Kschultz

Equity Theory Effects on Worker Motivation and Speed
on an Assembly Line
February 12, 2006
Kenneth L. Schultz
S. C. Johnson Graduate School of Management
Cornell University
Tobias Schoenherr
College of Business, Eastern Michigan University
David Nembhard
Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering,
Penn State University
The authors wish to thank Richard Garrett, Chris Albright and Srinagesh Gavirneni for
help with this research. Dr. Nembhard’s work on this project was supported in part by a
grant from the National Science Foundation SES0217666.
Deleted: 2/12/2006
5/9/2006
Worker Motivation on an Assembly Line
Abstract
Models and understanding of line design depend on accurate assessments of the effects of
design parameters on human actions. Equity theory predicts that workers would react to
the speed of people around them. Experimental work has repeatedly failed to find this
effect with additive tasks. We use archival data from a manufacturing line to show that
workers do react to the speed of their coworkers but that individual reactions vary widely.
This implies that models using randomly drawing times from the set of worker nominal
processing times will overestimate the size of within team variance while
underestimating the range of between team variance. Because workers vary both in speed
and reaction, managerial implications are not straightforward. We compare an optimal
and an heuristic rearrangement of workers and develop a modified heuristic that performs
well.
2
1. Introduction
Researchers in the field of Operations Management have studied questions of line
dynamics and concluded that factors such as line length, variability and buffer size all
affect the productivity of a line. This work has relied upon mathematical modeling and
generally uses the assumption that processing times of successive workers are
independent of each other (Dallery and Gershwin, 1992). Other work has demonstrated
that processing times may, in fact, not be independent of the state of the system (Edie,
1954; Doerr, Mitchell, Klastorin and Brown, 1996; Schultz, Juran, Boudreau, McClain
and Thomas, 1998).
This research is important to the design of manufacturing lines and service
processes. New designs are based on the models and the understanding of line dynamics
developed from these models. Currently, most models assume the behavior of individuals
is independent of the major design factors. The motivation of the individuals on the line
is considered separately from the design of the process. While few would argue that there
is no connection between design and motivation, we currently do not know enough about
the interactions to inform the design choices. Scientific work at this intersection of
behavioral and OM theory is needed. Wallace Hopp (2004, p. 5) in the 50th Anniversary
Article for Management Science writes “understanding a manufacturing plant does not
just require a theory of human motivation and a theory of material flow; it also requires a
means for describing the interaction between the two.” It is exactly this interaction that
we explore in this paper; the interaction between line design and human motivation. If we
can improve our understanding of how these design parameters affect the motivation of
the workers we can construct better models and make better choices.
3
Equity Theory predicts that workers will be motivated to more closely match their
work peers. Experimental work with conjunctive tasks has found that the effort of the
slower workers will increase while that of the faster workers will decrease. Conjunctive
tasks occur when the performance of the group depends on the least performing worker.
These are contrasted with additive tasks where group performance is based on the sum of
the performance of all workers. For additive tasks, experiments seem to indicate that
workers do not react to the speed of their coworkers. Almost all of this work has been
conducted in experimental labs and there is little confirmation from industrial settings.
If equity theory is a factor, and workers are motivated to adjust their speed to the
speed of their coworkers, there are implications for the modeling of work lines. Within
team variation will be reduced as the faster workers in each group slow down and the
slower workers speed up. Additionally, if the theory holds, adjustments can be made in
the work organization and workplace setting to improve the motivation of workers.
We use data from 148 workers collected over six months. Tasks were arranged in
parallel on the bottleneck station of a radio assembly line, an additive work organization.
Our analysis supports the predictions of Equity Theory. Workers who are slower than the
group tend to speed up while those who are faster tend to slow down. However, the
differences in human reactions are quite varied. Since there are two parameters to
balance, work speed and reaction, a simple heuristic for arranging workers in is not
optimistic. We develop an optimal model and compare it to a fastest to slowest heuristic.
We test that model using data collected from the workers on the radio line. The heuristic
performs well compared to the optimal in most cases and presents a measure for an upper
limit of improvement of 4.8%. Analysis of the data indicates a simple modification of the
4
heuristic to improve performance when the heuristic does not perform well compared to
the optimum.
The paper is organized into 6 sections. Section 2 reviews the literature to derive a
testable hypothesis. The data collection is described in section 3. The analysis of that data
is presented in section 4. Section 5 presents the results while section 6 uses models to
investigate other possibilities. Discussion and conclusions are in section 7.
2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

