Professional Documents
Culture Documents
5-1985
Paul S. Goodman
Carnegie Mellon University
This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by Research Showcase @ CMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tepper School of
Business by an authorized administrator of Research Showcase @ CMU. For more information, please contact research-showcase@andrew.cmu.edu.
To
appea~
Jossey-Bass.
F~ancisco:
Linda Argote
Paul S. Goodman
CaI'negie-Mellon
Unive~sity
May 1985
~esea~ch
fi~st autho~
fi~st
f~om
author.
Stanfo~d
Unive~sity.
Robots are
world.
While
bei~g
o~ly
i~troduced
i~ i~creasi~g ~umbers
&
i~
throughout the
the
U~ited
i~
the
&
States
i~
Hunt, (983).
U~ited
States
Little is known,
~~derstandi~g
Our
forms of automation:
The
robots used most frequently in U.S. factories today, in jobs that involve
moving material, welding, drilling, or spray painting, are called level I
Ot' first-generation robots.
bei~g
developed.
robots include those that mine underground coal seams, detect gas leaks, or
perform sophisticated
i~spection
tasks.
We i:lcorporate
:lew skills of both production and technical support personnel and require
closer i:lteractions among functional areas (Argote. Goodman, & Schkade,
1983).
Robots may displace some employees a.'ld alter the jobs of those who
Robots
tec~"lology.
and structure.
It is the compatibility
orga~izatio:ls
Trist, 1973).
that
betwee~
determi~es
their
performa~ce
compo~e~ts
of
Pen~ings,
These
routi~e
i~
the
~eed
for
exami~i:lg
i~troductio:l
multiple
Further research is
rhe few
compatible.
existi~g empi~ical
studies of the
i~t~oductio~
of
robots (Argote, Goodman, & Schkade, 1983; Argote & Goodma~, 1984; Office of
theo~etical
st~ucture,
o~ganizational effective~ess,
a~d
the
~obots
likely
e~ha~ce manufactu~i~g
is likely to
a~e
conseque~ces
usi~g
organization that
determi~e
companies
little training
p~ovide
the impact of
fo~
~obotics.
jobs of operators such that they have little autonomy and are very
dependent on technical support staff.
trai~ing
compa~ies
provide more
for their operators, design more autonomy into their jobs, and
Other
pt'omoti~g
the operator's
same.
different.
for organizations.
of the robots, the people who operate and maintain the robots, and the
organizational arrangements that support the t'obots that affect the
pet'formance of
o~ganizatio~s.
5
I~dividual
We
~ow
Employees
turn to what is known about how the
i~troductio~
i~ orga~izations.
The
of
"0 bot
i~troductio~
i~dividual
The Office of
robots removed some of the physical demands from the jobs of human
operators (OTA, 1984).
that they experienced more stress and less control after the robot
introduced (Argote, Goodman, & Schkade, 1983).
\oI8S
indicates that direct production employees felt less control with the
introduction of the welding robots, because their jobs were now tied to an
assembly line (OTA, 1984).
i~troduction
of
6
Hackma~
1964;
press).
& Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1975; Sutton & Kahn, in
(Hackman
&
Oldham, 1975).
i~dicates
that
mai~tenance
the
employees' skills and preferences, employees will feel more satisfied and
less stress with the change.
chapter for maximizing the fit between employees and their jobs and for
designing the jobs of employees, both direct and indirect, who must
interact with robots.
The manner in which robots are implemented may also affect employee
reactiona to the change.
While employees
i~
~ot
i~troduction
i~flue~ce
of the
tha~
they
actually had (Argote, Goodman, & Schkade, 1983; Argote & Goodman, 1984).
The discrepancy between how much influence they actually had and how much
they desired was especially pronounced at the second organization we
studied, possibly because the organization was unionized and had a
tradition of employee participation.
decisio~
related to their
areas of expertise.
