708 and most of the 19803, the debate involving manufacturing competitiveness focused mainly on issues involving physical capital (Bassi, 1994). By 1990, however, Bassi (1994) posits that the “competitiveness cure” must include “a large dose of human capital improvement” that strengthens both its 67 quantity and quality (p. 55). Likewise, Berkeley Planning Associates (1991) reference a report based on interviews with over 2,000 employers that reinforces the concern that American companies may be disadvantaged in global competition unless some fundamental changes are made in our economy (p. 6). The report makes a strong case for placing higher priority on the training needs of currently employed workers. The emphasis is not so much on skill deficiencies of the workforce, but rather, on the potential gains of continued training. If change is to occur in an organization, “it must be linked explicitly to real performance goals, and it has to be in the hands of people who understand the business” (Fishman, 1997, p. 66). Typically, 90 percent of our educational resources are spent on people during the first twenty years of life, with the assumption that minimal learning will be required during the remainder of one’s working life (Berkeley Planning Associates, 1991). American companies must replace their outmoded form of organization with a format that allows more independent judgment by all workers. W The pre-interview questionnaire and the first line of interview questioning focused on the respondent’s perception regarding competitiveness. To begin, the workers were asked to enumerate the goals of the LEAP program. This question generated clear lines of demarcation between those who had attended and those who had not. A UAW Joint Activities Representative described the primary goal of the LEAP program: 68 The goals of the LEAP program are designed to carry out what we started with our PEL program. Our local PEL was designed to give employees an opportunity to better understand the global economics of the world and things that are happening in the world as they relate to industry. That [PEL] was fairly successful so we started the LEAP program to bring this a little closer to the workplace for individuals to have an opportunity to better understand how these economics of the automobile industry relate to their specific job. . .and things they could do, on a personal basis, to improve our competitive advantage in the market place. Generally, the workers who had attended LEAP said that the purpose of the program was to educate workers and to create employee awareness. Michael expressed concern about competition and “crisis” in the auto industry by saying, A little after I hired in, probably in the 705, and probably before, we could sell anything we built. Anything we built, we could sell because it was General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler--that was it! And, yeah, I think you had a Volkswagen that year, too . . . that was the only import that I can remember. . . . We could do that [sell them] because quality did not matter. . . .You built them, get them out there, people bought them, and that was it. . . .Then the oil embargo hit and all the foreign markets were just waiting to bombshell the United States. And, they did. They dropped all these little cars in here--with good gas mileage. So once they started buying these cars, they found out it wasn’t just the gas mileage . . . they were put together a little better. The word started getting around and the market share for the “Big Three” just started dropping. So, somebody in the union and our management said, ‘whoa . . . we got to stop the bleeding.’ Another program participant, Lee, expressed his view of competition in terms of quality and cost factors. He recalled a specific LEAP segment and said, They [LEAP] hit on it when they was talking about our bids for different jobs. Being near the rail . . . so close to the shipping yard . . . easy transport. These are all cost reducing factors, but the cost inside the plant is still too high. You can reduce all the costs you want where you purchase material, but if you’re wasting it inside the [factory] walls— you still have to get cost reduction. 69 Lee said that he always knew the plant was in a good location for receiving raw materials and transporting finished products, but that LEAP clarified the importance of location to competitive status. Tannyika reported that “the quality of our products not being competitive” determines whether or not this plant will be assigned new work. In response to the pre- interview question regarding talk about crisis in the auto industry, she responded, I don’t think this is exaggeration. You see changes everyday. They bring in all this updated equipment and people are not trained enough; this causes less productivity. . . . LEAP educates the people on changes in the plant and the operations . . . the different way of operations that are needed to be competitive. All of the workers who had not attended LEAP expressed similar responses about the program goals. Joe said, “Well, I don’t know-nobody never discussed it. I’ve heard a few guys say it was nice and that it was worth going to.” Two other respondents, Elaine and Junior said succinctly, “I don’t knowul have not attended the classes.” An exception to these responses came from Don who thought the goals of LEAP were “to Show the people where we are and where we are going in the industry.” Although the non-participants were generally unsure about the LEAP program goals, each of them had an opinion about what determines plant competitive status. Junior indicated, Quality, in the respect that all concerned provide what the consumer wants . . . that’s you and me. We must have the right leadership and a formative [sie] workforce to accomplish a world-class product. . . . Competition makes everyone do better. The harder you work, the more you and everyone involved benefits. 70 When asked to elaborate on her understanding of the factors involved in assigning new work and determining plant closings, Elaine commented, “The people working in the plant, salary and production, [they determine] how the standards are met.” When asked, however, about snategieplanning and how these work standards were established, she responded, “ Because I am a floor checker, no information about planning is given to us-- or me--until it happens.” Wm As noted in the literature review, Preskill (1991) asserts that “since the word ‘culture’ was redefined by anthropologists over 100 years ago, scholars have failed to reach consensus about its meaning,” resulting in 164 different definitions of the term (p. 8). Deal (1986) defines culture as “a closed circle of assumptions, beliefs, and understandings. . . . Culture is what keeps the herd moving west” (p. 27). The only difference between a group and a herd is that in the group something is learned. According to Deal (1986), culture “explains the way we do things around here” and gives meaning to an otherwise “nonsensical world.” Our high technology society requires principles of flexibility and integration (Hirschhorn, 1984), which stands in contrast to the dehumanizing qualities of scientific management espoused by Frederick W. Taylor during the early days of manufacturing. It was Taylor’s belief that management should limit the knowledge and planning competence of shopfloor workers and that workers’ minds and bodies should be subordinate to the machine process (p. 71). Likewise, Weekley and Wilber (1996) 71 declare Frederick Taylor’s method of organization as outdated, calling instead for the intellectual abilities and creative potential of all employees in order to succeed. Welton (1991) also decries the instrumentalist Taylor approach, asserting that workers are required by current sociotechnical systems to develop and exercise new levels of conceptual flexibility in their approach to production processes and relationships (p. 26). Changing a given culture depends on how deep-seated the culture is and whether or not multiple cultures exist (Kilman, Saxton, & Serpa, 1986). Certainly, it is easier to change surface-level behavioral norms rather than hidden assumptions or facets of human nature. Moreover, managing and changing deeper layers of culture within work units requires a participative approach that derives from McGregor’s (1961) theory Of leadership known as “Theory Y.” Theory Y leadership assumes that people are intrinsically motivated and that they seek responsibility. This approach stands in stark contrast to the top-down approach inherent in Taylorism and McGregor’s (1961) “Theory X,” which points to workers as basically lazy and incapable of self-discipline or self- control (p. 348). In order for change to take hold in an organization, Fishman (1997) argues that it must be linked to real performance goals and it must be controlled by people who understand the business. The author cautions against a futile activity: “establish a vision, design a program, paint by the numbers” (p. 66). In the real world of change, the unexpected and opposition occur frequently. Furthermore, when people hear that someone is going to “change them,” they instinctively react by resisting that effort. “Pull, don’t pus ” is the key Fishman (1997) describes to making change happen. It’s what 72 occurs when a company creates an “environment where people gravitate in the direction you want them to go” (p. 72). The author cites Arian Ward Of Hughes Space and Communications Co. as saying, “The best pull 1 know of is to make people aware Of best practices. They’ll naturally use a better way if you make one available” (p. 72). Failure to recognize culture as the “social energy that drives--or fails to drive--the organization,” compels an organization to move toward the lure of the next “quick fix” (Kilmann, Saxton, & Serpa, 1986). The assumption is that formal documents, for example, mission statements and organizational charts are enough to guide human behavior. Most of what occurs in an organization, however, is guided by the cultural components of shared meaning, hidden assumptions, and unwritten rules (p. 92). To make change happen, according to Weekley and Wilber (1996), workers must understand why change is needed, the nature of the change, and how it will affect them personally. The authors delineate three defining statements of the Quality Network Beliefs & Values that focus on change fiom an individual perspective: 0 Accept change as an Opportunity 0 Make continuous improvement the goal of everything we do. 0 Establish a learning environment at all levels (W eekley & Wilber, 1996, pp. 225-226) In this manner, the Quality Network approach recognizes the importance Of productive change that is controlled and planned by the people involved in various phases of work. Rather than occurring as the result of external threats or uncontrollable events, change, 73 and ultimately culture change, becomes proactive and allows employees to be part of the process. WWW An extensive area of questioning covered the many facets of cultural change at this plant site. An interview with a salaried personnel manager revealed that “laying the groundwork for change is one of the most pressing problems facing the company. . . . We want the people [LEAP participants] to recognize their resistance to change.” The manager explained a sense of urgency in the plant which is usually associated with an emotionally