It is our goal to explore motivation in groups by examining the reaction of
workers to differences in their coworkers. Much of the literature on the motivational
effects of coworkers on individual task times concerns explanations of either
motivational losses or gains from the development of the group itself. Some of this
research has focused on the task organization. Task organization can be classified as
being either conjunctive or additive. A conjunctive task organization exists when the
outcome is the result of the least performing member. This is similar to the team time
trial in the Tour de France where the official time of the first six riders on the team is the
time of the sixth rider. An additive task organization exists when the outcome is the sum
(or average) of all the members of the group. This is similar to a relay race where the
time of the team is the sum of the times of the individual racers.
Steiner (1972) talks of “group motivational losses.” Experimental work has
shown that people will work less hard in group situations than in individual ones.
Williams, Harkens and Latané (1979) refer to “Social Loafing”. Social Loafing is the
tendency for individuals to give less effort when working in a group then they do when
working alone.
5
Other researchers argue for conditions of motivational gains in groups. Köhler
(1926, 1927 as referenced in Hertel, Kerr and Messé 2000) experimentally demonstrates
situations where dyads with conjunctive tasks perform better than the least performing
individual. Hertel, Kerr and Messé (2000) further examine the Köhler effect and
hypothesize that the basic result is a motivational gain by the weaker individual in the
dyad and is due to feeling particularly indispensable to the group’s success. Williams and
Karau (1991) use Social Compensation theory to explain motivation gain of the stronger
members in situations where there is an expectation that coworkers will perform poorly
and the task is highly meaningful. Thomas (1957) discusses the role of interdependence
and how facilitative interdependence can increase motivation.
These theories explore the differences in performance of individuals inside the
group relative to their performance as individuals. They do not explain how different
people will react differently to the same group situation. We wish to explore the effects of
coworker speed on individual motivation. We want to explain why people will work at
different speeds in the same task situation with different group members.
We are examining a conjunctive Task organization on a low inventory serial
processing line. The line can work no faster than the bottleneck. Doerr et al. (1996)
studied such a line in a fish packing plant and it appeared that workers in the low
inventory line (higher conjunctive task organization) would be idle more often. They
would run out of work more often. However, productivity remained the same as in the
high-inventory case (higher additive task organization). It appeared from the data that the
slower workers were speeding-up but the data was inconclusive.
6
Similar results were found by Schultz et al. (1998) in an experimental situation.
The authors found that in the low-inventory (conjunctive) treatment, slower workers
worked harder than slower workers did in the high-inventory (additive) treatment.
However, they only found significant effects in the case of the slower workers. Faster
workers did not appear to change their work pace, or, alternatively, did not slow down at
the level sufficient for the statistics to discriminate. Schultz, Juran and Boudreau (1999)
showed that the effect was due to the interdependent nature of the task and the feedback
available assisting in the development of productivity norms.
Hertel et al. (2000) also analyzed how different people reacted differently in a
conjunctive task situation. Using a subjective measure of effort the authors found that the
effort of the weaker member increased as the difference between the abilities of the two
members of the team increased. They also found that the stronger member reported less
effort as the discrepancy between the two team members increased.
Doerr et al. (1996), Schultz et al. (1998) and Hertel et al. (2000) all found
increasing effort by the slowest or least capable team members. Hertel at el. also found
decreasing effort by the stronger members. This can be referred to as a regression to the
mean effect. The three studies described were experiments. While Doerr et al. did their
work in an actual fish packing plant, the work of Schultz et al. and Hertel et al. were
laboratory experiments with student subjects. Additionally, the tasks discussed so far
have involved a conjunctive task organization.
A regression to the mean effect has not been found in situations involving an
additive task organization. Edie (1954) studied the processing rates at tollbooths on the
George Washington Bridge, an additive group task. He found that all workers sped up
7
with an increase in traffic intensity. The high inventory treatments in Doerr et al. (1996)
and Schultz et al. (1998) were tasks with an additive task organization. No worker ever
ran out of work to do or a place to put their output (no starving, no blocking) making
them essentially independent in task while remaining interdependent in rewards, i.e.,
rewards were based on the combined output of all workers. No regression to the mean
effect was noted. Doerr et al. did not have the opportunity to compare task times by faster
and slower workers. Checks made by Schultz et al. indicated that task times in the high
inventory situation were independent of each other. Hertel et al. (2000) also did an
additive task treatment and found no overall motivational gain in the additive task.
Furthermore, no statistical difference in the motivation or effort of either the slower or
the faster workers was detected. The conclusion would appear to be that workers in
additive tasks do not adjust their speed based on the speed of their coworkers.
Equity Theory suggests that there will be a regression towards the mean, even in
additive tasks (Adams, 1965). According to Equity Theory, people desire the ratio of
their outcomes and investments to be roughly equivalent to the ratio for some other
referent person or group. If ratios are not equal, and the difference is beyond some
individual threshold level, emotional responses occur and the desire to restore equity
manifests itself. In order to restore equity, people have a number of choices. They can
change their outcomes, change their inputs, distort the value of either their outcomes or
inputs, leave the field, change the outcomes of inputs of another, or change the referent
person or group. In a work setting, one method to restore balance would be to change
inputs by changing how hard the person works. For those who adopt this mechanism, it
would lead to correlations in processing times as workers adjust their effort to the
8
perceived effort of those around them. They would work faster when their coworkers are
faster, and slower when their coworkers are slower. In other words, Equity Theory would
predict a regression toward the mean, similar to that found in conjunctive tasks, but
contrary to the results in additive tasks cited previously.
Our archival data is from a situation of an additive task organization, and allows
us to check for correlations among the processing times of workers as their workgroups
change. The findings of Hertel et al. (2000) predict that, with additive tasks, workers
would not change their work rates in response to the speed of others. This would lead to
no correlation in processing times. However, a lack of statistical significance could also
be due to a lack of a sufficient sample size to overcome variability. It is also possible that
the experimental situation in the work of Hertel et al. did not allow for the development
of the types of social relationships that could lead to a regression toward the mean effect.
For this reason we support an Equity Theory hypothesis;
