UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Technology and supervision Merner, Gerald Blane 1970

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1970_A8 M47_2.pdf [ 4.57MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0103991.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0103991-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0103991-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0103991-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0103991-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0103991-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0103991-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0103991-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0103991.ris

Full Text

TECHNOLOGY AND SUPERVISION by GERALD BLANE MERNER B.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968 A Thesis Submitted i n P a r t i a l Fulfilment of the Requirements f o r the Degree of Master of Arts In the Department of Anthropology and Sociology We accept th i s thesis as conforming to the required standard. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1970 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u ? r e m e n t s f o r a n a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l m a k e i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e a n d s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e H e a d o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . , . D e p a r t m e n t o f A n t h r o p o l o g y and S o c i o l o g y T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a V a n c o u v e r 8, C a n a d a D a t e August 2 7 . 1 9 7 0 ABSTRACT. This thesis undertakes to assess the effects of tech-nology on foreman "behavior. The data were gathered by observa-ti o n i n a number of i n d u s t r i a l settings i n the lower mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia. The observer accompanied the foremen, noting the relevant technological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the fore-man's area of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and the time spent by him on various a c t i v i t i e s . The concept of production technology i s f i r s t analyzed i n terms of i t s two dimensions—conversion and transfer mech-anization. An order f o r each i s established. The term fore-man i s also considered, and some r e s t r i c t i o n s are placed on i t s meaning i n th i s study. Other technological dimensions, considered relevant to foreman behavior, are then outlined. These include the existence and size of buffers, communication aids, complexity, s p a t i a l dispersion and supervisory aids. The second part of the paper i s devoted to a descrip-t i o n of the r e l a t i o n between the machine technologies and other technological va r i a b l e s . The amount of time fbremen, as a group, spend on various a c t i v i t i e s i s then detailed, and t h i s i s then broken down by technology. Considerable variations across technologies are found. The v a r i a t i o n i n spans of control across technologies i s then described. i i A series of hypotheses concerning such things as spans of control, time spent on in t e r a c t i o n of various types with subordinates, superior and other foremen, and time spent on other a c t i v i t i e s such as slack, s o c i a l interaction, production and paper work are then drawn and tested. I t i s concluded that much of the v a r i a t i o n that appears with technology can be ex-plained i n terms of the d i f f e r e n t i a l occurrence of the other technological dimensions with technology. i l l TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I The Problem Detailed 1 II Concepts Considered 5 III Descriptions 21 IV Hypotheses and Tests 46 V Conclusions 74 Bibliography 78 Appendix I - Methodology 80 i v LIST OF TABLES Table Page I Association of Conversion Technology and Product Movement 10 II Worker Area vs. Machine Area 19 III Level of Production Technology and Other Technical Dimensions ( V e r t i c a l Percentages) 2 2 - 2 7 IV A Percentage of Time Spent on Major A c t i v i t i e s 32 B Percentage of Talking by Partner 32 V Percentage of Foreman Time Spent on' Functional A c t i v i t i e s 35 VI Fhysical A c t i v i t i e s vs. Functional A c t i v i t i e s 36 VII A Level of Production Technology and Percentage of Time Spent on Major A c t i v i t i e s 38 VII B Level of Production Technology and Percentage of Talking Time by Partner 39 VTII Level of Production Technology and Percentage of Time Spent on Functional -•" A c t i v i t y 40 IX Level of Production Technology and Spans of Control 42 X Technology and Time Spent on Production Talk, Training, and Repairs 47 XI Supervisory Aids, Dispersion, and Product Movement vs. Spans of Control 50 XII Supervisory Aids, Dispersion and Product Movement bs. Speech per Worker 5^ XIII Supervisory Aids, Dispersion and Complexity vs. Speech per Worker 56 Table XIV A Supervisory Aide, Dispersion and Product Movement vs. Speech with Subordinates XIV B Supervisory Aids, Dispersion and Complexity vs. Speech with Subordinates XV Worker Dispersion vs. Communic ition Aids XVI A Buffer Size, Product Movement, and Supervisory Aids vs. Speech with Other Foremen B Buffer Size, Product Movement and. Supervisory Aids vs. Speech with Immediate Superior XVII Complexity, Product Movement, and Supervisory Aids vs. Manual Work XVTII Product Movement and Supervisory Aids vs. Paperwork XIX Complexity, Product Movement, and Supervisory Aids vs. Slack Time XX Complexity, Product Movement, and Supervisory Aids vs. Sociable Interaction XXI Worker Dispersion vs. Amount of Walking v l LIST OF FIGURES' Figure Page 1 Three Examples of Alternate Methods of Organizing Work Flow 17 2 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Spans of Control for Product Movement and Conversion Technology 44 3 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Spans of Control with Supervisory Aids, Dispersion, and Product Movement Controlled 52 v i l ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to express my appreciation for those who have made t h i s project possible. The I n s t i t u t e of I n d u s t r i a l Relations at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia and Its acting director, Dr. Jamieson, provided most generous f i n a n c i a l sup-port. Also, the awards committee of the Department of Anthro-pology and Sociology, under i t s chairman, Dr. K.E. Burridge, provided a summer grant that allowed me to complete the f i n a l stages. I n i t i a l c r i t i c i s m s of the th e o r e t i c a l formulations and concepts by Dr. Fbschi and various graduate students were quite h e l p f u l . However, s p e c i a l thanks and appreciation must go to Dr. Meissner, whose previous t h e o r e t i c a l work and ongoing help and encouragement were undoubtedly the single most important factor i n the accomplishment of thi s research. Thank you a l l . Chapter I THE PROBLEM DETAILED Like the sergeant i n the army, the foreman i n indus-try i s known as the man c h i e f l y responsible f o r getting things done; the f a m i l i a r " b u l l of the woods" who represents both the c o n t r o l l i n g function of management and an Intimate f a m i l i a r i t y with the problems and aspirations of the rank and f i l e workers. He frequently appears i n a f a m i l i a r comic s t r i p and most people have probably served under one at some stage i n t h e i r career. In short, the foreman Is a common phenom-enon whose behavior and a c t i v i t i e s should be well-known. Yet how much i s r e a l l y known about them? There i s a voluminous l i t e r a t u r e i n the f i e l d of management science, mainly of a prescriptive nature, which attempts to set out how a good foreman should operate. What l i t t l e evidence i s available i n t h i s l i t e r a t u r e i s mainly of an experiential nature and d i f f i c u l t to evaluate. Yet, some systematic work i s available. In what Is probably the most det a i l e d study done to date, Walker and Guest ( 1 9 5 6 ) have measured how f i f t y - e i g h t foremen i n an automobile assembly plant spent t h e i r time. In addition, some data are available i n studies not primarily concerned with t h e i r behavior. Joan Woodward ( 1 9 6 5 ) , i n her excellent study of technology and i t s effects on management structure, has shown how the foreman's span of control changes with technology. Llpstreu and Reed ( 1 9 6 4 ) have shown that the frequency and duration of foremen's 2 communications changes with technology as well. However, i t i s quite evident that the data are meagre and scattered. As Dubin (1962) put i t , " I t i s one of the c u r i o s i t i e s of the l i t e r a t u r e on managerial behavior that we know almost nothing about i t i n any d e t a i l . Even such simple facts as the kinds of a c t i v i t i e s that managers engage i n and the time d i s t r i b u -tions among them are not a matter of general knowledge i n the l i t e r a t u r e . We can quote the plant manager c i t e d by Guest who says; 'You know, I'd l i k e to know what a foreman does, what he r e a l l y does.'" The f i r s t task of t h i s study w i l l be to provide these missing d e t a i l s ; to f i n d out what a foreman " r e a l l y does." A second' theme that i s woven into t h i s thesis i s that of technology. Recently, a good deal of attention has been paid to technology as a determinant of organizational behav-i o r . Dubin ( 1 9 6 5 ) has speculated that technology may be the single most important variable a f f e c t i n g such behavior. Studies i n t h i s area have tended to follow two streams—one has focussed on the behavior of i n d i v i d u a l workers [Touraine (1955); Blauner ( 1 9 6 4 ) ; Meissner ( 1 9 6 9 ) ] , and the other has focussed on the effects on organizational structure [Lipstreu and Reed ( 1 9 6 4 ) ; Woodward ( 1 9 6 5 ) ; Harvey ( 1 9 6 8 ) ] . We have, however, l i t t l e knowledge of how the technological demands on i n d i v i d u a l workers get mapped into management behavior and thus bring about the noted s t r u c t u r a l changes. A central assumption of this paper i s that the most strategic way to study t h i s mapping process i s to determine the systematic differences that occur i n foremen's behavior across technologies. By studying who they talk to, what they talk about, what they do and what they do not do, i t i s hoped that some understand-ing of the process by which technological demands a f f e c t structure w i l l be gained. Technology, which w i l l be defined i n greater d e t a i l l a t e r , w i l l be the main independent variable by which foreman behavior i s analyzed. Before a more detailed description i s presented, a d i -gression on i t s place i n the d i s c i p l i n e may be use f u l . We can, I think, outline legitimate areas of endeavour of the s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t . The f i r s t i s the description of phenomena, the second i s the construction of theory, and the t h i r d i s the explanation of the phenomena. Where a phenomenon i s part i c u -l a r l y well known one can proceed d i r e c t l y to the construction of theory with reasonably tight d e f i n i t i o n s and propositions. In effect, one's prime inter e s t becomes the construction and te s t i n g of the theory, rather than the phenomenon I t s e l f . Likewise, one can concentrate on the phenomenon and seek to explain i t i n terms of theories that are either already de-veloped or that are developed especially for the purpose. In t h i s case, the phenomenon Is the main area of Interest and the theories are only relevant inasmuch as they provide an explanation of the phenomenon. However, before either of these can be engaged i n , the subject matter must be known; at some p r i o r time, some description and lower l e v e l theoriz-ing has been done to accumulate the knowledge that allows more formalization. And as outlined above, the data on foremen are meagre. This study w i l l therefore seek f i r s t of a l l to provide a description of foremen's behavior. I t w i l l also seek to ex-p l a i n the foremen's behavior through a number of propositions concerning the e f f e c t of technology. In short, I argue that i t i s Impossible i n t h i s case to proceed d i r e c t l y to the l a t t e r two endeavours as the necessary description has not, as yet, been done. The data f o r t h i s study were gathered In a number of i n d u s t r i a l firms i n the lower mainland area of Vancouver dur-ing the summer of 1970. The sample was selected to insure as even a d i s t r i b u t i o n of technologies as possible. Data were gathered on a t o t a l of f i f t y - e i g h t foremen from nineteen d i f -ferent plants, producing a rather wide var i e t y of products. In each case, observations were made of the technological d i -mensions of the foreman's area of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . In addition to t h i s , an observer followed the foreman f o r four half-hour periods throughout the day and recorded his a c t i v i t i e s i n one-minute units. Both the technological data and the a c t i v -i t i e s were l a t e r coded and entered on computer cards f o r anal-1 y s i s . The co-operation shown by both the management and foremen involved can only be described as excellent. For a more detailed description of sampling and data gathering, see Appendix 1. 