Another dimension of the implementation process is the method
organizations use to communicate with employees about the introduction of
robotics.
L~
&
Thet'e is a
growing sense in the business literature that these human reSOurce issues
are critical to a firm's ability to compete effectively (Abernathy, Clark,
Consequently, it
A~
tech.~ologies
That is,
implemented, when new products aI'e being introduced, Ot' when unexpected
problems arise than when systems are operating routinely.
Organizational Structures
In addition to affecting individual employees, the introduction of
robots may also change the basic structures of organizations--communication
within and between departments, decision-making responsibilities, role
relationships and the like.
Studies of other
&
systems aI'e capable of performing many activities, both manual and mental,
traditionally performed by supervisors and certain support staff as well as
by direct production workers.
where the use of programmable automation has led to the elimination of one
layer of supervisors (Chen, Eisley, Liker, Rothman, & Thomas, 1984).
At
the same time, the use of intelligent robots may require more individuals
with expertise maintaining and programming robots.
Thus far, we have focused on describing how the use of robotics is
likely to change the basic structures of organizations.
Now we seek to
10
robotics typically
i~creases
the
i~terdepende~ce
He~ce
of activities performed by
We have observed
a~d
all
~ew
impedi~g
the implementation.
In their analysis of
a reward structure
~ew
11
the performance of separate groups will only amplify the conflict potential
of asymmetric interdependence.
global and long-term orientation may foster cooperation and reduce the
potential for conflict caused by asymmetric interdependence.
When the functional groups that must interact to implement new
technology are located in different at'eas or use different terminologies,
conflict is likely to surround the process.
groups are located near each other, sit in on each other's meetings to
understand each other's goals and constraints, and use a common language,
then we expect the interactions required by the introduction of robotics to
be more graceful.
Finally, the nature of people who play key roles in the introduction,
such as the lead engineer, affects the level of conflict.
positions are occupied by
.~ggressive,
When key
Centralized
More
12
The advantages
intelligent robots and computer systems are able to provide us with more
processing capabilities.
or
~~its
uncertainty.
On the other hand, the use of robotics may reduce the set-up times
required to change from one product to another.
the benefits of long production runs.
It appears
13
Technology
Finally, the third major component of an organization, its technology,
may affect manufacturing performance.
on the extent to which employees, both direct and indirect, understand the
new technology and are motivated to utilize it to its full potential as
well as on the organizational arrangements that support the technology.
At
the same time, the technology itself may have a direct effect on system
performance.
huma~
We now turn to
14
relatio~ships
with other
co~ditio~s
the
i~
pla~ts
i~dustry)
and
characteristics of the
existi~g tech~ology,
eco~omic
~ew tec~,ology
its
implementatio~
spa~
or
of robotics.
orga~ization.
productivity data obtained before introducing the new technology with data
obtained after its introduction.
sufficiently lengthy period of time for data collection, before and after
the introduction, to be able to adjust for seasonal and other shocks.
Longitudinal studies also
possible.
be~efit
i~
Goodman (1979).
Collecting data at
i~-depth
~ew
15
~o~u~io~
plants,
pla~ts
both high
a~d
low
i~ existi~g
tech~ological
machi~es
~ew
at a
co~ducted
o~
li~e.
seco~d
Ihe
handli~g
well-being of employees?
long-ter~
16
If the benefits
outweigh the costs of increased stress, are there effective strategies for
reducing the stress employees experience?
;:-:
t--
17
Previous research has
sho~
organizati~n.
outside the site include vendors (cf. Ettlie & Eder, 1984) and, if the
plant is part of a larger corporation, members of corporate support
groups.
their perceptions and beliefs (cf. Dearborn & Simon, 1958), collecting data
from individuals in these different departments and different hierarchical
levels provides us with a balanced view of the implementation as well as
with the perspectives of different constituencies.
Levels of Analysis and Statistical
~,alyses
fOt~al
18
of analysis.
