WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

IN A SMALL MANUFACTURING ORGANIZATION

By

AGUSTIN V. ARBULU C.

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Executive Doctor of Management

Project Advisors: Paul F. Salipante, Jr. and John D. Aram

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

July 2001
 WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
IN A SMALL MANUFACTURING ORGANIZATION

Abstract

By

AGUSTIN V. ARBULU C.

This applied research project focused on workforce development in a

small manufacturing organization. Specifically, this study offers a CEO perspec-

tive regarding the work environment or setting in contributing to worker attitudes

toward acquiring skills and knowledge, commitment to the organization, and per-

fonnance of hard-to-place workers. The conceptual framework that underpins this

inquiry draws on the concept of communities of practice as developed by Etienne

Wenger and the theory of situated learning by Jean Lave as applied to learning

and communication in the workplace. The study offers insight into limitations on

workforce development and the role of relationships and race in the work setting.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ." • • • • • ,,:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • f • • • , ' . . . . . . . . . ~ •• ~ ••• , . . . . . . . . . . . .· • • • • • • • • I • • ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ vii

CIIAP1'ER 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND RESEARCH ....................................................... 5

The Existing Condition of Hard-to-Place Workers ........................................... 5

The Role of Race .............................................. :.............................................. 10

The Role of Informal Training ............................................ ,........................... 12

Workforce Programs and Models .................................................................... 15

Combining Hard and Soft Skill Development. ................................................ 17

Workplace Practices ......................................................................................... 19

Summary .............................................................................. ~ ........................ 24

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS ..................................................... 26

Summary ....................................................................................................... 28

CHAPTER 4. METHODS: FIELDWORK METHODS, TOOLS UfILIZED,

AND ORGANIZING THE DATA COLLECTED ................................................ 29

Background of the Study ................................................................................. 29 .

The Organizational Setting and Related Factors ............................................. 30

Bias in the Research......................................................................................... 36

Validity Issues ................................................................................................. 38

CHAPTER 5. BACKGROUND OF THE ORGANIZATION ............................. 39

Introduction........................................................ ,............................................. 39
 Background ...................................................................................................... 39

Cor~ Competency of the Organization ............................................... :........... .42

The Workforce ........... :.................................................... ~ ................................ ~43

The Plant Floor .... ,........................................................................................... 47

Other Factors in the Organization.................................................................... 51

Data Collection ................................................................................................ 52

Use ofSurveys ....... ~ ......................................................................................... 55

Information-Sharing Tools .............................................. :............................... 57

Summary ....................................................................................................... 58

CHAPTER 6. RESULTS OF THE FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS ..................... 62

. Revue of Survey .............................................................................................. 63

Comments on Questions Raised in Focus Group Meetings ............................ 69

Summary ....................................................................................................... 77

CHAPTER 7. CEO REACTION TO THE FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS ........... 78

CHAPTER 8. LEARNING AND KEEPING THE JOB ...................................... 84

Sponsorship and Learning in the Organization ............................................... 87

Tech Support Group ........................................................................................ 88

Day-Shift Operator and Night-Shift Operator Groups .................................... 89

Jill and Louise versus Hombre and Sue:.......................................................... 97

Day-Shift Operators versus Hispanic Operators.............................................. 99

Learning as Being Racially Biased ................................................................ 103

Conclusions .................................................................................................... 108

CHAPTER 9. COMMUNICATION, POWER, AND COMMUNITY.............. 114

1V
 The Communities of Practice of Machine Operators .................................... 117
-.
Role of Communication....................................................................... :......... 120

Senior Managementa's One ................. ~ ........ ~ ................................................ 124

Management Inability to Change................................................................... 127

The Day-Shift Operator Group and Night-Shift Operator Group ................. 128

Divergent Communities of Practice in the Day Shift .................................... 130

Role of Race .................................................................................................. 139

Conclusions.................................................................................................... 142

CHAPTER 10. A REVISIT TO THE WORKPLACE OF A SMALL

MANUFACTURING ORGANIZATION ............................................................ 146

Introduction..................................................................................................... 146

. Role of Communication................................. ;............................................... 148

Role of Learning on the Job ........................................................................... 151

Role of Relationships and Race .............................. :...................................... 155

Implications for High-Performing Systems ................................................... 160

Public Policy Implications ............................................................................. 164

Final Comments from a CEO ........................................................................ 167

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 173

APPEl'IDICES ..................................................................................................... 178

Appendix A. Description of Characters........................................................ 179

Appendix B. Organizational Chart ............................................................... 181

Appendix C. Diagram of Administrative Offices ......................................... 182

Appendix D. Tech Support Office ................................................................ 183

v
 _.
Appendix E. Plant Floor, South Side ............................................................ 184

Appendix F. Plant Floor, North Side ............................. ~ ................... :.......... 185

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.. Change in Perfonnance and Productivity from.February

to November 1999 ................... :........................................................... 53

Table 2. Comparison of Commitment Variables from February

to November 1999 ................. :........................................... ,................. 54

Table 3. Pretest Mean Scores and Percentage of Missing Data......................... 56

Table 4. Comparison of Attributes .................................................................. 136

vii .
 CHAPTER!

INTRODUCTION

It was a presentation at the Winter 1999 session of the EDM Program by Dr.

James Duderstadt from University of Michigan on twenty-first century education that

crystallized an opportunity for me to combine my past experience, connections, and

education to use a manufacturing facility as a laboratory for testing work practice

ideas. Duderstadt's presentation caused me to reflect on my exit from the legal pro-

fession over five years ago. After retirement, 1 shifted gears and slowly began acquir-

ing new skills and experiences marketable to the business world that hopefully were

more integrative in scope. At first I found it difficult to find employment outside the

legal profession. Initial1y~ I thought that {'was equipped to work in a global manufac-

turing environment. Instead, my prior work experiences were inadequate for

manufacturing or other related business settings given the realities of to day's global

economy.

After 15 months of suffering substantial economic hardship and several set-

backs, I became CEO of a growing nonprofit urban community and economic devel-

opment corporation in the inner city of a North Coast region. This corporation,

equipped with a multimillion dollar budget and more than 25 staff and volunteers,

allowed me to learn more about the chronic unemployed and the varied "new begin-
 2

ning" job and training programs that were being structured and implemented. As a

social activist and CEO, I also became more knowledgeable about challenges of man~

aging and leading workers, volunteers, and stakeholders headquartered in the heart of

a depressed community, and the existence of various competing interests when

launching job programs for hardwtowplace residents.

In 1997 an opportunity presented itself to invest and participate in growing a

small manufacturing operation (referred to as the "manufacturing facility") that em-

ployed workers with "typicaln profiles of individuals serviced by my nonprofit com-

munity and economic development corporation. Between 1997 and the end of 1998, I

noted ieelings of alienation within the manufacturing organization by workers, a lack

of necessary and adequate skills and tools, and an overall lack of control about their

future.

Nonprofit urban community and economic initiatives often seek competitive

and fair earnings to allow individuals to feed a family, while "for profit" businesses

focus on offering customers low pricing and high quality service and product. To sUCw

ceed, employers require workers to produce a quality product, on time, every time.

Workers or employees who are unable to offer "added value" may be left on the side-

lines. While reforms have been made to Welfare Programs, with work first or similar

programs implemented State-wide, outcomes seem to have led only to low paying

jobs such as bank tellers and jobs at fast food restaurants, with limited upward mobil-

ity. Job-training programs have been developed and implemented, but have added

little to building the capacity of the poor, unskilled, and at-risk members of our com-

munity. To make matters worse, this segment of the community finds it difficult or of
 3

limited value to complete training that provides little or no compensation during the

training process. Based on my own observations, experience, and discussions with

.individuals in the field, I am convinced that few long-term gains are achieved with .

short-term training or readiness programs of three to six months in length. Often

workforce development or training programs lead to jobs paying minimal hourly rates

of $7.50 or $8.00. Unless these jobs offer overtime on a regular basis and prospects

for quick upward mobility, the worker may not benefit from working.

Working in a manufacturing environment, I encounter "everyday" demands to

produce competitively priced addedMvalue products and services, as well as pressure

to secure an adequate shareholder return on investment. Staying competitive depends

on having a trained workforce equipped to produce quality products and services at

the lowest cost possible. with minimal delays in a work environment that fosters

maximum productivity. Developing a workforce that is dependable, productive. and

committed, and providing a workplace that is conducive to increased productivity are

challenging prospects, given varied sociocultural factors of our community and other

inadequacies faced at all levels of organizations.

This Applied Research Project (ARP) is one person's interpretation of factors

inside a small manufacturing facility, observing "close up" daily worklife interactions

among workers in the organization and the outcomes from practices implemented in

the organization. During a period of nine months in 1999, I conducted a study that

recorded my managerial actions taken to improve workforce development and pro-

ductivity. This was followed by focus group meetings of workers in 2000 to gain fur-

ther insight on worker perspectives on attitudes toward learning and communication.

 4

Initially I began by developing a demonstration project that involved selecting a

number of workers who would receive both on-the-job and off~the-job training over a

two--year period that· would require collaboration among various institutions. How-
ever, I realized that demonstration programs would involve too much time, require

.me to identify -sources of outside funds, and -require ·coordinating efforts among vari-

ous organizations.

In early 1999, I began implementing ideas with existing resources to- observe

if "something actually happens." Actions taken included increasing hourly pay to op-

·erators·based·on test results, developing a transportation -system,distributingr.eading

material on manufacturing, and increasing communication with the workforce. My

focus on worker interactions, relationships, and events, as well as delving into train-

ing and sociocultural worker design issues, revealed that data and events could not

easily be reduced to ·simpler tennsor -even simple conclusions. A comparison of pro-

ductivity and retention data at the start of the study to the data accumulated at the end

of the nine-month period revealed a limited increase in productivity and performance

among operators, with continued turnover among frontline workers. From myobser-

vations, I realized that the flow of work and worker interaction in the manufacturing

facility was complex and often messy.

This ARP offers a CEO perspective regarding the work environment or setting

in contributing to worker attitudes toward acquiring skills and knowledge, commit-

ment to the organization. and performance by hard-to-place workers; TheARP also

offers insight into limitations on workforce development and the role of relationships

and race in the work setting. .

 CHAPTER 2

BACKGROUND RESEARCH

The Existing Condition of Hard-to-Place Workers

Throughout the United States, we have witnessed unemployment at record

lows and median household income rising. By the end of 1999, the unemployment

rate had decreased to 4.2%, the lowest since the late 1960s; yet, people felt anxious

and unsure (Hodgkinson, 1999). To compete, regions around the world are pitted

against one another for quality products and services that are competitively priced. To

remain competitive globally, industrial regions of the United States must address the

demands of competition and productivity (Womack, Jones, & Roos, 1991. In re-

sponse, large manufacturers have been restructuring and redistributing or "'outsourc-

ing" manufacturing of parts to suppliers. One outcome from outsourcing is employing

or having access to highly skilled workers. Increasing the pool of employable labor to

meet demands of businesses seeking labor resources is a priority.

For the ninth straight year, the North Coast region averaged a jobless rate of

3.6%, with my state's jobless rate slightly higher at 3.9%. This state faces a demand

for skilled labor that exceeds available supply, while chronic unemployment persists

in the inner city where approximately 40% of working age adults are unemployed
 6

(people to Work Report, 1997). According to Holzer (1996), mismatches at different

levels include:

.• Ageographkmismatch between where most ofthe job growth is occur-

ring (the suburbs) and where a large pool of labor resides (the inner city).
Surveys indicate that manufacturing jobs are located in the suburbs, givit.tg
rise to tr~nsportation and child care issues.

• An education/skills mismatch between the ski1l1evel of the labor pool and

the skill level of demand by the employers required of applicants. Most
higher paying manufacturing jobs require a higher skill level. In the inner
city, high school students drop out at twice the rate of those in the suburbs,
while the less educated and less skilled residents are more likely to come
from the inner city.

• An organizational capacity mismatch between the training and education

that labor market intermediaries provide and what employers seek. One
survey found that "frequently, education and training offered by interme-
diaries does not meet employer needs" (Metropolitan Affairs Coalition,
1997).
In the inner city alone, it is estimated that more than 30,000 people remain out

of work. Changes in welfare laws are forcing or encouraging urban poor to work

while reports disclose that wages were .much less equally distributed among workers

in 1998 than in the 1970s (Domestic Strategy Group, Work and Future Society Semi-

nar Series, 1998). Since the 1970s, earnings for low-wage and low-skilled workers

have fa.l1en in inflation-adjusted terms, while earnings among higher wage workers

rose rapidly. Many economists were shocked by the reduction in earnings among the

less-skilled and low-paid workers in the United States (Freeman & Gottschalk, 1998).

Challenges also exist in keeping the chronic unemployed on the job. Former

Vice President Gore reported that "current studies show that more than 50 percent of

welfare recipients entering the workforce for the first time lose their jobs within the

first year. We must make sure that former welfare recipients have the support they
 7

need to stay on the job" (Ladd, 1998, p. 35). Issues such as child care and transporta-

tion also serve as serious impediments to employment, which need to be overcome.

Studies fi'om the Universiiy of California at Los Angeles reported that individuals .

with cars work more regularly, make more money and have more job choices (Hol-

zer,1996).

From a public policy perspective, a primary concern facing most low-income

urban communities such as the inner city is how to reduce chronic joblessness. With

unemployment remaining high in the inner city, how will this "at risk" population

find jobs? And what is needed to create gainful employment for these individuals?

The Greater North Coast city faces the paradox of having a sizeable population of Af-

rican Am.ericans unemployed, primarily in the inner city, while most job opportuni-

ties are located in the suburbs. Employers outside the boundaries of the inner city are

frustratedl in their inability to find and retain workers. More jobs are available than

there are people with the necessary skills to do these jobs. Jobs go unfilled because of

lack of hard skills in math, blueprint reading, drafting, etc. (Connecting the Urban

Poor to Work, 1998; People to Work, 1997). This population of unemployed poor re-

siding in urban centers represents a potential labor pool for employers.

The People to Work Report (1997) disclosed that unemployed individuals in

the inner cities often cannot read and perform arithmetic at a fifth-grade level. Yet,

employers seek unemployed individuals who have fifth-grade skills to be trained to

perform low skill jobs. Given these constraints, skilled jobs remain unfilled because

many employers claim that qualified applicants cannot be found. Job training and

placement frequently are handled through intermediaries Gob placement agencies,

 8

work rc~adiness programs, etc.). However, education and training offered by interme-

diaries may not meet employer needs. Employers often feel that these interinediaries
. ' . . ' .
do not listen to; or understand, needs of businesses in providing the training and ser-

vices needed.

With continued downsizing and outsourcing in the manufacturing industry, fu-

ture job opportunities appear to be with small and medium-size businesses. A survey
of five counties surrounding the North Coast city found that employment over the

next five years remains strong, but "old" jobs will be changing or eliminated at a

rapid pace (21 st Century Skills for 21 st Century Jobs, 1999). As computer and ad-

vanced technology become commonplace on factory floors, basic and technical skill

requirements of traditional jobs also are expected to change. Smaller manufacturing

businesses with workforces of less than 250 employees, producing a part as opposed

to providing a service (e.g., accounting or information technology), face challenges

a~d limited resources to assist in job training and worker development. Often, smaller
manufacturing concerns lack the necessary management skills to develop a systematic

and integrated approach to human resource development. Upper management person-

nel in many smaller manufacturers may not be educated or skilled in understanding

skill level requirements or sociocultural aspects. They also may hfive weak connec-

tions with education providers for developing needed workforce skills.

Many employers also hesitate to train their workers to have general, portable

skills, in part because they fear losing these workers after they have been trained.

Firms are more likely to train workers to have company-specific, nontransferable

skills (Lynch, 1997). Similarly, employers are less likely to invest in workers they
 9

anticipate will leave the company after receiving training. A study by Krueger and

Rouse (1998) disclosed that workers who participated in training were neither more

nor less likely to leave their company after training. Preliminary indications from my

observations support the finding that increased on-the-job training and skill upgrading

among operators in a manufacturing facility has not resulted in increased turnover or

loss of workers.

Employers also turn to intermediaries for training and placement. Unfortu-

nately, the success rate of intermediaries in placing and maintaining jobs for hard-to-

place individuals varies. This situation creates a circular effect that leads to frustration

and unfulfilled needs. And yet, training in a vacuum is not enough; organizations

must be able to realize increased performance and productivity.

Faced with limited resources, small companies are less likely to provide in-

house training, particularly for generalizable skills, such as computer-assisted design

that can be transferable. The People to Work Report (1997) found that 6 of 10 small

employers interviewed for a study of a region similar to the Greater North Coast city

offered in-house training geared toward building generalized skills. But employers

complained that they often lost employees to competitors after making sizeable in-

vestments in their training. The People to Work Report suggested that in-house train-

ing is related to difficulty in locating skilled workers. Another survey of 561 compa-

nies located in a region similar to the Greater North Coast city reported that a major-

ity of employers rarely or never provide tuition reimbursement, mentoring or appren-

ticeship opportunities to their employees (Workforce Issues: Now and Future, 1999).
i
II
Clear and convincing evidence of benefits of ongoing training of employees from an ,
I
!,
I
I
!
,t
 10

employer's perspective is lacking. Also, intermediaries reported cuts in govemment~

funded programs required better collaboration with businesses in developirig training

programs that addressed the' needs of the employer.

The Role of Race

An aspect often ignored or not addressed openly is the role of race in the

workplace. Inner city populations of major urban centers are 75% non-White, while

the racial distribution in their suburbs is the reverse, creating a strongly segregated

metro community (People to Work, 1997). Current readings and studies on work de~

velopment and training programs for the chronically unemployed often ignore the ra~

cial aspects in and outside organizations that interface in organizational settings.

Small manufacturers in the North Coast city face a racially polarized workforce with

most frontline operators being minorities (African American and Hispanic) who re-

side in the inner city, while supervisors tend to be White and reside in the suburbs.