5 Chapter II ' CONCEPTS CONSIDERED Technology The word technology has been used to r e f e r to the body of knowledge involved i n the making of a p a r t i c u l a r object and i t has also been used to re f e r to the machine systems used In manufacturing. The two are not necessarily related. For instance, a technologically advanced piece of electronic equipment, technologically advanced i n terms of the amount of knowledge required to b u i l d or operate, may well be b u i l t by technologically i n f e r i o r machinery. Likewise, technologically advanced machinery may be used to produce such simple products as dimension lumber. I t i s i n reference to the machine manu- facturing system that technology i s used i n t h i s study. Two dimensions of technology, or machine systems, w i l l 2 be considered. The f i r s t dimension w i l l be referred to as conversion technology and i s concerned with the l e v e l of to o l or machine used to convert the work object from one form to another. The second dimension i s product movement. and refers to the system of transporting work pieces from one work sta t i o n to another. Product movement does not r e f e r to the l e v e l of mechanization used to move the work piece, but rather to' the pace and reg u l a r i t y of such movement. ; ^ 2 I am indebted to the early conceptual work done by Martin Melssner (1969) i n the area of machine systems. In distinguishing l e v e l s of conversion technology, the perspective w i l l be the r e l a t i v e e f f o r t required of man and machine i n transforming the material or work piece into a more refined state. The greater the proportion of a process that i s c a r r i e d out by machines, the greater the l e v e l of mechaniza-t i o n . E f f o r t , however, i s used i n a sense that i s d i f f e r e n t from i t s usual use. We do not r e f e r to the amount of force or foot-pounds of work of the engineer or p h y s i c i s t . Rather, we r e f e r to the proportion of motive and guiding forces that i s provided by man or machine. Our perspective w i l l be "what Is l e f t f o r the worker to do" i n q u a l i t a t i v e terms rather than how much e f f o r t i n physical terms the machine produces. I t i s possible to di s t i n g u i s h three l e v e l s of conversion mechaniza-ti o n . The; f i r s t , or lowest, l e v e l i s the hand t o o l l e v e l where the worker provides both the motivating power and the guidance of the t o o l or i s the primary source of both. The hand t o o l can multiply a worker's e f f o r t s but i t cannot operate without his i n i t i a l input. Examples of t h i s type would be hammer, chisels, screwdrivers, scissors, or even a rope and pulley which i s a case where the e f f o r t i s m u l t i p l i e d but s t i l l de-pends on the worker's i n i t i a l input. Guided machines are the second l e v e l of conversion technology, and i n t h i s case the motive force i s supplied by the machine and only the guidance of either the machine or work piece i s supplied by the worker— often remotely. Examples of th i s type are the power saw, the truck, the power lawn mower or a steam shovel. The head sawyer In a ,sawmill operates in. e s s e n t i a l l y the same way, only 7 remotely, by pressing buttons which change the angle of the log and move the carriage. The highest l e v e l of conversion technology i s the adjusted machine, which provides both the motive power and the guidance, but which requires either I n i -t i a l s e t t i n g or subsequent adjustment of either the machine or work piece. These devices are often constructed so that they sig n a l when adjustments are needed. Examples of this type would be steam plants, cracking towers, paper machines, and transfer machines i n engine production. A steam plant might require periodic adjustment of the steam valve or water or f u e l i n l e t but the process of d e l i v e r i n g the water and heat and taking the steam o f f i s done by the machine. A paper machine might require a s l i g h t change i n i t s speed or water mixture but i t guides the materials into the r o l l e r s and guides the operation of the parts of the machine according to a pre-determlned pattern. With each change i n conversion l e v e l , the machine takes over more of the e f f o r t and thus l e s s i s required of the worker. The speed and reg u l a r i t y with which a work piece moves through a production system becomes the c r i t e r i o n f o r ordering product movement. In the case of occasional i n d i v i d u a l move-ment, the worker either goes to the work piece as i s the- CRSP i n airplane production, shipyards, or large s t r u c t u r a l s t e e l f a b r i c a t i o n , or else the work piece passes through a section singly and at infrequent Intervals. The second category Is the occasional batch transfer system. In th i s case, work ob-jects are moved In bundles from one work place to another with 8 each a r t i c l e i n the bundle being operated upon before the bundle as a whole moves on to the next s t a t i o n . Bundles of pieces or racks of clothing In the garment industry i s per-haps the c l a s s i c example of t h i s type of transfer technology, although i t i s often very common i n the electronics Industry. The t h i r d l e v e l i s the continuous i n d i v i d u a l movement, where i n d i v i d u a l work objects move i n a continuous sequence. There i s usually a machine connection between each succeeding i n -di v i d u a l piece, such as a moving b e l t or l i v e r o l l e r s . This i s the c l a s s i c a l assembly l i n e form of movement and the most famous example i s the automobile assembly l i n e where p a r t i a l l y completed cars move along a moving b e l t with parts being added at each stage. The l a s t and highest l e v e l of transfer techr nology i s the continuous flow system where the materials move continuously with no discernible break between each Individual piece. O i l l i n e s , steam l i n e s , pulp m i l l s and a i r l i n e s are examples. In this case the materials are usually l i q u i d or gaseous. In defining the lev e l s of product movement we have re-sorted to the terms occasional and continuous to describe speed, What does th i s mean i n terms of standardized units of time? Empirically t h i s presents l i t t l e problem. I f we set an ar-b i t r a r y d i v i d i n g l i n e of less than one work piece movement per half hour for occasional, and more than one per half hour for continuous, we would f i n d few instances where the rate of move-ment comes close to the d i v i d i n g l i n e . In other words, most continuous systems move at a rate f a r i n excess of two per h a l f hour and few occasional systems achieve a rate approach-ing one movement per half hour. Thus we would argue that our scale of product movement i s o r d i n a l — b a t c h movement i s fa s t e r than occasional i n d i v i d u a l movement as a whole bundle moves on each occasion rather than one Individual work piece. Like-wise, continuous flow i s faster than continuous i n d i v i d u a l movement as there i s no discernible break between the work pieces. I f we combine the categories of conversion technology and product movement, we obtain twelve t h e o r e t i c a l l y possible combinations. However, empirically, certain l e v e l s of con-version technology and product movement are often highly clustered and i n other cases, combinations are extremely rare i f not impossible. For instance, although i t Is possible to f i n d situations where workers operate with hand tools on a continuous flow of materials, i t i s extremely rare to f i n d a whole l i n e which does so. Likewise, i t would be extremely d i f f i c u l t to f i n d a s i t u a t i o n where adjusted machines operated with occasional i n d i v i d u a l work piece flow. In sampling for this study, an e f f o r t was made to obtain examples of as many di f f e r e n t combinations of transfer technology and product move ment as possible. However, as demonstrated In Table I, only seven of the twelve t h e o r e t i c a l l y possible combinations are represented. These seven combinations show a high clustering with advances i n conversion technology being accompanied by advances i n product movement. The association i s demonstrated by a gamma v a l u e o f . 8 2 * 7 10 Table I. Association of Conversion Technology and Product Movement Product Movement Conversion Technology Occasional Individual Occasional Batch Cont. Indiv. Cont. Flow Total Hand Tools 11 6 0 0 17 Guided Machines 1 8 8 0 17 Adjusted Machines 0 3 0 9 12 Total 12 17 8 9 46 Chi Prob. = .00 . G = *82 In addition to the combinations of conversion technol-ogy and product movement outlined above, f i v e cases Involving transfer systems only were encountered. These involved l i n e s where already converted materials were taken Into storage and l a t e r moved out i n a d i s t r i b u t i n g system. In three of these cases, the movement was by batch, and i n two cases, movement was by i n d i v i d u a l piece. Thus for comparative purposes, we can see the eff e c t s of having no conversion operation at a l l . 1 1 Foremen Foremen have variously been c a l l e d f i r s t l i n e super-visors or f i r s t l i n e managers. Neither t i t l e represents an accurate description. In conceiving t h i s study, i t had been assumed, perhaps a b i t naively, that there would be a commonly held terminology for foremen amongst industries and they would be the f i r s t l i n e of management control. In fact, i n most cases i t was true that f i r s t l i n e supervisors were c a l l e d foremen; they were s a l a r i e d employees regarded as part of man-agement; and not covered by c o l l e c t i v e bargaining. However, i n seven cases, we encountered working foremen who were hourly paid employees, with the t i t l e of foremen, but who spent a s i g n i f i c a n t part of t h e i r day In regular production work. Normally, these persons had most of the other duties of fore-men as well. Although they were not o f f i c i a l l y part of man-agement, they were covered by c o l l e c t i v e bargaining agree-ments, and they were expected to go out on s t r i k e i n cases of i n d u s t r i a l dispute. In describing the working foremen, one plant manager attributed t h e i r introduction as a response to c o l l e c t i v e bargaining agreements which prevented s a l a r i e d foremen from Intervening and actually working i n c r i s i s s i t u -ations. Although data were gathered on seven of these foremen, i t w i l l not be presented i n subsequent analysis. The assumption that foremen represented the f i r s t l i n e of control was also found to be f a l s e . In fact, i n seventy-nine percent of the observed cases, we found a number of d i f f e r e n t kinds of supervision below the l e v e l of foremen. These w i l l be c a l l e d supervisory aids and can be divided into three categories. The f i r s t i s what w i l l be c a l l e d functional  authority, where an employee, usually a head operator, lead operator, or f i r s t operator, i s given r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r d i r e c t i n g other employees who also work on the p a r t i c u l a r ma-chine over which he has charge. His authority i s l i m i t e d to directions as to the operation of the p a r t i c u l a r piece of ma-chinery. The second category w i l l be termed lead hands or charge hands. These are hourly paid employees and are d i s -tinguished from those having functional authority i n that they have charge over a p a r t i c u l a r crew rather than over a p a r t i c u -l a r piece of machinery. They are able to give directions to any of the employees i n t h e i r crew handling a variety of ma-chines, but again r e s t r i c t e d to work operational matters. The t h i r d category i s the foreman assistant, who generally possesses a l l the power of the foreman, but whose decisions can be superceded by the foreman. He shares his foreman's entire j u r i s d i c t i o n and can make decisions on matters other than operational control, for example personnel matters. In some cases, the assistant foreman has complete charge over some portion of the regular foreman's section, subject to his o v e r a l l d i r e c t i o n . As can be seen from the above description, the cate-gories of supervisory aids' represent an ordinal scale. Charge hands or lead hands are not t i e d to p a r t i c u l a r machines, as i s the case with functional authority. And foreman assistants 13 are not t i e d to a p a r t i c u l a r portion of the foreman's crew and are not r e s t r i c t e d to work operational matters. Thus each category represents an Increase i n the amount of authority the aids can wield and an increase i n t h e i r potential help to the foreman. In t h i s sample, there was functional author-i t y i n thirty-one percent of the cases. In a further t h i r t y -one percent of the cases, lead or charge hands were used, and sixteen percent of the foremen had assistants. The remaining twenty-one percent had no supervisory help. For purposes of t h i s study, then, s a l a r i e d foremen w i l l be regarded as the f i r s t l i n e of management control. Hourly paid foremen are eliminated from further analysis. The term "management control" i s s i g n i f i c a n t for although there are other l e v e l s of control which commonly exist below them, these l e v e l s exist on the worker rather than on the management l e v e l . They are as a group s a l a r i e d employees, not covered by union contracts, but with many of the p r i v i l e g e s that management of f e r s . They are given authority over and are responsible fo r a p a r t i c u l a r group of men, and even though they may have help i n c o n t r o l l i n g and d i r e c t i n g t h i s group*of men, they are responsible f o r t h e i r production. Other Technological Dimensions In order to produce certain types of products, various man-and-machine components are brought together i n the Ik expectation that the end r e s u l t w i l l be the desired quantity and q u a l i t y of goods at an economically viable rate. So f a r we have examined two dimensions of the production component, product movement and conversion technology. However, other technological dimensions can have ramifications f o r the human component of the production system as well. We w i l l now examr ine a number of these with a view to defining them conceptually rather than going into d e t a i l as to why they, rather than other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , were considered t h e o r e t i c a l l y r e l e -vant. This w i l l be done i n a l a t e r chapter. However, before proceeding with the other technological dimensions, i t would be well to define a term that has a l -ready been used and w i l l appear frequently i n succeeding paragraphs. This i s section or foreman's section, which i s the part of the production organization for which the foreman i s responsible and includes men and machines. The f i r s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c to be examined w i l l be termed functional connections. I f a section i s designed to produce a cer t a i n output, one can ask i f i t i s part of a