L~sights
study, some of the more interesting insights came from our respondents'
answers to open-ended questions regarding their thoughts on what a robot
was and how it affected them and their jobs.
time, the nonindependence of data collected from the same individuals over
time, the lack of an adequate conceptual scheme for representing the
technology variable, the lack of instrumentation, problems in sampling
technology uset's, and the nonequivalence of control groups in field
research.
(1984)
It will take
19
now in the process of introducing robots into their factories.
best information currently available about effective
utilization strategies?
Our studies
~,d
impleme~tation a~d
What is the
introduci~g
Job Displacement
Yet, this is
In-house training
the firm should be open with its employees and let them know as soon as
possible who will lose their jobs as a result of the new technology.
Ideally, the company should provide assistance writing resumes,
interviewing, and finding new jobs, to individuals affected by the change.
20
new job and maximize the fit or congruency between job and employee
characteristics.
perform the new activities, but also whether the employee likes to perform
the new activities.
prefer manual to cognitive activities; for these employees there would not
be a good fit between the job of robot operator and their preferences for
manual wot'k.
The possible
t:
t--
Job
21
rotatio~
Job
may be a
rotatio~
mecha~ism
would also
a~d
to alleviate boredom
i~crease
i~dividual
to decrease stress.
compa~y
employee, build
more flexibility
staffing.
Moreover, there is evidence from the airline
i~dustry
that
compa~ies
with more flexible work rules are more productive than their counterparts
with less flexible rules (Bailey, Graham, & Kaplan, 1985).
both union and
work rules.
non-u~ion,
are
movi~g
Many
compa~ies,
organizatio~s
i~
advance
Special
i~creased i~teraction
areas may
a:ld
mai~tenance.
New
to be developed.
~eed
critical as the
~umber
coot'di~ation
These
mecha~isms
of installations of the
organizatio~s
i~
~ew
i~creases.
coordi~ation
pt'oductio~
e~gi~eeri~g
manufacturi~g,
a~d
share
i~formatio~
L-.
among
~.
i~
marketi~g,
22
Arranging for members of different functional areas to sit in on each
other's meetings is a step towards promoting coordination as well as
cooperation across areas.
across functional areas are discussed in Riggs (1983) and Galbraith (1973).
Earlier studies of automation found that the increased automation of
production tasks and the concomitant decrease in the number of people on
the shop floor led to employees feeling isolated (Whyte, 1961).
Operators
in our first study also reported that they felt isolated and did not have
as much opportunity to talk with their co-workers in the department since
the operators did not want anyone breaking their concentration.
have the sense that the increased sense of isolation was severe.
We did not
The
technologies who are likely to feel greater' stress, at least in the short
run, are not deprived of a means of dealing with the increased stress.
Management should consider stt'ategies for building social support and
opportunities for interaction into roboticized systems.
The introduction of robotics may require changes in an organization's
pay system.
depend on decisions the company makes about allocating tasks between direct
and indirect employees.
roboticized systems depends not only on the performance of the operator and
the equipment but also on the quality of the design and programming of the
system.
23
performance on the basis of the contribution of individuals; instead,
rewarding performance at the level of the group of people who contribute to
the system may be more appropriate.
Implementing Change
When implementing new technologies, a discrepancy often exists between
the information employees desire about the new technology and the
information they actually possess.
Base~
In addition,
technology has both positive and negative effects (and we believe that this
is usually the case), such messages will give employees a more realistic
preview of what the new technology entails.
smoother implementation.
Furthermore, employees
who learn about the new technology from management rather than through
24
i:lformal sources are more likely to have a constt'uctive attitude toward the
change.
~ew
This is
Supervisors
often feel frustrated because they feel they do not have adequate
information to answer their subordinates' questions.
Since the
supervisor's' attitudes and behaviors are critical for the success of the
change, they should be given adequate information.
Developing a strategy for employee involvement or participation in
introducing new manufacturing technologies should be considered.