In a project entitled The Multi-City Study of Urban Inequality (funded by the

Ford and Russell Sage Foundations), researchers suggested that while space and skill

gaps are important obstacles to advancement of inner-city residents, they tell only

part of the story; racial barriers also serve as a pervasive influence for workers (Free-

man & Gottschalk, 1998). Holzer's (1996) study found that given the racial makeup

of applicant pools, African Americans were significantly underhired. He reported that

employers exhibit strong racial preferences in their hiring practices, often based on

stereotyped ideas of who will perform better. His study also found workplaces were

segrega.ted where most African Americans worked alongside other African Ameri-
 11

cans but were supervised by Whites. For example, in Los Angeles, 86% of White

workers were supervised by other Whites, while only 30% .of African American

workers reported to African.American supervisors. Finally, most jobs were located in

suburbs where African Americans felt unwelcome given that most African American

workers lived in the inner city. Fears of anticipated discrimination combined with ef-

fects of actual residential discrimination made the distance between home and job a

distinctly racial as well as a spatial divide. These findings suggest that employers face'

far deeper complexities and challenges when developing a training program than

simply developing "hard skills" programs for inner-city residents.

The role of race cannot be ignored in the workplace when studying relation-

ships among workers and between workers and supervisors. These relationships could

very well have racial overtones, which may go unnoticed. The racial aspect of the

workplace is important, given the challenge to train and develop minority workers to

moye them into supervisory positions.

An observation regarding the role of race within organizations indicates the'

emergence of different outcomes from workers and supervisors from the same Of-

.ganization. Differences in race and the environment from which workers and supervi-

sors come could explain the development of subcultures within the organization.

Changes in the organization structure, such as employing workers from diverse- racial

makeups, might create the basis for the emergence of subcultures in the organization.

Such subcultures could· either· contribute ·or· impede ·meeting the ·objectives ·of an or-

ganization (Schein, 1985).

 12

: Further expanding -on -the -concept --of -subcultures, -organizations -can also be

viewed as consisting of small groups of people or communities of practice that have

worked together over a period of time (Wenger, 1998). Often they are not even a

team or a task force, but perform or collaborate on a shared task. Wenger argues that

communities of practice differ from a team in that it is knowledge acquisition through

participation that adds value to its members .. Thus~ interconnecting the communities

of practice through sharing, organizing and passing on knowledge within an organiza-

tion can serve to make the organization effective and add competencies to its mem-

bers while keeping the organization at the cutting edge.

The Role of Informal Training

An important aspect of infonnal training is designing the workplace so that

new or existing workers acquire the necessary knowledge or skills to perform the job

well. While formalized on-the-job training is critical in developing a foundation for

the individual, actual observing and doing is another important component in devel-

oping a higher skilled workforce (Lave, 1988). Differences between perspectives on

learning and teaching come into play, with Lave contrasting two communities of

practice. One is a supermarket meat department. Apprentice meatcutters are put to

work where they can be the most efficient at the wrapping machine. But the wrapping

machine is in a different room from the cold room in which journeymen prepare

meat. As a result, the apprentices have few opportunities to become what Lave caUs

"legitimate peripheral participants" in the community of practice. They have to learn

 13-

to cut meat by depending on their fonnal training rather than by observing meatcut-

ters and graduaUydoing more of what they do.

rn· contrast, apprerttic~ midwives in Yucatan are usually· daughters of senior

midwives. In this scenario, their broad exposure to ongoing practice provides a dem-

onstration of goals that newcomers are expected to master. Knowledge and skill de"

velop during this process, with an integral part of this process allowing the apprentice

midwives to become master practitioners within their community of practice. Using

this example, the goal is to have all employees in the organization learn using a for-

malized setting as well as having them become legitimate participants that allow

trainees to integrate their practice and formal training.

The National Center for Research in Vocational Education (NeRVE) pub-

lished a report in 1996 on four large work settings and study of skills in service and

manufacturing jobs. The study involved work sites of publicly held companies and

pu~lic agencies and learning technical skills on-the-job, as well as an examination of

the workplace as a social system. Three skill areas were reviewed: problem-solving,

communication, and teamwork. This study found that workplaces were complex; dy-

namic social systems defied simplistic categorization of skills and straightforward

matching of skill requirements to jobs. A rich picture of essential skills and disposi-

tions in the workplace included:

1. generic skills such as communications, problem-solving, working as part

of a team, and positive dispositions toward work.
2. the finding that generic skills and dispositions varied with work context
and, as such, proper job candidate selection involving specific skill and
. aptitude requirements are important.
 14

In addition; the NeRVE Report found that employers lacked specific knowledge ·of

workforce skills and effective strat~gies for developing essential skills. the study

suggested that employers do not uniformly possess accurate or useful knowledge of·

the skills required in their technical workforce. Supervisors and managers removed

.from the frontline workforce sometimes underestimate the capabilities of workers or

. have varying opinions about work requirements. In addition, employers and employ-

ees who were interviewed believed that on-the-job training was essential to learn the

job in the first place or keep up with the pace of change that was occurring in the

workplace. Even if formal on-the-job training was absent, workers continued to learn

on the job. The study found that on-the-job training was carried out within communi-

ties of practice when formal training was not provided or failed. A shortcoming was

the failure by higher management to recognize the role of communities of practice as

supporting training. In some cases, management policies appeared to undermine

rather than support an environment in which experts guided newcomers in the work-

place.

The NCRVE study offered an important contribution for smaller working en-

vironments as it suggested that particular attention should be paid to the role and

function. of communities of practice in organizations and how these organizations

contJ;ibute to learning, standard setting, efficiency, etc. These communities of practice

are an extension of Lave's (1988) writings and offer an alternative perspective for

.follow-up and observation. In addition, better tools for measuring and assessing skills

that address and affect performance need to be developed and employed.

 15

Lave (1988) and the NeRVE (1996) study offered an opportunity to better

understand and structure change in small manufacturing environments. KD.owl~dge

acquisition through closer· observation teok on a much broader perspective within the

framework of all levels of the o.rganizatio.n,. That is, kno.wledge acquisition may oc-

. cur regardless o.f whether it is the frontline operator who is exposed to. more experi-

enced operators or the new superviser who observes more experienced supervisors in

handling management-related issues. Often this on-the-job informal training is ig-

nered and not valued until it is lost because of turnover or absenteeism. Lave's con-

cepts of situated learning offer an opportunity "through observation" to. view worker

interaction from a different perspective in workforce development. Thus, Lave's ap-

proach to learning and knowledge acquisition is that it occurs around cemmunities of

practice where learning is shared among its members.

Another challenge is to. develop skills or training of workers who are older.

Heckman (1999), a neted researcher and prolific writer, questioned the value of train-

ing the elder individual. Basically, the conclusion reached was that training proved

less valuable to the older worker. Heckman, in discussing hard-core older unem-

ployed individuals living in urban centers, suggested older individuals cannot con-

tribute to increasing organizational performance through training and that it would be

a waste of time to spend scarce resources on this segment of the population.

Workforce Programs and Models

Publicly provided job training programs for low skill workers appear to have

positive, but modest, effects. The Job Training Partnership Act reported that primary
 16

training for the least skilled employees raised annual wages among both men and

women by between $200 and $600 per year. As Heckman (1999) noted, public job

training programs could not possibly reverse the impact of widening wage inequality

among less skilled workers. The effects are simply too small.

A review of workforce programs across the United States found that most

workforce models employ one of four approaches:

1. self-employment,

2. job training and placement,

3. job creation and retention, and

4. community-based initiatives.

These models seek to address barriers to employment (i.e., transportation

andlor child care), help individuals acquire necessary skills to obtain employment,

and provide support to program members that can help them retain employment and

move beyond entry-level posi~ions. Often, nonprofit or quasi-public workforce devel-

opment programs, which serve as intermediaries, develop these models. Employers

who are expected to be the end users of these programs are not involved in either de-

signing or championing these workforce development programs.

An Aspen Institute (1993) report identified model programs with a full spec-

trum of intervention strategies serving aU levels of individuals, ranging from the

homeless to the temporarily unemployed. Further, the "leaner and meaner" models

collectively represent a new paradigm in development thinking since they:

• serve as empowerment vehicles by devolving responsibility for perform-

ance to individuals while creating an atmosphere of dignity, discipline and
high expectation;
 17

• link. poverty alleviation directly to broader economic development goals

rather than viewing it as an end in itself;

• pursue market-based strategies, often sector specific, that· exploit market

niches for individuals; and

• seek to become sustainable elements of the local economy itself.

Such programs are designed to assist individuals and their families who are

primarily long-term unemployed. A typical format provides for an initial assessment

phase and assignment of "family coaches" to assist program participants' attempts to

identify barriers, which could present substantial obstacles to achieving economic in-

dependence. A subsequent phase allows individuals to develop plans and engage in

activities that could reduce or eliminate barriers and provide stability in their life

situations.

The following lessons can be derived from these programs:

• Job ladder issues are key; access is not enough. Individuals need to have
ways of moving into better, more highly skilled jobs. Typical programs
provide placement in jobs paying minimal hourly rates.

• Programs require time to develop and to work out problems.

• Training needs to be focused and realistic expectations need to be set.

• There is a need to create an organizational culture that demands high qual-

ity standards, hard work, open communication, and mutual support. Sup-
port from top management is crucial.

Combillling Hard ·and Soft Skill Development

From one perspective there is a need for employees to develop "hard" skills

(e.g., blueprint reading, drafting, tool and die making, layouts, inspection, etc.) to

complete specific tasks required of the position. Yet, the Connecting the Urban Poor
 18

to Work Report (1998) found that another important factor considered by employers

was seltecting workers who had the right attitude. Employers. found that employees

who are reliable, able to take supervision, and work with fellow employees and cus~

tomers are dedicated to doing a good job. These employers are confident that they can

teach entry-level workers the technical skills necessary to do their jobs. The Report

concluded that in addition to "hard skill" training, "soft skill or nonhard skill" devel-

opment is also needed when working with the chronically unemployed. For the pur-

pose of this study, soft skills or nonhard skills include having a work ethic, possessing

a· willingness to work and learn, and being dependable and/or punctual. It could also

refer to skills related to reading, writing, communication, and interpersonal relations.·

The urban poor face other barriers, such as economic segregation in housing

and schooling, which isolate them from the larger labor market (Case & Katz, 1991;

Haveman & Wolfe, 1994; Rosenbaum, 1995). Case and Katz's (1991) "The Company

You Keep: The Effects of Family and Neighborhood on Disadvantaged Youth" found

that poor people who were raised in middle-class suburbs tended to be more success·

ful than poor people who lived in areas of concentrated poverty in an urban location,

if all else was equal. These obstacles represent another dimension to a complex web

when seeking to develop an effective, coordinated approach to workforce develop-

ment tor the urban poor. Simple, mindless application of standardized practices does

not necessarily result in the development of an effective action plan. Instead, we must

enter and participate in the process face-to-face and observe the dynamics of the

workplace. Where necessary, employers must become socially active by taking con-

textually relevant action.

 19

Workplace Practices

The issues of communication and lack of skills.in the workplace also raise the
" "

question about the type of setting that exists within organizations that can foster

greater productivity. Arguments suggest that alternative systems for managing em~

ployees and organizing their work could lead to better employee performance and, in

tum, superior organizational performance. Studies indicate that adoption of a coherent

system of new human resource (HR) management practices, (e.g., flexible job defini~

tions, cross-training, employee involvement, contingent compensation, increased in-

formation sharing, and employment security) can result in substantially higher levels

of productivity than more traditional human resource management practices (e.g., less

flexible, close supervision, hourly pay) (Arthur, 1994). These new types of human

resource management emerged as a result of the growing interest in Japanese man-

agement practices, and are driven by concern about the inadequacie"s of United States

manufacturing in general (Dertouzo, Lester, & Solow, 1988).

In traditional manufacturing plants (commonly referred to as traditional or

control-based HR systems), conceptualizing and planning future projects is separated

from carrying out work tasks and executing plans (Ichniowski, Kochan, et ai., 1996).

Blue-collar positions are typically routine and require constant repetition with little

knowledge regarding the connection between the tasks they perform and the overall

operation of the organization. Nonsupervisory employees have little. autonomy or

control in performing their tasks. Instead, supervisors coordinate collecting and proc-

essing information by blue collar and nonsupervisory workers and then use this in-

formation to make decisions. In tum, front-line workers are expected to carry them
 20

out with little or no feedback from supervisors, as these workers are paid to follow

orders, not to think. Meetings or training sessions represent lost productivity: In these

settings, supervisors act as monitors and taskmasters giving instructions about what to

do and how to do it.

With the introduction of Japanese methods of manufacturing in the U.S.,

manufa(;turing plants needed to begin considering innovative approaches to improve

performance. One common theme with innovative work practices includes organizing

work to permit front~1ine workers to participate in decisions that can alter organiza~

tional routines. This practice may be achieved by using shop-floor production teams

or through employee participation in problem or quality-improvement teams. In these

settingst a higher level of communication results from greater interface among work-

ers, managers, and experts. These systems, commonly referred to as high-

performance or commitment-based HR systems, promote training (formal or infor-

mal) and develop broader job definitions as an integral part of improving the skill

level of its workforce (Ichniowski, Kochan, et al., 1996). In addition, increased em-

ployment security and incentive pay to improve performance typically are additional

elements that separate high-performance systems from traditional work organizations.

Recent studies, using data on Japanese plants and U.S. plants adopting Japa-

nese type human resource management practices, reinforce the assertion that intro~

duction of "innovative work practices," including teams and incentive pay, are asso-

ciated with higher worker productivity (Ichniowski, Kochan, et aI., 1966). Combina-

tions of these practices yield additional productivity improvements. A 1994 study by

Cooke examined the effects of employee participation and group incentive compensa-
 21

tion (i.e., profit sharing and gain sharing) on value added per employee from a sample

of manufacturing finns in Michigan. This report indicates that employee participation

.plans had larger significant positive effects in union than in nonunion finns. Another

study found that employee voice had a larger positive effect on productivity when it

was done in the context of unionized establishments (Black & Lynch, 2000).

A 1994 article by Arthur compared two types of human resource systems, the

control··based HR system and the commitment-based HR system. The study found

that commitment-based systems contributed to higher productivity, lower scrap rates,

and lower employee turnover than those with control-based systems. In a control-

based rlR system, the goal is to reduce labor costs or improve efficiency by enforcing

employee compliance with specific rules and procedures, and basing employee re-

wards on some measurable output criteria. In contrast, commitment-based HR sys-

tems shape desired employee behaviors and attitudes by constructing psychological

links between organizational and employee goals. The focus is on developing com-

mitted and skilled employees who can be trusted to use their discretion to carry out

job tasks in ways that are consistent with organizational goals. This purpose can be

accomplished by decentralizing managerial decision-making, establishing formal par-

ticipation mechanisms, and providing the proper training and rewards. A commit-

ment-based system can lead to a highly motivated and 'empowered work force whose

goals are closely aligned with those of management.

Arthur (1994) found statistically significant evidence to show that higher

turnover in a manufacturing facility was associated with a control-based system.

Turnover was found to be twice as high in control-based systems when compared to

 22

turnover in commitment-based systems. Another important finding was the negative

relationship between turnover and manufacturing performance in commitment-based

systems, where a lower turnover was associated ~th the higher performance of a .

company. Arthur provided empirical evidence that supports advantages of a commit-

ment-based system over a control-based system. However, he did not provide evi-

dence regarding the performance implications of mixed systems (e.g., ones that exist

somewhere between control-based and commitment-based systems).

The commitment-based system is similar in approach to the creation of inno-

vative workplaces. The innovative workplace, as with a commitment-based system,

departs from traditional work systems and labor-management relationships developed

and practiced in many industrial settings. Traditional workplaces are characterized by

tightly defined jobs with associated rates of pay, clear lines of demarcation separating

the duties and rights of workers and supervisors, decision-making powers retained by

management, and communication and conflicts channeled through formal chains of

command and grievance procedures. In contrast, innovative workplaces seek greater

degrees of flexibility in work organization, cooperation between workers and man-

agement, and worker participation in decision-making and financial well-being of the

company (Ichniowski, Kochal\ et al., 1996).

High-involvement workplaces may result in workers working harder. Workers

may enjoy work more when characteristics of the job make their work interesting and

ensure that work provides positive feedback and rewards. Workers are less likely to

resent a job if they have h~lped in its design (Levine, 1995). In addition, cross-

training and flexible job assignments can lead to reduced absenteeism, improved
 23

communication, and improved worker-management relations. Ultimately, a system

involving the adoption of innovative work practices can translate to higher productiv-
. . ' .
ity and quality (IchniowSki" Kochan, et at., 1996). Further, a study on human re-·

source management practices and worker productivity found that adoption of a full

system of innovative human resource management practices achieves higher levels of

productivity and quality as opposed to those organizations that adopt only one or two

features of this type of system (Ichniowski & Shaw, 1997). An organization that

shifts its system by adopting one or two practices without changing others may even

perform worse than traditional systems (Ichniowski, Kochan, et aI., 1996). This sug-

gests that manufacturing organizations, in making changes to their work practices,

need to consider adopting comprehensive measures in the workplace rather than just

one or two practices.

Implementing new human resource systems, such as commitment-based sys-

terns, can be a challenging venture. The Brookings Institution reported in 1995 that

organizational theories do not provide unambiguous prediction (Reinventing the

Workplace, 1995). Instead, sustaining a successful, high-involvement, high-perform-

ance work organization is difficult.· Adopting a commitment-based system requires

changes in human resource policies (i.e., pay and training, changes in management

style, and changes in supplier relations). Research has produced evidence that the re-

sults can be worth it: organiz1ji~ns that have invested in their people have, on aver-
~ •.•. .J')

age, enjoyed impressive rewards. Thus, providing frontline workers with skills, moti-

vation, and freedom to improve how they do their jobs can greatly increase both pro-

ductivity and worker satisfaction.

 24

Another challenge is the· practicality and extent of implementing different or

innovative work practices in a manufacturing organization. The outcomes depend on

the particular identification and application of certain tectm:iques or methods in the

workplace. These techniques include development in the organization of problem-

solving groups, suggestion schemes and appraisal schemes that systematically meas-

ure and reward individual input to quality improvements and the blurring of lines be-

tween planning and execution of tasks (Kenney & Florida, 1993). An important com-

ponent is related to enhancing workforce skills through either formal or informal

training. Depending on the manufacturing environment, cross-training related to mas-

tering certain machines and tasks could serve to provide greater flexibility when tied

to improved quality performance or increased efficiency (Applebaum, Bailey, Berg,

& Kalleberg, 2000).

Summary

Development of hard skills is important and needs to be introduced systemati-

cally and simultaneously with development and implementation of soft or non-hard

skills. Studies found that training of employees does not necessarily instill commit-

ment to the employer, but training has been shown to reduce turnover. Concurrently,

implementation of newer human resource work practices reveals positive relation-

ships with organizational performance. Therefore, "bundling" of human resource

management practices leads to greater synergistic effects than just implementing parts

in an organization. The studies presented in this review have suggested that linking

work practices together in the organization can lead to increased productivity.