In additive interdependent work situations, workers will adjust their speed toward
the speed of their coworkers, creating a correlation among processing times.
There are other effects that can lead to correlated processing times, which must be
controlled for in our analysis. One such, learning, induces correlation as all workers
speed up over time. Organizational learning, often approximated by a logarithmic
function (e.g., Argote, 1999), indicates that the underlying workforce progressively
reduces processing times. Similarly, individual learning, particularly when it occurs
contemporaneously, will tend to have correlated processing times (see e.g., Nembhard
and Uzumeri, 2000). Correlation of processing times can also be induced by common
events. Processing times may be correlated if there is a day-of-the-week effect, for
9
example where everyone works faster on Tuesday, or an hour-of-the-day effect.
Psychology provides a large body of literature substantiating both of these effects (see
e.g., Blake, 1967; Laird, 1925).
3. Data
We use data from an electronic component testing operation on three, nearly
identical production lines of a major automobile manufacturer. These data were examined
by Shafer, Nembhard and Uzumeri (2001) from the perspective of measuring individual
learning. Since we are interested in examining between-worker correlations that are
unrelated to learning, we use the residuals from this learning curve model. While we
support the findings of Shafer et al., our goal is not to pick a learning model with
universal applicability, but to develop the best model for removing learning effects from
this data set.
One hundred forty eight workers performed the operation during six months.
Typically, each employee in this unionized plant had been with the company for several
years performing a variety of other tasks. During the data collection period, employees
worked on the three lines for a total of 25.2 days on average and produced 2,389 units.
Task times were recorded for each unit, workstation, and worker on the line. Most
of the work on the assembly line involved machine paced tasks. The primary human
paced work was the functional and cosmetic inspections toward the end of the line. This
was also the bottleneck operation that effectively determined the output of the line. Up to
eight employees worked in parallel on the same task, picking radios from a common
buffer (see figure 1).
10
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Place Figure 1 Approximately Here
The task involved 130 distinct evaluation criteria and procedural steps based on a
QS9000 documented process (QS9000 is similar to ISO9001 but adapted for use in the
American automobile industry). The average processing time per item was 3.2 minutes.
A typical process commenced when the operator took a unit from a conveyor system and
began a series of cosmetic inspection and lighting tests (see figure 2). She or he then
plugged the unit into a fixture to initiate a series of electronics tests. Additional manual
and cosmetic examination were performed on another unit while the first unit was in the
fixture. When complete, the worker removed the unit from the fixture and repeated the
process with the second and third units. Since the manual tasks took longer than the
electronics testing, the consecutive time stamps recorded by the electronic tester,
effectively measured the individual task times.
The original data set consisted of 176,000 items in 11,066 records on 148
workers. We define an episode as one work group coming together for a period of time.
Each record then is the average processing time for a particular worker during a particular
episode. If the composition of the group changes a new episode is begun. The
composition of the group may change if someone goes on break, is moved to a different
task in the plant, to one of the other lines, or as each worker finishes their last piece for
the day. All episodes are less than 4 hours in duration. If, at some later point, the same
11
group of people recombined, a new episode is recorded, since, due to learning, workers
would be facing a new set of processing times and a different set of motivational
parameters, we treat this as a new episode. Three hundred twelve records, consisting of
only one person working, were discarded. One hundred twelve records consisting of five
or fewer units produced were also deleted because of potential estimation error. We also
excluded any worker who was in the dataset for less than one month. Furthermore, we
discarded all episodes for which there was only one record available, since computation
of episode variables would not have been possible. This led to the removal of 1,561
additional records. We were left with a total of 9,081 records for 78 individuals in a total
of 1,445 episodes.
The task organization in this manufacturing environment is an example of an
additive task organization. Work is done in parallel. Since it is the bottleneck workstation
worker production is not physically dependent on each other. Further, processing times
are not confounded with idle time. The workers were starved infrequently. The process
under consideration was the system bottleneck, the only labor dominated process, and by
far the most expensive process on the line, both in terms of labor and equipment. Typical
line operations entailed running the upstream automated equipment sporadically until the
pre-inspection buffer was full. Once the process input buffer started to draw down,
operators would restart the upstream process. It was not allowed to starve the workers.
In the infrequent cases when there was a problem restarting the upstream process,
management would move workers to a different line (~0.5 - 2 times/per day). The data
were not confounded with starving. The time data we use were generated by the
electronic testing which was done after the cosmetic inspection. When a worker ran out
12
of radios to process, they processed their last unit and, when the electronic test was
complete, they would fail to place a new unit in the tester. This showed up in the data as
the worker leaving the group. The team would then go from 7 to 6 workers and a new
episode would begin. However, as soon as the next worker finished, they too would clock
out of the group and, since the episode was too short, these data would not be included in
the analysis. Therefore, on the rare occasions where starving did happen, data were not
included in the analysis.
4. Analysis
We create a regression model to check for worker reactions to their coworkers’
speeds. In the model we control for learning, the day of the week and the time of day. In
order to separate the correlation due to coworker speed from the correlation due to
learning, we fit a learning/forgetting curve to each individual using the data and
methodology described by Shafer et al. (2001). The residuals from this process were then
used to represent how workers’ processing rates varied over time. We refer to the
processing times corrected for learning and forgetting as the nominal processing times.
While the same people may recombine in more than one episode, due to differences in
learning, their speeds will be different each time. Each time a group meets they will each
have, and will each be reacting to, a different set of relative speeds.
For the dependent variable we use the processing time p of worker i during an
episode j, pij, and subtract the nominal processing time for that worker (i) during that
episode (j), fij. We use ‘nominal processing time’ in this case to mean the processing time
predicted by the learning model. The resulting residuals contain variation in that worker’s
13
processing time that is not explained by learning. It is the variance in this set of residuals
that we wish to explain.
We calculated the processing time of the coworkers at any given time by taking
the average of the actual times of every worker in episode j, excluding the individual
worker i under consideration. We denote this value as cij . A slow worker for this episode
would be a worker whose pace is slower than this average. A fast worker would have a