charged event such as the threat of loss of a product line or rumor of a plant closing. He said, “ We must be open to change; there is a consequence if we choose not to change.” The UAW Joint Activity Representatives corroborated this sentiment by voicing, We have to change our culture and it has to be a continual thing. It may be subtle right now, but this is the foundation. They [PEL/LEAP] fall under the 38 action strategies of the Quality Network. The respondents were asked to talk about the mission statement of their plant. Although the LEAP program allows discussion time for this purpose and provides each participant with a laminated card containing the Beliefs & Values of the Quality Network, three of the participating respondents were vague about its content. When asked whether or not the mission statement was discussed in class, Tannyika replied, “I guess it was, but I don’t remember.” Keith said, “I can’t swear to it, but I’m sure it was.” Lee knew that the statement was “hung right outside in the hunt entrance-on the wall-~for anybody that wants to read it.” His summary emphasized a “push on quality for the customers and 74 pride in our workmanship.” Only Michael, a former union representative, who has been a line designate to quality improvement “workshops” for the past six months, was able to articulate the gist Of the statement that reads: Missiuu To supply global General Motors customers with high quality, low cost, and on time major metal components with the world’s best die lines, in support of North American Operation’s mission to produce the world’s greatest cars and trucks. The non-participant respondents readily admitted their lack of familiarity with the mission statement. Their summaries ranged from Don, who said, “I would assume it is to make as much money as they can” to Joe, who revealed, “1 really don’t know . . . I thought the only mission in this company was to make parts for cars.” Elaine was the most candid when asked if anyone had ever talked to her about the mission or if she had seen the Beliefs & Values. She waved her hands in the air and replied: Ah, yes . . . it goes in and out. It goes in and out, you know, because they can tell you a lot of things, but when you’re here for 28 years--my goodness-you hear . . . you see . . . and you know! The researcher concluded from the responses to the question about the mission statement that there is a break in the linkage between the espoused tenets of the Quality Network and the business plan. If the workers do not understand the mission of the company and what advantages there are to them, how can they be expected to demonstrate a willingness to change in ways that are receptive to new ideas and behaviors? 75 The concept of stralegieplanning that is closely aligned with the mission statement provided another line of inquiry on the pre-interview questionnaire. In preparation for a joint presentation by UAW/GM leadership personnel, LEAP participants engage in a W (strengths, weaknesses, Opportunities, and threats). A Joint Activity Representative described the process: Strategic planning is a process that’s very detailed and takes a long time. It requires the participation of all facets of the organization in order to do an effective job. The SWOT Analysis is a piece of strategic planning that’s used by organizations to measure their internal and external threats and to capitalize on opportunities and to minimize threats. . . . We do a lot of that planning at the upper levels of the organization but very seldom have the opportunity to move that down to the floor-level people to get their involvement. There was general consensus among all of the respondents that the term “strategic planning” was not familiar to them. Further probing by the researcher did not seem to elicit a clearer definition. Another Joint Activity Representative offered a possible explanation: When you talk of strategic planning, someone on the floor probably wouldn’t be able to come up with a plan. But when they’re in the LEAP program, they’re in groups of four or five people and they don’t have any trouble identifying the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities and threats. What we’ve found is that it doesn’t matter what week it is, most people identify the same problems. And, it does have a major impact when you get them back in their department . . . they’ll start discussing ways they can improve the line. Although the respondents may not identify with the term “strategic planning,” it seems that they have an implicit understanding of the functional relationships between plant strengths and weaknesses as well as the nature of opportrmities and threats. The 76 inability of LEAP participants to relate terminology to process may simply be a matter of limited exposure. W Another way of examining cultural change is to explore the Shift in ways of thinking about autoworkers. In the past, many companies allowed economic considerations to dominate their business plan and did not take into consideration “people issues” such as health, safety, and ergonomics. The traditional view of workers, according to Weekley and Wilber (1996), is that they are a burden (p. 124). In comparison, the Quality Network views working people as assets and the shopfloor is perceived as the source for improvement rather than the source of the problem. When asked to prioritize “bottom line” concerns, a salaried personnel manager explained that no job situation, regardless of its importance to the company, can be tolerated if it is unsafe. He said that “safety is number l—-then quality-~then cost.” Respondents that had attended the LEAP program and those who had not attended expressed similar views regarding health and safety. LEAP participants, however, frequently interspersed their comments with references to ergonomic issues—a topic of discussion throughout the LEAP program. Likewise, a Joint Activity Representative said: . . . over the last three to four years, we’ve probably had more of a cultural change as far as health and safety on the floor, than we’ve had at any time I’ve worked here. . . . The employees are more involved in it . . . particularly on some of their own jobs. They are not as hesitant to call a Health and Safety representative if they have a problem. . . .They 77 know most of them personally and they realize that they’re down there [on the shop floor] for their protection and well-being. The common sentiment detected throughout the interviews of both comparison groups was that workers perceive the health and safety fimction at their plant to be a legitimate expression of concern for their protection and well-being. Respondents Junior and Keith specifically mentioned this idea: Health and safety are what the employer and employee are very concerned with. If we are not healthy, how can we be productive? If our employer does not provide a safe work place, how can we be productive? This plant has come a long way. . . . On the safety end of it--[Safety representative’s name]--will take care of any safety problem that comes up . . . that you can bank on! With: Approximately ten years ago, this research plant site began a journey to move away from a tendency toward autocratic management philosophy to one based on employee participation and empowerment. As part of this shift, the PEL and LEAP programs were initiated to increase employee awareness of the company’s mission and values as well as knowledge about processes and process improvement. Previously, most training at this location had a performance objective agenda. UAW and plant management recognized, however, that changing the culture would require different skills and perspectives that were needed to succeed in today’s global marketplace (R. Monish, personal Communication, (April 12, 1997). Kombluh and Greene (1989) argue that learning at work is of equal importance to any other factor in the production process. Their contention is that “workplaces that 78 provide employees with built-in opportunities to learn and, therefore, to change” are the ones that are most likely to succeed. In defining this “educative work environment,” the authors emphasize the “structuring and evaluating of work relationships based on their individual and mutual learning and knowledge-creation potential” (p. 25 8). Non-formal education is important, particularly for production workers, given that they may have frequently experienced a lack of success in previous schooling situations. Programs like PEL and LEAP are designed to reach common thinking in people and to empower them in areas of new application through relationships with others at work. Likewise, if workers are to have more input in running the business, managers must adopt a different approach to leadership--one that emphasizes teamwork and sharing of power. The most common characteristic of the winners in Indusnyfleekls “Best Plants” winners in 1995 was their emphasis on tapping employee brainpower in a team environment (Sheridan, 1996, p. 17). All of the LEAP participants believed that their “voice” was being heard regarding problems and the need for change in the plant. Two respondents reported that although workers have more to say in running the business, there is still room for improvement One interviewee, Keith, spoke at length on this topic: Back when I was welding, they were really making some big changes, trying to get some quality in the product. Me and a friend of mine were at the end of the line . . . and they had this new girl come up on the line to weld. She didn’t know how to weld--they never trained her. She was blowin’ holes in every piece she welded. . . . So we decided we better do something about that. We had just been to one Of those classes where they say they wanted quality. So we decided, ‘heck--we’re welders, we’ll fix ‘em.’ We did that all day long and they never pulled that girl off the 79 job. We kept telling them, ‘she’s blowin’ holes in there,’ but as long as we kept fixing them-~they didn’t care. Later in his interview, this same respondent disclosed his thought that management was beginning to take more interest in the opinions and suggestions of floor workers. He continued: Times have really changed since that story I just told you. I’m sure I wouldn’t have that problem today. . . . I really don’t think I would. I mean, after doing the same thing everyday for months and years, I ought to be able to tell you just about what we need to do. So it makes sense [for Management] to come down here and let me say, ‘Hey-—why not do this?’ That just makes sense to me, whether I know how to chew my gum or not. They’re [Management] doing that a lot more now. In comparison, the views of the non-participants reflected no appreciable change in the worker’s ability to make suggestions or the likelihood that the suggestions would be acted upon. Joe remarked, “If you got a problem and you tell your supervisor right away; I guess they can’t get to it right away because I’m not the only one with a problem.” After reflecting on his 25 years of plant experience, Junior smothered a laugh with his hands and said, I think I’m heard, but I don’t think I’m listened to. . . . It’s like you [Management] hear what I’m saying, but, ‘ nO--I don’t have time to deal with it right now. I’ve got this on my mind. I’ve got that on my mind.’ We’re not taken seriously. Comments from the non-participants regarding “voice” and empowerment stand in contrast to a report given by a salaried personnel manager. The manager described a “green check chart” that delineated 44 work-related problems that had been submitted by floor employees to various levels of plant supervision. A green check mark next to each item indicated that the problem had been fixed or the situation resolved. Moreover, this 80 list is a primary agenda item at the quarterly Wing meetings conducted by the plant manager during line downtime. The salaried administrator reviewed the chart with the researcher as an example of listening and responding to worker problems. Without any hesitation, each of the four respondents that had attended LEAP said that they had made decisions differently as the result of their participation. Lee commented: I kind of remind people of what we have learned in LEAP. . . . I try to implement some attitude changes, especially when you’re hearing from ‘Negatrons’ [sie] (laugh). Tannyika has a pragmatic view of her employment situation that is reflected in her statements I I just try to get along more with peOple on my line. . . I address my problems verbally--just talk about them and let them know how I really feel about firings instead of just letting it go, and not saying anything. That makes me stressful on my job. . . . I want a sense of well-being and health. So I just let them know what is ‘going on’ now so I can come in here and make this money and go home (laugh). Keith summarized not only his thoughts but the sentiments of others in saying: I realize now that this is more than just a living. I got to be here for another 10 years yet. I want to be able to make a living here. . . I want my pension to continue. . . . I want my kids to be able to get a job here. So I’m more conscientious about my job. I’m here everyday and I pay a lot more attention to quality. I m I' If . l I AS noted in the literature review, Harre and Lamb (1983) refer to the well known clinical phenomenon of perspeetiyity, “the organization of memories and other 81 material into systems by reference to emotion” (p. 199). Another view of perspectivity is presented by Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) in their reference to “accounts given by people “as evidence of the perspectives of particular groups or categories of actor to which they belong.” These accounts, however, “are not simply representations of the world; they are part of the world [participants] describe and are thus Shaped by the contexts in which they occur” (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983, pp. 106-107). This concept is particularly significant to this study because research has shown that the more effectively we can understand an account and its context, the better able we are to assess the validity of the information contained in the account. In this sense, we can interpret the accounts of autoworkers in terms of both information and perspective analysis to determine if and how participation in LEAP affects individuals and their decision-making process in relationship to work. The respondent interviews were examined by looking for patterns, identifiable themes, expected and unexpected responses, and meaning in the respondents’ constructions of their experiences. Singer (1992) asserts that whe people are in the sense of what they believe, think, and feel as individuals and members of social groups is a critical concern for researchers of the human experience. Each of the respondents in this study either explicitly or implicitly stated who they are and what they believe. Tannyika was quick to offer, “I’m the kind of person who always likes working together with people, anyway.” Tannyika’s 82 interview was interspersed with accounts of how she tries to “reach out to people.” She frequently brings in dinner for fellow workers, “something to just keep people goin’ aroun .” Michael was eager to describe himself in terms of his roles and responsibilities, especially as a former union representative and currently as a line representative to quality improvement activities. He said, “I have a responsibility . . .a role. But as long as I remember that and get out there and work hand-in-hand with my people--to make a good quality product that satisfies the customer—then we’re doing what we’ve got to do.” Junior describes himself as the “average Joe” because most of the workforce is his age also. Although he describes his truck-driving job as “interesting” and a “real challenge,” he takes offense at being categorized as an hourly employee. When you look at people that aren’t in your classification, like ‘you’re an hourly employee-you’re a salaried employee.’ That’s stigrnatism [sie]. I want it gone. I have a right to my opinion, as they have a right to their opinion, but I’m not in a position to make the decisions. . . I’d like to have input in making that decision. Joe avoided the issue of who he was as a production worker. Later he said, “I’m not used to people asking me what I think about nothing here . . .they just tell you, you know. . . . That’s where we have a union.” Joe frequently deferred his personal knowledge and involvement about work-related issues to “higher ups” and the “union,” indicating that “I don’t think I have the true picture of what’s going on here.” Don reports that as a production worker, he is not listened to by management personnel. “. . .they probably feel we don’t know as much as they do and also that we’re 83 hourly . . . we’re just workers, you know. You stick to working--we’ll stick to managing.” Several times he would refer to his 29 years of seniority and would conclude with, “So, I don’t care anymore. . . . They’re not going to change me and I’m not going to change them.” Beliefs: As noted earlier in this study, belief is a psychological construct that cannot be Observed or measured directly and, therefore, must be inferred from its behavioral consequences (Mueller, 1986). Belief is normally expressed in reaction to precipitating events and varies in relation to those events. Thus, the same person may hold inconsistent or contradictory beliefs that come into play under different circumstances. Irrespective of participation in the LEAP program, several of the respondents held contradictory beliefs about “doubling up” or other practices that allow people to leave the job before scheduled working hours are completed. For example, Tannyika reported, “I don’t lmow of anybody doubling up around our area. . . . I’ve never done that doubling up part. But, we have run to get done early, you know, because in the summer time--down on the line--welding is real hot.” Don said he noticed there were “a lot more people coming down with wrist injuries and back injuries because they were working so hard to get done early.” When asked what his attitude was about this practice, he said, “It’s good for hourly people if they want to get done early, but if Management thinks ‘Wow—we can put two more hours work on them,’ that’s no good.” Keith openly admitted, “I used to do it [doubling up]. Everyday I would go home 84 and my underwear would be wet four hours later.” He went on to describe how his job has changed since he transferred to in-house truck driving. Now he has to service part of a line area that “runs a little bit ahead” as well as an area that does not. He expressed frustration in having “to do twice the work in half the time” in order to keep up with the other half of his job. “I’ve got a big problem right now. . . I’ve got the best and worst of both worlds.” XaluesandAtfitudes: According to Rokeach (cited in Mueller, 1986), a value is an ‘enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite mode of conduct or end state of existence’ (p. 5). Furthermore, Mueller (1986) argues that values cause attitudes because an attitude toward an Obj ect is a function of the extent to which that object promotes the attainment of important values. Other theorists, including Douglass and Pratkanis (1994) note that holding attitudes helps people simplify the complexities of the world in which they live. In other words, people can divide the world into gmd and bad categories and behave accordingly. Pre-existing attitudes, moreover, can influence the way people interpret new information and reconstruct past events. When Lee was asked about how his attitudes, values, and beliefs had changed as a result of attending LEAP, he immediately responded by saying, I have a whole different attitude on life in general today, anyway. I’m in a period of transformation right now. . . . I’ve had previous problems that I’m recovering from. So the programs God has put me through, and the PEL and LEAP included, have sharpened my understanding. . . . it’s been very beneficial. It’s opened my mind up to a lot of different avenues rather than having a closed mind. 85 Tannyika claims that she has always valued doing a good job but that they [PEL/LEAP] “brought it out the way I really feel.” She elaborated: You know, I dreaded coming to work, because things weren’t quite right. I didn’t want to go up in there today because you had to deal with the foreman being all pushy and. . . . You tell people something and they wouldn’t listen to you, so you kind of shy away from telling them. I always tried to do the right thing . . .I don’t overlook a problem. If I see something wrong, I go on and tell them about it. Since the LEAP thing and PEL, they seem to listen to me. . . . If you tell them something- they listen. In response to questioning regarding attitudes, values, and beliefs, Junior felt compelled to say: When you’re in your 40S, you know when somebody is conning you. You got kids--you grew them up—you know when they’re conning you and you know when somebody else is conning you. . . . Education is knowledge and knowledge progresses people so you can advance. The United States has three classes of people: rich, medium, and poor. Most [other] governments only have the rich and poor-~they don’t have no medium class. . . . This is our workforce. They have a lot less education. Let’s keep them educated. If you keep them ignorant, you’re not getting anywhere--you’re controlling them. You can’t be a leader in the world with a second-class education. You have to have a first-class, world-class education. People have to be aware. Although Elaine has not attended LEAP, she was asked how she thought the attitudes, values, and beliefs of her co-workers had changed as the result of program attendance. She replied, “Well, they were all right before they left [for class] (laugh)!” IheSmdufExpsriencs As noted in the literature review, Webster (1966) defines experience as the “knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in 86 events: practical wisdom resulting from what one has encountered, undergone, or lived through” (p. 800). Therefore, experience includes participation in the event and the wisdom gained from that participation. Dewey (193 8) builds on that definition by stating that “the belief that all genuine education comes about through experience does not mean that all experiences are genuinely or equally educative” (p. 25). Although experience is a universal word in education, experience and education cannot be directly equated to each other. Some experiences are “mis-educative” and this has the effect of “arresting” or “distorting” further experience (Dewey, 1938). Every experience affects for better or worse the attitudes that determine the direction of frnther experiences, by setting up certain preferences or aversions that make it easier or harder to act in certain ways. Furthermore, Dewey (193 8) contends that every experience is an interaeh'en between the individual and his or her environment and that every experience prepares an individual, in some way, for later experiences of a deeper quality. For Dewey (1938) growth is a matter of having certain sorts of experiences or transactions with one’s environment-mamely those that result in the formation of habits and attitudes that determine our way of dealing with problems as they arise. The educative significance and value of an experience is that it produces habit; the basic characteristic of habit is that it modifies the character of all subsequent experience. Thus, the direct concern of UAW/GM leadership at this plant site should be with the situations in which that interaction takes place, specifically the work arrangements in which employees are engaged. 