 2S

These concepts support the conjecture that developing a single right approach

or model on workforce. development can be extremely difficult because' of varied

complexities and variables, internally and externally, that can impact the organization

and workers. One component that is important is the social interaction that needs to

be present among workers. In this regard, recording one's own daily interactions and

carrying out focus group interviews are methods to capture complexities of social in-

teraction. Through active participation in enhancing knowledge and skills, and com-

mitment to adopting innovative human resource principles, workplaces can produce

gradual changes in workforce skills, productivity, and retention..

 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS

I have intervened in and studied supervisor-subordinate relationships.

co-worker relationships, communication skills. and knowledge levels of hard-to-place

workers in order to understand the personal and organizational changes associated

with workforce development. and how these changes result from the sociocultural

environment and context of work that occurs at all levels of an organization.

Proposition 1:

Increased informal and formal worker development at all levels of a

small manufacturing setting that employs a low-skill or hard-to-place
workforce will.increase productivity and performance of an organiza-
tion.

This proposition was investigated from an employer's perspective, to deter-

mine whether certain practices used in the organization led to overall increased pro-

ductivity and performance. In evaluating Proposition 1, many factors that comprise a

new human resource management practice system (also referred to as a commitment-

based HR system) were implemented to increase and improve workforce skills, but

without a specific design to create a commitment-based HR system in the organiza-

tion. Practices developed during the period of study included cross-training of opera-

tors to perform a number of different jobs on different machines, more specific job

screening. increased hours of on-site classroom training, and increased information

26
 27

sharing through memos and newsletters. These practices were put into action or

"bundled" throughout the period to assess impact on performance and productivity. In

some cases, certain practices were used on a more regular basis, such as information

sharing while on-site training was more irregular and inconsistent.

Proposition 2:

Organizational workforce development, such as conducting on-the-job

training sessions and worker meetings, disseminating monthly em-
ployee newsletters, production and productivity reports, and encourag-
ing worker involvement at all levels of an organization fosters better
lines of communication among all workers and leads to a greater sense
of commitment from employees and the furtherance of higher job at-
tainment or promotion, income, and job security.

In investigating Proposition 2, I informally adopted many factors that were

consistent with a commitment-based HR system, such as cross-training of operators

of different jobs on different machines, increased hours in on-site classroom training,

and increased information sharing through memos and newsletters. Outcomes were

measured using turnover, absenteeism, and length of service data.

In further testing both propositions, I retained an independent facilitator in

early 2000 to conduct focus group meetings of all workers other than senior manag-

ers. Names of all participating workers were kept confidential from me, as CEO, and

anyone else to ensure maximum protection of the workers, and were not disclosed to

me or any other supervisor of the organization .. These focus group sessions offered a

deeper understanding of the social dynamics regarding change, leaming, and oppor-

tunities for advancement from the perspective of the worker.

 28

Summary

From my perspective, practices deployed to measure two propositions were

closely integrated and linked. It was difficult to develop practices that were designed
specifically to assess performance, productivity, and commitments. By reviewing the

compiled materials, I was able to make suggestions regarding implementation and

outcome of certain practices that were more similar to a commitment-based HR sys-

tem than to a control-based HR system. However, the use of focus group meetings

was a valuable tool in gaining evidence about the work environment that would not

have been available from my personal experience and observations, given my senior

position in the organization.

 CHAPTER 4

METHODS: FIELDWORK METHODS, TOOLS UTaIZED,

AND ORGANIZING THE DATA COLLECTED

Background of the Study

This ARP outlines and explains choices that I considered important and that

were acted upon during my research of the workplace of a small manufacturing facil-

ity between March 1999 and March 2001. My position in the workplace was both as

observer and active participant in the role of chief executive officer (CEO). As such, I

was able to collect information and implement strategies to assess worker responses

on commitment along with worker and organizational performance and productivity.

My approach from a position of power and authority in the workplace was to observe,

act, experience, react and ask people about what was going on in the company At the

same time, my position as CEO of the organization limited me from accessing deeper

insight into the worker perspective on opportunities for learning, advancement and

information sharing.

The primary focus of the research was the activity of all workers (operators

and direct laborers) employed by the organization, but specifically those activities

taking place on the plant floor. Particular attention was given to the frontline workers,

aged between 25 and 45 years of age and their relationship with the tech support

?9
 30

--
group. As researcher, I was exposed to a variety of activities~ behaviors, and attitudes.

This exposure allowed me to observe a complex web of entrenched, informal, and

complex relationships among workers and institutions that" layered the organization.
However, it was difficult to separate my role as researcher from my role as CEO. so

that initial observations and analyses tended to be viewed from the perspective of an

insider as opposed to an impartial outsider.

The Organizational Setting and Related Factors

Role of Researcher .

The study was designed to allow me to immerse myself as researcher and

CEO in the workplace and observe and analyze the processes of interactions, actions,

and outcomes among workers and employees between March and November 1999, as

well as ~he period covering 2000 and the early part of 2001 (Greenwood & Levin,

1998). The research was integrative in scope, aimed at discovering or producing a

better understanding of social relations and their role in productivity, performance,

and commitment at both organizational and worker levels. I intended to gain a better

understanding of relationships among employees in the small manufacturing organi-

zation.
To say I was neutral in my dealings with activities in the workplace and em-

ployees in the organization would be misleading. While some bias exists in any deci-

sion-making, I sought to control my bias by reviewing proposed actions with my

partner (Dick), the plant manager (Milton), and other supervisors in the workplace.

However, the ultimate attempts to control my bias were. exemplified by the focus
 31

group sessions conducted in eady 2000. These sessions revealed the perspective of

the worker, uninterrupted or compromised by senior management or tech support

group member input.

Data were collected from business records of the organization regarding hours

devoted to training employees as well as data on performance, productivity, and

commitment.

Time Periods

The data collected on production, performance, and retention took place over

a nine-month period, beginning in March and ending in November 1999. I also re-

viewed personnel records on employee absences and tardies for the period prior to

1999 and subsequent to 1999, that is, for 2000.

To gain further insight into worker attitude on opportunities for learning, skill

enhancement and commitment toward the organization, as well as obtain a better un-

derstanding of responses set forth in the surveys completed, focus group sessions

were conducted in March 2000 of all machine operators and tech support employees.

The facilitator submitted her overall. findings to me in May 2000. Subsequently, in

May 2001 I received a complete set of the written transcripts of the focus group ses-

sions conducted in March 2000. The transcripts allowed me to revisit my notes and

observations for the periods of 1999 and 2000 and consider alternative perspectives

on worker attitudes on learning and communication in the workplace.

 32

Sample Size, Setting, and Participation Level

This study involved all employees of the organization, with special focus on

the machine operators and tech support workers. The manufacturing, facility was lo-

cated in the North Coast region and performed precision machining of forgings and

castings by offering quick changeovers and set ups, moving from one machining job

to another within a 15- to 30-minute time period using technicians (who were gener-

ally White) as opposed to operators (who were generally non-White). New operators

were assigned to a particular machine and trained on the job by another operator with

more experience. One operator was assigned to each machine except during the train- '

ing period. Developing teams or self-directed teams was virtually impossible in the

organization because the machining of a forging or casting part was done at each

CNC (computer numerical control) machining center, which was operated by an indi-

vidual machine operator. To minimize uncertainty and to ensure control, the operator

was instructed by hislher supervisor to produce a minimum quantity of parts per shift.

Maintenance, repair, changeover, etc., were the responsibility of a member of the tech

support group.

The organization employed approximately 40 workers (including administra-

tion) and operated two lO-hour shifts daily, Monday through Friday, with an eight-

hour work day on Saturday. Hourly workers numbered between 28 and 34 workers,

which included machine operators and almost all tech support workers. The work-

force consisted of three levels, the senior management group, the tech support group,

and the machine operator group. All workers except administration, which consisted

of the two owners, the plant manager and the quality manager, were paid on an hourly
 33

-.
basis and earned time-and-a-half when more than 40 hours was worked in any given

workweek.

Further discussion on the workforce and the background of the organization is

set forth in Chapter 5.

Use of Other Primary Material

The manufacturing facility and staff maintained records on productivity and

machine output for jobs, commonly referred to as production and operational records.

These production and operational records were initially reviewed in February and for

each month through November 1999. This process allowed for comparing and con-

trasting different areas and keeping track of any changes.

Data reviewed consisted of the following:

1. Scrap rate

2. Average production machine hours

3. Average machine down time

4. Absenteeism and tardiness

5. Turnover

6. Weekly productivity reports per machine

7. Mishap logs

8. P (production) charts completed by operators .

Some of the data were difficult to compile efficiently, and therefore certain

changes were made that permitted greater ease and compilation of the data. Data were
 34

collected and monthly averages were determined based on the number of operators,

production dollars, and simIlar considerations. Data included:

1. Average scrap rate per month

2. Average mishaps per operator per month

3. Average monthly dollar produced per hour
4. Average length of service per month
5. Average absences by direct labor per month
6. Average tardiness by certain units of workers

7. Average hourly rate of direct labor per month

8. Average turnover per month

9. Average production output per month

10. Average production output per operator per month

Data collection also included a review of background personnel files including

the application-for-work forms, employee attendance records, and performance re-

view. Further, through informal discussions on the plant floor with workers I learned

about the lives of people in the organization and their relationships with other work-

ers.

Personal Observations

I took a proactive approach in the organizational setting and was willing to

test and retest ideas, practices, and concepts (Whyte, 1994). I explored the managerial

processes employed, worker development, and the socio-cultural struggles in the or-

ganization in a real life setting (Remedy, Williams, Money, & Swartz (1998).
 35

Serving as a CEO of the organization did limit how open and revealing work-
--
ers were with me. Interpretations tended to differ between workers and me as to how

workers viewed demotions, pay raises, opportunities to learning,· and worker in- . .
volvement. On reflection, I initially sought to unconsciously validate that my actions

as CEO did lead to "positive" results, showing the transition of the organization from

a controlled based system to a commitment-based system. That perception was shat-

tered as a result of the focus group sessions, which forced me to take a fresh look at

what was taking place on the plant floor.

Focus Group Meetings

To obtain a deeper, richer understanding of the impact of activities under-

taken, to determine employees' reactions to the two surveys conducted of employees

in 1999, and to gain additional insight on data collected on productivity and perform"

ance, three focus group meetings were organized in late March 2000. These sessions

were held at the workplace without the involvement of senior management~ that is, no

member of the senior management staff was present at these meetings. To ensure con-

fldentiality and anonymity, and to minimize conflict of interest, I retained an inde-

pendent and professional facilitator to conduct the foc~s group meetings. While I did

not participate in these meetings, I did provide the facilitator with background infor-

mation, including questions the facilitator should ask in the meetings. Appropriate

informed consent forms were completed and signed by each participating employee,

with assurances of anonymity provided by the facilitator to aU participants.

 36

These sessions served to provide feedback on questions relating to worker at-

titudes toward commitment and performance. The three focus groups were organized

by shift to allow participation of all employees. In addition, machine. operators and

tech support personnel were included in the focus groups. Each focus group session

lasted approximately 2 hours, with a total of 14 employees attending these meetings,

with each group consisting of four or five employees: The groups were audio-taped

and transcribed by the independent facilitator. The independent facilitator assured

participating employees of confidentiality, and I was never given access to the audio-

tapes of the focus group sessions.

Subsequent to the focus group meetings, the independent facilitator prepared a

written report, which was submitted at the end of May 2000. Receipt of the actual

written transcripts of the focus group sessions, without individual identification, were

not presented to me until May 2001, almost 12 months after receipt of the facilitator

written report.

Bias in the Research

The action-oriented approach to the ARP has built in bias because of my sen-

ior management position in the company and my ability to alter and manipulate se-

lected variables within the organization. To control for bias in the design and imple-

mentation, I took a multiple approach through the use of surveys, review of corporate

records and documents, focus group meetings, and review of the written transcripts of

the focus group meetings.

 37

-.
My observations were reviewed along with the transcripts of the focus group

meetings to provide a deeper understanding of the dynamics of the workplace, as fur~

ther discussed in Chapters 8 and 9. To ensure confidentialitY and anonymity, theloca~

tion of the facility, name of the operation, type of business, and ~ames of all employ~

ees have been disguised. Fictitious names were assigned to assure confidentiality of

individuals.

I recognized that a Hawthorne effect could serve to mitigate or explain in-

creased productivity or performance in the manufacturing facility. No doubt as a

member of senior management I possessed a vested interest in the welfare of the

workers and employed power within the organization, which can serve to explain or

influence the overall outcome in productivity, performance, and commitment At the

same time, the presence of the Hawthorne effect may have served to illustrate the

negative and positive attributes of leadership in small organizations on productivity,

perfomlance, and commitment as revealed through the focus group meetings.

Another concern was differentiating recorded observations from my own bias

and opinions. Eliminating my bias and subjectivity was difficult This aspect of my

research could have impacted on the integrity of the research and was difficult to re-

move due to the nature and scope of this study. Also, the inherent existence of power

and authority in the CEO who is also the researcher served to mitigate or confound

results or outcomes. It is virtually impossible to control for these inherent risks or fac~

tors associated with performing research of one's own workforce and organization.

However, review of the transcripts of the focus group meetings presented observa~

tions from inside the minds of workers. This served as a countervailing factor, which
 38

offered me an opportunity to develop a fresh and alternative perspective as researcher

outside my position as CEO of the organization.

Validity Issues

As the CEO of the organization being studied, I was able to control a number

of activities within the organization. But the use of action research made it difficult to

assume that conventional rules of research could apply due to the. nature of human

interaction and inquiry (Stringer, 1996). Triangulation of data through observations of

activities, combined with review of production and operational records compiled by

various individuals within the organization and access to the transcripts of the focus

group meetings, helped to produce a more realistic analysis (Brewer & Hunter. 1989).

Access and review of separate independent records when tied to the focus group tran-

scripts served to minimize challenges to validity.

In regard to external validity, the outcomes of this. study may not be generaliz-

able to other organizations as the research involves only one organization. However,

recent studies on workplace innovations connect this study to others in the manufac-

turing sector and can help extend its relevance to other small manufacturing organiza-

tions.
 CHAPTERS

BACKGROUND OF THE ORGANIZATION

Introduction

In writing this ARP, I found myself questioning how to provide a richer un-

derstanding of what was happening in the organizational setting from the data col-

lected and the findings from the focus group sessions. In this chapter, I provide a

framework for reviewing the subsequent chapters presented on the organization by

describing how I first attempted to study the organization and then how the study

changed through the focus group sessions.

An organization is comprised of complex forms of social activity defined by

individuals within the organization interacting with each other. The focus group find-

ings, when reviewed in the context of this background chapter, provide a more com-

plete perspective on the social dynamics taking placed in the small manufacturing or-

ganization researched.

Background

The organization was formed in the early 1990s to provide precision machin-

ing for two larger manufacturing organizations. The business focus was the machin-

ing oflow- to mid-volume castings and forgings, ranging from 5,000 to 250,000 units
 40

per year. Since the two larger organizations' niche was machining higher volume

units, in excess of 300,000 units per year, having a facility dedicated to machining

lower volumes was ideal for providing a fuller scope of machining support to cus-

tomers. These two customers would provide the castings to the organization to ma-

chine, which were then returned to them for shipment to their customers.

I arrived in the picture in the early part of 1997 as a result of shareholders in

the organiiation seeking to convert the entity to a minority business enterprise to take

advantage of other procurement opportunities afforded to minority-owned automotive

parts suppliers, and to create a more diversified customer base. As a result of previous

contact with some of the shareholders of the organization, they approached me to

consider becoming involved in the organization as a working partner. Through these

initial meetings, I met Dick, a shareholder who was the only working partner in the

organization and who had been instrumental in establishing the business operation.

Dick was very clear in wanting a working partner inthe organization who could over-

see the administrative, sales, and marketing responsibilities on a day-to-day basis. By

late 1997 Dick, the other shareholders, and I reached a general understanding on

growing the business, and I acquired controlling equity interest in the organization.

. To learn about the business, I interacted not only with Dick but also with the

plant manager, Milton. Milton had over 15 years of supervision experience in another

machining operation and had been with the organization approximately three years.

Milton was responsible for handling the production scheduling, logistics, and quality

concerns on the plant floor. In addition, Milton was responsible for hiring and firing

all machine operators. It became evident that Milton and Dick often clashed over op~
 41

erational and process issues. Later, I learned that they also had different opinions on

how to operate the plant floor and on working with the workforce, especially when it

impacted on Dick's relatives.

During the first 12 months of joining the organization, I discovered that Dick

employed two relatives, a son, Bill, and a nephew, David, who made up the initial

nucleus of the tech support group. Bill worked on the plant floor in maintenance and

repair of the machines, while David was in charge of job set~up, changeover, and

maintenance of cutting tools. Bill and David had worked with Dick since the initial

formation of the organization. Although technically Bill and David reported to Mil-

ton, the plant manager, in practice both of them worked under the direct supervision

of Dick. Issues of discipline, promotion, and division of tasks pertaining to Bill and

David often required input from Dick.

In addition, Bill dated another worker, Jane, the quality coordinator, who re~

ported to Milton on productivity and quality issues. Jane had started with the organi-

zation at approximately the same time as Bill and David and had eventually joined the

tech support group. The close personal relationship between Jane and Bill allowed

Bill to keep a pulse on what was going on on the plant floor and report back to his

father, Dick. Later, the organization hired Dick's br9ther-in-Iaw, Steve, who eventu-

ally became the plant supervisor.

My initial step was to formally convert the organization to a minority business

enterprise (MBE) to begin soliciting business with other potential customers. Also,

after about 12 months in the organization, I saw an opportunity in early 1999 to de~

velop and implement an action plan that I saw as not existing in the organization prior
 42

to my arrival, and which I believed would enhaJ1,ce worker perfonnance and commit-

ment. This plan included:

• . Developing and distributing periodic employee newsletters in im effort to

improve communication

• Holding periodic on-the-job training sessions of operators

• Instituting worker tests on training development and skill enhancement

• Holding fonnal meetings with operators to air complaints and concerns

• Promoting development of non-White workers to semi-tech support per-

sonnel

Core Competency of the Organization

The organization owned a number of machining centers to provide machining

services to customers. These machining centers are viewed as flexible or CNC ma-

chining centers since a number of jobs could be programmed to run on a single ma-

chining center. This meant quick changeovers and quick set-up times in switching

from one job to another. For example, tech support personnel could replace holding

fixtures used in machining one job and start another job with other holding fixtures in

a span of 15 to 30 minutes. This was a tremendous advantage when quoting on low-

volume jobs, since such flexibility was unusual with smaller or minority-owned sup-

pliers. It became clear that the organization's competitive advantage lay in offering

customers shorter lead times, as well as being able to accept jobs that other suppliers

avoided due to being low volume and shorter-term contracts (typically three years).