pace faster than this average. Therefore, the independent variable is the individual
worker’s nominal time, fij, subtracted from the average time of his or her coworkers, cij .
In other words, we are predicting that workers react to the difference in speed between
themselves and their coworkers.
The formulation of the regression model follows. Potential effects of the time of
day or day of week on worker i’s processing time are incorporated in this model in the
last two terms of equation (1). We refer to this as the primary model.
pij − f ij = β 0 + β 1 (cij − f ij ) + β 2 h s hj + β 3d t dj (1)
where
I = index set of workers, i = 1, 2, 3, …, 78
J = index set of episodes, j = 1, 2, 3, …, 1,445
pij = average processing time of worker i during episode j
fij = nominal processing time for worker i at the time of episode j, adjusted for
learning
cij = average of the processing times of all coworkers of worker i in episode j
shj = hour block variable for episode j, (one block h equals two hours)
tdj = day of week block variable for episode j (one block d equals one day)
14
We develop a secondary model to eliminate the possibility of common episodic
variance. We replace cij , the average of the actual processing times of all coworkers of
worker i in episode j, with ĉij , the average of the nominal processing times of all
coworkers of worker i in episode j. Nominal times are based on learning model
predictions drawn from the entire data set and are independent of episodic variance. On
average, we assume that the workers have been in the plant long enough to have some
level of knowledge about their coworkers. According to this model workers would react
to how fast they expect their coworkers to work. We refer to this as the secondary model,
since equity theory predicts that workers react to actual and not expected speed, which is
captured in our primary model.
5. Results
The results of the primary model are shown in Table 1. The overall correlation
coefficient is 0.407. Roughly, this means that the average person will adjust their time by
41% of how much faster, or slower, their nominal time is in relation to the coworkers
with whom they are working during that period. The correlation is strongly significant
with the t statistic for the coefficient at 38.61. However, the model has a relatively low R2
of 0.147. While the model is significant, it explains little of the total variation. We
discuss the R2 more, later in the paper.
Place Table 1 Approximately Here
15
Partial F-tests show that adding hours of the day, (F11,9053 = 4.22, p = 0.000),
contributes to the model but that adding days of the week, (F6,9058 = 0.524, p = 0.790),
does not.
While the 0.407 correlation provides an estimate of how responsive workers are
to the speed of their coworkers, it is only an average. It would also be instructive to look
at the range of worker reactions. How great is the difference among workers? Do some
workers have negative slopes, reacting contrary to their coworkers? Do some overreact
and have a slope greater than 1.0?
To look at these questions we ran 78 regression models, one for each worker. The
number of data points was equal to the number of episodes in which each worker was
involved. Due to the results of the partial F-test we included coefficients for hours of the
day but not for days of the week. The results for the 78 workers are shown in Table 2,
organized in order of their coefficients from highest to lowest. All but four have positive
coefficients. The four negative coefficients are not significant at p-values less than 0.39.
Of the 74 workers with positive coefficients, 66 (85% of the total) are significant at 0.1.
Of those, 60 (77%) have coefficients with p-values less than 0.05, 52 (67%) are at 0.01 or
less, and 49 (63%) are 0.001 or less. On the high end, workers will react by changing
their times approximately 127% of the difference between their nominal times and the
times of their coworkers. On the low end, workers appear not to react at all. Several
standard errors of the slopes are over 0.1 so care needs to be taken in interpreting the ends
of the range. In particular, the workers at the low end of the range are generally
characterized by few observations. However, even there, workers 24 and 113 have 70
observations or more and still do not have slopes that are statistically significant. On the
16
high end, the top three workers have few observations and large standard errors. Thus, a
more conservative estimate of the strongest reaction among workers may be the 0.869
from worker 23 with 160 observations and a standard error of 0.089.
To demonstrate the variability in the individual reactions, Figure 3 shows plots of
the data for four different workers. In Table 2, the results corresponding to these four
workers are highlighted. The first one, worker 127, was chosen to illustrate a large and
significant reaction. Worker 113, on the other hand, shows no discernable reaction at all.
The third plot, worker 162, has a negative slope that is not statistically significant.
Worker 111 shows an intermediate case. These plots demonstrate the large range of
individual reactions.
It is possible that there is some other, unknown, factor that would explain the
correlation of processing times. To examine this possibility we removed all common
episodic variance in the secondary model. According to this model, workers react not to
how co-workers are actually performing but to how they are expected to perform. This
approach eliminates any correlation due to common timing with the dependent variable.
The results are shown in Table 3. The correlation is still strongly significant. The
beta coefficient is reduced to 0.190 and the R2 is reduced to 0.017. Workers do react but,
possibly because we are using a less direct measure of coworker speed, the secondary
17
model explains even less of the total variability. The correlation persists despite removing
any likely common source variation related to episodic variance.
6. Analytical Extensions
If workers are reacting to the difference between their nominal time and the times
of their coworkers, we can improve the performance of the line by limiting the referents
available to workers, or encouraging them to pick referents who are faster than they are.
As the system stands now, workers are as likely to speed up as they are to slow down and
the effect on the average speeds of the groups is likely to balance out. In this section, we
explore the managerial policy of restricting the sight lines of workers so they can only see
workers in a pattern so as to maximize increases in speed. We examine this question by
developing an optimal policy for arranging workers, and compare it to a fastest to slowest
(FTS) heuristic.
Since workers are different in both speed and reaction, a simple fastest to slowest
heuristic is not optimal. Assume we have three workers with processing times of 50, 100
and 101 time units per operation respectively. Their reaction coefficients are 50%, 0%
and 50% respectively. We arrange them so they can only see, and react to, the workers in
front of them. We place worker 1 in the lead; she does not react because she doesn’t see
anyone else. Worker 2 never reacts because she has a reaction of 0%. If we place worker
3 in the third slot, he reacts to an average time of 75, the average of workers 1 and 2, and
he will speed up by 13 time units ( 0.5 * [101 – (50 + 100)/2 ] ). If we place worker 3 in
the second slot, he reacts to a speed of 50, the time of the fastest worker, and speeds up
18
by 25.5 time units. While this is an exaggerated example to illustrate the point, it
demonstrates why faster workers with smaller reaction coefficients might be placed
behind their slower co-workers. We will compare the optimal to the heuristic to
determine if the difference is large enough to be of managerial concern.
Let I equal the number of workers and S equal the number of workstations, where
for simplicity, I = S, and the reaction coefficient for worker i is β1i. Also, letting
⎧1, if worker i assigned to seat s