87 Witness Dewey (193 8) asserts that everything depends on the qualityof the experience undergone and these experiences will influence later experiences. When asked how he felt about talk of “crisis” in the auto industry, Michael replied: You listen to a lot of people and what they say about the Flint area. Some of the people say that the UAW has a bad rap, because the UAW started in Flint with the ‘Sit-Down Strikers’ in 1937. They also say we [UAW] have to change our image . . . and the people in the UAW are trying to change that image so we can secure work and have a job that’s going to be here for a while. . . . But, I think Management, lots of times puts that out there and they hold that over your head. ‘Hey you know, if you guys don’t straighten up, we’re gonna close your plant.’ We’re in a crisis--we’re in competition with the foreign market . . . I know exactly what it’s like. I’ve seen the ups and downs; I’ve seen my fiiends go out on layoff. I was out myself for 8 ‘/2 months one time. But, I think a lot of times they use that--they bully you with that--they hold it over your head. We’ve heard this for so long: ‘We’re going to close your plant if you don’t change.’ It’s like the boy that hollered ‘Wolf’ . . . . I guess it can happen--before you even know it. Of all the interview respondents, Don reported having had the largest number of negative experiences. He related that he had attended several Quality of Work Life (QWL) meetings in the late 1970s. Don recalled that during the first two days of meetings he “bought into” the invitation by Management to be “buddy-budd ” and to “work together.” But when he began to hear repetitions of, “You’ll [hourly workers] have to change and do this and do that,” he stopped participating. Don summarized : QWL didn’t turn out to be a two-way street. We wanted Management to do something up front. Management said, ‘We’ll do something later.’ . . . . I’ve been screwed too many times. I’m not going to change them; they’re not going to change me. I don’t care anymore. There wasn’t any trigger event--just an accumulation of events. 88 Keith was also willing to share the change in his attitudes, values, and beliefs that were Shaped by his experience in educational programs prior to PEL and LEAP: If you had interviewed me 10 years ago, I never would have spoke like this because there was nothing like this [PEL/LEAP]. Back in the 805, I don’t remember what they call it, but it was a class you had to go to. It was on one of those new things, so I went for a week. It was unbelievable the things that they were talking about . . . the things we were going to do. We, as workers, were excited-J mean excited. That ’s the only fear I have about what ’3 going on right now. . . let me throw that in there. We were excited when we come out of that class. We went down on that floor and we weren’t gonna build no junk--no sir—if the part came down the line and it was bad, I had the authority on my job to stop it right there. We come out of that class the first day and that day the parts started coming down to the job. They were bad—they were really bad. So I stopped that job. The foreman come up and said, “what are you doing?’ I said, ‘This part is bad. That welder needs to be fixed.’ The foreman said, ‘We ain’t got time for that--run them.’ That was the end of that. Summary The intent of the study is to answer the question of how perspectives of the workers who participate in LEAP compare to what they would be if this program did not exist. This is what Hollenbeck (1996) refers to as determining “net impact” rather than “gross impact.” He contends that a gross impact study focuses solely on program outcomes and answers questions such as what specific points of curricular information do participants retain or what changes in job-related performance are demonstrated. Net impact, in contrast, addresses questions such as what is the change in participants’ attitudes, values, and beliefs and what is the change in employees’ perceptions regarding plant culture as the result of LEAP. This study used a comparison group of non- participants for the not impact analysis. After probing the educational and employment 89 experiences for the LEAP and comparison group employees, it is concluded that any differences in outcomes can be attributed to LEAP. After a review and analysis of the data gathered in the study, the researcher determined that there was a difference in the predisposing influences of values, attitudes, and beliefs of the two groups. For example, how workers think and react in certain situations is determined by their own personal beliefs and values and how they, in turn, have been enhanced or modified by organizational beliefs and values. Likewise, a “willingness to accept new information and change is based on a combination of our beliefs and values, what we believe to be truth and external organizational beliefs and values that we choose to accept” (W eekley & Wilber, 1996, p. 2). Several respondents who had attended PEL and LEAP described how the programs “confirmed what I already believed,” or “I knew it could happen . . . we workers and management can sit at the sarrre table and work on the same little skits and come up with the same end result.” Another worker summarized, “It [PEL/LEAP] should be a ongoing thing and it should be required. They give you excellent numbers and stuff like that—makes you really see how it is.” In comparison, several of those who had not attended PEL or LEAP indicated that, “We need more training about this new technology on the floor. If it isn’t about my job, I don’t know what it’s [LEAP] going to do for me.” One person stated, “I’m not sure what they [LEAP] do over there or whether they would have any influence on what goes on around here. A lot of people, including me, got our mind fixed to where they’re not going to listen to me no matter what, so I’m probably not going to listen to them.” 90 It became apparent to the researcher that most of the participant respondents’ perceptions of the educational innovation were shaped by an affinity between the program objectives and the workers’ personal attitudes and beliefs about how the organization should move toward the achievement of common goals. Likewise, the perceptions of non-participants seemed to be inordinately influenced by prior experiences with other programs that left some of them with a feeling that, “Nothing’s ever changed and it’s probably not going to.” Although there was some similarity in the predisposing influences of values, attitudes, and beliefs of the two groups, it should be noted that comments fi'om the participant group reflected a sense of optimism regarding the likelihood of positive change. This group also offered more expansive descriptions and definitions relating to matters of health and safety, ergonomics, cost and quality, and the company mission. Unlike most non-participants, LEAP participants were able to recall information regarding lost time due to company accidents, cost figures relating to manufacturing processes, and corporate data regarding product shipping and logistics specific to their plant. Chapter 5 DISCUSSION “Corporate America is now built on intellectual capital rather than bricks and mortaruand that ’s changing everything. Human capital grows two ways: when the organization uses more of what people know and and when more people know more stufl that is usefid to the organization. ’ --T.A. Stewart, 1997, p. 106 I This is a study that explores how the perspectives of autoworkers on the shop floor are influenced by participation in an educational awareness initiative at a large manufacturing facility. In particular, how does LEAP-2000 change perspectives, values, and beliefs of workers in this group and thus change their decision-making process in relationship to work? This chapter will summarize the study’s purpose, methodology, and results; discuss the major themes; compare the findings to those of existing studies; define program success; reflect on how the study relates to the literature, my personal perspective; and make suggestions for future research. SummamLthesmas Six male and two female production workers from a large manufacturing facility volunteered to participate in this study. The average respondent age is 47 years old and the average seniority is 27 years. A qualitative, case study approach used a pre-interview questionnaire, semi-structured interviews, and follow-up conversation to gather information. By using the case study design to examine participant perspectives, individual construction could be elicited and refined through interaction between the investigator and the subject. The pre-interview questionnaire provided an opportunity for 91 92 the respondent to establish a fiamework and readiness for the interview session (see appendix B). The use of the interview allowed the researcher to sense respondent uncertainty regarding a particular question and thus the researcher was able to explain or reword that specific question see appendix C). The purpose of this qualitative study is to determine whether and, if so, how participation in an educational awareness program affects perspective change of autoworkers on the shop floor. The long range intent is to develop a better understanding of the relationship between attitudes, values, and beliefs and perspective change by autoworkers. SummamfjheResults The primary research questions for this study are: 1. Do LEAP-2000 programmatic outcomes influence perspective change of autoworkers on the shop floor? 2. How does this perspective change alter attitudes, values, and beliefs of hourly workers in this group and thus change their decision-making process in relationship to work? The interviews conducted with the eight production workers were guided by four major lines of questioning: 1. To what extent have the perceptions of LEAP participants changed, as a result of attending the program, regarding major problems facing the UAW/Management at this site? 93 2. To what extent have the perceptions of LEAP participants changed regarding the burden Of responsibility for quality, productivity, and profitability improvement measures? 