The machining centers on the plant floor served as a distinctive characteristic that set

the organization apart from the competition by offering more cost-competitive prices.
 43

The Workforce

During the period of this research the organization employed approximately

40 employees (including administration). Overall, the entity was open approximately

twenty hours per day, with a day shift and a night shift.

The organization was made up of three levels of employee: (1) senior manag-

ers, (2) tech support group, and (3) machine operators.

Senior Managers

Senior managers were the upper level of the organization. Senior managers

were responsible for quoting on jobs, marketing, sales, hiring senior managers and

performing administrative tasks. This group consisted of Dick (my partner who

quoted jobs and programmed the machining centers to perform certain cutting opera-

tions on the castings and forgings); the chief engineer, Fred; Milton, the plant man-

ager (who was responsible for production scheduling, work assignment of laborers,

and int~racting with customers on quality issues); and me (in charge of administrative

tasks such as invoicing, collections, payments to creditors, and marketing efforts).

Annual salaries ranged between $70,000 and $120,000.

Personnel functions, such as hiring, firing, promotion, etc., were divided

among Dick, Milton, and me. Personnel issues pertaining to the tech support group,

especially when it impacted on a relative of Dick, were the responsibility of Dick,

with my input. Personnel issues pertaining to the frontline workers, the machine op-

erators, and other tech support members, were the responsibility of Milton, with my

input. Finally, control over profits and losses of the organization, marketing and sales,
 44

-.
administration, and hiring senior managers (such as the quality manager) were my

responsibility, with input from Dick. All senior managers were. White except for me,

a Hispanic.

Tech Support Group

The second level consisted of mid-level supervisors and tech support, referred

to in subsequent chapters as the tech support group. This group consisted of the floor

supervisors, technicians, quality inspectors, tool and die makers, etc. In small organi-

zations, individuals often perform multiple tasks. Tasks included making sure cutting

tools were properly maintained and machining centers were properly repaired and

maintained. In addition, this level worked closely with Dick in launching new jobs

and in building the fixtures used in holding the castings, as well as performing certain

programming function on the machining centers to ensure quality.

This group was responsible for ~aintaining records on production and quality

on all jobs being machined, as well as for training and directly overseeing machine

opera~ors. Approximately nine members made up the tech support group, with seven

employees working the day shift and two members overseeing the night shift. This

group was divided into two subgroups: the non-quality personnel who reported di-

rectly to Dick, such as BilI and David, and the quality personnel who reported directly

to Milton, such as Jane and Sue. Hourly rate for this level of worker ranged between

$14.00 and $20.00. Except for Sue, who was African American, everyone was White.

Also, this level of worker possessed a longer length of service with the organization,

averaging between four and five years.

 45

Attributes of the tech support group were:

1. Eighty percent were White and were related) directly or indirectly, to

DiCk, my partner in the organization. . .

2. They resided primarily outside the inner city.

3. Backgrounds varied but did include ex-felons and ex-drug abusers. Some -
tech support workers fell within this category and were considered to be
part of direct labor, while others were classified as indirect labor.
4. Most of this group had completed high school or at least the GED equiva-
lent.
5. Many tech support employees started working for the organization with
little or no machining experience, and had moved up the ladder and at-
tained seniority.
6. The average length of service for this worker group was approximately
four years.
7. Members of this group owned their means of transportation to and from
work.

Machine Operator Group

The third level, viewed by senior management and tech support group as the

lowest level, was the machine operators, sometimes referred to as the frontline work-

ers or direct laborers. This group was specifically hired to run the machining center,

which included properly loading and unloading parts onto the fixtures used in cutting

the castings inside the machining centers, and inspecting the machined parts. The op-
erators required no formal prior machine operator experience. Hiring, firing, and

other disciplinary action was typically the responsibility of Milton. As I encouraged

greater verbal expressions from the frontline workers regarding plant floor activities

during the first four months of 1999, I began to review disciplinary actions proposed
 46

by Milton. Training was on-the-job and consisted of assigning an inexperienced o~

erator to work with an experienced operator at.a specific machining center for five to

. seven days. Once deemed qualified to rim the machining center by a member of the

tech SUPPo.rt gro.UP, the operato.r was assigned to that particular job and there was no

further need to have the more experienced operator working with the newer operator.

Tech support members sought to eliminate uncertainty and decision-making from op-

erators in perfonning their tasks. Learning tasks beyond pushing the stop or go button

of the machines were rare and not encouraged by tech support members.

An important aspect of working in the organization was that operators have

access to transportation to and from work every wo.rkday. There were about 23 direct

labo.rers divided between day and night shifts. The racial profile of this wo.rk force

was 95% African American during the time the focus gro.UP sessio.ns were held. Shift

in the wo.rkfo.rce co.mpo.sition to. 65% to 70% Hispanic operators began to. occur sub-

sequent to June 2000. Length of. service for the operator group typically averaged less

than 15 months, although this group did include more senior Mrican American opera-

tors. Members of the day shift operators included Mo.ore, Jill, Hombre, Louise. and

others referenced in later chapters. Hourly rates for this level ranged between $7.50

and $11.00, depending on length of service. The tech support group provided supervi-

sion for this level.

The common characteristics of the machine operators were:

1. Ninety-five percent of the machine operators during 1999 and the first six
months of 2000 were African Americans. Thereafter, the racial profile of
machine operators changed to approximately 70% Hispanic operators,
with 20% African Americans and the remaining 10% White.
 47

2. Operators resided in the inner city and included ex~felons and ex-drug
abusers.
3. Most appe~ed to have completed high school or at least the GED equiva~
lent.
4. Approximately 90% of the operators were between the ages of25 and 45
years and were seeking a "new beginning" or transition to a better life.
S. Operators possessed little or no machining experience at the time of initial'
hire.
6. Approximately one half of the operators used public transportation or re~
quired some fonn of transportation assistance to get to work during 1999
and the first six months of 2000. Hispanic operators never used public
transportation; instead, they shared automobile rides to and from work
with other Hispanic workers.
7. Average length of service for machine operators at the start of the research
period was approximately six months. By the end of the research period,
length of service averaged over 12 months.
An organizational chart is included as Exhibit A in the Appendix to provide a

fuller Ulnderstanding of the organizational structure of the entity and the three levels

of workers who were employed.

The Plant Floor

The organization was located in the suburb of a North Coast city, about 12 to

15 miles from the inner city. The facility consisted of approximately 24,000 square

feet, with 19,000 square feet qevoted to plant floor and the remaining 5,000 square

feet containing administrative offices. The plant floor was separated from the admin~

istrative offices by two offices for the plant floor supervisors and Bill and David. To

access the administrative offices or plant floor required going through the offices of

tech support personnel.

 48

The plant floor, consisting of three rows of machining centers, was not air-

conditioned. The oldest machining centers were located on the south side of the plant

floor, while newer machining centers, often referred to as HMCs or horizontal ma-

chining centers, were located in the center and on the north side. There were ap-

proximately 11 machining centers on the floor. Each machining center was assigned

an alphabetical letter, from Athrough L.

Of the 19,000 square feet reserved for the plant floor, 5,000 square feet was

reserved for shipping, receiving and storage of material, where more senior machine

operators, such as Moore, Hombre, and Jill were permitted to move material from one

location to another by using a hi-Io. Another 1,000 square feet was reserved for the

quality laboratory where two of the tech support members maintained their offices.

A copy of the plant floor layout and photos of the plant floor are located in the

Appendix.

Organizing and Operating the Plant Floor

Most operators were assigned to a specific machining center operating on the

floor. A more seasoned operator might serve as a "floater," working with a member

of the tech support group, such as J ~ll, Hombre, or Moore. The plant floor supervisor

or the plant manager, Milton, would make the assignments to particular machines.

Normally, Milton would assign someone, such as Steve from the tech support group,

to actually oversee the activities of the plant floor. Hours worked were detennined by

the demands of the customer and material available to be machined at a particular

machining center. Operators were given IS-minute breaks within the first two hours
 49

of the start of the work shift, followed by a 30 minute lunch break. Operators wanting
M

to use the restroom needed pennission from a member of the tech support group.

The roie of the operator 'was to run the machining center and produce the fore-

casted number of parts needed per shift. This meant loading and unloading the parts

along with packaging the part into the container. In addition, it was expected that the

operator would inspect the machined parts to ensure quality. At the end of a shift the

operator was expected to clean up the work area and perfonn a general cleaning of

the machining center. The operator was required to submit a completed daily produc-

tion report that indicated the number of parts machined ciuring the shift. Any cutting

tool changes were to be handled by a member of the tech support group. Also, any

programming change to the machining center or changeover from one job to another

was reserved to the tech support group.

Problems relating to machining malfunction or quality of the machined part

were left to the tech support group to diagnose and correct. Input from operators was

minimal. If a problem arose in the quality of the machined part or in machine mal-

function, the role of the operator was to "hit the stop button." Then the operator called

a supervisor, such as Steve, who in tum might call a specialized technician, such as

David Of Bill, to .insert newer cutting tools, inspect the machining center to perfonn-

ing trouble shooting, etc. When David and Bill infonned Dick that they were busy,

floaters would be assigned to work with them. Floaters typically did not last more

than nine to 12 months working with David and Bill for various reasons, including

floaters not reporting to work on time, communication problems between them, and

general comments that floaters were not "disciplined enough."

 50

At the heart of the workforce system was the goal of maintaining order, exer-
--
cising control, and achieving efficiency in the workplace by having machine opera-

tors perform fixed and designated tasks. Little regard was given to· employee voice

unless specific questions were asked by tech support members. Senior management

viewed machine operators as a variable cost, with the level of sales dictating whether

to increase or decrease the number of operators or hours worked. The division of the

workforce was based on a hierarchy of specialized roles buttressed by a top-down al-

location of authority and control. Status attached to positions in the hierarchy of the

organization.

Training and Learning on the Plant Floor

During 1999 various training sessions were conducted by tech support mem-

bers for operators at the facility. These sessions focused on teaching machining fun-

dame~tals. industrial safety, and work instructions, and lasted approximately one hour

in length and included both day- and night-shift operators. Initially. copies of chapters

from a machining fundamentals handbook was made and distributed .to the machine

operators. In some instances, workers were tested to assess the development of work-

. ers' knowledge acquisition. Periodic training sessions were begun in April 1999 and

continued until November 1999, and then stopped. At that time, tech support mem-

bers David and Bill reported to Dick, that operator training was not relevant to the

tasks performed by operators on the shop floor. Dick suggested that the training

needed to be more practical and relevant to the tasks being performed on the floor.
 51

Training sessions were not reinstituted until October 2000 when a new quality man~

ager was hired.

.. New machine operators gained knowledge through on-the-job training at the

workstation. Experienced machine operators were assigned to newer workers so they

could observe and learn by doing. Depending on the complexity of the job, experi-

enced machine operators would work alongside the new worker from four to six days

until the newer machine operators was deemed "certified" by the tech support group

to perform the tasks required of a particular job.

Other Factors in the Organization

The study took place during a period in which the organization faced a mun-

ber of challenges including expenditures of limited resources, such as human, finan-

cial and operational. The first challenge was to expand the customer base pursuant to

the loss of sales from previous custo~ers. This meant replacing approximately $1

million of annual sales by acquiring new customers and increased quoting activity.

Typical lead time from being awarded a job to launching a job was six to nine

months, which included designing the tooling and building and assembling the tool-

ing. The immediate impact of loss of customers was operating losses. To the shop

floor this meant fewer work hours, lower bonuses, and almost no increases in worker

hourly rates.

The second challenge was to become QS9000 registered. To be able to quote

and expand the organization's customer base required that the organization institute

and maintain a quality management system that was documented and audited by an
 52

-.
outside or third party registration agency. The typical cost to become QS9000 regis~

tered ranged from $150,000 to $250,000. Obtaining QS9000 registration' required

. .

more complete documentation of measur~ments on productivIty and other variabies.

QS9000 registration meant retaining the services of an outside registration agency to

perform an audit of the facilities at least twice a year, which meant adding resources

to the tech support group, especially in the quality area. This also meant having both

upper management and tech support members devote more hours to organizing files

and documentation.

Data Collection

Initially, I undertook to collect data on a number of variables related to pro~

ductivity, performance, and retention for 1999 to measure whether my intervention

and actions taken correlated to output. Specifically, data were collected on measuring

workers' abilities to produce quality parts, productivity levels, and machining errors.

Data were also collected on absenteeism and turnover.

The data collected on performance and productivity are presented in Table 1,

which compares February data with November data.

In comparing performance and productivity between February and November

1999, the measurements indicated gains in two of the four measured areas. Results

revealed that average expected production for November when compared to February

increased by 23.9%. However, the measurements relating to overall failed audits and

mishaps per operator increased on average per month between February and Novem-

ber 1999. The data collected implied that my interventions or actions appeared to cor~
 53

Table 1

Change in Performance and Productivity from February to November 1999

Productivity Measurements Months Percent Average

(Average) February November Increase Per Month

(Decrease2
Scrap (per month) 0.89% 0.85% (4.5) 2.32
Expected Production (per month) 71.00% 88.00% 23.9 80.00
Failed Audits/Operator (per .44 .62 42.3 0.54
month)
Mishaps/Operator (per month) .57 .62 9.6 0.64

relate with decreased productivity and performance from workers in the organization.

This information only told part of the story and did not provide a richer understanding

as to possible causes and reasons. A different perspective on worker productivity and

performance would be revealed from the focus group sessions that took place ap·

proximately five months later in March 2000.

To improve communication, I began publishing and distributing organiza~

tional newsletters and other information to employees regarding performance of the

workforce and organization. Information regarding mishaps, including names of em-

ployees on attendance, cost of mishaps, number of mishaps and downtime, began to

be published and distributed to operators on a monthly basis. Documentation was

kept for on·the-job and classroom training, but no information was logged on the ef~

fectiveness of on-the-job training. The organization also began testing workers to de~

termine skill level of workers. Maintaining records of job~specific qualifications as-

sisted in documenting, for QS9000 purposes, attainment of specific knowledge levels

 54

among workers before they were allowed to operate particular machines and jobs. At
--
the same time, initial classroom training served to enhance general knowledge of ma-

chining for operators. The addition of higher skilled personnel afforded more on-the-

job training support for operato~s in 1999 when compared to training of operators

prior to commencement of the study.

In addition to measuring productivity and performance, certain variables fo-

cusing on retention were evaluated. The measurements consisted of absences, turn-

over and length of service are presented in Table 2, comparing the data in November

with similar data taken in February 1999. The commitment variables provided evi-

dence that average absences and turnover decreased by more than 45% by November

1999 when compared to February 1999. This data is somewhat misleading since the

February turnover rate of 8.7%, when annualized. suggested an annual turnover of

96%. By November 1999, worker turnover had decreased, but still produced an annu-

alized turnover of 55%.

Table 2

Comparison of Commitment Variables from February to November 1999

Commitment Variables Months Percentage Average

(Average) February . November Increase Per Month
(Decrease)
Absence (days) 2.26 0.71 (68.4) 1.64
Length of Service (months) 15.44 14.53 (5.9) 12.51
Turnover (per month) 8.70% 4.76% (45.3) 9.39
Turnover - Voluntary (per month) 4.35% 4.76% 9.4 2.88
Turnover - Involuntary (per month) 4.35% ·0.00% (100.0) 6.51
 55

I also compared length of service among operators, which disclosed that it de-

creased by approximately one month among direct laborers in November 1999 when

compared to similar information in February. Generally, the percentage of hourly

workers voluntarily leaving the organization during the research period declined,

while dismissals by the organizations increased. The average length of service de-

clined by almost three months. In addition, the average number of absences in No-

vember decreased when compared to February.

The raw data on commitment revealed little about the social dynamics taking

place in the workplace except that turnover and absenteeism continued at a relative

high level, especially among machine operators. The interventions and action sug-

gested the need to analyze more closely the attitudes and perspectives of frontline

workers, which I believed I was adequately capturing through my observations of

plant floor activities and various groups.

Use of Surveys

Pretest and posttest surveys were completed by employees in March 1999 and

again in late November 1999. Surveys were distributed to all employees to measure

innovativeness, human resource development, environmental agility, commitment,

joint optimization, and customer importance. The survey was modified and extracted

from Pasmore's (1998) Designing Effective Organizations: The Sociotechnical Sys-

tems Perspective, and was reviewed initially for content by two operators prior to dis-

tribution of the final version to all workers in March 1999. Three questions were

eliminated from the survey before being distributed to all included employees. The
 56

employees were told their responses would be confidential and that participation was

voluntary. Those employees choosing not to participate in the study were assured that

there would be ~o negative effects resulting from their decision. TwentyMfive employ~

ees completed the pretest, with twelve employees returning their completed posttests.

Infonnation collected on the surveys was presented to an independent party for reM

view. Anonymity and confidentiality of all respondents were maintained with comM

pleted surveys reviewed by an independent third party. This third party collected the

infonnation and produced the data on employee attitudes toward the areas covered.

The independent evaluator collecting the infonnation reported that approxi-

mately 60% of all workers completed and returned the pretest survey to her. Closer

review of the survey fonnat in the area pertaining to human resource development

disclosed missing data ranging from 12% to 56%. Table 3 presents the mean scores

on the survey, and the percentage of missing responses.

Table 3

Pretest Mean Scores and Percentage of Missing Data

Mean Percent of Missing Data

Opportunities for Learning 3.1 12
Work Design 3.0 28
Supervisory Roles 2.6 52
Organizational Structure 2.7 56
Work Flow Structure 3.0 24
Total fIR DevelopmentlUnitization Lowest 2.9 76
 57

-.
The missing data provided clues that further insight from the worker's per~

spective was needed. The focus group meetings held in MarchlApril2000 confirmed

that "all three focus groups found results difficult to interpret." This suggested that a

number of employees (whether machine operators or tech support personnel) may not

have understood the questions being asked. In addition, the facilitator reported that

"there was not total agreement with the findings" in the area of hwnan resource de-

velopment/utilization, with different interpretations on the opportunities for learning.