larger system and i f there are other sections occurring either p r i o r or sub-sequent to the section i n question upon which the relevant section i s dependent or which i s dependent on the section. Thus any l i n e that i s dependent upon another production l i n e or i s depended upon by another production l i n e i s said to be fu n c t i o n a l l y connected with that l i n e . The existence of such functional connections can have ramifications for problems of coordination, and the greater the number of connections the 15 greater the problems of coordination. In t h i s study, sixteen percent of the sections had no functional connection, f o r t y -nine percent were connected with one other section, thirty-one percent were connected with two other sections, and four per-cent were connected with more than two other sections. I f functional connections can cause problems of co-ordination between two parts of the production system, these problems can be mediated by the existence of buffers. Buffers can be defined as storage units into which the products of one section are placed, to be l a t e r drawn upon by a second section. Buffers insure that a breakdown i n one section w i l l not im-mediately r e s u l t i n the stopping of production of other func-t i o n a l l y connected sections. The larger the size of the buf-fer, the longer a p a r t i c u l a r section can be out of production without a f f e c t i n g other sections. Of those sections which were func t i o n a l l y connected, sixty-two percent were found to be buffered, and t h i r t y - e i g h t percent were found to have no buffers. We spoke about functional connections i n the r e l a t i o n of one section to another. We can also ask to what degree the components of a p a r t i c u l a r section are connected with each other. To some degree the s p l i t t i n g of a section Into compon-ents i s an a r b i t r a r y process. As an example, l e t us suppose that we have a task which consists of putting three d i f f e r e n t parts on a shaft and then putting a bolt on the end to hold the three parts on. Let us also suppose that i t takes four men to do t h i s task or operation. A variety of d i f f e r e n t systems could 16 "be designed to accomplish the task. Each of the four men or work stations could do the complete task, each putting the three d i f f e r e n t parts on the shaft and the f i n a l bolt'on the end, with each producing about one-quarter of the t o t a l com-pleted output and with no functional connection between them. The second way would be for each of the four to add one part, i n which case there would be functional dependence i n sequence along the production section. A t h i r d a l t e r n a t i v e Is a combina-t i o n of the two with two workers adding two parts to h a l f the shafts, each, and two workers adding one part each to a l l the shafts. Below i s a diagramatic representation of the three alternatives. I t should be emphasized that these are only three of many d i f f e r e n t alternatives available and were chosen as they i l l u s t r a t e the p r i n c i p l e most c l e a r l y . Although i t was stated that the d i v i s i o n was p a r t i a l l y arbitrary, there i s often no choice i n that each task or subtask has to f i t Into the flow of the production processes as a whole and the considerations of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n and greater production re-duces the a r b i t r a r i n e s s of the d i v i s i o n . However, the form of the d i v i s i o n has implications f o r production continuity. In Alternative 1, i f one of the workers or work stations stops, only one-quarter of the production i s affected. In Alternative 2, a l l the production i s affected, and i n Alternative 3 half the production i s affected i f i t i s worker A or B, and a l l I f i t i s C or D. The number of functional connections i n a pro-duction section w i l l be termed i t s complexity. and t h i s w i l l be measured by the percentage of the t o t a l production process 17 Figure 1. Three Examples of Alternate Methods of Organizing Work Flow Alternative 1 A " ( E r V V B " < E i - V V C • ( E r E2' Ey V D E 2, E^, Alternative 2 A = (E 1) — B = (E 2) — 1 C = (E 3) D = (E^) Alternative 3 A = ( E r E 2) C = (E 3) --- D = (E^) — . B = ( E r E 2) A, B, C, D = Workers E 1 # E 2, Ey E^ = Subtasks = Product Flow 18 that i s affected i f a c r i t i c a l work station breaks down. The greater the complexity, i . e . the greater the -number of paths through a production system, the smaller the percentage of the production system that i s affected by a breakdown. In sixteen percent of the cases, three-quarters or more of the production system would be affected by a c r i t i c a l breakdown, i n twelve percent, one-half to three-quarters would be affected, i n s i x percent, one-quarter to one-half would be affected, and i n the remaining s i x t y - s i x percent, one-quarter or less would be affected. S p a t i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n has been t r a d i t i o n a l l y an import-ant variable i n the study of human groups. Because of such factors as machine size, product size, h i s t o r i c a l development of a plant, and other factors, workers can be scattered over varying sized areas. For purposes of t h i s study, four cate-gories were developed: Workers a l l i n one room, workers i n more than one room but on the same flo o r , workers on more than one f l o o r but within the same building, and i n more than one buil d i n g or i n a wider area. Forty-five percent of the cases were concentrated i n one room, fourteen percent i n more than one room on the same fl o o r , eighteen percent on more than one f l o o r i n the same building, and twenty-four percent i n more than one building or a wider area. In the same way that workers are dispersed, machinery for which a foreman i s responsible can also be dispersed. In th i s case we would ask, i s the machinery f o r which a foreman i s responsible confined to the same general area as his workers, or i s i t dispersed i n a wider area? Table II below shows the r e l a t i o n between worker area and machine area. Table IX. Worker Area vs. Machine Area Machine Area Worker Area Same as Worker Extra Floor, Same Building Wider Area Total A l l 1 Room 10 0$ (23) More than 1 Room, Same Floor 71 29 ( 7) More than 1 Floor, Same Building 78 22 ( 9) More than 1 Bu i l d -ing or Wider Area 67 33 (12) Total (43) ( 2) ( 6) (51) Chi Prob. = .00 G = .69 I t W i l l be noted from t h i s table that f i f t e e n percent of the cases involved machinery that i s scattered over a wider area than the worker area, and that there i s a positi v e asso-c i a t i o n between, size of worker area and larger machine area with a gamma value of .69. In other words, as workers become more dispersed, machinery becomes even more dispersed. Mechanical aids, i n the form of communication devices, may also be relevant factors. In t h i s study we established 20 four classes of communication aids. The lowest contained no mechanical means of communication either to the foreman's l i n e or to points outside the l i n e . Category two included s i t u a -tions where there was a phone available to phone outside the l i n e but no communication aids to the workers d i r e c t l y i n the l i n e . In category three, there were means of communication both outside the l i n e and to occasional points within the l i n e , and i n category four there were communication devices both outside the l i n e and to a l l points within the l i n e . Telephones were, of course, the most common form of communi-cation aid, but electronic signals, loud-hailer devices, walkie-talkie radios and even portable plug-in telephones were also encountered. 2 1 Chapter III DESCRIPTIONS As outlined above, one of the main tasks of this study-i s to provide a description of a phenomenon that has not been studied very systematically i n the past. In t h i s section, we w i l l describe the association of the various technological dimensions and also outline the time spent on various a c t i v -i t i e s both f o r the sample as a whole and for the various l e v e l s of technology. Production Technologies and Other Technological Dimensions .. The point was made above that production systems were man-made and thus subject to the vagaries of human knowledge and c r e a t i v i t y . Engineers can choose to design a system that makes allowances f o r a p a r t i c u l a r problem, or they can choose to Ignore i t and have i t handled on an ad hoc basis. In this study we are not concerned with explaining how the technologi-c a l components of production systems are put together. Rather our concern Is with the effects of the components on foremen behavior. Thus, i n Table III below, we w i l l describe the as-sociation between the production technologies and other tech-nological variables, without making any attempt to explain the association or lack thereof. Included i n each section are the 22 Table I I I . Level of Production Technology and Other Technical Dimensions ( V e r t i c a l Percentages) Conversion Technology Technical Dimensions No Conversion Hand-Tools Guided Machines Adjusted Machines G P FUNCTIONAL CONNECTIONS None 0% 12> 12% 33% One Two 80 0 41 41 65 24 25 42 -.18 .66 More than Two 20 6 0 0 NUMBER OF BUFFERS No Connection 0% 12% 6% 25% A l l Buffered One Not Buffered 40 40 53 6 59 12 58 17 -.32 .49 Two Not Buffered 20 29 24 0 BUFFER SIZE No Connection 0% 12% 6% 25$ Buffer Greater than One Day 20 47 53 50 Buffer Less than One Day 20 6 6 8 -.32 .41 No Buffer 60 35 35 17 5 17 17 12 23 T a b l e I I I . (Continued) T e c h n i c a l Dimensions C o n v e r s i o n Technology No Hand G u i d e d A d j u s t e d C o n v e r s i o n T o o l s Machines Machines G COMPLEXITY 3 A - A l l P r o d u c t i o n 1/2 - 3 A P r o d u c t i o n 1 A - 1/2 P r o d u c t i o n L e s s t h a n 1/4 P r o d u c t i o n 0% 0 66 o o 100 29% 0 0 71 25% 33 25 17 - , 5 9 . 0 0 WORKER AREA A l l One Room More th a n 1 Room, Same F l o o r 20 More th a n 1 F l o o r , Same B u i l d i n g 20 More th a n 1 B u i l d -i n g o r Wider A r e a 60 65% 0 6 * 29 59^ 18 24 17% 25 33 . 0 3 . 7 9 5 17 17 12 Zk Table I I I . (Continued) Conversion Technology Technical Dimensions No Hand Guided Adjusted Conversion Tools Machines Machines G CCKMOM CATION AIDS • No Aids 0% 6% kl% 0% Outside but not to Line Outside and Occasional Point i n Line kO 20 88 k7 25 .22 .22 Outside and A l l Points i n Line kO 25 SUPERVISORY AIDS None k0% 1Z% Z9% 17% Functional Authority 20 6 2k 83 - . 2 7 .00 Lead or Charge Hands 0 82 12 0 Assistants kO 0 35 0 N 5 17 17 12 25 Table I I I . (Continued) Product Movement Technical Occ&oional ' Continuous Dimensions Individual Batch Individual Plow FUNCTIONAL CONNECTIONS None lk% 10% 13% 33% One 43 55 75 22 44 -.19 .74 Two 29 35 13 More than Two 14 0 0 0 NUMBER OF BUFFERS No Connection lk% 0% 13% 33% A l l Buffered 21 70 75 56 -.54 .04 One Not Buffered 21 10 13 11 Two Not Buffered 43 20 0 0 BUFFER SIZE No Connection Buffer Greater than One Day Buffer Less than One Day No Buffer 14 7 64 0% 60 10 30 13% 63 13 13 33% 56 0 11 -.54 .03 14 20 8 9 26 Table I I I . (Continued) Product Movement Technical Dimensions Occasional Continuous Individual Batch Individual Flow G COMPLEXITY 3/4 - A l l Production 1/2 - 3 A Production 1/4 - 1/2 Production Less than 1/4 Production 0$ 14 0 86 0 5 95 63$ o 0 38 33$ 44 22 0 -.72 .00 WORKER AREA A l l One Room 50$ More than 1 Room, Same Floor 0 More than 1 Floor, Same Building 0 More than 1 Bu i l d -ing or Wider Area 50 10 15 5 25$ 25 50 o 0$ 33 22 44 .23 .12 N 14 20 8 27 Table I I I . (Continued) Technical Dimensions Product Movement Occasional Continuous Individual Batch Individual Flow COMMUNICATION AIDS No Aids 7% Outside, but Not to Line 79 Outside and Occasional Point i n Line 0 Outside and A l l Points i n Line Ik 35% 55 5 5 75 13 13 0 100 .55 - 0 0 SUPERVISORY AIDS None Functional Authority-Lead or Charge Hands Assistants lk% 7 57 21 30% 15 35 20 25% 5° 13 13 11% 89 0 0 -.38 .00 N Ik 20 8 28 d i s t r i b u t i o n s of production technology with the other techno-l o g i c a l dimensions, together with Goodman and Kruskull's Gamma, and the chi squared probability of getting a s i m i l a r d i s t r i -bution i f there were no r e l a t i o n between the variables. The f i r s t thing that becomes apparent i s that product movement i s consistently more strongly associated with the other technological variables than i s conversion technology. The gamma measures f o r product movement are, on the average, .18 higher than for conversion technology. In addition to thi s , f i v e out of the seven conversion technology tables would be considered s t a t i s t i c a l l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t at the 5$ l e v e l , whereas only two of the seven product movement tables would be considered i n s i g n i f i c a n t at thi s l e v e l . The lack of association between functional connections and production technology stands out c l e a r l y . In the case of both conversion technology and product movement, the measures of association are weak and the chi square test shows no s i g -n i f i c a n t difference. We would thus conclude that there was no connection between the production technologies and thi s dimension. In the case of number of buffers and buffer sizes, the picture i s not quite so clear. In the case of conversion tech-nology, the measures of association are rather mediocre and the chi square p r o b a b i l i t i e s show no s i g n i f i c a n t difference. How-ever, i n the case of product movement, the measures of associ-ation are rather better and the chi square p r o b a b i l i t i e s show a s i g n i f i c a n t difference at the 5% l e v e l . We would therefore 29 accept the proposition that there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n -ship between product movement and the two variables. In other words, as product movement becomes faster, the functional con-nections are more frequently buffered and the buffers are lar g e r i n siz e . There i s a rather strong r e l a t i o n s h i p between produc-ti o n technologies and complexity. This shows,* up f o r both con-version technology and product movement separately, with the l a t t e r again showing the largest measures of association. Both