Xis = ⎨ (2)
⎩0, otherwise
and
J
fi = ∑ fij = average nominal production rate for worker i.
1
(3)
J j=1
Assuming that workers are facing the front of the line, such that they are only able to
observe and react to upstream workers, we can construct an expression for hs, the average
production rate of workstations upstream of s, as

s−1 I
∑∑ X pq f p ,
1
hs = (4)
s −1 q=1 p=1
where s = 1 represents the workstation at the front of the line, and s = S the workstation at
the end of the line.
Further, the average production rate of workers upstream of worker i, denoted gi,
is given by
S
gi = ∑ Xir hr . (5)
r=1
Thus,
S ⎡ 1 r−1 I ⎤
gi = ∑ Xir ⎢ ∑ ∑ X pq f p ⎥ . (6)
r=1 ⎢⎣ r −1 q=1 p=1 ⎥⎦
Since the production rate for worker i in seat s is
19
Pis = fi + β0i + β1i [gi – fi], (7)
we write the optimization model for maximizing worker output by reordering the workers
as the following quadratic program model with binary decision variables.
I ⎧⎪S ⎡S ⎛ 1 r−1 I ⎞ ⎤⎫⎪

Max ∑∑ i 0i 1i ∑ ir ⎜ r −1 ∑∑ pq p ⎟ i ⎥⎬
⎨ f + β + β ⎢ X ⎜ X f ⎟ − f (8)
i=1 s=1 ⎩⎪ ⎢⎣ r=1 ⎝ q=1 p=1 ⎠ ⎥⎦⎭⎪
s.t.
I
∑X is = 1 , ∀s ∈ {1..S}
i =1
S
∑X is = 1 , ∀i ∈ {1..I}
s =1
Our FTS heuristic is to order the workers starting at the front of the line from
fastest to slowest such that slower workers can only see the faster workers in front of
them, and not the reverse. In this arrangement, no worker would go slower than their
nominal time. The fastest worker, and any worker with reaction coefficient, β1i = 0,
would work at their nominal speed. All other workers would speed up.
We use Monte Carlo simulation to compare the quality of the heuristic ordering to
the optimal orderings, based on random selections of workers from the automobile plant
data. We restrict our simulation to the 53 workers for whom we have more than 100 data
points each. We choose 5 time periods to cover the full 6 month period and use learning
curves to estimate the nominal times for those workers. Individual worker reaction
coefficients are the estimates obtained from the results of the individual regression
analyses. We used all reaction coefficients, even when they are not statistically different
from zero, as the best estimates of the true coefficients. We generated 10,000 independent
20
sample trials of workgroups consisting of seven individuals for each time period and
compared the FTS heuristic to the optimal ordering for each workgroup.
Figure 4 illustrates the summarized results of this comparison, where FTS was
exactly optimal in 21% of the trials. The worst-case sample for the 50,000 trials was
1.75% from optimal, and the average was a 0.1% deviation from optimal. We conclude
that the fastest to slowest heuristic is sufficient in most cases. We note that the fastest
worker will always be assigned to the first workstation, since one would never want to
lower this person’s speed. However, upon examination of the trials for which FTS is sub-
optimal, we observe that a slower worker may be optimally assigned ahead of a faster
worker when their reaction coefficient is significantly higher than that of the faster
worker. This appears when the reaction coefficient is roughly 25% larger for the slower
worker.
Turning our attention to the differences in the productive output of the FTS
heuristic, we start by choosing N workers randomly from the distribution of worker
speeds, f(W), and order them from fastest to slowest such that W1 is the fastest worker in
the sample and WN is the slowest. The decrease in the average times of a team is then
N
β n ⎡ n −1 ⎤
∑ (n − 1) ⎢⎣∑ (W − Wn )⎥
1
i (9)
N n=2 i =1 ⎦
Further, if the distribution of the distances between times of adjacent workers is
independently and identically distributed (iid), as would be the case if f(W) were a
uniform distribution, then we can show that the increase in the speed of a team is a
function of the number of workers on a team and the range, R, of the sample. Let R be the
21
range of the sample and β be the average β1i, assuming β1i (reaction) and f(W)
(processing time) are independent. Then the average decrease in processing time of the
team would be:
Rβ (N (n +1) − 2)
. (10)
4 N(N −1)
The results of the simulation show an average increased productivity of 4.8% over
that of a random ordering with respect to worker speed. The paired-sample t-test is
significant at the 0.000 level, and the standard deviation of the improvement is 3.03%.
Additionally, there is a decrease in the standard deviation of within team processing times
of 0.22 units. When comparing the FTS policy to the worst-case orderings, the worst-case
turned out to be an average of 10.5% below the productivity of the FTS policy. This is
the same as the improvement over an arrangement where every worker can see every
other worker.
In this section we have compared three alternative methods of arranging workers
on a parallel task. On the assembly line from which the data was drawn, every worker
could see every other worker. We also considered a fastest to slowest heuristic, where
workers could only see co-workers who are faster than they are. This heuristic uses
differences in worker speed but ignores differences in worker reaction. Finally, we
considered an optimal model which considers both speed and reactions. The heuristic
performs 4.8% better than the original configuration. The optimal model performs on
average only 0.1% better than the heuristic. An analysis of the cases where the optimal
model performs significantly better than the heuristic suggests a modification to the strict
fastest to slowest heuristic. When a slower worker has a reaction coefficient that is 25
22
percentage points higher than the faster worker in front, move the slower worker to a
position in front of the faster worker.
7. Discussion and Conclusions