Also, many responses to questions tended to fall in the middle of the rating scale

(based on 1-5) suggesting that employees sought to remain noncommittal in their an-

swers, tried to be politically correct, or may not have understood the question as pre-

sented. In summary, the results of both surveys failed to provide me with a deeper

understanding of the social dynamics at wOlk in the manufacturing facility. Results of

the surveys did not provide insight as to the reality of the workplace relations and atti~

tudes toward commitment and performance. Moreover, data collected were inconclu-

sive and not statistically significant as reported.

Information-Sharing Tools

Prior to the start of the study in February 1999, meetings with direct laborers

and information sharing were infrequent and almost nonexistent. An example was a

poignant hand-written note from a machine operator at the facility who, after review-

ing a survey, wrote:

... [A]s far as dedication, most are not dedicated to the company. Presently, I
am because this is the type person I am. I do my job ... but I do not feel a part
of the 'TEAM'. I am a team player. Once on the team dedication to it is inevi-
table.
 58

I recall speaking with this particular operator who added that communication

among all workers at different levels was lacking. Better "practices" were 'needed to

bridge the gap between what was happening and where the organization was going.

During the nine months of research, I began a series of monthly newsletters and other

forms of memo writing to the workforce. These newsletters and memos sought to in~

elude comments not only from management but also from the workers themselves. I·

also encouraged holding meetings with operators only to address particular issues of

concern regarding the organization and operation of the plant floor. Written commuM

nications to workers included infonnation regarding productivity, mishaps, visits

from potential customers, employee hiring, and other practical information on the di-

rection and development of the organization. I initially encouraged all members of the

.organization to foster increased information~sharing and discussion, which led to

higher levels of tension and turmoil between workers during the first 3Y2 months of

the study. I observed conflicts in the various levels of formal and informal communiM

cation between workers, lower worker retention, and even lower performance.

Summary

The data presented in this chapter covered the period fro~ March through

November 1999 and represented my initial approach to studying the social dynamics

of the workforce in the organization, seeking evidence of positive outcome from my

actions. The data gathered during the nine-month period and my reflections on my

experiences revealed on-the-surface tunnoil and disharmony during the first few

months of 1999, followed by a sense of transition, and ending with a period of lesser
 59

turmoil and disharmony on the surface. I thought at first to place blame and frustra-

tions for lack of more permanent progress to a more open work environment on the

plant manager, Milton, and a few "bad apples" that existed on the plant floor.

For example, from March to mid-June 1999 my efforts to increase employee

voice seemed to lead to constant power struggles, disharmony, disruption, and chal-

lenges in the workplace, especially between machine operators and tech support

members. It was a period of turmoil and resistance from the tech support group,

which perceived its authority and power as dwindling, with confrontations between

workers and senior managers and supervisors continuously taking place. The numer-

ous outbursts between machine operators and tech support members led to my inter-

vention to settle differences, including dismissal of machine operators identified as

"bad apples." From mid-June through the end of September 1999, tension among

workers decreased with increased focus on meeting requirements ofQS9000 registra-

tion. To secure QS9000 registration, senior managers devoted more attention to be-

coming QS9000 registration-ready and less to worrying about employee morale and .

attitude. I began to pay less attention to worker problems. Human resources were util-

ized and given priority to reviewing the quality and operating systems of the organi-

zation, providing additional training of workers, and conducting internal audits of the

organization's operating systems. In addition, because there was an annual shutdoWn

in the summer, outside pressures from customers were minimized. As a result,

QS9000 registration was achieved by the organization in September 1999.

After achieving QS9000, that is, from the beginning of October to the end of

November 1999, the organization on the surface appeared to face less turmoil and
 60

higher levels of performance output in comparison to the period from February to

September. In November 1999 I distributed the same employee attitude survey con-
"

sisting of more than 90 questions that had been distributed in February 1999, to again

measure worker attitude toward perfonnance and commitment. The results, received

in early January 2000, did not reveal significant differences from the initial survey,

whether the respondent was a machine operator or a tech support member. Something

was amiss. My initial explanations appeared too predictable and lacked a 'neutral or

outsider perspective on how workers really viewed the organization, management,

and work.

As I struggled to write this document, a golden opportunity was presented

when my academic advisors in early Winter 2000 suggested that I consider conduct-

ing focus group meetings with machine operators and tech support personnel through

an independent facilitator. Maybe I had been too close to the plant floor and was un-

able to observe or hear other perspectives on worker attitudes and views on the plant

floor? So I agreed and retained an independent facilitator to undertake a different in-

quiry ~ithout my direct participation.

The facilitator was presented with a summary of the results of the answers to

the questionnaire survey, which was furthet: simplified for distJjbution to the work-

force. Also, additional questions on worker attitudes to discuss in the focus group ses-

sions were presented to the facilitator. As a result, three focus group meetings were

held in March, 2000. The results of the focus group findings are presented in the next

chapter, followed by my initial reaction as CEO. Then in Chapters 8 and 9, I present

 61

an alternative analysis of the focus group findings, relating to on-the-job learning and

communication within the organization.

 CHAPTER 6

RESULTS OF THE FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS

In late March 2000, three focus groups meetings were held at the workplace of

the organization to assess employees' reaction to the survey results and to further

learn about worker attitudes in the areas of opportunities for learning and flow of

communication among the various levels of the organization. An independent, profes-

sional facilitator was retained to conduct the focus group meetings, with appropriate

consent forms completed by each participating employee. The participants were given.

assurances of confidentiality and anonymity on any responses they gave the facilita-

tor.

Two surveys were conducted during 1999 to assess workers' attitudes toward

commitment and performance. The results from both surveys were disappointing in

that they failed to reveal any further understanding or insight into worker attitudes

and sense of opportunities in the organization. The academic advisors to my research

suggested retaining an independent facilitator who could delve further into worker

attitude separate from senior management involvement.

Machine operators were divided into two focus groups based on the work shift

that an operator worked. Members of the tech support group were organized into a

separate session. Each focus group session lasted approximately two hours and in-
 63

volved a total of 14 employees, or approximately 43% of the workforce, exclusive of

the senior managers. All three focus groups were audio~tapedand transcrioed by the

facilitator. I first rec~ived the focus findings, which are summarized in this chapter,

from the facilitator at the end of May 2000,.

The more insightful infonnation came from the transcription of the focus

group sessions, which I received in May 2001, one year subsequent to receiving the

focus group findings from the facilitator. The information from the transcripts is fur~

ther analyzed in Chapters 8 and 9, with actual quotes from the transcripts. Review of·

the focus group session transcripts offers an alternative understanding of the social

dynamics within the organization among workers regarding opportunities for learn~

ing, barriers to advancement, and communication, primarily from the perspective of

the machine operators. To insure anonymity, I did not participate or attend any of the

focus group meetings, but did provide background information on the two survey re~

suits, including a list of questions to the facilitator.

The following constitutes a summary of the pertinent portions of the facilita~

tor's findings from the focus group sessions held in March!April 2000 before I had

received a full copy of the written transcripts of the three focus group sessions. It

should be noted that the facilitator, when referencing quotes from the workers, did not

indicate from which focus group session the quotes were derived.

Review of Survey

The first scale addressed Innovativeness. The members of all three focus

groups agreed with the findings. The discussion on risk-taking was spirited, with most
 64

employees indicating that they could not or would not take risks. Their reasons for

reticence ~oward taking risks included: "Their machines are too costly and taking a

risk on the machine could end up damaging the machiIie." Regarding" rewards for in-

novation, they felt that the reward system was inconsistent and that innovation was

not rewarded. The facilitator then commented that there "were no differing responses

in terms of racial composition." However, the facilitator did not elaborate further on

the issue of race as it related to risk-taking.

The report from the facilitator contained comments regarding the skills train-

ing classes that had been held for any employee who wanted to attend. Some employ-

ees reported that attendance was high in the beginning and then began to dwindle.

Some employees were confused about why the classes were no longer offered. From

the perceptions of operators, they had received no communication regarding the end-

ing of the classes. One member stated:

We had one-hour classes for the operators, teaching them how to read mikes
and different tools of the trade, but they suddenly stopped. It was only like
maybe a month, and then they no longer went on, and there wasn't any reason
given for why.

Another operator remembered hearing something about the change in hours

affecting the classes. The focus group members had mixed feelings about the quality

and benefit of the classes, because they were technical in nature. Operators thought

that they would forget the information unless they were able to apply the knowledge

within a short time of the class. Many employees also reported that the then current

plant manager, Milton, would not allow people to grow within the organization.

There were negative comments made about the plant manager throughout the gr~ups.
 65

~-

Human Resource DevelopmentiUtilization was the second scale discussed.

The members of the three groups disagreed with findings from the survey. Opportuni-

ties fm learning were interpreted differently by each group. The differences were not

from a racial perspective. While some employees were aware of the computer and the

ability to learn on the computer. the facilitator reported that "others were unaware of
the computer, the sign in process, etc." Many participants believed that they were able

to learn only so much and then they were halted in the process. Their perceptions

were that supervisors did not want them to learn too much, and therefore hindered

possible advancement. From their discussion, it appeared that they had received

mixed messages regarding learning and advancement. One operator from the night

shift stated:
The opportunities for learning are here, you can learn on the job; they're basi-
cally trying to, like, go to school to learn something else, it's been a different
factor for us because it is where you're either working or you're going to
school. It's one or the other. You can't do both. So if you're going to try to
educate yourself a little more, you're not going to get paid for going, and at the
present time, and I can only speak for myself, I can't afford not to work. But I
want to learn, so if there was any kind of way that maybe (CEO) could you
know like give half a payor come in at a certain time, and then go to school at
a certain time and then as far as the tuition reimbursements, I mean he wants
his people to be good. And that's not the question, that's how he is. But if he
could find some way where a person can get a higher education to improve the
company and themselves, then something needs to be basically worked out
because there's no room for advancement if you want to go to school.

Supervisory roles were perceived as confusing, with no clear, consistent iden-

tities presented regarding who were supervisors. Some supervisors were known to all

employees; however, many employees perceived that job descriptions, including their

own, were unclear or in some cases absent. According to one employee: "Supervisory

roles, they're sometimes questionable because a lot of times, it should be based on

 66

what the person performs and then seniority..;.wise." This discussion also spoke to the

organizational structure. They knew the CEO and a few members of the management
' . . '

team. After that level, the roies began to blur. More discussion ensued toward the end

of the meetings regarding management. This section provided a clear distinction be-

tween racial groups. The "non-whites" perceived that anyone who was "white" was

probably a supervisor. This comment was made quite openly.

The third scale focused on Environmental Agility, and teamwork or lack of it.

The second shift believed that they were a team, with mutual support, and a good en-

vironment. Day-shift employees perceived that operators were a team and everyone

else were "coaches." They added that there were "too many coaches." In general, all

groups believed that the "teams approach" needed to be reinforced. While this 'per-

ception was not consistent over the three focus groups, each group had a sense of

teams, but not with each other.

Commitment/energy and rewards, "promises, promises, but never kept," was a

prevailing theme of the fourth scale. "Rewards are when you're pissed off, not when

you do good or deserve something. It's when you're threatening." All members of the

three focus groups perceived that the review process or reward system was not con-

sistent and that one could wait up to three months for a raise or bonus after being

promised. The plant manager was also mentioned as one of the contributors to "noth-

ing happening." The theme of being treated like a child came up in the discussion,

with one employee commenting, "There is a bonus program he has implemented for

productivity, and that clarified a lot of things." Another employee reported:

 67

I got a bonus, but I was told by (CEO) tha~ I would get a bonus, but everyone
is not getting them, don't tell nobody. Nobody else is getting a bonus, only
you for your production, I said okay. And that same week, everyoody got a
bonus.

An employee went on to complain about the unfairness and shared a story

about a promised raise, but which would be withdrawn if he shared this information -

with other employees. The general theme of this discussion that focused on manage-

ment practices was negative, with a focus on the unprofessional nature of manage-

ment dealing with employees. The prevailing positive comments made about the CEO

were that he was always available to listen and provide support to employees when

dealing with personal problems. However, when it came to work-related problems, he

was different on a daily basis. In general, most employees agreed with results and felt

that dedication was not always rewarded with clear guidelines and in a timely man-

nero

A comment repeated throughout the facilitator's report was the lack of com-

munication, and ineffective communication from management. Employees felt that

people in management were poor communicators and needed help to improve their

skills in this area. Another topic that arose in the focus group discussion was in regard

to an incident that involved the CEO and an employee, when the employee was show-

ing commitment to the company. An opportunity was provided for employees to eam

overtime money by cleaning some walls at the plant on a Sunday. One employee had

a negative encounter with the CEO that involved the use of inappropriate language by

the CEO. The unfortunate backlash of this incident left all employees feeling deval-

ued, upset, embarrassed, and angry. All employees expressed discomfort about cuss-

ing aimed at them or any of their peers. They discussed the natural evolution of "plant
 68

language" but felt that angry swearing and cussing should not have occurred with this

employee. The end re~ult eliminated most of the commitment that employees were

feeling when they started on the project.

The last scale discussed in the focus group meetings was Joint Optimization,

about which most employees were confused. Once areas for discussion were defined,

they all agreed that in the technical arena the company was good and kept pace with

necessary changes in technology. One employee believed that everyone was aware of

the technology due to rotating jobs using the machines. As one employee stated:

"Well, it was much better because then everybody knew all the jobs, because you

might run this machine three days and then you're over here three days and you just,

like every three days you're rotating." This employee felt stuck with one machine and

believed that everyone in the organization could benefit from the operators being ro-

tated on a regular basis.

The focus group of night-shift employees indicated that they never slacked or
. .

observed anyone slacking. The other groups immediately answered that they had.

Some employees felt that it had nothing to do with supervisors watching, it was the

attitude and work ethic of the person. They thought that many employees slacked off

and would see how much they could get away with before being caught. Others indi-

cated that they only slacked off when supervisors were not watching, while others

commented "I'm working for myself, I could care less what the next operator is do-

ing, even though this may not be benefiting the company." Another comment was,

"See me myself, I thought that maybe once this bonus program was implemented, the

ones that did slack off would hey you know, now I have an incentive to do better. But
 69

they didn't." They expressed concern about slackers and perceived that they do have

an effect on the company in the long run. "There's people sleeping." Overall,'employ·

. ees percdved this as a problem and that it needed management attention to change. .

Comments on Questions Raised in Focus Group Meetings

The facilitator was also provided with a suggested list of questions to inquire

and solicit comments from participants. The pertinent questions presented in the focus

group sessions are outlined below followed by comments from the participants.

Q: Have you noticed any difference in how the organization communi-

cates information to the floor and how?

The employees were split on this question, some felt that it was getting worse

due to a lack of communication. Other members of the focus groups indicated that it

was the same. The employees reported:

• -"No change, if there is something of vast importance that needs to be

brought forward .to us, CEO has no problem with grabbing us all and tak~
ing us and having a personal meeting."

• -"We get memos, written and verbal ones."

• -"It's worse, cussing all the time now."

Q: Who do you consider as part of management? And is management
more concerned with preserving status quo? How?

This question prompted discussion that resulted in a unanimous feeling that

there was a lot of confusion regarding who was management. Some responses were:

• "foreman and up"

• "everybody that is not an operator"

• "I don't know"

 70

Others referred as part of management, "Dick, Milton, and Cucho," "Dick,

Jill, A-
,
, Milton, P--' K--, Jack." Other responses commented on how confused
, ,

everyone 'was, highlighting the lack of communication.

When asked about the status quo, participants said that management liked

things to run "smooth," with the same word used by all groups. One employee com-

mented:

They don't want any of their employees to be disgruntled or discontent. I'll tell
you that right now, because once upper management finds out that there is
something wrong, there's an employee that's disgruntled about something,
they have no problem with pulling the employee up front and listening to what
their gripes are.

Another employee stated, "I heard higher management say that they are only as good

as their operators. "

Members of the tech support group felt that employees needed a "go-to" per-

son," who was a single person who could really solve problems and help clarifY many

issues, but felt that none of them could serve as that supervisor because they were too

busy. Through their comments and the discussion regarding this issue, they believed

that another person should be hired or identified to be the "go to" person.

Q; Are people afraid to take risks? Why? What are the consequences?

Employee responses were mixed regarding this issue as they felt their jobs

were risky. "We're taking a risk right now. We're sitting at this table and you know."

The facilitator assured employees that their confidentiality would be respected, but

most employees were afraid to take risks because they believed that negative conse-

quences were associated with taking risks. The comments from the employees in-

cluded: I
I

I
I
I
I
 71

• "Well, I heard behind iny back she shouldn't have done that."

• "If I'm unsure, I'll call a supervisor, cover my ass."

Some employees felt that the CEO had favorites, which surfaced in the plant floor

with everyone aware that "double standards" existed. There appeared to be a fear of

taking risks and being open and honest.

Q: Is there an opportunity to learn? Do you attend weekly training ses-

sions? Have you learned while working in the organization? Are you
rewarded for learning?

While learning had been discussed earlier in the focus group sessions, the fa-

cilitator asked if there was anything anyone wanted to add. Several employees indi-

cated that they could not learn on the job and were unaware that a computer was

available for their use. Once again, the weekly training sessions were discussed, re-

vealing that the reasons they ended were a mystery to most employees. During this

discussion, there was a feeling that some employees were being afforded opportuni-

ties to learn, while others were not. Employees commented that regarding the com-

puter and learning:

• "But then you know some people he gave then th~ir password and every-
thing and some people he didn't, another part of that double standard."

• "We're already working 10 hours, I think it needs to be highlighted what

benefits will be passed on to you by learning these things."

• "Yes, I believe there is but the problem is, and it's sort of, you know it's
there, the opportunity is there you know it's right there. The problem is
everyone is too-l believe I can speak for everybody-too bogged down
for that. The only thing you can think about it, sleep and ... to

• "You know, and it's basically either we come in from work, before lunch
time, and there's no way you can stand on that for five more hours." .
 72

-.
The focus group members all commented on the discontinuance of classroom

training in December. While all employees attended these sessions in the beginning,
. .
they stopped going, indicating they believed it was a waste of time, boring, and ir-

relevant to their jobs on the floor. This discussion also focused on the lack of com-

munication from all management. There was a feeling that interpersonal skills were

lacking among management personnel.

The night shift felt completely different with regard to this question: their atti-

tude was more positive, they felt inspired to learn and grow, and they appeared to be

more committed to the company. The facilitator indicated "this group states they have

little to do with management because of the hours they work." One employee com-

mented, "Basically have a decent relationship with them that are here after five when

we come on." There was one employee in particular, a "non-white" male, who talked

about the opportunity to learn and how much he has learned and how he saw a great

future with the organization. The facilitator reported that he was the only employee

who expressed a consistently positive attitude about everything.