are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t at the 5% l e v e l . We would thus conclude that as production technology advances, a greater proportion of the production system Is subject to disruption i n the case of a breakdown. The measures of association between both conversion technology and worker area and product movement and worker area are both weak. In addition, they are both s t a t i s t i c a l l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t at the 5% l e v e l , so we would conclude that there i s no rel a t i o n s h i p between the production technologies and worker dispersion. However, the difference between con-version technology and product movement makes i t s e l f f e l t again i n the respective relationships with communication aids. Product movement again shows a much stronger r e l a t i o n s h i p than does conversion technology, and again product movement i s found to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , whereas conversion technology i s rejected at the 5% l e v e l . We would thus c o n -clude that as product movement becomes faster, the incidence of communication aids also increases. In the case of super-visory aids, the measures of association, which at best could 30 be c a l l e d mediocre, show a negative r e l a t i o n with the two pro-duction technologies, However, the test of the significance would indicate an acceptance at the 5$ l e v e l . We would thus accept the proposition of a weak negative association between both conversion technology and product movement and the e x i s t -ence of supervisory aids. Foreman Time Use Having described the association of the technological variables, we are now ready to describe how foremen spend th e i r time. The f i r s t portion of t h i s section w i l l be devoted to a l l the foremen taken together as a group. A c t i v i t i e s , of course, can be categorized i n a number of d i f f e r e n t ways, two of which w i l l be presented here. The f i r s t breakdown of a c t i v i t y w i l l show the actual physical a c t i v i t y that the fore-man i s engaged i n , such as walking, talking, paperwork, pro-duction work, etc. In this case we are not concerned with the content of the a c t i v i t y , but only with the a c t i v i t y i t -s e l f . For instance, we make no d i s t i n c t i o n between ta l k i n g about personnel matters or t a l k i n g about machine repairs; they are both lumped together because they Involve the same physi-c a l a c t i v i t y . The t a l k i n g items, however, w i l l be further broicen down according to the partner with whom the foreman i s ta l k i n g . More about t h i s breakdown w i l l be given l a t e r . The second major way of categorizing a c t i v i t i e s i n t h i s paper w i l l be according to functional categories which have frequently 31 appeared In the l i t e r a t u r e on management and Industry, and which are a c t i v i t y categories i n common use i n industry I t -s e l f . Functional a c t i v i t i e s concern the subject matter being engaged i n by the foreman as opposed to the bodily a c t i v i t y by which I t i s engaged. For example, i f the functional a c t i v -i t y under consideration was personnel problems, t h i s could include t a l k i n g to subordinates, t a l k i n g to s t a f f members, or paperwork. Likewise, i f we were considering repairs to ma-chinery i t could consist of t a l k i n g to s t a f f members, actually engaging i n repairs, phoning outside the plant to hire repair-men, or standing and overseeing repairs. We have chosen six categories of functional a c t i v i t y , judging that these cate-gories are the most commonly used. They are production, per-sonnel, repairs, training, slack time, and s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s . In some cases multiple a c t i v i t i e s were encountered where the foreman would be engaged In more than one a c t i v i t y at a time. For Instance, he might be walking and t a l k i n g with a subordinate at the same time. In t h i s case, a judgement was made as to what was the primary a c t i v i t y being engaged in, and the time was coded according to t h i s . For a more detailed ac-count of how this was done, see Appendix I. Table IV A below shows the percentage of foreman time spent on the physical a c t i v i t y groups. The figures represent the percentage of the t o t a l observed foreman time that was spent on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y . 3 In t h i s case, the base See Appendix I f o r d e t a i l s of the c a l c u l a t i o n formula. 32 Table IV A. Percentage of Time Spent on Major A c t i v i t i e s Activity- Percent of Total Time Talking 42.4 Paperwork 14.1 Walltlng 19.9 Standing or Overseeing 5-7 Testing Product 2.3 Manual Work 8.1 Slack 6.1 Total 98.8$ N = 51 Table IV B. Percentage of Talking by Partner Partner Percent of Percent of Talking Time Total Time Subordinates 47.7 20.2 Immediate Superior 8.6 3-7 Other Foremen 9.4 4.0 Other Workers 1.9 .8 Staff 24.3 10.3 Persons Outside Organization 8.1 3.4 Total 100.0$ 42.4$ 33 for c a l c u l a t i o n would be 6,120 minutes, or 102 hours, which i s the r e s u l t of observing fi f t y - o n e foremen f o r 120 minutes each. The category of manual work includes any kind of production work whether done by hand or machine. Table IV B shows a breakdown of the t a l k i n g category according to the partner or the category of person with whom the foreman was talki n g . In t h i s case the figure represents the percentage of t o t a l t a l k -ing time that was spent i n conversation with each type of partner. In t h i s case the base for c a l c u l a t i o n was 2,597 minutes, or s l i g h t l y over 43 hours. The f i r s t thing that stands out i s that foremen spend forty-two percent of th e i r time i n conversation. I f we i n -clude paperwork as a type of communication, then a t o t a l of f i f t y - s e v e n percent of t h e i r time i s spent communicating. This, of course, would not include the non-verbal comnmnica-tIons'that may be emitted by the foremen standing and over-seeing* A second point that stands out Is the amount of time that a foreman spends on his feet. Between walking and stand-ing, a t o t a l of twenty-six percent i s accounted for, and i f we Include testing products and production work, the t o t a l comes to t h l r t y - s l x percent. In addition to th i s , most of the talking a c t i v i t y was engaged i n while the foreman was on his feet In the course of his roundsj and as an estimate, I would judge that close to seventy-five percent of his time was spent on his f e e t . Although we stated above that the foremen under consideration were part of a management group with no regular production duties, and that often they were prevented from 34 doing so by union agreements, nevertheless a respectable eight percent of the time was spent on d i r e c t manual work, often i n c r i s i s s i t u a t i o n s . I f we include product testing, which also involves handling and manipulating the work piece, ten percent of the time i s spent i n t h i s type of a c t i v i t y . When we examine the time foremen spend talking, not surprisingly, nearly half i s spent i n talking to subordinates. A factor which does come as some surprise, however, i s the comparative time spent talking to immediate superiors and to other foremen. The suspicion that has recently appeared i n the l i t e r a t u r e that more coordination occurs on a horizontal l e v e l than heretofore has been established or suspected would tend to receive some confirmation from t h i s . In fact, the foreman spends a greater percentage of his time t a l k i n g to other foremen than he does ta l k i n g to his superior, which may well indicate that coordination i s l a t e r a l l y negotiated rather than v e r t i c a l l y imposed. Another factor of some in t e r e s t i s the amount of time spent talking to persons outside the plant. The data would indicate that foremen spend nearly as much time speaking to persons outside of t h e i r organization as they spend t a l k i n g to t h e i r superiors. In view of the f a c t that t h i s type of communication i s normally not included i n com-munication models of organizations, this finding may be of i n t e r e s t . Table V below represents the percentage of time fore-men spent on various f u n c t i o n a l l y c l a s s i f i e d a c t i v i t i e s . The percentages were calculated i n the same way as i n the previous two tables. I t w i l l be noted i n Table V that the functional a c t i v i t y categories only account f o r 53-k% of the foremen's time. This i s because the functional categories are not a l l -i n c l u s i v e , and some of the a c t i v i t i e s l i s t e d i n Table V such as walking, overseeing and slack, do not readily f i t Into the functional a c t i v i t y categories. The r e l a t i o n between physical and functional a c t i v i t i e s w i l l be shown l a t e r . Table V. Percentage of Foreman Time Spent on Functional A c t i v i t i e s A c t i v i t y Percent A c t i v i t y Percent of Time of Time Production 2 9 . 0 Sociable - a l l 3 . 0 Personnel 6 . 6 Sociable, with subordinates only . 9 Repairs 8 . 3 Training 5 . 6 Total 53.*+ Not unexpectedly, the foreman spends the largest por-tion, twenty-nine percent, of his time engaged In a c t i v i t i e s concerning production. In a sense t h i s i s a most problematic category. I f i t i s argued that the production system Is a t e l e o l o g i c a l system designed to produce certain quantity and qua l i t y of goods, then i t could be argued that a c t i v i t i e s con-cerning personnel or repairs should be included In production a c t i v i t i e s , as they are performed "In order to produce." However, fo r purposes of this paper, the production category was l i m i t e d to t a l k i n g about production, and reporting on pro-duction accomplished or production scheduled. Another fact of interest i s that more time i s spent on machine repairs than on personnel matters. However, i f we include the time spent on tr a i n i n g and j n sociable a c t i v i t y with subordinates, then we f i n d a t o t a l of 1 3 . 6 $ of the time spent i n a c t i v i t i e s which could be termed concern f o r the hu-man component as opposed to the machine component. The categories of functional a c t i v i t i e s cut across the physical a c t i v i t i e s , and as demonstrated i n Table V do not ac-count f o r a l l of a foreman's time. Table VI below shows the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the physical and functional a c t i v i t i e s . A blank i n a c e l l indicates that the physical a c t i v i t y was not included i n the functional a c t i v i t y for that column. Table VI. Physical A c t i v i t i e s vs. Functional A c t i v i t i e s Physical A c t i v i t y Production Personnel Repairs Training Sociable Talking 2 6 . 4 1 3 . 4 6 . 9 4 . 4 3 . 0 Paperwork 7 . 7 3 . 3 1 .1 2 . 2 Walking 1 .2 Standing Product Testing Manual Work 1 ,9 Slack ean minutes per two-hour period. 37 Levels of Production Technology and Foremen A c t i v i t i e s The explanation of the variations i n time use that oc-cur across technology i s the task of a succeeding chapter. We w i l l therefore at thi s point present the major a c t i v i t y groups and functional a c t i v i t i e s , broken down according to product movement and conversion technology without a great deal of elaboration upon them. Tables VII A, VII B and VIII below are a breakdown of those which appeared i n IV A, IV B and V above. Again, the figures represent the percentage of the t o t a l time that the respondents i n the category spent on the p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y , with the exception of the breakdown i n the t a l k i n g categories, where the c a l c u l a t i o n base i s given. One of the most int e r e s t i n g things that i s apparent from these two tables i s that a c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p i s apparent i n many of the categories. This type of relat i o n s h i p has frequently appeared i n the past i n the study of i n d u s t r i a l s o c i o l o g y . A clear example of thi s appears i n production work where there i s a steadily increasing amount of time spent on t h i s i n both conversion technology and product movement un-t i l the highest l e v e l , where i t again drops o f f to p r a c t i c a l l y nothing. R. Blauner, 1964, Alienation and Freedom, Chicago, Univer-s i t y Press; M. Fullan, 1970»Type of Technology and Worker Integration i n the Organization, paper presented to the Annual Meeting C.S.S.A., Winnipeg, Manitoba; M. Meissner, 1969, Technology and the Worker. San Francisco, Chandler; J . Woodward, 1965. I n d u s t r i a l Organization. London, Oxford University Press. 38 Table VII A. Level of Production Technology and Percentage of Time Spent on Major A c t i v i t i e s Conversion Technology A c t i v i t y No Conversion Hand Tools Guided Machines Adjusted Machines Talking 39.2% 45.8% 39.1% 43.9% Paperwork 14.2 16.8 9.6 16.7 Walking 33.7 18.8 16.5 20.9 Standing or Overseeing 6.7 8.1 6.4 1.0 Testing Product 1.0 1.1 6.4 1.0 Manual Work" 1.0 5.6 17.8 .9 Slack 2.7 2.6 4.6 14.5 N 5 17 17 12 Product Movement Occasional Continuous A c t i v i t y Individual Batch Individual Flow Talking 46.7% 43.0% 33.8% 42.1% Paperwork 8.3 20.7 10.5 11.8 Walking 23.2 14.9 22.5 24.0 Standing or Overseeing 11.4 2.0 10.2 1.3 Testing Product 1.4 3.9 1.2 1.1 Manual Work 5.V 11.6 . 12.7 .6 Slack 2.4 3.2 6.9 17.4 N 14- 20 8 9 39 Table VII B. Level of Production Technology and Percentage of Talking Time by Partner Conversion Technology Partner No Conversion Hand Tools Guided Machines Adjusted Machines Subordinates 3 3 . 2 $ 46 .3$ 5 5 . 3 $ 4 5 . 3 $ Immediate Superior 4 . 3 8 . 8 5 . 5 13-9 Other Foremen 1 0 . 6 1 1 . 7 7 . 0 8 . 5 S t a f f 2 5 - 5 2 3 - 5 24 .6 24 .5 Other Workers 5 . 9 1 .5 1 .9 1 .1 Persons Outside Organization 2 0 . 4 8 . 1 5 . 7 6 . 2 Base f o r $ Calculation 235 935 798 629 No. of Foremen 5 17 17 12 Product Movement Partner Occasional Individual Batch Continuous Individual Flow Subordinates 5 4 . 8 $ 3 8 . 9 $ 5 2 . 0 ^ 5 2 . 3 $ Immediate Superior 7 . 6 • 5-2 9 . 8 1 7 . 1 Other Foremen 1 2 . 2 9 . 1 5 . 2 8 . 4 S t a f f 1 5 . 5 3 3 . 0 2 5 . 6 18 .7 Other Workers 2 . 3 2 . 3 1 .9 . 