3. To what extent have the LEAP participants altered their views regarding personal involvement in the change process at work? 4. To what extent have the perceptions of the LEAP participants changed regarding the relationship of joint (UAW/Management) programs to their best interests and job security? Many questions were asked to gather this information and each respondent offered expected as well as unexpected responses that were marked by careful reflection. Although recurring themes began to emerge as the data was analyzed and revisited, each theme was connected to multiple questions, and thus surfaced repeatedly throughout the interviews. Concluslnns One conclusion that emerged from the data relates to the idea of predisposition that is rooted in the cultural context of beliefs, values, and attitudes. Each respondent’s reaction to LEAP curriculum components was shaped by his or her work experiences prior to program attendance. Bolrnan and Deal (1991) use the term frames to describe “lenses that bring the world into focus. . . . Frames help us to order experience and decide what action to take” (p. 11). A UAW Joint Activity Representative described one of the Obstacles in bringing about change in worker attitudes, values, and beliefs: 94 Sometimes people come into the management organization with a view of how things Should be run. . . how people Should be treated. Some of these predetermined patterns are from the Old style of management--from the Taylorism Era. This has been very prevalent in the manufacturing sector of the country and it’s very hard to get away from. This doesn’t allow for growth in the organization and is what develops some of these attitudes in individuals. It’s because of how they have been treated. We need to change the way that we manage. We’re seeing some changes and Management has been trying to change some of this through training programs and talking about how we impact the culture of our organization by the way we treat people. . . . This is something that’s not going to change overnight, but I’ve seen a lot of change--especially in the last eight years or so. The respondents’ work experiences influenced their values, beliefs, and attitudes and their subsequent receptivity to LEAP components. It was evident to the researcher that several of the respondents shared a basic level of assumption similar to that expressed by Don: Well, they [Management] probably feel we don’t know as much as they do and also that we’re hourly. We’re just workers, you know. [Management says] ‘You stick to working--we’ll stick to managing.’ It’s now got my mind fixed to where they’re not going to listen to me no matter what, so I’m not going to listen to them. . . . I don’t remember how it happened . . . just an accumulation of events. . . . I don’t care anymore. This shared view is a learned product of group experience that has existed long enough to be taken for granted. Schein (1990) explains that the deepest level of culture is cognitive and contains the perceptions, language, and thought process that a group comes to share that are ultimately the determinants of feeling, attitudes, values, and overt behavior. The researcher noted that those respondents with the most negative perceptions were among the group that had not attended PEL or LEAP. 95 Keith’s reflections are closely linked to Bolman and Deal’s (1991) account of the humanreseureefiame, which examines the premise that “people’s skills, insights, ideas, energy, and commitment are an organization’s most critical resource.” Keith’s thoughts are also typical of the respondents who had attended LEAP: “You were brought in here for your body--not your mind. They didn’t care what you thought . . . just keep quiet . . . do your job . . . come in here every day and do it!” As his story progressed, however, Keith indicated that “now that it’s been pushed and we’re the prominent company to use this teamwork and value system; they’re really trying to get us going.” Another conclusion that surfaced from the data was that production workers want knowledge and the power to make decisions using that knowledge. In the study, Driying AmeriealsRenaissanee, by the Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation (1996) it was reported that “companies of the firture must be fast, flexible and frugal. In order to do that workers must be informed and empowered decision-makers” (p. 58). Auto industry workers must be capable of solving problems and they must be “competitively smart” not necessarily “academically smart.” Furthermore, the definition of competitively smart encompasses understanding of both local and international competitors, modern manufacturing practices, and the economic environment. Over and over again, all of the respondents in this study (those who had attended LEAP and those who had not attended) professed a desire for continued learning opportunities. When asked if he would attend another LEAP program or something like it in the future, Michael replied, “Oh yes, I’d be glad to. Any time you can give me information to help me perform my job or do a better job than what I’m doing now-~I’m 96 all for it.” Similarly, Tannyika shared, “We need this to make us aware of wanting to do our jobs right. There’s a lot of quality stuff in there [LEAP] and if we want to be competitive, we have to know this.” Lee personalized his feelings with this thought, “. . . today life is nothing but a learning experience. Any time I pass up any kind of learning, I’m only cheating me.” Repeatedly, LEAP program participants correlated employee awareness Of business related information with product quality output in the plant. Michael reflected this thinking in saying: Our people need to be educated to the fact that . . . hey, if we shut the line down, it’s going to cost SO many dollars to do that. Now look at this fender or this hood. If it isn’t just a perfect part, is it OK and will it still make a sellable [sie]vehicle? Do we Ship it or do we shut the assembly plant down? If those people are given that [quality/cost] information, they’re smart enough that they’ll make the right decision. Lee expressed another thought regarding the relationship between worker knowledge and empowerment and quality output: When people have an awareness of quality goals and common problems, we look at work like a team effort. . . . Bosses have a certain authority, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to be dictators. It’s like, ‘I’m your coach and you’re like my team. I can’t play ball without my team.’ Yet, my team can’t play ball without their coach. This is the concept . . . we’re working towards. The purpose for this study was to determine whether and how participation in an educational awareness program affects perspective change of autoworkers on the shop floor. A primary research question for this study is: Do LEAP-2000 programmatic outcomes influence perspective change of autoworkers on the shop floor? 97 While participants may have attended the same program, it became obvious to the researcher that they did not all experience the same program. Interviews revealed what Love (1994) labels “features of significance” that were both expected and unexpected. All of the participants who participated in LEAP acknowledged learning as a result of attending LEAP. They made comments such as: “These classes have to continue,” “makes people work together to solve the same problem,” “you can’t believe the information they give you,” “it makes us aware and want to do our jobs right,” “it educates the people,” and “it opened my mind up.” There was also an affective consensus among the participants that the program was “fun,” “it charged me up,” and “the food was great.” Unexpected assessments were rendered by some participants regarding values, beliefs, and decision-making. One respondent stated, “They [PEL/LEAP] didn’t cause any major changes; they just sharpened the enhancement [sie].” Another reported, “They only reinforced what I already believe; I don’t do anything differently.” It became apparent to the researcher that the participants came to the LEAP program with firmly established predispositions that influenced their decision-making choices. Some of the participant descriptions implied that there was a separation between program attendance and the perceived Opportunity to apply the information. Perhaps, because each of the LEAP participants has also attended PEL, they came to the LEAP program with an established understanding of the over-arching competitive issues facing the UAW and GM Management. The LEAP program’s emphasis on competitive issues indigenous to this local plant site, however, Shifted the focus from 98 global and institutional forces that impact the autoworker in general to the importance of individual actions and decisions that can improve competitive advantage in the market place. Responses from all of the program participants reflected the need for strategies that capitalized on cooperation among union and management employees as opposed to a primary emphasis on fixing blame. A second research question for this study is: How does this perspective change alter attitudes, values, and beliefs of hourly workers in this group and thus change their decision-making process in relationship to work? A comparison group of non-participants was interviewed with the assumption that any differences in outcomes can be attributed to the LEAP program. Following a review and analysis of the data gathered in the study, the researcher found a clear line of demarcation between both groups. There was a difference in the predisposing influences of values, attitudes, and beliefs between both groups. It became apparent to the researcher that most of the participant respondents’ perceptions of the educational innovation were shaped by an affinity between the program objectives and the workers’ personal attitudes and beliefs about how the company should move toward the achievement of common goals. In comparison, the perceptions of non-participants seemed to be inordinately influenced by prior experiences with other plant-sponsored programs that left some them with a feeling that, in spite of LEAP, life at the plant would be “business as usual.” 