In general, most employees believed they should start the classes again. In

their comments they emphasized that the employees who attended these focus groups

were the ones who probably would attend the classes. Most of the focus group mem-

bers agreed that they had learned while working for the organization. Their percep-

tions were that there was little chance for advancement or increases in pay. One em-

ployee repeated the theme with regard to the classes that "hands on" learning could be

a better way to involve employees and a better use of the infonnation being taught.
 73

Q: Do you have the opportunities to learn new skills at work? Does the
job you do require special skill level? Does management recognize
this? .

With regard to opportunities to learn new skills) most employees indicated

that they had little to say regarding this question. However the following questions

about the requirement of a special skill and management's recognition sparked quite a

lively discussion.

Initially, most employees felt that their jobs did not require special skills, and

that anyone off the street could perform their job. On further reflection, on employee

commented:

Yes, it does for the simple fact I'm considered the floater. I know how to run
every machine in here and how to work the job. I also do a lot of tooling so I
have to know how to read gauges, know how to do depth the height adjust·
ments on a lot of tools like the drills and things of that nature, and you have to
know and make sure that you're putting the right inserts or what have you, and
the right tool for the right job. Yes, it takes a pretty good certain skill level.

Then, other employees chimed in on how they needed to be coordinated, etc.

Regarding management's awareness of their skill levels, employees were split

on this question, with some thinking that management was aware and others felt that

management did not know. This question did not provoke further discussion.

Q: When a problem arises, do you offer input to solving the problem?

All employees agreed that it was critical to the operation of the company to

keep the machines running to improve productivity. They also indicated that they did

offer input, with supervisors instructing them to step back, usurping them by adding,

"You don't know what you're talking about." Even though many employees believed

that they could fix the problem, they were not encouraged by management to attempt.

They also perceived that their suggestions were ignored and never implemented. In·
 74

stead of management working with the employee to solve problems, management

took over and may have made mistakes. An employee from the technical group com-

mented, "Well I think the best morale builder right now in this place is to give them

the attention they need as quickly as you can give it to them."

Q: Do you find that the organization has too many levels of management?

This question elicited many varied responses. The technical group believed

that it was not the layers that created problems, it was the lack of clarity regarding

who was management, lack of job descriptions, etc. Other group comments were

more general:

• "It's the wrong management."

• "No, we need every person in this organization, there are different levels,
different information, quality control, drawings and blueprints, factory
manager, marketing manager, etc."

The facilitator reported that one response was clearly a racial concern: "the white

people are in charge regardless of what their title is."

Q: Are more meetings among the workforce needed? Who should attend
these meetings with operators?

Most participants felt there should be weekly meetings, with several indicat-

ing that biweekly meetings would be adequate. One employee from the tech support

group felt there was a need for daily meetings:

I feel the employees, we do have a mixed group, I think it would be an every

morning a huddle, not so much a long drawn out meeting, an every morning
huddle, just try and get everybody on the same page. It helps morale and a
team thing happening ... like hey guys.

The concern for most employees was what would be accomplished in the

meetings and who would listen. All employees felt that everybody should attend (e.g.,
 75

the entire management staff, all operators, and all technical personnel), listen, and re-

spond to feedback. A consensus was not reached on who should run the 'meeting;

however, employees indicated that this determination could help· build morale and

create teamwork. The focus group participants also had ideas for the agenda items.

Several employees felt the CEO did not need to be included in the meetings on a

weekly basis, but the foreman and plant supervisor should be required to attend all

meetings. An employee commented, "So that everybody hears the same thing, every-

body hears the same thing, that is one of the biggest problems." Several tech support

workers thought that Dick should lead those meetings; others thought Dick was too

busy.

Q: Do you find that workers are rewarded the same whether they perform
well or not?

Most employees believed that performance should be the basis for rewards.

However, they also perceived that the reward process was not consistent, as discussed

earlier in the groups. A comment from one member of the focus group summed up

the general feelings of the participants:

Okay, I feel personally, I feel that a worker is doing what they're supposed to
do, and I just mean running their machine, okay that's fine. But as far as pro-
duction, certain jobs are harder than ... you need to evaluate the type of work,
not only the performance.

All employees perceived that performance and attendance were rewarded.

Q: Do you find that little information about the state of the business is
shared with employees?

This question evoked many emotions, with most employees unaware of who

owned the organization and what [name of organization] means. The employees who
 76

knew were still unsure about which accounts had been signed on, etc. The most recent
-.
infonnation they all received was that [name of organizationJ was doing business

with a major automotive manufacturer. This information made them feel great; they

all experienced pride in this announcement Some of the comments were:

• ~'When it affects us, I believe they need to notify us just like they did,
we're about to go on 40 hours, just to keep your job even though we didn't
have enough money coming in. That's fine, then when we get an increase,
that's fine. If it affects us, we need to know."

• "We have a lot of personnel issues about sick pay and personal days."
After this discussion with all gr()ups, the lack of an employee orientation was a topic

raised several times. Employee comments included:

• "People don't even know where to go if there was a fire, they wouldn't
know."

• A more formal orientation."

• "Me for one, I'd like to know if the quality of our work counts for the
company that we're sending it to, and things like that. We don't know. We
don't know if there was a return, I think once we had something returned.
But you don't know what the process or anything like that is. One that I'd
like to know, are they satisfied with the work that we're doing?"
. .
A common theme raised was that employees wanted "a summary of how the

organization started, for which customers they were producing parts, what strategic

plans had been developed for the company, etc."

The facilitator's report concluded with the following statement: "As you can

see from the above responses, these are all over the place. The theme that emerges

from this discussion is the lack of consistency and clear goals and objectives for the

employees. "
 77

Summary

In summary. the recurring themes from the facilitator's findings and 'raised by

all three groups were:

• Lack of communication between operators and management

• Lack of clarity of who is part of management

• Inconsistent reward and bonus system and lack of opportunities for learn-
ing

• Lack of respect for workers in general

• Low morale and negative attitudes affecting others

In Chapters 8 and 9 I delve further into two areas raised in the facilitator's

findings. The first area of analysis focuses on the role of communication and commu-

nity in an organization from the perspective of the operators, and the second area of

analysis focuses on employee perception of opportunities or lack of opportunities for

learning on the job. To gain further insight on worker attitude, I reviewed the written

transcripts from all three focus groups, which I received from the facilitator in May

2001 and are incorporated into the chapters on learning and communication.
 CHAPTER 7

CEO REACTION TO THE FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS

When I received the facilitator's report on the focus group sessions in May

2000, I reviewed it by initially comparing it to the measurement on productivity, per-

formance, and commitment. and in relation to my field notes. My reaction was to

seek to explain away or even discount the facilitator's findings as being limited since

the facilitator had only spent a total of six hours with the focus group participants.

The findings did not seem to "square up" with my personal observations, and reflee-

tions could be explained away because of other dynamics taking place in the organi-

zation, which the facilitator was unaware of. I also felt that the operators were trick-

ing the facilitator, and the facilitator was naive. I began to develop some comments

on these findings. These are outlined in this chapter and were written prior to my re-

ceipt of the written transcripts of the focus group sessions in May 2001. These com-

ments are extracted in part from earlier versions of my research and reflect my eom-

ments from an insider's perspective as opposed to an outsider's perspective.

I reviewed the comments on communication and concluded:

While the facilitator's focus group meetings suggested a general negative

view toward the organization, it also appeared that these workers continued to
be employed at the organization during the period of study and for approxi-
mately 12 months after the fieldwork was completed.

78
 79

Thus, workers were not leaving the organization even in light of gainful employment

elsewhere. This suggested to me that the operators must be more content with the
. .
workplace than was being expressed to the facilitator. I also discounted those com~

ments pertaining to lack of communication as being from workers who habitua~ly

came late to work and did not call in when they were going to be absent, and should

not be given credence.

I also felt that actions of workers could simply be attributed to cultural differ~

ences. I went on to comment:

Actions of workers between 1998 and 2000 offered further insight into worker
attitudes and actions as well as a deeper understanding of how work was
viewed and valued. Regardless of changes in the workplace. members of the
two worker units continued to be either punctual or not and to drink or not
drink, although the organization had instituted a fairly clear no drinking/drug
policy. Why? Shared beliefs, values and meanings offered a richer under-
standing of the makeup of the worker unit. Also, differences among workers
served to. add to confusion and conflict on the shop floor.

On the surface I was concluding that differences in shared beliefs and values ex~

plained the reasons for the outcomes observed on the plant floor and had less to do

with management's communication with workers. I commented that "mixed signals

from the focus group meetings further suggested that workers as individuals reflect

their cultural environment with outcomes or actions mirroring their cultural settings. "

I felt the focus group findings revealed the deep difference between the plant

manager and me. This factor served to underscore the low morale that was evidenced

within th~ organization and in the focus group sessions:

Six to nine months after achieving QS-9000 registration, differences be-

tween Milton and me were again surfacing-and something had to be done
with Milton since he did not change. The focus group findings were further
 80

evidence that outcomes expressed by operators was due to tensions between

the plant manager and senior management. These conflicts were transferred
onto the shop floor and were observable by workers. .

The focus group findings also provided a framework to be used by my partner,

Dick. and me to place blame for the internal worker problems at the foot of the plat:1t

manager and ultimately make a managerial decision to dismiss Milton.

I initially applied the findings from the focus group sessions to conclude:

From this researcher's perspective, the relationship between the plant manager
and various subcultures existing in the organization served to provide an im-
portant perspective to understand the interactions occurring in the workplace.
. The relationship between the plant manager and myself added to confusion
and uncertainty that led to chaos on the plant floor. In addition, differences be-
tween worker levels in the organization provided a background on different
worker perspectives regarding commitment and performance.

On reflection, my perspective seemed to repeatedly return to the findings to explain

that the real CUlprit in the organization was Milton, and that my action to remove him

from the plant floor would improve worker relationships. Thus, I was seeking to sepa-

rate Milton from me.

In describing Milton, the plant manager, I noted:

The role of the plant manager served to contribute to a level of ambiguity in

the workplace from the workers' perspectives. Milton, the plant manager,
viewed the shop floor as a place to exercise control and authority over work-
ers. He considered workers in much the same way as he thought about ma-
chines. Both machines and operators were mechanically equipped and pro-
grammed to complete certain tasks. Workers were not encouraged to ask ques-
tions or provide suggestions. Instead, Milton, who communicated in a manner
that was "typically" top down, instilled "fear" in the workers. His manner of
speaking was not necessarily clear, but communicated to the listener that "he
was in charge." Simultaneously, my position as senior manager led to "fric-
tion" and "conflict'" sitice my approach to management was more open and
willing to listen to different views. My view of control and authority was indi-
rect in the sense that the worker was encouraged to express his views without
feeling subservient to the "master." Over the course of the study, Milton and I
 81

began to disagree on various matters pertaining to worker relationships. By

the second period of the study, my goal of achieving QS-9000 registration was
paramount, and I was more willing to allow Milton to take charge of the
facilities despite Milton's approach to "dealings with the workers." Milton's
perspective took hold by the end of May 1999 without resistance from me. By
the start of the third period in late September and early October, we had
achieved QS-9000 registration, and the euphoria served to "hide and cover"
" "

growing differences between Milton and me. The interesting outcome Was
noted in the focus group meetings that took place six months"after completing
the study. These disagreements led to confusion among machine operators in
the workplace, as noted in the focus group meetings. Further differences in
dealings with workers sent conflicting messages to the floor. For example, de-
veloping workers to perform was subsumed. with Milton considering it as
having "lesser importance" than 1. Output of the product was Milton's focus,
operators were viewed as machine-like, cold and steel, with no feelings or
independent thoughts.

My use of the facilitator's findings was to place responsibility for the confu-

sion at all levels of the organization on the plant manager, who was not buying into

my directive to provide greater opportunities to front line workers. My reaction was

that it had nothing to do with the role of tech support group, senior management or

race in the workplace.

I also viewed the facilitator's finding by reviewing worker turnover. I com-

mented:

While turnover appeared to have decreased, absenteeism and tardiness re-

mained consistent between 1999 and 1998. An interesting sideline was that
absenteeism and tardiness did decrease in 2000, the year after the study was
completed. This decrease may have come from workers realizing that efforts
were being made to improve communications, provide additional infonnation
to the workers, and create a workplace that was collaborative and cooperative
instead of competitive.

In discussing communication, I stated: "In all organizations, communication is

concerned with disseminating information and receiving feedback between levels.

 82

Through effective communications, employees of an organization can feel they are

valued participants." I found that communication, in terms of the present study, was

intended to provide accurate and timely information to the workers to assist them in

feeling that they were valued as part of the [name of organization] team. On another

level, communications served as a metaphor for describing different worker units,

with shared meaning and values that contributed to their perspective ofthe work itself

and the shop floor. Commitment and performance took on a different view based on

the different cultural frameworks within the organization.

I felt that the emergence of subcultural units in the organization led to initially

suggesting:

the need ... on screening or preselection of employees as a way to better pre-

dict or gauge commitment and performance. Having noted that certain charac-
teristics and values shared by groups reflected a propensity to view the work
environment from a certain perspective, the organization could be provided
with valuable insights on worker profile on overall organizational perform-
ance.

As to the facilitator's finding on learning, I found:

Most of the front line workers in 1999 were African Americans who had been
hired sometime in 1998 and stayed with the organization for most of 1999.
During the first period of 1999, there was tension among different levels of
the organization. In effort to provide greater liberty to all front line workers, I
adopted an open door policy as well as reviewing the dismissal of workers.
This meant that supervisors could not simply dismiss a worker without my di-
rect approval. I encouraged workers to speak up as well as scheduling meeting
with just front line operators to air "their grievances." As a result, March to
mid June 1999 was a period of constant power struggles, disharmony, disrup-
tions and challenges in the workplace. The technical personnel felt "betrayed"
and "not supported" by senior management. Comments like who "runs the
floor" were rampant throughout the organization. Data collected recorded
higher turnover of workers in comparison to other periods and lower produc-
tivity and performance. By the end of May 1999 I had determined that "the ar-
 83

rogance of some front line workers in even challenging my authority" had to

stop.

I viewed opportunities for learning as worker struggles that related to not controlling

the shop floor. Once control was achieved, more effort could be devoted to learning,

or the operator would be more open to gaining knowledge of machining and improv-

ing his skills. So I concluded that, through control of the shop floor, opportunities for

learning would be gained by operators.

I also discounted the facilitator's findings on learning as not being valid, given

that there had been "only one African American operator voluntarily leaving the or-

ganization." I also found that socialization on the shop floor played some role in

learning:

I began to notice that relationship building had a downside, especially when

couples would break up. The consequences were yelling and fighting among
female workers and between female and male operators. An example was the
case of Hombre and another African American female machine operator who
dated each other although both lived with another partner.
 CHAPTERS

LEARNING AND KEEPING THE JOB

In Chapter 5 I outlined background information on the organization to provide

the reader a better understanding of the workplace. and then presented the facilitator's

findings from the focus group sessions in Chapter 6, and my initial response as CEO

in Chapter 7. This chapter, along with Chapter 9. makes a shift by taking an analytical

stance or outsider perspective on social relations surrounding learning and communi-

cating in a small manufacturing organization. In that regard, I have relied almost ex-

clusively on the written transcripts of the three focus group sessions to offer a differ-

ent dimension.

Throughout this Chapter and Chapter 9 there will be reference to actual dia-

logues. extracted from the written transcripts of the focus group sessions, that took

place between the facilitator and a participant or participants. In order to maintain

anonymity of the participants, the transcripts used the following identifiers: M de-

notes the facilitator, AF refers to unidentified African Female worker, AM refers to

unidentified African Male worker, WM refers to unidentified White Male worker and

WF refers to unidentified White Female worker.

The recent literature in work practices is rich in advocating a coherent system

of organizational and human resource practices to maximize organizational perform-

R4
 85

ance (Holmstrom & Milgrom, 1994). Synergies among the work organization and

human resource practices lead to positive interaction effects on perfonmince when

they are adopted together (Delery et al., 1997), Characteristics often referenced.as

needed in the bundles of practices include employee involvement, higher employee

pay and benefits along With job security, and employee participation in knowledge

acquisition (Appelbaum, 2000). This Chapter explores employee leaming in the con-

text of collaboration or lack of collaboration, and social interaction in the workplace

of the organization. Reference is made to the role of Lave's "situated learning"

among various communities of practices in explaining the challenges faced by work-

ers in the organization (Lave & Wenger, 1991). With situated learning, what is

learned is inseparable from how it is learned and used. Learning is not a neutral proc-

ess. but rather is coproduced through activity, context, and culture (Chaiklin & Lave,

1993). An important aspect is that the learner acquires the skill to perform by engag-

ing actively in the process tinder the conditions of peripherality of participation.

(Lave & Wenger, 1991). Locating learning in the classroom is limited since it ignores

the social environment.

Lave and Wenger (1991) argue that learning as it normally occurs is a func-

tion of the activity, context, and culture in which it occurs. In contrast, most class-

room learning activities involve knowledge that is abstract and often out of context.

Methods of didactic education assume a separation between knowing and doing by

treating knowledge as a self-sufficient substance. An example would be the process

of traditional education in which the classroom includes students and instructors, with

students actively listening to the instructor disseminating knowledge. Here, the

 86

learner is gaining a discrete body of abstract knowledge that is to be applied at some

later time. With situated learning, social interaction is a critical component of learning

through "communities of practices" which embody certain beliefs and behaviors to be

acquired (Wenger, 1998). Learning is a process that takes place in a participation

framework, not in an individual mind (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Rather, learning takes

place among coparticipants within the framework of a community. A community

could be viewed as an alignment among individuals who share beliefs and experi-

ences that binds them together (Wenger, 1998). What renders a community a com-

munity of practice includes:

1. sustained mutual relationship - harmonious or conflictual

2. shared ways of engaging in doing things together
3. knowing what others know, what they can do, and how they can contribute
to an enterprise
4. the ability to assess the appropriateness of actions and products
5. local lore, shared stories, inside jokes, knowing laughter
6. jargon and shortcuts to communication as well as the ease of producing
new ones
7. certain styles recognized as displaying membership
8. a shared discourse reflecting a certain perspective on the world (Wenger,
1998).
An organization includes many communities of practices. An effective Of-

ganization comprises a constellation of interconnected communities of practice, each

dealing with specific aspects of the company's competency, such as from peculiarities

of a long-standing client to manufacturing safety, Each of these communities contrib-

utes to the overall effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the organization. Communities

 87

of practices within the organization can lead to divergent experiences toward leam-

ing. So, simply learning in the classroom assumes that definitions and exemplary sen-

tences are self-contained "pieces" of knowledge. But words' and sentences "are not is-

lands onto themselves. Instead, the extent of learning in the field, such as the shop

floor, is a social process that generates different levels of knowledge acquisition

through different forms of participation.