1 Persons Outside Organization 3 . 5 1 1 . 4 5 . 5 3 . 1 Base for $ Calculation No. of Foremen 785 14 1032 20 325 8 455 9 40 Table VIII. Level of Production Technology and Percentage of Time* Spent on Functional A c t i v i t y Conversion Technology A c t i v i t y No Conversion Hand Tools Guided . Machines Adjusted Machines Production 27.0% 3k.6% 25.2% 27.2% Personnel 8 .3 4 . 1 6.7 9 .3 Repairs 5.3 4 .1 9.6 13.7 Training 8.4 5.8 3.3 Sociable, a l l 4 .3 3.1 1.3 5 A Sociable, with Subordinates only . 3 1.2 .5 1.6 Slack .2 1.6 1.6 11.2 N = 5 17 17 12 Product Movement A c t i v i t y Occasional Individual Batch Continuous Individual Flow Production 33.3% 31.5% 20.7% 24.0% Personnel 4 .2 7.0 9 .6 6.8 Repairs 3-5 6.1 13.8 15.7 Training ,7 8.4 5.8 3.2 Sociable, a l l 4 .2 2.7 1,2 3.2 Sociable, with Subordinates only 1.6 .6 1.2 Slack 1.3 1.6 2 .0 13.9 N == Ik, 20 8 9 As also can be seen, the variations i n the categories across technologies are at times qraite substantial. However, as stated above, the explanation of these variations w i l l be the object of a l a t e r section. Span of Control The span of control of a foreman i s the number of work-ers under his control. There has been some debate i n the l i t -erature as to whether there i s such a thing as a span of con-t r o l , by which i s meant, i s there an optimum number of persons which can be controlled by one supervisor. In the substantive area, both Entwistle and Walton ( l 9 6 l ) and Woodward (1965) found that there was no r e l a t i o n s h i p between the size of the organization and the span of control of either chief executives or f i r s t l i n e supervisors. However, Woodward did f i n d that there was a considerable difference of span of control of f i r s t l i n e supervisors by technology. For unit production organiza-tions, which would be roughly equivalent to hanl technology combined with i n d i v i d u a l or batch movement, the median span of control was twenty-three with the major range between ten and f i f t y . For mass production, which would be roughly equivalent to guided machines, the median was forty-seven, and the major range t h i r t y to seventy. For process production, which would consist of adjusted machines, the median was thirteen and the range zero to t h i r t y . In short, the span of control doubled 42 from unit to mass production technology and then dropped sharply with more advanced automation. Table IX below shows the mean, the median, and the range of spans of control for conversion technology and product movement. I t w i l l be noted that the c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p found by Woodward i s supported i n these data, and i n fac t the medians are remarkably s i m i l a r to her findings. In the case of product movement, the medians f o r i n d i v i d u a l or batch movement are 21.5 and 22 respectively, whereas i n Woodward's data i t was 23 . The median of 39.5 for continuous i n d i v i d u a l movement i s considerably below the median of 47 found i n her study. In the case of continuous flow, the medians are i n complete agreement i n the two studies. Table IX. Level of Production Technology and Spans of Control Conversion Technology Mean Median Range No Conversion 14.6 18.0 6-18 Hand Tools 31.2 32.0 8 - 5 6 Guided Machines 34.6 35.0 9-76 Adjusted Machines 11.4 11.5 6-16 k3 Table IX. (Continued) Product Movement Mean. Median Range Individual 27.5 21.5 8 - 53 Batch 28 .2 22.0 6 - 7 6 Continuous Individual 33.6 39-5 9 - 5 0 Continuous Flow 12.1 13.0 6 - 1 6 In speaking of the size of a span of control, the mea-sures of central tendency, and even the range, give us no idea of the shape of the d i s t r i b u t i o n s . The existence of uni- or multi-modality may well give clues as to further explanations of the va r i a t i o n s . Figure 2 below consists of a series of histograms showing the d i s t r i b u t i o n of spans of control for each l e v e l of product movement and conversion technology. In the case of conversion technology, the d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r no conversion and f o r adjusted machines are both quite compact, whereas those for hand conversion and guided machines are much more spread and much less regular. Not surprisingly, the mean span of control for hand conversion and guided con-version are at lea s t double those of no conversion and adjusted machines. In the case of product movement, continuous flow also shows a compact d i s t r i b u t i o n , whereas the other three 4 4 Figure 2 . D i s t r i b u t i o n of Spans of Control for Product Movement and Conversion Technology CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY w o o u CD fi No Conversion Hand Tools Guided Machines Adjusted Machines 80- r 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 <q Median 0 1 2 3 ^ 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Number of Foremen Individual 80 70 60 !^ 50 O 1 5 40 o u 30 . Cl) fi I 20 PRODUCT MOVEMENT Batch Cont. Individual Cont. Flow <t Median 10-0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Number of Foremen categories are a l l more widely d i s t r i b u t e d and i r r e g u l a r , the next chapter we w i l l t r y to explain some of these v a r i atlona. 46 Chapter IV HYPOTHESES AND TESTS The f i r s t hypothesis i s derived from our d e f i n i t i o n of technology. As the l e v e l of technology advances, more of the work element i s b u i l t Into the machine, and less Is l e f t f or men to do. I f our measurement i s reasonably accurate, and I f we can assume that a foreman's prime function i s to insure a reasonable l e v e l of production from his l i n e , i t should f o l -low that more time w i l l be spent on machine repairs and main-tenance, as more of the work element i s b u i l t Into the machine. At the same time, as the human element becomes r e l a t i v e l y less important, he should spend less time on talking about produc-ti o n matters with workers and less time on worker t r a i n i n g . Table X below shows the mean number Of minutes per two-hour period spent on each of these categories of a c t i v i t y f o r both conversion technology and product movement. 4? Table X. Technology and Time Spent on Production Talk, Training, and Repairs Conversion Technology Production Talk (Subordinates) Training Repairs No Conversion 1 3 .4 1 .8 6.4 Hand Tools 19.8 1 0 . 1 4.8 Guided Machines 18 .6 6 . 9 1 1 . 5 Adjusted Machines 1 3 . 3 3 - 9 16,4 Product Movement Production Talk (Subordinates) Training Repairs Individual 2 2 . 1 8 . 0 4 .2 Batch Movement 1 6 . 7 8 .2 7.4 Continuous Individual 1 5 . 0 1 .6 13.8 Continuous Flow 14.8 3,8 1 5 . 7 Figures are mean minutes per two-hour period. As can be seen, production talk does tend to decrease with advancing technology. In the case of product movement, there i s a decrease of 7 . 3 minutes, or about one-third, from i n d i v i d u a l movement to continuous flow. . I f we ignore the case of no conversion, where there i s no work piece transformation, there i s a decrease with advancement i n conversion technology of 6 . 4 minutes, which i s again a decrease of about one-third from low to high technology. In the case of t r a i n i n g the de-crease i s even more marked, with the exception again of no conversion, where as there i s only work piece movement and no transformation, one would expect l i t t l e t r a i n i n g to "be done. Time spent on repairs shows, as predicted, the opposite trend. In the case of conversion technology, foremen i n the highest l e v e l , adjusted machines, spend nearly t r i p l e the time on ma-chine repairs as do the lower l e v e l s of no conversion or hand tools. In the case of product movement, the amount of time spent oh repairs quadruples from the lowest to the highest l e v e l . We would therefore conclude that the hypothesis de-ri v e d from our d e f i n i t i o n of technology receives support. Our second hypothesis concerns the span of control of a foreman. And the question one would ask i s , why i s i t that the spans of control vary so widely? F i r s t , i t should be pointed out that the span of control of any one foreman can vary from day to day, especially i n the lower l e v e l s of tech-nology, but even i n what one would c a l l the middle l e v e l s . During the course of this study, the author frequently saw machines l y i n g i d l e , and upon occasion, saw f a i r l y large num-bers of people being l a i d o f f when a p a r t i c u l a r job was over. This, of course, did not appear as frequently i n the more advanced adjusted continuous flow technologies, where, as can be seen from the descriptive section, the work force was probably at a bare minimum to begin with. 49 I f one proposes that a supervisor's prime function Is to insure that the production of a p a r t i c u l a r section of an organization runs smoothly and e f f i c i e n t l y , then there are two rather commonsense factors that would a f f e c t the numbers of workers that i t i s possible for the supervisor to control. The f i r s t of these i s the s p a t i a l concentration or dispersion of the workers, and the second Is the amount of help the fore-man has i n doing h i s job. In the f i r s t case, we would propose that the more concentrated the workers are, the more he w i l l be able to supervise. Likewise, the more help i n the form of supervisory aids.the foreman has, the more workers he w i l l have under his span of control. However, what about the problem of mechanization? On one hand, we have argued that as conversion technology i n -creases, more of the e f f o r t i s b u i l t into machinery. There-fore, one would expect that a supervisor of higher technol-ogies would be able to supervise more workers than a lower technology, as less i s required of the workers and, i n d i r e c t l y , of him. However, by d e f i n i t i o n of product movement, produc-t i o n speed increases as technology increases. We could there-fore argue that as the production speed increases, the problems of coordination become more c r i t i c a l , demanding quicker deci-sions on the part of supervisors, who would thus be r e s t r i c t e d i n the number of workers they could supervise. Given the high degree of association between the two technologies and the two apparently contradictory hypotheses, which would receive support? 50 Table XI below shows the mean number of workers per foreman by category of dispersion, supervisory aids, and pro-duct movement. Worker dispersion was dichotomized at one f l o o r or smaller, and greater than one f l o o r or larger. Supervisory aids were s p l i t into two categories with functional authority or no supervisory help i n one category and lead hands or a s s i s t -ants i n another category. Product movement was dichotomized with batch or slower i n one category and continuous Individual or continuous flow i n the higher category. Product movement was selected because of i t s high association with manj of the other variables and because i t was f e l t that i t would give the speed hypothesis i t s most c r i t i c a l test. Table XI. Supervisory Aids, Dispersion, and Product Movement vs. Spans of Control Slow Movement Fast Movement Workers Workers Workers Workers Concentrated Dispersed Concentrated Dispersed L i t t l e 12.1 1 10.0 15.0 14.6 Supervisory Aid N * 8 N = it- N 5= 5 N - 8 Greater 37-7 29.7 46.0 47.0 Supervisory Aid N = 15 •N = 7 N = 2 N = 2 Weighted Mean Difference - Dispersion = - 3 , 9 6 Product Movement = 7.64 Supervisory Aids = 26.40 ean number of workers per foreman. As can be seen, the existence of supervisory aids pro-vides by f a r the most s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e — a weighted mean difference of 2 6 . 4 . The speed hypothesis tends to be discon-firmed by the data. Rather than being able to handle fewer workers as product movement increases, the data show that there i s a weighted mean increase of 7 . 6 4 as technology i n -creases. However, worker concentration has had the predicted e f f e c t . The supervisors of concentrated l i n e s can handle a weighted mean of 3*96 more workers than supervisors of d i s -persed l i n e s . We would therefore accept the hypothesis that the span of control i s a product of the dispersion of the workers, the amount of e f f o r t b u i l t into the machinery, and the amount of help the foreman receives*in the way of super-visory aids. Figure 3 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n s of the spans of con-t r o l f o r the same conditions as Table X. The clearest p i c -ture that emerges from the histograms i s the r e l a t i v e d i s t r i -butions of spans of control with and without supervisory aids. In a l l cases, both the upper and lower range of the l i t t l e supervisory a i d categories are lower than the corresponding ranges of a l l the greater supervisory a i d categories. However, no clear picture emerges i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n s for dispersion and technology. The next question to be addressed i s , what are the de-terminants of the amount of tal k i n g that foremen engage i n with t h e i r subordinates? We have seen from the descriptive a-^ction that the amount of communication with subordinates 52 Figure 3. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Spans of Control with Supervisory Aids, Dispersion, and Product Movement Controlled 4 3 2 .1 Slow Movenent, Concentrated, - Aid Slow Movement, Dispersed, - A i d JL $ I 6 ~ 2 0 30 "So- '"W o5 Number of Workers a CO u o 6 i f 26—3D~ Number of Workers \7 - Median o CO h S3 2 1 Slow Movement, Concentrated, + Aid 0 3D 20 30 Slow Movement, Dispersed, + Aid 11 Number of Workers 60 ,70 80" 0~3D 20 30 40 50 60 ! Number of Workers Fast Movement, Concentrated, - Aid 4 3 £ 0 2D 20 30" £ Number of Workers o 1 Fast Movement, Dispersed, - A id 0 10 20 30 40. 50 Number of Workers \7 - Median 3j Fast Movement, Concentrated, 3 . 