99 The LEAP participant group reflected a sense of optimism in their responses regarding the likelihood of positive change. Moreover, reported changes in behavior among this group included a greater consciousness related to attendance and performing quality work. Sensing a heightened receptivity to their concerns, several of the respondents indicated that they are now more likely to discuss and resolve problems openly with fellow workers and supervisors rather than resort to the grievance procedure. This group also offered more expansive descriptions and examples of application relating to topics addressed by the LEAP program curriculum, e.g., health and safety, ergonomics, competitive status, quality goals, and the company mission. WW As stated in an earlier chapter, the provision of workplace education for hourly workers is a relatively new phenomenon (Bassi, 1994). The skills provided by these programs are very “portable” in nature and, therefore, have not been evaluated scientifically. Typically, evaluation methods have asked participants and supervisors to respond to questionnaires that ask them to rank program elements according to personal liking. This program impact measure is lacking because “to look for the success of an educational program in the applause at its curtain call may be to rrriss the real successes and failures of its application” (Ottoson, 1997, p. 106). PEL and LEAP represent a departure from preexisting training programs at the plant because of the type and scope of the classes offered. Assessing the impact of these types of programs becomes problematic because of the Sheer size of the company and 100 because of the magnitude of change occurring that makes it difficult to determine where PEL and LEAP fit in (Schurman, Hugentobler, & Stack, 1991). Some local PEL initiatives have attempted to assess changes in participants’ perspectives on key automotive issues as the result of program participation while others have collected a variety of anecdotal data involving little more than participants’ reactions to specific speakers. Again, there is no systematic data to support the impact of PEL or LEAP on participant decision-making and behavioral change. Like other studies of workplace education programs, this company has asked managers and supervisors to assess the impact of these programs on a range of issues which either directly or indirectly affect productivity and profitability. The assessment by management and union leaders seems to be that these programs have had a favorable impact on safety, absenteeism, grievance count, scrap rate, worker morale, ability to work in teams, etc. Likewise, program participants speak of change in their personal perspectives regarding the importance of attendance and doing quality work. One respondent said, “I know I need to be here every day, and I try to do that now.” Another program participant reported: For the first nine years that I worked in here, I would take off two or three days a month. . . . I just didn’t feel like coming in here so, to heck with it. It’s expensive for the company to have me do that. At the time, I didn’t care. Well, I didn’t know. . . I didn’t know it was expensive. That kind of thing has changed now. I’ve had perfect attendance for the last 11 years. The respondents also emphasized improvement in their work lives, more satisfaction with the perceived roles and fimctions of union and management leadership, and more 101 optimism about the future of their plant. Sentiments of the participants reflected that when people know what they are doing, why they are doing it, and are empowered to make changes--they want to come to work and do a good job. As one respondent concluded, “. . . you’ve just got to give them the opportunity and the tools to do it, and you’ve got to give them a good environment to do it in.” Ahmalhrsncsfixc This research, although limited to a relatively small sample at one plant location, has used a unique approach to study a relatively new phenomenon in workforce education. Because efforts to increase the level and quality of education in the workplace are relatively new, not much research on the results of these initiatives has taken place. Moreover, the program evaluations that have been done are largely quantitative in nature. In comparison, this qualitative study was grounded in participant experiences. A comparison group methodology was engaged under the assumption that any differences could be attributed to LEAP. I was a manufacturing manager, for eleven years, at an assembly center similar to this research site. In the course of my employment, I had responsibility for education and training and organizational development activities in tandem with a variety of manufactrning supervision assignments. This afforded me exposure to hundreds of production workers and multiple education and training initiatives. From this research I gained a better understanding of how individuals develop certain perspectives, values, and beliefs in relationship to their working lives and how 102 these affective variables affect their decision-making process. These variables are significantly influenced by employees’ early perceptions that they have been “hired from the neck down” and must “leave their brains at the gate.” Then, as the individual accumulates seniority as a production worker, he or she is exposed to a series of education and training programs that often appear to have a built-in two-year obsolescence. Autoworkers frequently refer to these programs as the “flavor of the mon .” I came to General Motors with no prior experience or academic background that would prepare me for the auto industry. Furthermore, I was the only female in this supervisory capacity for several years. I had no peer or support group, so it was imperative that I harness the expertise of the workers in order to accomplish essential tasks. Perhaps it was my training in psychology coupled with a strong belief in collaborative leadership that gave me credibility with the production workers in my purview. Nevertheless, gaining and maintaining their trust permitted us to collectively achieve some record-breaking work practices and employee development training programs that were unique to the plant. Worker attitudes and willingness to be involved seemed to change and a renewed sense of commitment was evidenced. The problem with these activities, however, was that efforts were isolated and lacked a systems approach. Now, as I move into other career positions of leadership, I am mindful of the lessons I learned from the autoworkers. I am particularly attuned to the beliefs, values, and attitudes of others and how their perspectives are shaped in relationship to work. Can I be a change agent to help others let go of harmful past practices and not let those 103 practices determine what happens in the future? Perhaps this research effort and I will find our way back to the auto industry to carry on with unfinished business. Only time will tell. Wu The strongest correlation between the results of this study and the literature is reflected by Weekley and Wilber’s (1996) discussion of the perceptual view of autoworkers (p. 124). According to the authors, management holds a traditional view of autoworkers who are represented by labor unions as a “burden” expense to the corporation. Under the Quality Network, this view has shifted to one wherein people are viewed as “assets.” Moreover, the authors claim that “this is the biggest paradigm shift that cultural change must bring about.” In traditional organizations the shopfloor has been perceived as the source of problems or failure rather than the source for improvement. Shopfloor methods are viewed as stagnant and are predicated on the belief that “this is the way we’ve always done it and this is the way we’re going to keep on doing it” (W eekley & Wilber, 1996, p. 124). In comparison, the Quality Network approach recognizes the importance of productive change and the value of employee involvement in work process modifications. Time and time again, the participants in this research expressed their desire for new knowledge and the Opportunity to use it. Likewise, many of them lamented the prospect of a new way of doing things presented at PEL and LEAP, that reverted to “business as usual” when they returned to the shopfloor. A different culture cannot be created by 104 executive action; it is a gradual process that evolves through a shared history. As one Joint Activity Representative explained, “Management can’t try to force change; give the people the information and let them make the change.” The Beliejis &. Values of the Quality Network underscore the importance of people and “working together in the spirit of teamwork.” They serve as a creed, according to Weekley and Wilber (1996), and all actions are tested against them. In essence, this determines what is “OK to do” in General Motors (p. 123). Most Of the interview participants, whether or not they had attended LEAP, indicated that the company recognized people as its most important resource, “they just don’t use us.” As Joe mentioned, “I see myself being apart of this, but not a partner.” Similarly, Junior shared, Management needs to recognize us--the regular workers--and reward us for what we know. If it’s feasible--use it. Don’t just pass us by. Although no new discoveries were made as a result of this research, the study does support Weekley and Wilber’s (1996) contention that “aligning personal values, that are defined over time by personal beliefs, with organizational values, as demonstrated in decision making and individual behavior on the job, shapes ‘what’s OK to do and what’s really OK to do’ in the plant” (p. 1). Over and over again, workers expressed a strong desire for business-related information and the concomitant Opportunity to use it on their respective jobs. PEL and LEAP are examples of a new kind of employee education and their impact cannot be measured by traditional methods that are concerned with issues of 105 productivity and profitability. Instead, program success remains a matter of personal perspective examined through a broad array of contextual characteristics. This supports Ottoson’s belief that “Only the participants themselves can serve as the link between the educational program and their own application context” (p. 106). Recommendation Teamwork and trust between the UAW and General Motors management are the underpinnings of the Quality Network-~the “one total quality management process that brings together all the components of the diverse . . . complex system for the purpose of attaining the vision of total customer satisfaction and enthusiasm” (W eekley & Wilber, 1996, p. 121). There is no dichotomy, therefore, in the following recommendations to union and management leaders at the plant research site. Because workplace education programs for hourly employees are relatively new, the companies referenced in this study are in the early stages of program implementation. Consequently, little research on the impact of these programs has been initiated. Schurman, Hugentobler, and Stack (1991) evaluators of early PEL efforts, assert that, “Despite its success thus far, the PEL process represents a fragile innovation in an essentially hostile environment” (p. 93). Like other human resource initiatives, PEL and LEAP are subject to the acute pressures of the assembly line manufacturing environment. This becomes problematic for program providers. When there is a downturn in business, managers are under tremendous pressure to trim costs and this kind of training may be the first item to be eliminated. When business improves, managers may question why they 106 should devote financial resources to send workers to a broad-based educational program. At the same time, there is not a total consensus among union and management leadership that an actively involved work force is a good thing; there are those who would like to return to “the way it used to be.” There are still groups on both sides—union and management—that advocate traditional labor relations whereby all practices and precedents are the result of negotiation. Weekley and Wilber (1996) argue that sometimes a crisis motivates people to change while other times it is a vision for the firture that will make things better for the world we live in. The authors contend, furthermore, that leaders in successful change efforts “inspire necessary active change in preparation for the future” (p. 59). AS one Joint Activity Representative indicated: Cultural change issues are, by far, the most difficult to change. We can change technology very readily in the organization and expect that the culture will adapt to that change. But, when we talk about changing beliefs, attitudes, and values--these cultural issues are the hardest to change. . . . The more programs like this [PEL/LEAP] that we can institute and give our people an opportunity to be involved in . . . and develop a sense of being a part of the orgarrization—the better we will be able to deal with the attitude piece of cultural change. . . . These programs reinforce the belief that our leadership [UAW/GM Management] is here for them [hourly workers] and to help them deal with all the changes that are taking place in our business. But these things take a long time. Multiple variable program evaluation is a means of demonstrating the value of LEAP to union and management factions and will help answer the question, “Why do we want to educate all of these people?” Certainly, one of the strongest indicators of program success will continue to come from the participants’ perspective and, therefore, additional qualitative studies that are grounded in participant experiences are needed. 