Sponsorship and Learning in the Organization

Membership in certain communities reveals the role of social process in creat-

ing or limiting knowledge creation in the workplace. The focus group sessions

brought to light three distinctive communities within the organization, with different

forms of participation depending on group membership:

1. The community consisting of the day shift operators

2. The community consisting of the night shift operators, and

3. The community consisting of the tech support members, regardless of

whether working the day or night shift

These three communities of practice shared many factors that brought them

together such as:

1. Working together in general during certain hours ofa workday, such as ei-
ther working the day or night shift.

2. Doing things together, such as serving as machine operators assigned to a

machining center or working the floor as a maintenance or tool person.

3. Commonality in approach towards assessing actions taken, such as how

each group in general viewed management action and other workers out-
side their particular community of practice.
 88

4. Identifying who was a member of the community and who was not, based
on factors such as race, length of service and ranking in the orga~ization.
5. Certain. perspectives towards those outside their community in areas per-
taining to learning, input; communication, etc.

Tech Support Group

Members of the tech support group were employed the longest in comparison

to other workers and had access or "privilege" to further learning on the job. A key

aspect was the group's connection with a "sponsor," someone who not only encour-

aged and supported the development of their skills and learning in the organization,

but set aside time to interact with them. Boundaries and limitations were fewer so that

fuller participation in a greater number of activities was available. While members of

the tech support group would complain of lack of control on the floor, their direct link

to Dick, the sponsor or master, provided a strong bond or relationship, and a more

open environment to maximize learning.

Dick, one of the owners of the organization, had substantial years of experi-

ence in machining and had been directly responsible for recruiting and hiring many

members of the tech support group. His relationship with the tech support group can

be explained in terms of familial and historical links. From a familial perspective,

three members of the tech support group were related to Dick: a son (Bill), a brother-

in-law (Steve), and a nephew (David), while a fourth member, Jane, was romantically

linked to Bill. This position afforded members of the tech support group opportunities

to engage in sustained participation in comparison to other groups. Learning was not

limited to mundane tasks such as merely "pushing the start and stop buttons" on a
 89
"

machining center, but involved opportunities as apprentices to gain further knowledge

under the guidance of a master. These included performing tasks in the organization
. ' . .
that was not directly relating to running a machine. In addition, Dick was directly in-

volved and took a direct interest in these workers, given that he had hired them when

the organization had begun operation.

The tech support group had easier contact and bonding with Dick than did

other workers. Dick would frequently communicate with members of this group in his

office on various projects such as tooling up a job, ordering tooling, or maintaining

the machines in working order, as well as regarding family gatherings outside the or-

ganiz~tion. This level of contact was a continual one and contributed to maintaining

and strengthening the bonds between them. When Bill sought to learn programming,

Dick devoted a number of hours in the print room providing direction, suggestions,

and advice to Bill. Such access to Dick was not available to the other operators. Even

machine operators commented in the focus group sessions how unavailable Dick was

on the shop floor since he spent most of his time programming and performing other

manufacturing-related tasks.

Day-Shift Ope'rator and Night-Shift Operator Groups

For day-shift operators, the environment for learning was limited by the tech

support group. A mentor or sponsor did not exist within the organization who could

provide day-shift operators with opportunities for greater participation in learning

about machining. Instead, operators complained that managers (tech support mem-
 90

bers) would move them from opportunities to gain more knowledge to performing

physical and repetitious tasks that did not offer them further opportunity to learn:

AF: They only want you to do it [learn a task] when they need you to do it.
Other than that, if I want to learn a machine, and it's on my time and,
you know, if! don't have a machine and I say well let me go learn this,
they'll say no. But if they need you, the only way we can learn it is if .
they need you to do that. If that machine is down there (?) they'll let
you go over there and (inaudible).

AF: And then they're willing to take the risk.

AM: It seems like they're trying to suppress you (inaudible). They only
want you to learnjust so much. They don't want you to know (inaudi-
ble) so much where you can go out and find a better job. So they just
want you to learn just as little (inaudible)... (pp. 3-4)

****
AF: Right. All he [referring to managers] wants you to know how to do is
operate the machines.

M: But not...

AF: Load the parts, and push the simple start. No further than that. They
don't want you to do no further than that.

M: And there is more to learn, correct?

AF: Yeah. (p. 5)

****
M: Okay. How long have you been here?

AM: Over a year.

M: Okay.

AM: But I still, all I know how to do is load parts and push, just like (inau-
dible) (p. 27)

Day-shift operators viewed this type of activity as one where engaging in pro-

ductive learning was not sustainable. Day-shift operators' resentment was felt in re-
 91

ferring to Bill as "really being a nobody." Bill, like most tech support workers, had

been with the organization for over seven years, and his main advantage' over other

workers in th~ organization was that he ~as the son of Dick. This was a ve~ impor-
tant factor from Dick's perspective since Bill was Dick's only son. This placed Bill in

a unique position to influence decision-making as well as to acquire more skills than

others. Review of Bill's employment histo~ revealed that he started working for the

organization like any machine operator, but possessed a very bad temper that alien-

ated him from other workers. But over time, Dick had taken Bill under his wings and

provided one-on-one training on the machines, programming, assembling fixtures,

etc. So Bill's apprenticeship under a master such as Dick had allowed Bill to gain ex-

perience in a trade and become a more valuable employee to the organization.

Day-shift operators' reference to Bill as a "nobody" connoted feelings of frus-

tration that Bill really was a somebody with access to a master who was able to gain

more sustained participation in learning on the job. Also, Bill repre~ented a block to

fuller participation by other nort-technical workers. A number of incidents or clashes

occurred on the plant floor between Bill and machine operators regarding Bill's lack

of communication skills and sensitivity in communicating with workers. But time and

again Dick came to Bill's defense. Also, Bill, like many from the tech support group,

would complain to Dick about other machine operators, which contributed to foster-

ing barriers between Dick and other workers.

Interviews of the day-shift operators in the focus group session suggested no

strong link with senior management or a sponsor to promote their interests among

ranks of the tech support group. For members of the day-shift group, learning was
 92

acquired through their association with longer-tenured African American workers.

While the 10nger-~enured African American workers were somewhat associated with

the tech support group, their link to Dick was limited. Also, contaci· with Dick was

more difficult since machine operators would be directly assigned to a workstation .on

the plant floor or under the direction of a member from the tech support group. Ma-

chine operators could not simply walk away from the machine center unless approved

by hislher supervisor. Also, Dick would usually spend his time in the engineering

room, far removed from the plant floor.

Finally, support from the White tech support members for longer-tenured Af-

rican American workers was tenuous at best. Various attempts to upgrade or promote

African American workers to position of tech support drew resistance from the tech

support group. Reasons given by the tech support group for not successfully upgrad-

ing skills of day-shift operators included comments that they were unreliable, came in

late, and repeatedly needed to be shown steps while continuing to make the same mis-

takes over and over. In summary, learning; from the perspective of the operators, was

limited to pushing the start and stop buttons. For the operators, this level of learning

did not enhance their value in the marketplace like it had Bill, who had acquired a

vast amount of on-the-job training from a master.

Day-shift operators viewed learning or acquiring kriowledge as limited in the

organization. This perspective had a basis of truth since tech support members them-

selves questioned the commitment of day-shift operators to learning:

WF: So I think that from an operator's point of view on that [learning], they
just don't want take the initiative.
 93

M: So you're saying that there is an opportunity if they ask, that every-

body is open to be asking of the question, and they're not told 'just be
qlliet and do your work. ' .

AF: A lot of them really don't want to know.

WF: Well yeah, they just don't ...

AF: They just want to come and work and that's just it. (p. 4)

*****
WM: We really don't have time to spend with them. So part of it is frustra-
tion, I think, on their behalf where, okay, even people that are ambi-
tious, we don't really have time to spend with them to train them.

WF: But then when we do bring up something where, okay, we're going to
have classes like ...

M: Yes.

WF: ... we did have a few classes.

M: Yes you did. I have a question about that, yes.

WF: And nobody shows up.

M: Is that true? I heard that everybody showed up at the beginning and

that the classes ended.

WM: They did in the beginning.

AF: And that was due to them getting paid, not from them learning. That'
another thing.

M: Yeah, okay.

AF: You know, they wasn't really there to learn. They was just wanting the
money.

M: Okay, okay. So it wasn't to learn?

AF: No, it wasn't to learn.

AM: Some of them were. (pp. 4-5)

 94

On the other hand, night-shift operators expressed a less negative attitude to-

ward the organization. This group found that opportunities to l~arn did exist:

M:· Okay. Is there an opportunity to learn? We talked a little bit about that.
AM: Oh, yeah.
M: Do you want to talk more about that? Good.
AM: Yes, especially in the educational aspect. They're more than willing to
allow you to go to school and, just like this gentleman said, not only
will they allow you to, but they'll even pay for it
AF: They'll pay for it.
WM: Yeah.
WM: He's [referring to eucho] always doing something for the employees.
(p. 19) .

What accounted for the difference in perception toward learning between the

night-shift operators and day-shift operators? One common underlying factor was that

nightwshift operators were less scrutinized than day-shift operators. Tech support per-

sonnel did not typically work on the night shift, which meant that night-shift opera-

tors were permitted to exercise a greater degree of freedom and responsibility in per-

forming their tasks at the machine. Since the number of tech support for the night

shift was substantially less than for the day-shift operators, greater responsibility was

placed on the night-shift operators to meet productivity levels and ensure that quality

of the parts produced was maintained. Fewer tech support members would interact

with the night-shift operators, so that lines of communication were less confusing and

ambiguous.

Other factors that serve to explain the difference in attitude and perception

toward learning can be explained as being based on race, familial relationship, and
 95

length of service. While I will be speaking later in this chapter and in the communica-

tion chapter on the role of race, it was fairly clear that the day-shift operators group .

consisted exClusively of African Americans, while the night-shift operators group was

mixed. The White operators on the night shift often had some connection with the

tech support group that allowed for easier communication flow. Another factor re-

lated to familial connection among dayshift operators who were either siblings or

connected by marriage, while this level of familial connection among the night-shift

operators tended to be less. Finally, day-shift operators tended to have longer length

of service than night-shift operators. Thus, night-shift operators were less prone to

judge the organization negatively. given a shorter length of service and fewer work-

related experiences that would be viewed negatively.

To acquire more skills, workers need to coparticipate in the work environment

through membership in the "club" or "sponsorship." The workforce dynamics in the

workplace revealed variou.s groups or communities of practices in the organization

laced with productive as well as counterproductive patterns, injustices. prejudices,

racism. sexism, and abuses of all kinds (Wenger, 1998). Within the organization, the

conflicts and resistance among the groups, as exposed in the focus group sessions,

disclosed communities of practices with negative patterns that prevented the organi-

zation from building a more committed environment An example was the discussion

among day-shift operators in the focus group session on resolving problems with a

machine on the floor where participation with tech support was viewed as extremely

limited:

M: Okay. When a problem arises in your machine or on the floor, do you

offer input into solving the problem?
 96

AF: Yes.
AF: Do we what?
M: . Offer input to solve theproblem.?

AF: No.
AF: (inaudible) we might - you might offer it, but tliey might say you don't
know what you're talking about.
AF: Shut up, you don't know what you're talking about.
AM: Yep.
AF: I think this is happening, so and so, you know, well you don't know
what you're talking about. This is too much for you all on a new ma·
chine.
AF: See we run a machine every day.
AF: You run a machine every day.
AF: Right.

AF: So you know this that and that the other,' and you know when some-
thing happens, you can just about figure out why this happened. You
try to tell them this is what I think has happened. Oh I don't want to
hear what you've got to say, you don't know what you're talking
about.
AF: Right, because it's done happened ten times. (pp. 32-33)
Acquiring additional knowledge is viewed as not falling within the scope of

operators. Any input from operators is summarily disregarded. As a result, operators

become discouraged and disenchanted with the organization. This community begins

to develop negative patterns in how it views its relationship with the organization.

While knowledge acquisition seemed to be reserved for the tech support group, learn-

ing became a matter of privilege and status instead of being open and available to all

workers.
 97

Jill and Louise versus Hombre and Sue

"Not" all African American operators were excluded from more sustained par-

ticipation "in the organization. The divergence was exemplified in the Hombre and

Sue group composed of African American workers who had over time maintained

and strengthened their work positions in the organization, while the Jill and Louise

group proved less successful, eventually leading to their tennination. Both groups

worked the day shift and interacted with tech support, with promotions and opportu-

nities occurring about the same time. Differences between the two groups can be ex-

plained in the links or lack of links established with members of the tech support

group. Hombre and Sue had been promoted from machine operators within the or-

ganization and developed sponsors who provided protection and encouragement for

further learning. Sue became a quality inspector and worked daily with and reported

directly to Jane, a member of the tech support group and former girlfriend of Bill. In-

teractions between Jane ~nd Sue led to the development of a bond between them simi-

lar to that of an apprentice to master relationship. <?ften I would observe Sue and Jane

going to lunch together or taking breaks together. Having a vehicle also helped Sue

since she could be expected to arrive at work on time every day, and was always will-

ing to work. These factors endeared her to management and tech support and even

created less of a threat to the tech support members since Sue was involved in quality

inspection.

Hombre took a different approach. He was less outspoken and was prepared to

do anything asked of him. He also had access to a vehicle, which allowed him to

come to work on time more times than not. Another factor that endeared him to tech
 98

support was that attempts to elevate other longer~tenured African American workers,

such as Jill, had failed from the perspective of the tech support group. Also; Hombre

was not a threat to the authority of people such as Bill, since he was not aggressive in

making his feeling known. He was less confrontational than other workers. In con-

trast, Jill and Louise lacked not only a real sponsor from the tech support group, but

also tended to resist the authority of management by missing work or being more vo-

cal on the plant floor regarding their frustrations and resentment.

The story of Jill and Louise, members of the day-shift operators, represented

the community of day-shift operators at odds with the community of tech support

within the organization. Jill and Louise viewed learning in the organization, as ex-

pressed in the transcripts of the day-shift operators, as simply "loading the parts and

pushing the simple start. No further than that. They don't want you to do no further

than that." The response meant that operators were simply there to operate the ma-

chines and not to learn the intricacies of the machining center. To them, management

limited learning to "learning just so much." !lay-shift operators, such as Jill and

.Louise, felt trapped, "1 can't go nowhere else to get another job because I really don't

know it."

In addition, this group was resentful of other members from the tech support

group who were given the opportunity to learn. Tech support members often com-

plained about operators being late to work or not coming to work~ they could not de-

pend on individuals like the Jills and Louises. Tech support members would fail to

sponsor this type of individual. The outcome for the Jill and Louise group was no pro-

tection or insulation from attack by other groups. Repeatedly, members of the tech
 99

support group sought to have Jill fired or suspended for being "lazy" and "unable to

carry out specific tasks." Louise was no different, given that she "was loud' and bois"

terous,". which caused senior managers to shy away from her. In contrast, the His··

panic group of operators who began working in the organization in mid-2000 was

shielded because it had a sponsor, Jose, who not only served as a spokesperson, but

also was viewed as a liaison between the Hispanic group and tech support.

Day-Shift Operators versus Hispanic Operators

Jose joined the organization in late spring of 2000 possessing technical skills

that qualified him as a member of the tech group, but who happened to be Hispanic.

He earned nearly as much as members of the tech support group and, when pressed to

work on tool and die-making projects, had met success under the scrutinizing eye of

the tech group. As a result, Jose had earned the respect of colleagues. When he began

recruiting Hispanics in ~ate spring of 2000 to work as machine operators on the shop

floor for the night shift, he became a spokesperson. This position was invaluable

since Jose's technical skill and fluent Spanish allowed him to interpret tasks ex-

plained by supervisors and members of the tech group to Hispanic operators. For tech

support members, dealing with Jose made interaction with Hispanic workers easier

since there was less "noise" between supervisor and operator.

In contrast to the Hispanic group, the Jill and Louise group had no such spon-

sor as Jose. Members of the Jill and Louise group had started as machine operators in

the fall of 1998 and had developed seniority. From the perspective of Jill and Louise,

seniority meant very little, if anything, in terms of advancement or learning. Initially,

 100

their work habits in operating the machines appeared acceptable, but diminished over

time. The tec~ group viewed Jill and Louise as "lazy and not capable of learning
. ' .
harder tasks" and habitually arriving to work late,' especially the day after payday.

This perspective blunted further learning on the job since tech support m.em.bers did

not take seriously any desire on the part of the Jill and Louise group to learn. Also,

supervisors would often comment that members of the Jill and Louise group seemed

comfortable with arriving late to work or not working at all.

Even with reduced work hours, workers would not quit. From 1998 to the

middle of 2000, most frontline workers were African Americans. Three African

American workers. including Jill, advanced to become floor leaders or technicians

assisting tech support. But advancement was short-lived; the perspectives between the

Jill and Louise group and tech Support group seemed to increase in conflict. Promo-

tion to floor leaders was an opportunity that seemed never to meet acceptance by the

tech support group. Complaints were often directed against the Jill and Louise group

as being simply "not skilled enough or disciplined enough" to perform the task. In

response. the Jill and Louise group viewed the tech support group as sending "mixed

or unclear instructions."

In learning to operate a machine, new operators were teamed up with more

experienced operators for a period of time until the operator was certified as able to

operate the machining center by himself or herself. Often this process took one to two

weeks. Thereafter, operators were expected to operate the machining center on their

own. A source of irritation often expressed by members from the tech support group

was having experienced operators teaming up on a single machining center; however,

 101

-.
Hispanic operators teaming up in pairs was acceptable conduct, which went unchal~

lenged by supervisors and tech support. In contrast, member~ of the Jill and Louise

group were discouraged from teaming in pairs.