7 L 0 10 20 33 40 5 0 6 0 Number of Workers Fast Movement, Dispersed, + Aid I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Number of Workers 53 d i f f e r s with technologies, and the number of subordinates d i f -fers with technologies. I f the various technological dimen-sions have an e f f e c t on foreman behavior, then i t seems rea-sonable to suppose that t h i s e f f e c t w i l l act through the fore-man's subordinates, who are the persons primarily concerned with operating the machine component. This effect, then, would be best measured by the mean amount of ta l k i n g per worker and the t o t a l amount of talking with subordinates would then be the product of the mean amount of speech per worker times the number of workers i n the foreman's span of control. In the following sections we w i l l analyze how various technol-ogical dimensions a f f e c t the amount of speech per worker and we w i l l then examine the ramifications of t h i s i n terms of the t o t a l communication with subordinates. In our hypothesis concerning the number of workers above, i t was argued that the presence of supervisory aids would allow a foreman to handle more workers and Indeed t h i s was demon-strated rather convincingly. We would therefore extend t h i s and say that I f there are supervisory aids, the foreman w i l l tend to have les s verbal i n t e r a c t i o n per worker as at least some of the required communication w i l l be carr i e d on by his aids. Likewise, with advancing technology, more e f f o r t i s b u i l t Into the machine, and thus there w i l l be less communica-tio n per worker required. Table XII shows the mean number of minutes of conversa-t i o n with subordinates by dispersion, supervisory aids and product movement dichotomized as above. The figures In each 5k c e l l represent the mean speech per worker per two-hour period. This figure was derived by taking the t o t a l amount of speech to subordinates and div i d i n g i t by the number of workers under the foremen's control. The r e s u l t i n g figure then represents the average amount of speech directed toward each worker i n the c e l l condition. Table XII. Supervisory Aids, Dispersion and Product Movement vs. Speech per Worker Slow Movement Fast Movement Workers Workers Workers Workers Concentrated Dispersed Concentrated Dispersed L i t t l e l.t-3 1 1.2 1.5 1.6 Supervisory Aid N = 8 N = 4 N = 5 N = 8 Greater .7 1.0 .8 Supervisory A i d N = 15 N = 7 N = 2 N = 2 Weighted Mean Difference - Dispersion = .1 Product Movement = .07 Supervisory Aids = - .65 wean minutes of speech per worker per two-hour period. As i n the case with the number of workers, the presence of supervisory aids makes the greatest difference with a weighted mean decrease i n the amount of speech directed toward workers of -.65. In this>case, dispersion has a small e f f e c t i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n to that predicted, with a weighted 55 mean increase of .1 as workers become more dispersed. However, th i s would appear f a r from conclusive, as two of the four c e l l s run i n one d i r e c t i o n and two i n the other. In the case of product movement, although three of the four c e l l s run i n the predicted d i r e c t i o n , the o v e r a l l weighted mean difference i s only .07 i n the predicted d i r e c t i o n . One would therefore be hesitant about accepting the proposition that advancing tech-nology makes any difference to the amount of communication per worker. In summary, we would accept the hypothesis that the amount of verbal communication with subordinates i s a product of the amount of supervisory help available. The amount of communication to subordinates tends to increase s l i g h t l y with dispersion. Technology has l i t t l e or no ef f e c t . In considering the amount of communication directed toward subordinates, the concept of complexity should be ex-amined. I t was argued, i n the section on concepts, that the number of functional connections within a supervisor's l i n e , or i t s complexity, had ramifications f o r the amount of co-ordination that a supervisor had to undertake. The more num-erous the product paths, the less l i k e l y that a production breakdown would cause a breakdown i n other sections of the l i n e , thus r e s t r i c t i n g the amount of o v e r a l l production l o s t . We would therefore argue that the more complex the supervis-or's l i n e , that i s the more separate paths through the l i n e , the less supervision per worker w i l l be required as a smaller amount of t o t a l production w i l l be l o s t i n case of a breakdown. Table XIII below shows the mean amount of i n t e r a c t i o n per worker with complexity dichotomized and supervisory aids and dispersion controlled as well. As i n the previous case, speech per worker i s the t o t a l amount of speech to subordin-ates divided by the number of subordinates. Table XIII. Supervisory Aids, Dispersion and Complexity vs. Speech per Worker Simple (Pew Paths) Complex (Many Paths) Workers Workers Workers Workers Concentrated Dispersed Concentrated Dispersed L i t t l e 1.5 1 2.2 1.3 .6 Supervisory Aid N = 4 N = 8 N = 9 N = 4 Greater .5 .8 .7 .9 Supervisory . N = 16 N - 5 Aid N = 1 N = 4 Weighted Mean Difference - Dispersion = .07 Supervisory Aid = -.68 Complexity = -.34 "Htean minutes of speech per worker per two-hour period. As can be seen, the complexity of a l i n e , or the number of alternate paths of work flow available, tends to decrease the amount of communication per subordinate. However, a rather i n t e r e s t i n g Interaction e f f e c t seems to be occurring. Taken over a l l , complexity makes a weighted mean difference of -.34 fo r the whole table. However, the presence of supervisory aids seems to modify the e f f e c t of complexity. Where there are no supervisory aids available, complexity has a weighted mean difference of -.87, indicating that It has a rather strong e f f e c t when the supervisor has no help available. However, when aids are present, speech per worker tends to increase s l i g h t l y with complexity. The weighted mean difference i s +.16 i n t h i s case. Again, the presence of supervisory aids has a reducing e f f e c t on the amount of speech per worker. I n t h i s table, supervisory aids make a weighted mean difference of -.68, again demonstrating t h e i r importance i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p be-tween the foreman and his subordinates. Dispersion again has an ef f e c t i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n to that predicted, but In th i s case the ef f e c t i s so small as to be I n s i g n i f i c a n t . We would therefore confine ourselves to accepting the hypothesis that the amount of communication to subordinates i s a product of the a v a i l a b i l i t y of supervisory aids and the complexity, or the number of work flow paths, of a foreman's section. Having examined the effects of supervisory aids, d i s -persion, technology and complexity on speech ptr worker, we are now ready to examine the effects of the same variables on the t o t a l speech with subordinates. I f spans of control were di s t r i b u t e d evenly we would f i n d no change i n the order or r e l a t i v e magnitude of the differences made by the variables. However, we have already demonstrated that supervisory aids, technology and dispersion have an e f f e c t on the spans of con-t r o l . As t o t a l communication with subordinates i s the product 58 o f t h e amount o f speech p e r worker and the number o f wo r k e r s , we s h o u l d n o t n e c e s s a r i l y e xpect t h e same e f f e c t as p r e d i c t e d f o r speech p e r worker. T a b l e XIV A shows the e f f e c t s o f s u p e r v i s o r y a i d s , d i s -p e r s i o n and p r o d u c t movement on t o t a l speech w i t h s u b o r d i n a t e s , and T a b l e XIV B shows the e f f e c t s o f s u p e r v i s o r y a i d s , d i s -p e r s i o n and c o m p l e x i t y on speech w i t h s u b o r d i n a t e s . T a b l e XIV A. S u p e r v i s o r y Aids,. D i s p e r s i o n and P r o d u c t Movement v s . Speech w i t h S u b o r d i n a t e s Slow Movement F a s t Movement Workers Workers Workers Workers C o n c e n t r a t e d D i s p e r s e d C o n c e n t r a t e d D i s p e r s e d L i t t l e 2 2 . 3 1 12.0 . 22.2 23.8 S u p e r v i s o r y A i d N = 8 N = k N = 5 N = 8 G r e a t e r 26.2 30.3 34.5 18 . 5 S u p e r v i s o r y A i d N = 15 N = 7 N = 2 N = 2 Weighted Mean D i f f e r e n c e - D i s p e r s i o n = - .72 P r o d u c t Movement = 3 .43 S u p e r v i s o r y A i d s = 6.35 "Hdean minutes o f speech w i t h s u b o r d i n a t e s per two-hour p e r i o d . 59 Table XIV B. Supervisory Aids, Dispersion and Complexity vs. Speech with Subordinates Simple (Few Paths) Complex (Many Paths) Li-btle Supervisory Aid Greater Supervisory A i d Workers Workers Workers Workers Concentrated Dispersed Concentrated Dispersed 22.8 N = 4 25.0 N = 1 24.5 N = 8 25.0 N = 4 22.0 N = 9 27.3 N = 16 10.5 N = 4 29.8 N = 5 Weighted Mean Difference - Dispersion = -1 .48 Supervisory Aid = 6.3^ Complexity = 1.90 Mean minutes of speech with subordinates per two-hour period. Comparing the tables f o r t o t a l speech with the tables f o r speech per worker, we f i n d that, with one exception, the directions are reversed. The one exception i s technology, where the weighted mean difference for speech per worker was so small as to be suspect. These r e s u l t s suggest that those factors that tend to increase the spans of control r e s u l t i n les s speech per worker but i n t o t a l , the larger spans of con-t r o l r e s u l t i n more time being spent In ta l k i n g with subordin-ates. The decrease In amount of speech per worker i s more than compensated for by the extra workers. In both the hypotheses concerning speech with subordin-ates, we predicted a decrease i n the amount of communication 6o to subordinates as dispersion increases. Our argument was that as dispersion increased, i t would be less easy for a foreman to get around to his workers and thus he would have le s s communi-cation with them. In both of the hypotheses concerning speech per worker, th i s proved, wrong and i n fact there was a s l i g h t increase i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n . In the case.of t o t a l speech, however, there was a s l i g h t increase i n the predicted di r e c t t i o n . A possible explanation f o r t h i s minimal ef f e c t i s the existence of modern communication aids. These tend to make i t possible f o r foremen to communicate with dispersed workers from a central location, thus counteracting the eff e c t that dispersion might have. Table XV below shows the rel a t i o n s h i p between worker area and communication aids. As can be seen, as worker area Table XV. Worker Dispersion vs. Communication Aids (Percent) Communication Aids Worker Area None Phone out not Line Phone out Occasional Line. Phone out A l l Line N A l l 1 Room 35$ .65$ 0$ 0$ (23) More than 1 Room Same Floor 0 57 0 43 ( 7) More than 1 Floor Same Building 0 44 22 33 ( 9) More than 1 Bldg. or Wider Area 0 42 0 58 (12) Chi Prob. = .00 G = .81 61 tends to Increase, so does the incidence of more advanced com-munication aids tend to increase, the r e l a t i o n s h i p being dem-onstrated by a gamma value of .81. We would therefore conclude that the effects of worker dispersion are counteracted by the existence of communication aids. A foreman's section may or may not have functional connec-tions depending upon whether or not i t i s part of a larger production system. We argued that where there are functional connections, these w i l l be mitigated by the presence of buf-fers. Therefore, In considering the amount of time spent on external coordination--elther h o r i z o n t a l l y to other foremen or v e r t i c a l l y to the Immediate superior, we would argue that where buffers are small, there w i l l be more external coordination than when they are leirge. The importance of supervisory aids has been demonstrated i n a number of hypotheses already. Their function as a stand-in for the supervisor i s l i k e l y to continue i n the area of external coordination as well. However, we can assume that when I t comes to external coordination the foreman a i d w i l l not act d i r e c t l y with other foremen or with the fore-man superior. We would assume that the foreman would undertake t h i s task, leaving the other d i r e c t i v e duties to the foreman aid. Therefore, we would hypothesize that where foreman aids are available, there w i l l be fewer demands made on the foreman from his primary area of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , the section, and thus he w i l l have more time to spend on external coordination. The problem of technology must again be considered when I t comes to external coordination* As product movement becomes f a s t e r 62 the need f o r greater coordination with other f u n c t i o n a l l y con-nected l i n e s increases as a greater amount of production i s l o s t per unit of time i f the necessary coordination i s not effected. Tables XVI A and XVI B below represent the mean number of minutes spent i n conversation with other foremen and with immediate supervisors, respectively. The buffer categories were dichotomized with no functional connections or buffers of a day or larger i n one category, and buffers of less than one day or no buffer at a l l i n the second category. Product movement and supervisory aids were dichotomized i n the same manner as i n previous hypotheses. Table XVI A. Buffer Size, Product Movement, and Supervisory Aids vs. Speech with Other Foremen Large Buffer Small Buffer Slow Fast Slow Fast Movement Movement Movement Movement L i t t l e 5 . 0 1 1.1 5.5 17.O Supervisory Aid N = 2 N = 11 N = 10 N = 2 Greater 4.7 2.7 7.4 1.0 Supervisory Aid N = 14 N = 3 N = 8 N = l Weighted Mean Difference - Supervisory Aids = 1.1 Product Movement = - .2 Buffer:Size = -5.2 "^ Mean minutes of speech with other foremen per two-hour period. 