There are
Possible
25
i~troduce
~ew
i~
the change.
A task force
~eed
Does participation
imply that employees will have the the final say over certain decisions?
It is important that everyone understand what participation means for their
organization
~,d
act accordingly.
senses that its attempts to make changes participatively are not working.
Technical support personnel should be involved early in the change
process.
be anticipated.
the more likely gains for individual employees and for the organization
will result from the use of robots.
however, cannot be predicted.
It is
26
important therefore for management to create an open culture in which both
the company and its employees
most effectively.
ca~
a~d
27
and less opportunity to
smaller, less
i~teract
sig~ifica~t
once possessed is
~ow
tasks,
embodied
i~
with others.
a~d
the
~ew tech~ology.
cha~ges
makes it
i~
experie~ce
i~
the minds of
i~dividual
or the
orga~ization?
orga~izing.
~ce
we
gai~
a greater
can begin to design changes that truly allow for the joint optimization of
social and technological systems in the workplace.
28
References
Industrial
Renaissa~ce.
32,
420-434.
Argote, L., and Goodman, P.S.
Washington, D.C.:
1985.
Argote, L., Goodman, P.S., and Schkade, D.
Workers React to a Robot."
Ayres, R.V., and Miller, S.M.
Implications.
Cambridge, Mass.:
Blauner, R.
Ballinger, 1983.
Deregulating the Airlines.
Chicago:
1964.
Bright, J .B.
31-41.
li,
How
Harvard
29
Bur~s,
T.,
a~d
London:
Stalker, G.M.
Manageme~t
of
I~~ovation.
(2~d
ed.).
Tavistock, 1966.
Automobile Industry:
Plant.
The
1,
Dearborn Engine
Human
512-532.
Compa~y's
"Selective Perception:
A Note on the
Sociometry, 1958,
"Socio-technical Systems."
n,
140-144.
In F. Baker (Ed.),
Homewood, Illinois:
San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, in press.
Ettlie, J .E., and Eder, J .L.
Wesley, 1973.
Reading, Mass.:
Addison
30
Goodman, P.S.
Experiment.
New York:
Wiley-Interscience, 1979.
1,
211-230.
Goodman, P.S., and
Pe~~ings,
Effectiveness.
Guest, R.H.
H.M.
San Francisco:
"Robotics:
Jossey-Bass, 1977.
Studies in Productivity.
New York:
Pergamon, 1984.
Resding, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley,
1981.
Hunt, H.A., and Hunt, T.L.
Kalamazoo, Mich.:
Kaplan, R.S.
1!!.,
686-705.
(2nd ed.).
Wiley, 1978.
Khandwalla, P.N.
Jovanovich, 1977.
New York:
Harcourt, Brace,
31
Kotter, J.P., and Schl!!singer, L.A.
Chicago:
Francisco:
1-47.
Structual,
g,
San
Jossey-Bass, in press.
Washington, D.C.:
U.S.
Normal Accidents.
New York:
Basic, 1984.
Belmont, Calif.:
Lifetime
Learning, 1983.
Robot Institute of America.
Survey and Directory.
Dearborn, Mich.:
Society of Manufacturing
Engineers, 1982,
Shaw, M.E.
"Communication Networks."
Group Dynamics:
New York:
Vol. 1.
New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1981.
(3rd
32
Staw, B.M., Sandelands, L.E., and Dutton, J .E.
Organizational Behavior:
QUarterly, 1981,
~,
"Threat-rigidity Effects in
A Multi-level A.'lalysis."
Administrative Science
501-524.
New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, in press.
1983.
Wagner, W.G., Pfeffer, J., and O'Reilly, C.A.
Turnover in Top-management Groups."
1984,
~,
Whyte, W.F.
74-92.
Homewood, Illinois:
.!.!'
73-84.
25-34.
Yin, R.K.
~.
Some Answers."
58-65.
Administrative
L,