We have demonstrated that correlation exists between the speed of a worker and
the speed of his or her coworkers. We have done so using data from an automobile plant.
We have demonstrated that all correlation is not due to a common day-of-week effect nor
is it due to a common time-of-day effect. We have also shown that the correlation persists
when any common source of variance related to time is removed, although this decreases
the discrimination of the test. We also believe that there is no overall effect on average
processing times since workers are as likely to speed up as they are to slow down.
We believe that processing times are correlated because workers desire to
decrease the gap between their work pace and the work pace of others around them. This
is consistent with Equity Theory and similar findings related to conjunctive tasks. Our
results are contrary to Social Compensation Theory. The findings are also in contrast to
the conclusions of Hertel et al. (2000) for other, additive, tasks. This difference might be
attributed either to a larger sample size, or to the long-term relationships developed
among the workers in the plant when compared to students in an experiment. However, it
could also be due to other differences between experimental and archival data, or to some
unexplored difference in the nature of the tasks. Since the effects seem more difficult to
establish in additive than in conjunctive tasks, we suggest that the nature of the task
organization is a moderator of this effect.
This effect is important to the modeling of work lines. A model which assumes
independence of processing times will, and predicts group processing times by
23
combinations of the averages of the individuals involved, may derive a reasonable
estimate of the average processing time of the group. However, estimates of the
difference between members of that group will be underestimated. Slower workers will
be working faster and faster workers will be working slower than previously considered.
The range of processing times within group will be smaller.
We have proposed reorganizing workstations so that workers can only see those
who are faster. Using the data available, we demonstrated how this reorganization could
lead to an increase in worker productivity of 4.8%. We have explored the difference
between a heuristic and an optimal organization, and found an average difference of
0.1%. In general, we suggest that varying from the heuristic should be considered when a
slower worker has a reaction coefficient that is more than 25% greater than the faster
worker immediately in front of them.
These findings assume that modifying the work order and restricting the view of
workers would not change behavior. Workers may, in fact, continue to react to the slower
workers behind them. Even in that case, however, their reactions will be reduced due to a
lack of immediacy. Therefore, while further testing would be interesting, we feel that we
have established a first cut at the lower (no change) and upper bounds (+4.8%) of this
phenomenon in additive tasks.
The regression is significant despite an R2 of 0.147. Normally, with such a low R2,
it would be difficult to find statistical significance. In this case that wasn’t a problem as
we have over 9,000 data points. So the question becomes not whether the result is
statistically significant but if it is large enough that we care. Is it significant in the real
sense? In our data set the response by the average employee was to change their
24
processing time by 41% of the difference between the actual processing times of their
coworkers and their individual nominal times. We believe this is a significant reaction.
Since a worker is as likely to speed up as to slow down, we measure the effect as the
absolute value of the change in processing rate. The average of the absolute value of the
difference between actual and nominal rate is 0.62 units per hour. This is on a level with
a 1% average change in output.
That we have not explained a large percentage of the total variation should not be
surprising. Our data were collected from an actual ongoing operation. Controlled
experiments are often done to avoid this very problem, to control for extraneous sources
of variability. We had to live with the excess variability and rely on the sheer size of our
data set, to find the pattern inside the mass of variation that one is presented with in a
working factory.
Another explanation of the low R2 is that fitting one slope to all workers leaves a
lot of variability unexplained. The lack of explanatory power of the regression is due, in
part, to the large variation among workers. One slope does not fit all workers. Workers do
not react the same as each other, and any model which merely looks for an average
response leaves a lot of unexplained variability. This phenomenon has been noted in
other analyses, for instance in Dreher, Ash and Hancock (1988).
The data suggest that human reactions go as high as 87% of the difference
between a worker’s nominal speed and the speed of their coworkers. On the other end,
some people appear not to react at all. This provides us with preliminary estimates of the
range of human reactions. It also shows that workers are highly likely to be different from
each other in this aspect. This result is in line with an equity theory motivation. As
25
Adams (1965) stated, reactions to an inequity situation vary. People respond by changing
their inputs or outcomes, by changing the outcomes or inputs of others, by distorting
values of outcomes or inputs, by leaving the field or by changing their referent person.
We have only measured changes in input as translated into effort, and seen changes in
processing times. People who did not adjust, or who did not adjust at some points, may
have chosen a different response mechanism. It is also possible for people to mix their
response mechanisms and use more than one in each inequity situation. Adams points out
that different people have different thresholds at which they begin to respond. Anything
below this threshold will not generate a response. It is possible that some thresholds are
so high that no response would be found in our work situation. Likewise, the individual
does not have to match the speed of their referent person or group, they just match it
within their individual threshold level. Finally, we have used the average speed of
coworkers. People do not necessarily choose the average person as their referent. They
may be reacting to a subgroup, or a single coworker. Therefore, using equity theory, the
range of human responses could be due to physical limits on an individual’s speed, a mix
of responses to an individual inequity, different individual thresholds, different response
modes in different inequity situations, or due to the fact that they may have chosen a
referent other than the average of coworkers. In this way, Equity Theory provides a
reasonable explanation of the difference noted in the analysis.
We have not proven that the correlation demonstrated here is due to workers
reacting to the processing times of their coworkers. We have shown that the correlation
exists in the factory. We have described equity theory to support the hypothesis and
demonstrated that the correlation is not due to learning, common day of the week or time
26
of day effects and that the correlation persists when common episodic variance is
removed. Defining the limits of this effect would be an interesting exploration.
This research poses as many interesting questions as it answers. What
differentiates the workers who responded to the speed of their coworkers from those who
did not respond? If we can predict that, what do we do with the information? If we wish
slower workers to speed up, do we place them with faster workers or would this cause the
faster workers to slow down for a zero net difference? Powell and Schultz (2004) show
that, on a serial line with limited buffers, more is gained by workers speeding up than is
lost by other workers slowing down by the same amount. However, in the current
situation, we had parallel workstations and the reaction may be different. Can we arrange
the line to encourage or discourage the reaction? If we put the faster workers in the
middle will this help to speed up more workers than if we put them at the ends? Will the
size of the buffer have an impact on processing times? We hope future research will
explore some of these ideas.
We have found, in a factory, that there is a correlation between the processing
times of workers and the processing times of their coworkers. The range of reactions
among human workers is quite large. This is consistent with Equity Theory and
inconsistent with other experiments using additive tasks. We have explored one
possibility and limits of using these worker reactions to improve productivity.
27
References
Argote, L. 1999. Organizational Learning: Creating and Transferring Knowledge.

Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
Adams, S. J. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In: Derkowitz, L. (Ed.) Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology 2 267-299, Academic Press, New York.
Blake, M. J. F. 1967. Time of day effects on performance in a range of tasks.

Psychodynamic Science 9 349-350.
Dallery, Y., S. B. Gershwin. 1992. Manufacturing flow line systems: A review of models
and analytical results. Queuing Systems 12 3-94.
Doerr, K. H., T. R. Mitchell, T. D. Klastorin, K. A. Brown. 1996. Impact of material flow

policies and goals on job outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 142-152.
Dreher, G. F., R. A. Ash, P. Hancock. 1988. The role of the traditional research design in
underestimating the validity of the employment interview. Personnel Psychology
41 315-327.
Edie, L. C. 1954. Traffic delays at toll booths. Journal of the Operations Research
Society of America 2(2) 107-138.
Hopp, W. J. 2004. Fifty Years of Management Science. Management Science, 50(1) 1-7.
Hertel, G, N. L. Kerr, L. A. Messé, 2000. Motivation gains in performance groups:

Paradigmatic and theoretical developments on the Köhler Effect. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79 580-601.
Köhler, O., 1926. Kraftleistungen bei Einzel- und Gruppenabeit. Industrielle

Psychotechnik, 3, 274-282.
Köhler, O., 1927. Über den Gruppenwirkungsgrad der menschlichen Körperarbeit und
die Bedingung optimaler Kollektivkraftreaktion. Industrielle Psychotechnik, 4
209-226.
Laird, D. A. 1925. Relative performance of college students as conditioned by time of

day and day of week. Journal of Experimental Psychology 8 50-63.
Nembhard, D. A., M. V. Uzumeri. 2000. Experiential learning and forgetting for manual
and cognitive tasks. Int. J. of Industrial Ergonomics 25 315-326.
Powell, S. G., K. L. Schultz. 2004. Throughput in serial lines with state-dependent

behavior. Forthcoming in Management Science 50 1095-1105.
28
Schultz, K. L., D. Juran, J. Boudreau, J. McClain, L. J. Thomas. 1998. Modeling and

worker motivation in JIT production systems. Management Science 44(12, part 1)
1595-1607.
Schultz, K. L., D. Juran, J. Boudreau. 1999. The effects of low inventory on the
development of productivity norms. Management Science 45(12) 1664-1678.
Shafer, S. M., D. A. Nembhard, M. V. Uzumeri., 2001. The effects of worker learning,

forgetting, and heterogeneity on assembly line productivity. Management Science
47 1639-1653.
Steiner, J. A., 1972. Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivational analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 113 67-81.
Thomas, E. J., 1957. Effects of facilitative role interdependence on group functioning.