63 Table XVI B. Buffer Size, Product Movement and Supervisory Aids vs. Speech with Immediate Superior Large Buffer Small Buffer Slow Fast Slow Fast Movement Movement Movement Movement L i t t l e O.O1 6.9 2.4 11.0 Supervisory N = 2 Aid N = 2 N = 11 N = 10 Greater 3.5 2.7 5.1 4.0 Supervisory N = 8 N = 1 Aid N = 14 N = 3 Weighted Mean Difference - Supervisory Aids = .5 Product Movement = 3.3 Buffer Size =-2,4 ''"Mean minutes of speech with Immediate superiors per two-hour period. As can be seen, the size of the buffer makes consider-able difference to the amount of communication that occurs both with other foremen and with Immediate supervisors. Also, they make a greater difference i n communication with foremen than with supervisors. In the case of communication with other fore-men, an Increase i n product movement brings about a decrease i n the amount of communication to other foremen In three out of the four c e l l s , although when weighted, the difference Is only -.2. The ef f e c t of supervisory aids Is also far from clear. Although o v e r a l l they make a weighted mean difference 64 of 1.1, i n two comparisons they bring about a decrease and i n two they bring about an increase. In the case of communication with superiors, an increase i n the speed of product movement brings about an increase i n the amount of in t e r a c t i o n with superiors, with a weighted mean difference of 3 .3 . However, here again, an interesting i n t e r -action e f f e c t appears to be occurring. When there i s l i t t l e supervisory aid, the .amount of communication with superiors tends to increase rather r a d i c a l l y . However, when there i s a greater amount of supervisory aid, the amount of in t e r a c t i o n decreases as technology increases. As a r e s u l t of t h i s i n t e r -action effect, the existence of supervisory aids makes a weighted mean difference of "only .5 -We would therefore accept the hypothesis that the smaller the buffers, the more inte r a c t i o n w i l l occur both with other foremen and with immediate superiors and that t h i s i n t e r -action w i l l also tend to increase with greater production speed and with the existence of supervisory aids. Although i t was stated that foremen had no regular production work duties, i t was shown i n the description sec-t i o n that a respectable amount of t h e i r time was actually spent on manual work. We have argued i n the past that the more complex a foreman's l i n e , that i s , the more work flow paths through the l i n e , the smaller w i l l be the eff e c t of a breakdown along any one of those paths. However, with simpler l i n e s , a breakdown w i l l a f f e c t a larger part of the 65 production. We would therefore argue that as sections become more complex, there w i l l be l e s s need f o r foremen to intervene and actually p a r t i c i p a t e i n production work, as a smaller amount of production w i l l be affected. We can also argue that as product movement Increases, the amount of manual work w i l l increase because f o r any unit of down time, a greater amount of production w i l l be l o s t . In other hypotheses, we have seen the e f f e c t of supervisory aids as stand-ins f o r the foremen. We would presume that t h i s would tend to carry on i n the area of manual work as well, where i f a foreman has a supervisory aid, I t w i l l be less necessary for the foreman to intervene. Table XVII below shows the breakdown of manual work by complexity, product movement, and supervisory aids. Table XVII. Complexity, Product Movement, and Supervisory Aids vs. Manual Work Slow Movement Fast Movement Simple Complex Simple Complex L i t t l e O.O1 14.5 1.6 23.0 Supervisory Aid N = 1 •N = 11 N a 11 N = 2 Greater 1.0 10.4 19.0 8.0 Supervisory Ai d N = 2 N = 20 N = 3 N = 1 Weighted Mean Difference - Complexity = 12.1 Supervisory Aids = -1.5 Product Movement = 3.3 "*"Mean minutes of manual work per two-hour period. 66 As can be seen, an Increase i n product movement does tend to increase the amount of production work,that a super-v i s o r engages i n and the existence of supervisory aids does tend to decrease the amount of production work. However, contrary to our hypothesis, there i s a rather respectable i n -crease i n manual work as the number of work flow paths i n -creases. There i s also an int e r e s t i n g i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t be-tween complexity and supervisory aids. In the case of simple linesr-having supervisory aids tends to increase the amount of manual work. However, i n the case of complex l i n e s , supervis-ory aids tend to decrease the amount of manual work done by foremen. A possible explanation of t h i s contrary r e s u l t would involve a re-examination of the sort of manual work that a foreman does. Generally speaking^ i t can be divided into two classes. The f i r s t would be intervention i n c r i s i s situations to help clear up blockages or to engage i n machine repairs or transportation. This sort of manual work would account for the increase i n production with increasing technology. How-ever, i n certain sorts of l i n e s , often encountered i n the gar-ment industry, the foremen engage i n what could be termed pro-totype manufacture. In t h i s s i t u a t i o n they make the o r i g i n a l or prototype garment of what w i l l l a t e r become a regular pro-duction run. The same sort of s i t u a t i o n i s encountered i n other unit or batch production l i n e s where a s p e c i a l i z e d s k i l l i s needed or they wish to avoid an interruption of the workers" regular routine. This sort of manual work occurs most f r e -quently i n l i n e s that happen to be more complex, which would account f o r the apparently contradictory r e s u l t s i n the case of product movement and complexity, both of which argued that the amount of production work should increase as more of the production process became affected by breakdowns. Paperwork i s a form of communication and we have seen that the amount of communication to subordinates, superiors, and other foremen i s affected by the presence of supervisory aids and by the speed of product movement. We can argue that these dimensions w i l l have an e f f e c t on the amount of paper-work as well. As production speed increases, a greater quan-t i t y i s produced. However, the production process becomes more regular and mechanized counting devices are more often included i n the machinery to t a l l y production. We would there-fore predict less paperwork as technology advances. Super-visory aids tend to share a foreman's work load so we would predict less paperwork f o r foremen with greater supervisory aid. Table XVIII shows the breakdown of time spent on paper-work. Although there i s a weighted mean decrease i n the pre-dicted directions, an inter e s t i n g Interaction e f f e c t i s ap-parent. Where product movement Is slow, having supervisory aids tends to decrease the amount of paperwork done by fore-men. However, supervisory aids have the opposite e f f e c t where product movement i s faster. In the case of fast product movement, the o v e r a l l amount of paperwork i s less and the d i f -ference made by supervisory aids i s smaller. 68 Table XVIII. Product Movement and Supervisory Aid vs. Paperwork Slow Movement Fast Movement L i t t l e 2 0 . 7 1 11.6 Supervisory A i d • N = 12 N = 13 Greater 13.4 16.6 Supervisory Aid N = 22 N = 4 Weighted Mean Difference - Product Movement = -2.8 Supervisory Aids = -3.2 1 Mean minutes spent on paperwork per two-hour period. In the section devoted to descriptions, i t was shown that the amount of slack time varies widely across technol-ogies. Although we did not give a very exact d e f i n i t i o n of slack time, we would mean time where other demands are not being made on a foreman and thus he i s free to either contem-plate or to just s i t and relax. In the past we have argued that as sections become more complex, breakdowns become less c r i t i c a l . We have argued from the point of a poten t i a l threat, that i n the more simple l i n e s the foreman has to be available i n case of a breakdown with no i n d i c a t i o n that a breakdown w i l l a c t u a l l y occur. I f we continue t h i s argument, we would have to assume that the foreman, , although available for the potential threat, w i l l not necessarily have other demands 70 to decrease with complexity, as was predicted. However, It also decreases with supervisory aids, contrary to the predic-t i o n . I t should f i r s t of a l l be noted that the o v e r a l l l e v e l of slack time with greater supervisory ids i s very low, and only one of the four c e l l s shows any time at a l l . The over-a l l mean for l i t t l e a i d i s 7.3 and f o r greater a i d i s 1.8. There Is also an int e r e s t i n g i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t with com-plexit y . In the case of l i t t l e supervisory aid, complexity tends to decrease the amount of slack time, whereas In the case of greater aid, It brings about an Increase or makes no difference at a l l . We have seen that the size of spans of control and the t o t a l communication to subordinates increases with supervisory aids. We could thus speculate that this i n -creased demand on foremen's time would cause a decrease In the amount of slack time. This assumes that slack time Is a residual category that i s only available when no other demands are being made. How much time do foremen get f o r sociable i n t e r a c t i o n while on the job? We would assume that such a c t i v i t y Is a residual category, and.like slack time, i s only engaged i n while other demands are at a minimum. I t has been shown that the t o t a l communication to subordinates, to other foremen and to Immediate superiors tends to increase with complexity, product movement and supervisory aids. We would thus assume that there w i l l be less time available for sociable interac-t i o n because of the increase In other demands caused by these variables. Table XX below shows the amount of time spent on 71 sociable Interaction by complexity, product movement and supervisory aids. Table XX. Complexity, Product Movement, and Supervisory Aids vs. Sociable Interaction Slow Movement Fast Movement Simple Complex Simple Complex L i t t l e 2 1 . 0 1 3.4 3.6 2.0 Supervisory Aid N = 1 N = 11 N = 11. N = 2 Greater 9.5 2.9 .3 1.0 Supervisory Aid N = 2 N = 20 N = 3 N = 1 Weighted Mean Difference - Supervisory Aids = -1.9 Complexity = -7.3 Product Movement = -6.1 "^Mean minutes of sociable i n t e r a c t i o n per two-hour period. As predicted, the amount of sociable i n t e r a c t i o n de-creases with complexity, product movement and supervisory aids. In the l a t t e r case, the difference i s s m a l l e r — p o s s i b l y be-cause the supervisory aids themselves become an important ob-ject for sociable i n t e r a c t i o n with the foremen. I t should also be noted that the eff e c t of complexity i s considerably modified by an increase i n the speed of product movement and i n one case i s reversed. 72 F i n a l l y , before we proceed to the conclusions, one more rather unspectacular but nevertheless commonsense hypothesis w i l l be tested. S p a t i a l dispersion was shown to have l i t t l e or no e f f e c t on the amount of speech wi^h subordinates. This was at lea s t p a r t i a l l y explained by the existence of communi-cation aids. However, although communication aids are suf-f i c i e n t to overcome problems In c r i s i s situations, they are inadequate for more extended directions and are, of course, useless f o r purposes of overseeing the actual work operation. One might therefore suppose that increased worker dispersion w i l l cause an increase i n the amount of walking that a foreman has to do. Table XXI below shows how the amount of walking changes with d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of worker dispersion. Table XXI. Worker Dispersion vs. Amount of Walking S p a t i a l Dispersion of Workers Walking N A l l one room 18.6 1 (23) Same f l o o r 18.4 ( 7) More than one f l o o r 25.3 ( 9) More than one bu i l d i n g 36.5 (12) Difference, lowest dispersion - highest dispersion - 17.9 Mean minutes spent walking per two-hour period. As predicted, s p a t i a l dispersion makes a considerable difference to the amount of walking a foreman has to do. This 73 amount almost doubles from the low to the high categories. I t would appear, however, that as long as the workers are on one f l o o r , dispersion through a number of rooms makes no s i g n i f i -cant difference. Thus the spreading out of workers caused by d i f f e r e n t types of production systems has a very simple and d i r e c t e f f e c t on foreman behavior. 74 Chapter V CONCLUSIONS So f a r we have described various technological factors, and time spent oh various a c t i v i t i e s , both f o r the whole sample and as they changed across technology. We have also examined a number of technological dimensions such as speed, supervis-ory aids, buffers, complexity, and communication aids, and t h e i r e f f e c t on how supervisors spend t h e i r time. What can we conclude from a l l this? Probably the most Important variable we encountered and that which provided the clearest and most spectacular re s u l t s was the presence or absence of supervisory aids. The presence of supervisory aids more than doubled the number of workers i n the spans of control and brought about a decrease i n the amount of speech per worker. However, the decrease was not s u f f i c i e n t to compensate for the increased number of workers, with the r e s u l t that foremen with aids spend more time tal k i n g to subordinates than do foremen without supervisory aids. In coding speech to subordinates, no d i s t i n c t i o n was made between speech to supervisory aids and speech to other workers. I t i s possible that i f t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n were made, a considerable portion of the t o t a l speech to subordinates would be found to be directed to supervisory aids. This, of course, would further reduce the l e v e l of speech per worker. Supervisory aids were also shown to have a small ef f e c t on the amount of communication with other foremen and with 75 immediate superiors* They also were shown to decrease the amount of time spent on slack and sociable a c t i v i t y . This i s possibly an i n d i r e c t r e s u l t of the increased number of workers and the r e s u l t i n g increased demands that supervisory aids make possible. They also had a d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t on the amount of paperwork and on the amount of manual work that was done by foremen. In short, they had an e f f e c t on most of the fore-man's major a c t i v i t i e s . The e f f e c t of complexity also showed up In some very spectacular ways. I t brought about a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the amount of speech per worker and In the t o t a l amount of speech to subordinates. I t also showed a rather large de-pressing e f f e c t on