107 Mannfactrning organizations should attempt to identify the effects that programs like PEL and LEAP have on matters of productivity and profitability. Typically managers and supervisors have been asked to use a check-list format to assess the impact of these kinds of programs on a range of issues, but no attempt has been made to create methodologies that directly correlate programmatic outcomes with issues of worker safety, quality output, error rates, absenteeism and tardiness, grievances, and job retention. Some of these would be relatively easy to implement and would provide a baseline for expanded study. In developing an implementation plan, the Quality Network emphasizes the linkage between its tenets and the company business plan. Ostensibly, the Quality Network is the process to achieve the vision and mission of the organization (W eekley & Wilber, 1996). And, the time has come for manufacturing organizations to turn away fiom the next “quick fix.” Investments in change, according to Bolman and Deal (1991), must be matched with collateral investments in training. It sounds simplistic, but one has only to look at the longevity of former education and training initiatives to understand the import of the term “flavor of the month.” LEAP, as a program under the Quality Network umbrella, provides the “how” to accomplish the “what” of the company’s strategic plan. It is important that every objective of the strategic plan be accompanied with a supporting plan for employee training and education. Manufactrning companies should develop new skills and the opportunity to assume new worker roles in tandem. Revising one without revising the other almost never works. A bridging mechanism from the LEAP program and other educational 108 activities back to the workplace is crucial to avoid what one respondent felt: “When I went back to the job, it was the same old thing. . . . I don’t believe anything they say anymore.” This research facility is moving in the right direction. It was reported that more than 30 ‘fiwvorkshops” have been established to deal with quality issues in specific plant locations and job sites. The workshops meet on company time and are comprised of production workers and their immediate supervisor. Workers volunteer for this assignment and most of the participants are individuals who have attended the PEL and LEAP programs. When the problem solution resulting from the workshop shows sustainability, the group is recognized with celebrations of food and mementos. W The results of this study suggest a need for continued qualitative research on how workforce educational programs influence perspective change on the part of autoworkers. Because educational programs for hourly workers is a relatively new phenomenon, there is risk that these early ventures will be subject to the economic uncertainties and pressures of the manufacturing environment. This study demonstrates that the participants themselves are the crucial link between the educational program and its application on the job. There is also a need for further development of quantitative measures to identify the effects of programs like LEAP on matters of productivity and profitability. Uncovering direct causal relationships between LEAP and issues of worker safety, quality output, error rates, absenteeism and tardiness, grievance load, and job retention 109 and satisfaction will help to sustain human resource initiatives in times of economic upheaval as well as times of economic improvement. Finally, there is a need for research that focuses on worker knowledge and learning as a sufficient prerequisite for behavior change. As mentioned earlier, the bridging mechanism back to the workplace exerts a significant influence in determining whether transfer of learning occurs. In other words, because workers express liking for a program or say that they “learned a lot,” does not necessarily mean that learning has taken place or that behavior will change. As Ottoson (1997) purports: “To look for the success of an educational program in the applause at its curtain call may be to miss the real successes and failures of its application.” APPENDICES APPENDIX A COPY OF THE PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM APPENDIX A INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM SANDRA K. KRUG Doctoral Candidate Michigan State University (810) 694-7583 Email: krugsand@pilot.msu.edu I am requesting your cooperation in a research study that will help to better understand perspective change on the part of autoworkers who have attended the educational awareness program: LEAP-2000. As a Ph.D. candidate at Michigan State University, I am conducting this study as part of my degree requirements. This study has been approved by the UAW/Management at your plant site. Your participation in this study is voluntary and will involve completing a questionnaire and taking part in an interview that will last approximately one hour. You will be given release time from your job to participate in this interview. You are guaranteed total confidentiality. All of the notes, tapes, and data resulting from this process will be kept at my personal residence. Your name and any other identifying information will not be part of the final research report. A copy of the results of this research will be available to you upon request at the conclusion of the study. Your participation in this study will be greatly appreciated. The results may provide valuable information to UAW/Management, joint activity directors, and education and training coordinators in their efforts to modify and provide future programs for employees at this site. If you are willing to participate in this study as an interview subject, please complete the information requested below. You are free to withdraw from the study, or any parts of it, at any time. If you choose to do so, all information collected from you will be returned. Signature of participant Date Name (please print): Daytime Telephone Number: Evening Telephone Number: llO APPENDIX B PRE-INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE W PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IN PREPARATION FOR AN IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW. IF THE QUESTION DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU OR IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, PLEASE MARK “N/A.” Name: Address: City/State/Zip: Telephone Number: Gender: a. Female b. Male Age: a. <21 b. 21-30 c. 31-40 d. 41-50 e. 51-60 f. >60 Ethnicity: a. White/Caucasian b. Black/African American c. Chicano/Mexican American d. Hispanic e. Am. Indian/Alaskan f. Asian/Pacific Islander Highest level a. Less than high school graduate of education: b. High school graduate or GED c. Some college (1. College graduate e. Graduate education Current occupation: a. Production b. Technical c. Mgmt. d. Clerical e. Admin. d. Skilled Employment Category: a. Hourly b. Salary Work shift: a. First b. Second c. Third Based on your present knowledge, what are the goals of LEAP-2000? 111 How do you feel about the role of Health and Safety at your plant? In your opinion. what factors determine whether your plant will be assigned new work? In your opinion, how is Strategic Planning used at your plant site? In your opinion, what factors determine plant closings? Do you agree or disagree that all the talk about “crisis” in the auto industry, and especially problems at your plant site, is exaggerated? Please explain. 112 Do you agree or disagree that the problems faced by the United States auto industry, and particularly General Motors, are long-term and require some real changes in business practices? Please explain. Describe a significant, work-related training or educational experience that you have had (other than PEL or LEAP) within the last 10 years. How was this experience significant for you? (adapted from Hugentobler, Schurman, & Stack, 1988) 113 APPENDIX C INTERVIEW DISCUSSION QUESTIONS . In your opinion what are 2 major problems facing the UAW/Management at your plant site? . What is your opinion regarding “cost” vs. “quality” as an indicator of success in business? . What is your attitude about “doubling up” or other practices that allow people to leave work early? . How do you feel about the need for change at your plant? . How do you feel about your “voice” being heard regarding change in your plant? . How do you think that any of your attitudes, values, and beliefs have/will change change(d) as a result of attending LEAP? . How do you feel about the effect that this type of educational program has/will have on other people in your plant? . If you were an outside consultant, what advice would you give to the UAW at your plant regarding the most important thing the union should do to improve the relationship between labor and management? . If you were an outside consultant, what advice would you give to the Management at your plant regarding the most important thing the company should do to improve the relationship between labor and management? (adapted fiom Hugentobler, Schurman, & Stack, 1988) 114 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIQGRAPIIX (1940). GM-flAlILNahanaLAgrumut. (1966) Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Publishers. (1971) Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Publishers. (1984). GM-JJAIALNahanalAgramnt. p. 239. Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In C.A. Murchison (Ed.), Aflandomkof Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 798-844). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press. Bassi, L. (1995, May). Upgrading the US. workplace: do reorganization, education help? Momhlxmonm 118 (5), 37-48. Bassi, L. (Winter, 1994). Workplace education for hourly workers. JonmaLof RaharLAnalxsrmManagemant V(13)n1 55- 74 Becker, G. (1964). Humanflaoital. New York: Columbia University Press, for the National Bureau of Economic Research. Berkeley Planning Associates. (1991). W Business. (Final Report No. SBA-4115-0A-89). Washington, DC: Office of Advocacy, US. Small Business Administration. Bluestonc B & Harrison B (1982) IhaDamdnshralrzahanafAmmuflant I I° IIIII Oh .I IIIIII I II I 0 ‘III I I° I _ 1'-“ NCWYOI'kZ Basic. Bogdan, R.C-. & Biklen. SK- (1992). eralitahrLaResurahfarEdnuhan Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (1991). Rofiamingflganizahons. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass Publishers. Bowman, M. (1993). The economics of education in a world of change. In E. P. Hoffman (Ed ), EssaxaanjhaEaanamrasaffidnuhan (pp 163- 175) Kalamazoo MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Boyd, E. & Fales, A. (1993). Reflective learning. Key to learning from eXPefience lanmalafflumanrshafisxchalagxfia) 99- 117 115 Brunet, J. (1990). Aotmeoaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cacioppo, J., Petty, R., & Crites, S. (1994). Attitude change. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed) Enumlapuiaafflumanfiehaxiar (pp 261-270) San Diego Academic Press, Inc. Chapman, S. (1992). What is the question? loumalofExporionhaLEduoahon, 15(2), 16-18. Chester, T. ' 0) W? Unpublished master’ 5 thesis, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI. Chisman. F. (1989). .hrmaStartLEhaEadaralRalarnAdnltLitmay. Soutlrport Institute for Policy Analysis, Southport, CN. Clandinin, D,. & Connelly, F. (1994). Personal experience methods. In N. Denzin&Y Lincoln(EdS) Handhoakafflnalitahxaliasurah (pp 413-427) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Codde, J. (1996). The role of experience in education: How life and educational experiences influence non-traditional student persistence at Lansing Community College. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Nfl. Cole, D. (1996, October 9). Whole world is Flint’s competition, analyst says. IhaElint .Iaumal. p. B 1. Cole, P. M. (1994). Finding a path through the research maze. The W 2(1) Electronic Publication. WCommission on the Skills of the American Workforce, (June, 1990). Amorioafis ChoroozflrghSkillioMages. National Center on Education and the Economy. Rochester, New York. Committee for Economic Development, Research and Policy Committee. (1990). aI.II‘-II-II II.'II - ‘.IIrI.II. IIII‘I‘II. Ir' Connelly, F. & Clandinin, D. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. EdnuhanalRasurahar, v19 (5), 2- 14. Crites, S. (1986). Storytime: Recollecting the past and projecting the future. In T..R Sarbinflid) Ihastahunanuaafhumanaandnat (pp 152- 173) NeWYork Praeger. 116 Dandaneau, S (1996) .AlawnAaandarmmmMrahrunfianfiams Demonstrialization, State University of New York Press. Deal, T. E. (1986). Deeper culture: Mucking, muddling, and metaphors. In J. C. Glidcwell (Ed- )Wmmmmmmm Dexelaamant. (pp. 21-42). Alexandria, VA: American Society For Training and Development. Denzin, N. (1994). The art and politics of mterpretation. In Y. S. Lincoln & N. Denzin(EdS) HandhaakafiQulitahxaRasurah (pp 500-505) Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Dcwey,J .(1938) W. New York: The Macmillan Publishing Company. Dirkx, J. (1995, Oct. 12-14). Educating for vocational integration. The role of spirit and soul 1n education-for-work. In C. Mealman & R. Orem (Eds) Presented at the U 01‘ \ -_ II -. ' II“I' I.I_ IIII..I° J. IIIII,I\ mutation. National Louis & Northern Illinois Universities, Wheaton, IL, 62- 67. Donmoyer, R. (1990). Generalizability and the single-case study. In E. W. Eisner &A. Peshkin(Eds..)Qnahtah1aInanranEdnunanJhe_CanhmnnaDeaate (pp 175- 200). New York. Teachers College Press. Douglass, D. S., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1994). Attitude formation. In V. S. Rarnachandran (Ed. )LEnoyolooodiaofflnmanBehmor (pp. 271-277). San Diego: Academic Press, Inc. Eggert, J. (1991). Instructional activities which stimulate behavioral change as perceived by adult participants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Enrich, N- (1990) IhaLurninandnstmzjdnuhanfiaLAdnltflarkm Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation For The Advancement of Teaching. Ferman, L., Hoyman, M., Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J., & Savoie, E. (eds.) Joint Cornell University Press, 1991. Fishman, C. (1995, April : May). Change. Eastflompany, 64-74. Firestone, W. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research. Eonoationalfiosoarohor, 22(4), 16- 23. 117 Gay, L. (1992). Eonoationalfieooamh. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Goertz, C. (1973). IhalntmnetahanatCultmunSalutadEssaxs. New York: Basic Books. Gordon, R. L- (1987). W (4th ed). Chicago: The Dorsey Press. Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Won, Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms 1n qualitative research In Denzin N & Lincoln. Y (edS) HandhaakaLQnalitahrLaRuuru. Thousand Oaks CA. Sage Publications, Inc, 105-117. Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1983). WWW London: Tavistock. Handy, C. (1992). W. New York: McGraw-Hill. Harte. R. & Lamb, R. (Eds). (1983). IhaEnaaalaaediaDiahonanLof Psychology, (Vols. 1-4). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Herbst, M. A. (1994). The career perspective of dependent part-time faculty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Hersey, P & Blanchard K (1993) Managementafflrganizahanalflehaxian WWW (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hirschhom, L. (1984). BoyoniMoohanization. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Hirschhom, L. Gilmore, T., & Newell, T. (1989). Training and learning m a post-industrial world. In H. Leyman & H. Kombluh (Eds). Saaializahanandluming arm (pp. 185-200). Vermont. Gower Publishing Company Limited. Hollenbeck K (1996) WWW WW. Kalamazoo, MI: The W. E. Upjohn Institute For Employment Research. Hugentobler, M. & Schurman, S. (1988) LauLEaidEdnuhanalLuya W W Technical Report, ILIR University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 118 Hugentolbler, M., Schurman, S., & Stack, H. (1988). MW lam WW (draft). Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan: Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations. Detroit, Wayne State University: Labor Studies Center. Hughes, K., Frances, C., & Lombardo, B. (1991). W. (NACUBO monograph). National Associahon of College and University Business Officers, Washington, DC. Jarvis, P. (1992). ParadoxosofLoaming, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Johnston,W-. Packer A eta! (1987) WI W Indianapolis. Hudson Institute Report to U. S. Department of Labor. Katz, H. (1985).§h1flrna_GuIs._ChangmaLabaLRelahans.m.the_lLS. Automobilolnonstry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Keams, J. (1990). Wine. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. Kihnann, R. H. (1989). A completely integrated program for creating and maintaining organizational success. W, 18 (1), 5- 19. Kilmann, R. H. Saxton, M. J., & Serpa, R. (1986). Issues In understanding and changing culture. CahfamiaManagamanLReihm (V 01 28 (2) pp 87- 94) The Regents of The University of California. Kim, H. (1995). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan ManagementRayim. 35 (1). 37-49. Kombluh. H. & Greene, R. (Eds) (1989). Sahalizahanandluminutflmk. Brookfield, Vermont: Gower. Kraus, H- (1985). WWW Workers, (2nd ed.). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Lawler, E- (1992). WWW Qrganization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Namhshalnqmm. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc. 119 Love, J. G. (1994). The hermeneutics of transcript analysis. Iho WWW 2(1) Electronic Publication. Marsick, V. (1986). Loaminginihoflozkplaoo. New York: Croon Helm. McGregor, D. (1961). W. In J .R. Gordon (Ed), A Diagnostic Approach to Organizational Behavior (p. 348). Boston: Alyn and Bacon. Merriam, S. (1988)._C_aso_S_md)LR;s;mh_1nEonoation. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers. MCZiI‘OW J (1990) EWWWMMM ImsfonnatimandfimanoioatomLoaming. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Mueller, D. (1986). MoasnfingSooialAttimoos. New York: Teachers College Press. Noble, R. (1996, October 9). Whole world is Flint’s competition. Ihoflint IauInal, p. B1. Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation. (1996, February). Dx'mng Amorioalsmaissanoo. The University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute. Ottoson, J. M. (1997). Afier the applause. exploring multiple influences on application following an adult education program. Adultfidnoationflnartorly, 47(2), 92-107. Pascarella, E. &Terenzini.P. (1991). HaaLCallegaAIIeausmdams. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Perelman. L (1984) IhaLaaminaEntaIprisaMEamingfinmanfiapital and EoonomioDoxolopmmt, (The Council of State Planning Agencies, Washington, D. C.) p. xvii, p. 43. Pittengcr R (1960) IhaEiIstEiaaMinntasz-ASamnleaiMiaruaaaia IntanduLAnalxsis Ithaca, NY Martineau Polkinghorne. D- (1988). NmahxaKnaahnunthaHnmanfiaianau New York: State University of New York Press. Preski11,H. (1991). The cultural lens. Bringing utilization into focus. Now DiIeahansEIPIagIamfixalnatianAQ, 5- 13. 120 Raymasz. Spcrazi L- &Maicr J (1989) AssusingfllltumasEI amLManagoIszExoounmSnmmm. For the Massachusetts Department of Education, Executive Office of Labor and Executive Office of Economic Affairs. Wellesley, MA: Stone Center, Wellesley College. Resnick, L. (1987). Learning in school and out. W12. PP. 13-20. Rudenstam K & Newton. R (1992) WWW Camprahansixe WES Newbury Park: Sage Publications Schein, E. (1990). Organizational culture. W12), 109-119. Schein, E. (1991). WW2. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass Pubhshers. Scherer, J. (1989). Industrial training in the USA. W92. 4, 229-232. Schultz, T. (1975). The value of the ability to deal with disequilibria. Jonmalof Eaanamialitaramne. 13 (3) (September) 327-46 Schurman, S. Hugentobler, M. & Stack, H. (1988). W luxapragram. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan & Detroit, MI: Wayne State University. Schurman, S. ,,Hugentobler M. & Stack, H. (1991). Lessons fi'om the UAW-GM paid educational leave program In L. Ferrnan, N. Hoyman, J. Cutcher-Gershenfeld, & E. Savoie (Eds..) Jomtjmmmghogmms (pp. 71-94). ILR Press: Ithica, New York. Schwandt, T. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human mquiry. InN-K Dcnzin&Y S Lin001n(Eds.,) HandbmkafflnalitahxafiasquWP 118- 137) Thousand Oaks, CA. SAGE Publications, Inc. Senge, P. (1990). WWW Organizations. New York: Doubleday. Senge, P. (Fall, 1990). The leader’s new work: Building leaming organizations. Slaan ManagamanLRexiaw, pp. 7-23. Sherif, C. & Sherif, M- (1965). W WeStPOIt. Connecticut: Greenwood Press, Publishers. 12 1 Singer. E- (1992). AnthraaalagiulMathusEnuhanalResummjha W. Unpublished Paper, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Sheridan, J. H. (1996, February 19) Lessons fi'om the best. MW, 245, 13-20. Smith, B. (1996, July). The education and employee gap. Antomotix; Eradnahan. 108 (7), p. 14. Stewart, T. A. (1997, March 17) Brain power. Eormno, 105-110. Tanncbanrn S & Yuki G (1992) Iminingandhaxdaamutiniaark mutations, Annual Review of Psychology, (43). Albany, New York: Annual Reviews Inc. Taylor, J. (1977). Job satisfaction and the quality of working life: A reassessment. .laumalafmuuhanalksxahalagx. (50) 243- 252 Tichy, N., & Sherman, S. (1993). WWII New York: Doubleday. US. Department of Labor, Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) (1991), Emma—0159112918- (Washington, DC: GPO), June. Weekley, T & Wilber J (1996) MW 1h: W. New York: McGraw-Hill. Weiss R- (1994)-Wm lntondm Studios. New York: Free Press. Welton, M- (1991) mummmmmmmmm Enyironmont. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. Wickham, T. (1996, December 19). Struggle with GM continues. IhoElint .Iaumal. pp. A1, A11. Wickham, T. (1997, January 1). Flint truck plant. W 1). F1. Wirth, A. G. (1983). W W. Lanharn: MD: University Press of America. WOICO“, 11 (19941an W Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. 122 Yin, R- (1994). CasafinldxkasurahalluigrmdMathads (2nd edition)- Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. 123