Human Relations, 10 347-366.
Williams, K. D., S. J. Karau, 1991. Social loafing and social compensation: The effects of
expectations of co-worker performance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 61 570-581.
Williams, K., Harkins, S., and Latané, B., 1981. Identifiability as a deterrent to social
loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
40 303-311.
29
Figure 1: Layout of Workstations.
Workers
Machine Paced QC/

Manufacturing Common Buffer Burn-In
Process
30
Figure 2: Calculation of Processing Time.
Note: Since the electronic tests are shorter than the cosmetic and lighting tests the
time stamps on successive electronic tests measure the processing time of the
cosmetic and lighting tests.
31
Figure 3: Plots of Individual Worker Residuals.
Operator 127, strong positive correlation.
10
pij − f ij 0
-10
-10
cij − 0f ij 10
32
Operator 113, No significant reaction.
10
pij − f ij 0
-10
-10 0 10
cij − f ij
33
Operator 162, insignificant negative reaction.
10
pij − f ij 0
-10
-10 0 10
cij − f ij
34
Operator 111, Moderate and significant reaction.
10
pij − f ij 0
-10
-10 0 10
cij − f ij
35
Figure 4. Comparison of FTS heuristic to optimal ordering
0.25
0.2
0.15
Frequency
0.1
0.05
0
100 99.975 99.95 99.925 99.9 99.875 99.85 99.825 99.8
FTS solution relative to optimal
36
Table 1: Anova and Regression Results for Primary Model.
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 17886.848 18 993.714 88.074 .000
Residual 102074.549 9047 11.283
Total 119961.396 9065
Coefficients
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta

Constant -.139 .297 -.469 .639
(c ij − f ij ) .407 .011 .376 38.613 .000
s_1_2 .113 .431 .003 .263 .792
s_3_4 .319 .319 .021 1.000 .317
s_5_6 .083 .300 .008 .278 .781
s_7_8 .469 .300 .045 1.566 .117
s_9_10 .234 .303 .021 .773 .440
s_11_12 -.042 .319 -.003 -.131 .896
s_13_14 .004 .314 .000 .013 .990
s_15_16 .025 .303 .002 .083 .934
s_17_18 -.337 .305 -.029 -1.105 .269
s_19_20 -.174 .305 -.015 -.570 .569
s_21_22 .340 .337 .018 1.010 .313
T_1 .085 .131 .008 .651 .515
T_2 -.072 .133 -.007 -.541 .589
T_3 .075 .133 .007 .567 .570
T_4 .073 .134 .007 .543 .587
T_5 .106 .133 .010 .802 .423
T_6 .114 .134 .011 .852 .394
37
Table 2: Results of Individual Worker Reactions.