the amount of sociable i n t e r a c t i o n and a smaller e f f e c t on the amount of slack time. The amount of time spent on manual work also increased greatly with com-plex i t y . The s i m i l a r i t y of the concept of "complexity" to "functional s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , " which has previously appeared i n the l i t e r a t u r e , might be worthwhile pursuing. The effects of dispersion on the amount of contact with employees was shown to be minimal, and th i s was explained In terms of communication aids. However, I t did have a rather r a d i c a l e f f e c t on the amount of walking that was required of the foreman, and thus i s an. important variable i n the study of th e i r behavior. I t also, apparently, had a depressing e f f e c t on the number of workers that It was possible for a foreman to handle. Has t h i s study demonstrated that technology has an independent effect? I t i s true that product movement made a difference on the time spent on a number of a c t i v i t i e s and on the number of workers i n a foreman's span of control. How-ever, the conceptualization of product movement i s l e s s than s a t i s f a c t o r y . In retrospect, one could wish that product movement had been divorced from the dimension of speed and instead concerned with the type of machine that was used to move the products. Then speed could have been handled as a theoretically independent, although probably highly associated, dimension, allowing an assessment of whether i t was speed or machinery that made the differences. With recoding, t h i s could perhaps s t i l l be done. Having arrived at a number of conclusions about how foremen spend t h e i r time i n r e l a t i o n to various concepts, i s i t possible to ar r i v e at any conclusions about foremen as a group? F i r s t of a l i i a " b u l l of the woods" or "sergeant major" stereotype i s inaccurate. Foremen's jobs vary widely with considerably d i f f e r e n t "mixes" of demands being made on them. In t h i s day and age, the heavy-handed.directive approach i s no longer tenable, and conversation during the period of re-search indicated that most of them were cognizant of the modern human relations school of management, and were trying to implement many of the ideas from i t . Although much of t h e i r time i s spent i n int e r a c t i o n with t h e i r subordinates, there i s s t i l l a most important administrative component to the job which r e s u l t s i n large amounts of paperwork, 7 7 communication to s t a f f , superiors, and outside the plant. A l -though the majority of t h e i r time i s spent In Interaction or i n administrative duties, they are ce r t a i n l y not chair-borne managers. When we consider the amount of time they spend i n walking, standing, i n production work or In product testing, a good proportion of t h e i r time Is spent on somewhat more de-manding physical a c t i v i t i e s , although they may be Interacting verbally at the same time. However, I t should be emphasized that i t Is d i f f i c u l t to speak of foremen as a homogeneous group. To the extent that there are s i m i l a r i t i e s between t h e i r jobs Is the extent that they are subject to similar demands by the technological variables that we have outlined. That these variables are important determinants of foreman behavior has been, I think, amply demonstrated. 78 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, T.R. and S. Warkau. 1961 "Organization, size and functional complexity." American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 26:23-28. Blauner, R. 1964 A l i e n a t i o n and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of I n d u s t r i a l Development, Trade and Commerce. 1966 B.C. Manufacturers* Directory. V i c t o r i a : Queen's Printer. Dubin, R. 1962 "Business behavior behaviorally viewed," pp. 12-25 i n G.B, Strothers, ed. S o c i a l Science Approaches to Business Behavior. Homewood: Dorsey. 1965 "Supervision and productivity: empirical findings and t h e o r e t i c a l considerations," pp. 1-50 i n R. Dubin et a l . , Leadership and Productivity. San Francisco: Chandler. Entwistle, D,R. and J . Walton. 1961 "Observations on the span of control." Administra-t i v e Science Quarterly 5:522-533. Freeman, L.D. 1968 Elementary Applied S t a t i s t i c s . New York: John Wiley and Sons. Fullan, M. 1970 "Type of technology and worker integration In the organization," paper presented to the Annual Meeting C.S.S.A. Winnipeg, Manitoba. Harvey, E. 1968 "Technology and the structure of organizations." American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 33:2^7-259. Indik, B.P. 1964 "Relation between organization size and supervision r a t i o . " Administrative Science Quarterly 9:301-312. Lipstreu, 0. and K.A. Reed. 1964 Transition to Automation. Boulder: University of Colorado Press. 79 March, J.G. and H.A. Simon.. 1 9 5 8 Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Meissner, M. 1969 Technology and the Worker. San Francisco: Chandler. Rushing, W.A. 1967 "The ef f e c t of industry size and d i v i s i o n of labor on administration." Administrative Science Quarterly 12:19-27. Siegel, S. 1956 Nonparametric S t a t i s t i c s f o r the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill. Terrien, F.W. and D.L. M i l l s . 1955 "The ef f e c t of changing size upon the in t e r n a l structure of organizations." American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 20:11-14. Udell, J.G. 1967 "An empirical test of hypotheses r e l a t i n g to span of control." Administrative Science Quarterly 12:420-439. Walker, C.R. and R.H. Guest. 1952 The Man on the Assembly Line. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1956 The Foreman on the Assembly Line. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Woodward, J . I 9 6 5 I n d u s t r i a l Organization: Theory and Practice. London: Oxford University Press. 80 APPENDIX I METHODOLOGY Sampling Although t h i s project concerned i t s e l f with foremen, It was not possible to sample foremen d i r e c t l y from an a l -ready established l i s t . Instead, we sampled i n d u s t r i a l or-ganizations, selecting firms from the 1966 edition of the B.C. Manufacturers Directory, published by the Department of In d u s t r i a l Development, Trade and Commerce of the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Quite obviously, this l i s t was consid-erably out of date. A l i s t of firms i n the lower mainland area of Van-couver which employed two hundred or more employees was com-pi l e d . This eventually came to 121 names. On the basis of previous experience, we assumed that the various types of conversion technology and product movement were not evenly di s t r i b u t e d . We therefore decided to select a sample from the l i s t i n the hopes that t h i s would provide a more equal d i s t r i b u t i o n of technologies. This se l e c t i o n was done on the basis of some s u p e r f i c i a l knowledge of the firms and some knowledge of the l i t e r a t u r e and personal experiences as to what types of technologies were l i k e l y to be employed i n these firms. For any one firm, however, we had no way of knowing the number of foremen that would be encountered or even the r e l a t i v e d i s t r i b u t i o n of technologies within the par-t i c u l a r firm. For Instance, one firm approached was assumed to have a predominantly adjusted machine continuous flow technology, but when we actually got into the firm we found that three out of the four foremen encountered were engaged i n d i f f e r e n t technologies. A r e l a t i v e l y high degree of co-operation was encoun-tered. Letters were sent to a t o t a l of twenty-four d i f f e r e n t firms, and of these a t o t a l of nineteen firms with f i f t y -eight foremen co-operated. One firm refused because they were undergoing extensive modifications of t h e i r machine sys-tem, but agreed to co-operate at a l a t e r date. Unfortunately, the modifications were not due for completion u n t i l a f t e r the study was over. Two firms were omitted by mutual agreement between the researcher and management, one because they had no production f a c i l i t i e s but were engaged i n branch warehous-ing only. The other was omitted because a foreign language was predominantly used by employees and management. Two firms refused to co-operate because they f e l t i t would be too d i s -ruptive to have a researcher following t h e i r foremen around. As w i l l be seen throughout the body of t h i s study, a completely even d i s t r i b u t i o n of technologies was not obtained. This was p a r t i a l l y because we did not know at any one time what further combinations of conversion technology and pro-duct movement might be encountered, because there i s no data as to what combinations actually do empirically occur. 82 However, batch movement i s probably somewhat heavily over-represented, although as i t occurs at a l l l e v e l s of conversion technology, i t perhaps should have the largest single marginal. Data Gathering The data was gathered by a researcher who accompanied the foreman f o r four half-hour periods scattered throughout the day. The foreman's a c t i v i t i e s were recorded on a sheet of paper, broken down into one-minute i n t e r v a l s . The time periods were scattered at equal i n t e r v a l s throughout the day. In cases where only one supervisor per day was accompanied, three or four schedules were available and one of these was selected at random. However, where two or three supervisors were accompanied, they were taken sequentially with as equal in t e r v a l s between them as possible. The order of t h e i r selec-t i o n on the f i r s t round was a matter of mutual convenience, although f o r the most part the same order was maintained for the rest of the day. I t was rarely possible to adhere to a r i g i d time schedule as unexpected demands on the foremen and d i f f i c u l t y i n finding them often resulted i n delays. For the most part, we were able to record the content of speaking items, although t h i s was d i f f i c u l t when noise lev-els were high. At other times, where obviously private per-sonnel matters were discussed, the observer moved o f f to a discrete distance and did not report the contents i n d e t a i l . 83 At times there was d i f f i c u l t y recording the partner i n speech acts as, of course, a l l the members of a p a r t i c u l a r organiza-t i o n were not known to the observer, but for the most part we were able to pick t h i s up by questioning the foremen after the half-hour period had expired. This was true with t e l e -phone conversations as well. The technological data were gathered by the same ob-server who at some point either on the day of the observation period or at some day p r i o r to i t walked through the fore-man's section, noting the relevant d e t a i l s . Coding and Computing The data were coded by the same person who carr i e d out the observation with three computer cards of data being a v a i l -able f o r each foreman. The f i r s t card contained the technol-o g i c a l variables and the second two cards contained the time variables. The one-minute time in t e r v a l s were a l l coded accord-ing to a pre-determined schedule of categories which included the type of a c t i v i t y , l i e . walking, talking, paperwork; the content of the a c t i v i t y , i . e . , personnel, repairs, production; and i n the case of speech acts, the partner, i . e . subordinates, superior, s t a f f member. The amount of time spent on each cate-gory was then t o t a l l e d and the res u l t s placed i n the appro-priate column on the computer card. When a dual a c t i v i t y was 84 encountered, such as walking and tal k i n g at the same time, the coder judged which was the primary a c t i v i t y . In a l l cases, tal k i n g was given precedence over other a c t i v i t i e s . Where there was more than one type of respondent i n conversation with the foreman, i . e . superior and subordinate, an attempt was made to d i s t r i b u t e the time out according to t h e i r r e l a -t i v e contribution to the conversation. A variety of computer programs was used i n the anal-y s i s . The standard U.B.C. Multi-Variate Tabulation program was used for obtaining frequencies and percentages of the ordina l variables. A sp e c i a l l y amended Select program which allowed the selection of respondents under conditions Imposed by the researcher was used to obtain means, percentages, stan-dard deviations and the numbers fo r the Interval time data. A smaller computer program was used to obtain the gamma com-putations. S t a t i s t i c s Because of the research design, i t was necessary to resort to very low-level non-parametric s t a t i s t i c s . We could not assume that the phenomenon was normally distributed, and because such a small amount of time was available f o r each foreman, we could not make the assumptions of equal variances. Also, of course, the sampling was not done In a random manner. We therefore resorted to gamma as a measure of association 85 between the nominal and ordinal variables, with the chi-square test of independence as the measure of sign i f i c a n c e . For the Interval time data, we used simply the weighted difference of means with no associated test of sign i f i c a n c e . We were unable to f i n d a test of significance that d i d not require assumptions that we f e l t could not be made with t h i s data. of the chl-squared test for small sample sizes was employed. This involved dichotomizing the ordinal variables into 2 X 2 tables. The r e s u l t s of t h i s were compared with the uncorrec-ted chi-squared p r o b a b i l i t i e s with non-dichotomized variables. Though the p r o b a b i l i t i e s varied s l i g h t l y , they both agreed on acceptance or r e j c t i o n at the 5% l e v e l of si g n i f i c a n c e . Because of the small c e l l sizes the Yates correction For c a l c u l a t i n g percentages i n the time data, the following formula was used: n PERCENT = i = l 120n 100 where x = amount of time spent on a c t i v i t y n = number of persons i n relevant c e l l 120 = t o t a l minutes of time recorded. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0103991/manifest

Comment

Related Items