Unstandardized Standardized
R Coefficients Coefficients
Operator N Square B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
170 20 0.547 1.266 0.490 0.646 2.585 0.023
70 32 0.644 1.183 0.247 0.935 4.793 0.000
21 29 0.651 0.994 0.203 0.906 4.892 0.000
121 24 0.527 0.986 0.254 0.651 3.883 0.001
115 32 0.370 0.951 0.282 0.608 3.371 0.002
23 160 0.434 0.869 0.089 0.628 9.756 0.000
151 74 0.284 0.829 0.203 0.497 4.075 0.000
127 246 0.389 0.821 0.072 0.626 11.446 0.000
169 67 0.450 0.811 0.183 0.461 4.437 0.000
17 222 0.410 0.807 0.081 0.555 9.921 0.000
77 209 0.441 0.798 0.070 0.632 11.454 0.000
120 22 0.441 0.798 0.280 0.601 2.846 0.012
49 135 0.375 0.789 0.097 0.596 8.115 0.000
44 136 0.499 0.786 0.078 0.678 10.089 0.000
87 99 0.219 0.764 0.185 0.422 4.119 0.000
178 183 0.330 0.755 0.089 0.563 8.444 0.000
134 125 0.315 0.754 0.130 0.463 5.789 0.000
3 51 0.404 0.737 0.233 0.435 3.157 0.003
164 22 0.371 0.728 0.347 0.615 2.098 0.053
14 42 0.339 0.716 0.239 0.477 2.999 0.005
119 192 0.300 0.715 0.097 0.487 7.385 0.000
29 132 0.348 0.708 0.094 0.563 7.504 0.000
25 205 0.321 0.703 0.081 0.553 8.660 0.000
98 140 0.313 0.676 0.116 0.473 5.847 0.000
132 178 0.372 0.664 0.074 0.584 9.026 0.000
177 119 0.288 0.653 0.122 0.481 5.374 0.000
129 101 0.418 0.629 0.096 0.565 6.532 0.000
152 132 0.252 0.616 0.111 0.474 5.558 0.000
137 200 0.351 0.609 0.068 0.537 8.899 0.000
4 150 0.270 0.598 0.095 0.481 6.309 0.000
112 174 0.382 0.595 0.073 0.517 8.139 0.000
37 187 0.346 0.594 0.076 0.516 7.846 0.000
63 117 0.252 0.582 0.126 0.419 4.601 0.000
159 111 0.306 0.576 0.123 0.393 4.706 0.000
72 281 0.232 0.548 0.076 0.415 7.217 0.000
86 111 0.304 0.539 0.093 0.540 5.798 0.000
118 89 0.231 0.530 0.126 0.492 4.219 0.000
59 180 0.251 0.525 0.087 0.419 6.063 0.000
155 125 0.260 0.522 0.092 0.487 5.646 0.000
168 55 0.382 0.520 0.226 0.283 2.303 0.026
41 167 0.149 0.516 0.145 0.309 3.554 0.001
136 129 0.309 0.507 0.075 0.550 6.756 0.000
65 241 0.269 0.505 0.080 0.374 6.302 0.000
142 17 0.398 0.501 0.275 0.479 1.822 0.096
38
R Coefficients Coefficients
Operator N Square B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
36 39 0.315 0.465 0.267 0.307 1.741 0.092
51 181 0.203 0.455 0.091 0.372 4.998 0.000
27 184 0.219 0.448 0.090 0.374 5.005 0.000
46 105 0.368 0.444 0.070 0.560 6.324 0.000
7 191 0.285 0.443 0.060 0.500 7.335 0.000
111 264 0.221 0.442 0.072 0.363 6.125 0.000
100 165 0.154 0.441 0.094 0.358 4.702 0.000
158 185 0.272 0.437 0.062 0.496 7.003 0.000
67 140 0.236 0.428 0.084 0.417 5.111 0.000
117 62 0.195 0.428 0.176 0.321 2.433 0.018
34 121 0.184 0.393 0.106 0.353 3.708 0.000
48 63 0.254 0.377 0.166 0.322 2.271 0.027
107 136 0.188 0.373 0.093 0.333 4.000 0.000
19 288 0.123 0.337 0.075 0.280 4.517 0.000
172 44 0.323 0.334 0.181 0.302 1.843 0.074
141 146 0.228 0.324 0.089 0.288 3.654 0.000
57 118 0.115 0.294 0.139 0.223 2.110 0.037
131 145 0.137 0.287 0.135 0.187 2.131 0.035
64 236 0.150 0.287 0.077 0.236 3.725 0.000
171 36 0.170 0.285 0.231 0.246 1.235 0.227
66 169 0.137 0.277 0.108 0.201 2.565 0.011
97 83 0.126 0.276 0.150 0.230 1.836 0.070
13 93 0.217 0.206 0.115 0.181 1.784 0.078
160 31 0.215 0.182 0.138 0.275 1.316 0.201
113 128 0.116 0.136 0.087 0.142 1.558 0.122
135 11 0.260 0.118 0.226 0.254 0.524 0.623
146 23 0.446 0.104 0.251 0.082 0.416 0.683
78 42 0.249 0.102 0.076 0.208 1.344 0.188
5 39 0.192 0.037 0.228 0.032 0.162 0.872
24 71 0.034 0.029 0.102 0.039 0.287 0.775
179 14 0.436 -0.155 0.393 -0.120 -0.394 0.705
144 16 0.479 -0.213 0.259 -0.244 -0.824 0.434
109 13 0.586 -0.259 0.367 -0.337 -0.706 0.503
162 21 0.395 -0.431 0.480 -0.231 -0.898 0.385
39
Table 3: Anova and Regression Results for Secondary Model.
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 2010.783 1 2010.783 154.520 .000
Residual 117950.613 9064 13.013
Total 119961.396 9065
Coefficients
Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta

Constant .005 .038 .122 .903
(cˆij − f ij ) .190 .015 .129 12.431 .000
40

Kschultz

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kschultz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Equity Theory Effects on Worker Motivation and Speed

February 12, 2006

and reaction, managerial implications are not straightforward. We compare an optimal

and Thomas, 1998).

This research is important to the design of manufacturing lines and service

optimistic. We develop an optimal model and compare it to a fastest to slowest heuristic.

investigate other possibilities. Discussion and conclusions are in section 7.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

workers to differences in their coworkers. Much of the literature on the motivational

effects of coworkers on individual task times concerns explanations of either

Steiner (1972) talks of “group motivational losses.” Experimental work has

Other researchers argue for conditions of motivational gains in groups. Köhler

and how facilitative interdependence can increase motivation.

These theories explore the differences in performance of individuals inside the

We are examining a conjunctive Task organization on a low inventory serial

slower workers were speeding-up but the data was inconclusive.

Similar results were found by Schultz et al. (1998) in an experimental situation.

available assisting in the development of productivity norms.

effort as the discrepancy between the two team members increased.

have involved a conjunctive task organization.

them essentially independent in task while remaining interdependent in rewards, i.e.,

Furthermore, no statistical difference in the motivation or effort of either the slower or

contrary to the results in additive tasks cited previously.

no correlation in processing times. However, a lack of statistical significance could also

For this reason we support an Equity Theory hypothesis;

the speed of their coworkers, creating a correlation among processing times.

speed up over time. Organizational learning, often approximated by a logarithmic

reduces processing times. Similarly, individual learning, particularly when it occurs

events. Processing times may be correlated if there is a day-of-the-week effect, for

example where everyone works faster on Tuesday, or an hour-of-the-day effect.

e.g., Blake, 1967; Laird, 1925).

We use data from an electronic component testing operation on three, nearly

learning. Since we are interested in examining between-worker correlations that are

this data set.

buffer (see figure 1).

effectively measured the individual task times.

The task organization in this manufacturing environment is an example of an

included in the analysis.

We create a regression model to check for worker reactions to their coworkers’

that we wish to explain.

themselves and their coworkers.

pij − f ij = β 0 + β 1 (cij − f ij ) + β 2 h s hj + β 3d t dj (1)

I = index set of workers, i = 1, 2, 3, …, 78

J = index set of episodes, j = 1, 2, 3, …, 1,445

pij = average processing time of worker i during episode j

cij = average of the processing times of all coworkers of worker i in episode j

We develop a secondary model to eliminate the possibility of common episodic

coworkers of worker i in episode j. Nominal times are based on learning model

captured in our primary model.

discuss the R2 more, later in the paper.

and have a slope greater than 1.0?

from worker 23 with 160 observations and a standard error of 0.089.

To demonstrate the variability in the individual reactions, Figure 3 shows plots of

correlation of processing times. To examine this possibility we removed all common

any likely common source variation related to episodic variance.

workers in a pattern so as to maximize increases in speed. We examine this question by

determine if the difference is large enough to be of managerial concern.

⎧1, if worker i assigned to seat s

production rate of workstations upstream of s, as

the end of the line.

Since the production rate for worker i in seat s is

Pis = fi + β0i + β1i [gi – fi], (7)