Working in pairs was often associated with 'Just spending time talking and

not watching what they are doing." With both groups there was interaction not only

on the shop floor but also outside the workplace. Socializing contributed to problems

in the workplace for members of the Jill and Louise group through personal and inti~

mate relationships that continued outside work. For example, two cases involving Af~

rican American workers who dated each other, although both lived with another part~

ner, brought about tension that often spilled onto the shop floor. In the case of one

such relationship, there was a breakup that led to a serious altercation on the shop

floor, resulting in one of the workers being dismissed for fighting. While maintaining

relationships outside the work place was a common occurrence among both groups,

problems of contlict or fighting surfaced less with members of the Hispanic group.

Training was not viewed as consistent and sincere. Rather, the Jill and Louise

group saw management sending mixed messages. Management was int~rested in adw

vancing a worker only if the organization was in need, "not for your own advance-

ment." Learning was viewed as self-serving and slanted to benefit management's own

needs. This group also indicated in the focus group sessions that management did not

want to train if it meant paying them time-and-a-half. So learning and training were

viewed as limited, with management not "wanting you know so much where you can

go out and find a better job. So they just want you to learn just a little." Management
 102

-.
had little confidence that the African American worker was competent to perform on

his/her own.

The real divergence began to be noticed subsequent to June 2000 when the

organization started recruiting Hispanic machine operators. My senior managers be-

gan quietly complaining about the poor quality of worker we had, so I began advertis-

ing in the Spanish-speaking newspapers. By the end of December 2000, six months

later, the makeup of frontline workers had changed from African Americans to His-

panics to the extent that Hispanics were now 65% of the machine operator workforce.

This latter group consisted up of approximately the same number of males and fe-

males, but the females on average were approximately six years younger than the Af-

rican American female workers. As in the case of the African American worker, the

Hispanic worker also was inexperienced in running a machine and needed on-the-job

training. The issue of transportation that was a concern with the African American

worker also was a concern with the Hispanic workers. Most Hispanic workers drove

to work because one of them had access to a vehicle and too responsibility for driving

all of them to and from work. Another difference related to where Hispanic workers

lived. Review of the Application for Work forms found approximately half of the

Hispanic workers resided in the inner city and the other half in the suburbs within

close proximity to each other. In contrast, all the African American workers resided

in the inner city and were dispersed throughout the inner city.

Three characteristics stand out when comparing the Hispanic worker to the

African American worker. First, the Hispanic worker's attendance tended to be more

reliable and dependable than the African American worker. Missing or coming to
 103

work late was a rarity among Hispanic workers. Comparing Hispanic workers and
--
African American workers over the same period of time in 2000 revealed that African

American workers tended to be absent at least twieeas often as Hispanic workers;

and absent three times more often than Hispanic workers. This meant supervisors

were less concerned with whether a Hispanic worker would report to work or not.

One supervisor. Steve. would repeatedly comment "I never have to worry about them

showing up to work." Second, Hispanic worker productivity was higher across the

board when compared with that of the Africari American worker. A review of the

productivity records of frontline workers disclosed perfonnance among Hispanic

workers tended to be 10% to 15% higher than that of African American workers. Su-

pervisors would often comment that "productivity has never been this high." Finally,

the self-certification of parts began in January 2001 among certain operators, which

had never been done before. Self-certification by a machine operator meant that both

production and quality departments were in agreement that an operator possessed the

experience and knowledge to conduct his or her oWn final inspection of the parts be~

ing machined, without the need for a quality inspector. As a result, additional layers

of inspection and cost were eliminated. Now an operator at the machine possessed the

skill and responsibility to make his or her. own decision.

Learning as Being Racially Biased

Reference to White workers as being supervisors suggested that since day-

shift operators were not White there was limited opportunity to learn for African

Americans. Discussions in the focus group sessions between the African American
 104

--
operators and tech support group regarding skills of the frontline workers suggests an

undercurrent of racial bias toward African American workers. If learning is viewed as

a social process, then the opportunity to learn within a social setting will depend on

the willingness of teachers to teach, whether consciously or subconsciously, and stu~

dents' willingness to learn. In this regard, the dichotomy on learning between the day-

shift group and the tech support group revealed racial dynamics at play in the organi-

zation. The day-shift operators group was clearly more candid in referring to Whites

as having access to learning and fuller participation:

M: Look, it says opportunities for learning, ~hey said there were greater
opportunities. Not? You're shaking your head. So tell me about that
because I've heard different things already ...
AM: No.

M: Tell me why. Tell us why.

AM: Because they [referring to operators] don't really have a chance to

learn anything.

M: Why?
AM: Okay for one instance that happen to me, I was learning how to pro-
gram something, and instead of doing that, one of the bosses told me
to go push a broom and stated(?) ...
M: So you were trying to learn.

AM: Yeah.
M: An advanced, and you were cut down.
AM: Right.

M: Okay.

AF: A lot of times ...

AF: ... every time I ask to team, like the 923's for example, you know I'm
told no. But then if they're in a crunch on the weekend, they'111et me '
 105

come in and work a job and show me how to load it a couple cycles,
--
and I'm fine.

M: So it's only when they're in need, not for your oWn advancement?

AF: Right.
AF: That's right. (pp. 2-3)

*****
AF: Right. All he [referring to management] wants you to know how to do
is operate the machines.

M: But not. ..

AF: Load the parts, and push the simple start. No further than that. They
don't want you to do no further than that.

M: And there is more to learn, correct?

AF: Yeah.
AF: And like I've been - okay I've got three years experience at this. But I
can't go no where else to get another job because I really don't know
it. (p. 5)

*****
M: Is there an opportunity to learn here?

AM: No.

M: No?
AF: No, there's not. (p.2l)

*****
AM: Yeah because they don't have titles because I actually - Bill [referring
to the son of Dick] ain't nothing but the maintenance man.

AM: Right.

AM: But he stills tells you what to do.

AM: Up on the floor.

 106

AF: Right.

AF: Yes.

AF: We want (inaudible),

AM: David [referring to the nephew of Dick] is, like, what, the safety coor-
dinator or something, or something.

AF: Safety...

M: Okay.

AM: You know and he goes around telling people what to do. I mean actu-
ally to put it bluntly ...

AF: Don't even know.

AM: ... the white people are in charge regardless of what their title is.

AM: You know like I say Billy ain't nobody. David ain't nobody, I mean as
far I knew they're not really (inaudible).

AM: They wear the same - well that's still white [emphasis added]. (p.34)

This meant that only Whites would qualify for preferential treatment or oppor"

tunity to achieve sustained participation. Likewise, the tech support group referred to

the operators attending training sessions simply because it "was due to them getting

paid, not for them learning." Comments from tech support members, such as "You

know they wasn't there to learn. They was just wanting the money," revealed a

strongly divided and segregated work environment laced with racial bias among the

various groups in the organiZation. Thus, the perception from tech support members

that operators lacked the willingness to learn unless monetary compensation· was

made also implied that African American workers were less capable and unwilling to

learn. Similarly, day-shift operators had a pulse on the organization and viewed the

work setting as racially biased in which to get ahead "you needed to be white."
 107

~.

Other comments often overheard among tech support group members spoke of

operators as "inmates running the floor" or "having to wipe the butts of asses of op-

, erators" reveal racial tensions between these two groups. Admitting comments are

racially motivated is difficult for any group since it is not viewed as acceptable

behavior. However, the data on membership within the tech support group provides

important clues on the openness of the work environment to accept ('non whiteS" as

managers or supervisors. Except for one quality inspector, Sue, the organization had

not hired any technical-skilled African American workers during the four years I

served as CEO.

Comments by tech support members in the focus group sessions regarding

lack of control of the shop floor served as code phrases or substituted for racial bias

practiced within the organization. The organization as viewed by the tech support

group had "exhausted the resources as far as where to get people." Thus, tech support

members felt that the organization was left to work with a certain caliber of worker,

which created "a big problem." Comments about who "runs the floor" were rampant.

The focus group sessions and my observations of the workplace, especially of the'

tech support group, revealed that race was a factor in gaining fuller participation to

learning the trade of machining. Tp.ere was a greater likelihood to gain acceptance if

the worker was White, as opposed to being non-White.

Frustrations of African American day-shift operators became evident between

June and December of 2000. Failure to observe company policy by the African

American day~shift operators became more common through tardiness, absenteeism,

and violation of no-drink or use-of-drugs policy. African American operators working

 108

-.
the day shift resisted management efforts to control them. A sense of opportunity was

nonexistent on the shop floor, indicated by comments such as "They might say you

don't know what you're talking about. n Quitting was not an option, so by the end of

2000 management resorted to firing most day-shift operators who were African

American for drinking on the job, testing positive for drugs and substandard work

performance. This was ,especially noteworthy, given the focus group sessions where

held when day-shift operators were mostly African American In fact, during 1999,

almost 92% of the frontline workers were African American, with only one White

machine operator. Turnover took place mostly among African American workers em-

ployed for short periods of time. Some of them quit on their own by not reporting to

work, or were returned to prison for parole violation. Review of their application for

work disclosed that all these workers lived in the inner city and almost 60% of them

were convicts.

Conclusions

Lave and Wenger (1991) commented that broad exposure to ongoing practices

provides an important way of enhancing learning in the workplace by becoming le-

gitimate peripheral participants in the community of practice. That is, the place or

"opening" where one moves towards more intensive participation by gaining access

to sources for understanding through growing involvement. However, to have legiti-

mate access to participation in the organization's productive activities may depend on

a master sponsoring aspiring apprentices. In short, the form in which such legitimate
 109

--
access is secured for apprentices depends on the characteristics of the division of la-

bor in the social milieu in which the community of practice is. located.

In my small manufacturing organization, access to participation and thus to

further knowledge of the intricacies of machining, depended on access to the master,

Dick The social framework of the organization disclosed that sponsorship at first de-

pended specifically and explicitly on the familial proximity to the master. Those like

Bill, the son, and David, the nephew, had attained such membership to enter the

world of the master. A second condition to participation and, to a lesser degree but

yet important to Dick, was membership in the tech support group. Membership in the

tech support group andlor familial relationship to Dick were clearly conditions of en-

gaging in participation and gaining further knowledge. Nonmembership in this exclu-

sive club meant exclusion from full participation or placement at the extreme margins

of acquiring knowledge. As a result, members of other groups, such as the day~shift

operators group, were unable to access opportunities for learning. Further learning

was limited to circulation of information among dayshift operators. The outcome was

disappointing and causing resentment, since learning beyond "pushing the buttons" of

a machine was limited and sometimes even nonexistent.

This process of inclusion and exclusion was repeated over and over again in

the organization until the arrival of the Hispanic machine operators. What explained

the difference between the Hispanic machine operators and the eventually replaced

older African American day·shift operators? It became apparent that protection or

development of a community of practice depended on having a sponsor or protector

who was a member of management. Comparing Hispanic machine operators with Af-
 110

riean American operators revealed that opportunities to gain fuller access to participa-

tion depended on someone serving as the liaison with management. For th,e Hispanic

machine operators, Jose (a Hispanic) served to interpret from English to Spanish and

vice versa, which provided a level of protection or opportunity for Hispanic machine

operators. Another level of protection was how Jose was perceived on the plant floor. -

Jose had been recruited by me to join the organization just subsequent to completing

the focus group sessions in March/April 2000. Being Hispanic, I also felt a stronger

link to the workers by having another Hispanic working .in the organization. We

would communicate almost exclusively in Spanish, and Jose would not hesitate to

approach me about ideas or suggestions that might improve the workplace.

Thus, Jose was viewed by the tech support group as my apprentice, a link to

me, the CEO of the organization, which initially did create a sense of uneasiness in

more senior tech support members. For example, Steve and other tech support mem-

bers were bothered by Jose not following the chain of command of first speaking to

his supervisors before approaching me to discuss matters. During his initial period of

employment, Jose often would visit my office to offer input on how he saw activities

unfolding on the plant floor. This put Jose in a preferred position when interacting

between both the tech support group and the Hispanic operator. Finally, it was en-

couraging to have Jose as a member of the tech support group, who, with significant

work experience, was able to contribute to the design and building of complex tool-

ing. Such was not the case with the African American operators who had no one

seated at the table of the tech support group. This only served to further alienate the

African American operators from the managers. This in part explained the discourag-
 111

ing comments made by the day-shift operators in the focus group session regarding
--
not having any real opportunities for learning.

Providing training fo~ inner-city residents requires acknowledging the impoi-

tant role of sponsors and masters in enhancing or limiting opportunities for learning.

To be effective, this means having sponsors and masters willing and prepared to

sponsor apprentices to enable them to participate more fully in productive activities.

But gaining sponsorship is a social process, involving a complex web of interpersonal

relationships that impact on whether admission can be gained. Masters such as Dick

must be willing to expand the criteria for application for membership. This is not so

easy. Senior managers in organizations may find it quite difficult, as I did, to merely

direct subordinates to carry out tasks with confidence that they would in fact be car-

ried out.

The interactions described above illustrate that participation and opportunities

for learning were based on factors that depended on membership in communities of

practices within the organization. In addition, the factors of race and membership in

the tech support group colored the opportunity to achieve more sustained participa-

tion by identifying workers who had links to sponsors and those who did not. The role

of power became evident in how different communities controlled the flow of know1-

edge to different groups. It also became apparent that the sense of opportunity gave

way to resistance by the day-shift operators who believed that double standards were

pervasive in the organization; anything that management did drew doubt and feelings

of insincerity. The upshot was that learning within the context of the communities of
 112

practice was divergent and that the conflicts among the various groups were counter-

productive to establishing a more commitment-like environment.

Finally, this chapter cannot conclude without commenting on the activities.of

the organization as being a reflection of the dynamics taking place at a larger scale in

our society. Opportunities for learning are tiot simply race-neutral. The role of race in

limiting opportunities for learning seemed to be repeatedly played out in my small

manufacturing organization. As Holzer's (1996) study found, employers do exhibit

racial preference, not only in hiring, but in terms of opportunities that can be accessed

in the work place. My organization was no exception. Perceptions or stereotyped

ideas of who will perform better were evident when it came to supervisors preferring

Hispanic operators over African American operators and inclusion in the all-

important tech support group. The color of one's skin was a factor that did matter if a

worker wanted to advance in the organization. Such attitudes, though specifically

condemned by individuals such as myself, cannot simply be wiped out of the work-

place. The discomfort in dealing with those who are different continues to be a factor

that limits divergent groups in working together effectively, as was evident in my or-

ganization.

Finally, another very important role in the organization was that of relation-

ship-building as in the examples of Jose, Hombre, and Sue, who were able to serve as

apprentices to tech support members and to liaise between the tech support group and

frontline workers. These links are not purely race-based, but involve social dynamics

at play where relationship-building among individuals from certain communities

 113

--
serves to foster better understanding and opportunities for cooperation and advance-

ment.
 CHAPTER 9

COMMUNICATION, POWER, AND COMMUNITY

The larger shape of what is taking place in an organization is difficult to rec~

ognize when standing right in the middle of it. Throughout the manufacturing sector

of the U.S. traditional approaches to management of the workplace are under review.

Questions keep arising about ways of maximizing performance and commitment in

the workplace. Why does one plant produce quality parts, lower employee turnover,

fewer employee absences from work, and better communication as opposed to other

plants?

I set out to study the structure and operation of the workplace of my organiza-

tion and the changes and consequences that arose from my actions and those of key

personnel in seeking to change performance and employee commitment in the work~

place. To gain a better understanding of worker attitudes toward management arising

from action and intervention taken, an independent facilitator was retained who con-

c;iucted three focus group meetings. These focus group meetings took place approxi-

mately 16 months after having commenced my research. The focus group sessions

uncovered differences based on ranking in the organization, work schedule, and racial

composition. In addition, all three focus groups revealed divergent perspectives on

the use of communication in creating or impeding learning on the job.

114
 115

Each group represented a distinctive community of practice, with its own local

peculiarities towards knowledge acquisition and membership, as well as connection

to the rest of the organization. In communities of practice, relations are created

around activities, and activities take shape through the social relations and experi-

ences of those who perfonn them so that knowledge "and skills become part of the in-

dividual identity and find their colocation in the community (Wenger, 1998). At the

same time, the diinension of community is an essential condition for the existence of

practical knowledge because it can only be perpetuated by being transmitted to new

entrants when they join the community (Gheradi & Nicolini, 2000), Often communi-

ties are anything but fonnal, they can be so informal as to be nearly invisible, that is,

consisting of hidden association among workers. In this study, each focus group ses-

sion revealed a group with its own particular community of practice, with boundaries"

and particular identities that served to exclude and include.

Individuals can share certain attributes that reveal patterns of common com-

munication and behavior among them that lead to a greater level of understanding,

identity and cohesiveness, constituting a cultural unit. Shared meanings and values

serve to provide members of the group with shared interpretations of experiences,

thoughts and feelings that enhance or inhibit relationships, problem-solving, and

learning (Sathe, 1985), While organizations can foster a certain culture, worker units

within an organization can reflect different attributes or histories that led to different

responses and actions to the same information transmitted (Wenger, 1998; Victor,

1992 ; Sathe, 1985). This means philosophies, ideologies, values, assumptions, be-

liefs, expectations, attitudes, and norms that knit a group together also impact on the

i
t
,I
I
l
.
i
 116

organization's perfonnance and productivity (Victor, 1992). The various patterns of

behavior towards work and their connection to the organization. suggested at least

three distinct units or communities of practice present (Wenger, 1998).

Wenger (1998) found that communities of practice are everywhere, and mul~

tiple communities can exist within an organization. We all belong to a number of

them-at work, at school, at home, and even in our hobbies. Members of a commu"

nity are informally bound by what they do together, from engaging in lunchtime dis~

cussions to solving difficult problems, and by what they have learned through their

mutual engagement in these activities. Communities of practice also are "nodes for

the dissemination, interpretation, and use of infonnation. They are nodes of commu-

nication." (Wenger, 1998, p. 252).

An interesting aspect is the role of communities of practice in commitment~

oriented systems. Studies on commitment-oriented systems found workplaces that

incorporate communication and employee voice encourage greater participation of

employees, serving to have a larger positive effect on productivity (Appelbaum,

2000). Sharing of infonnation with employees through holding regular meetirigs;

training sessions, and fonnal grievance procedures are components that positively

affect productivity and employee behavior (Odom, Boxx, & Dunn, 1990; Quinn &

and Spreitzer, 1991). Organizations that encourage employees to interact in order to

improve the production process are strongly associated with increased finn productiv~

ity (Black & Lynch, 2000). From my perspective, efforts to encourage the voice of

the worker to be heard on the plant floor as well as to enc0ll!age the worker to acquire

knowledge were taking root. But the outcome proved different when examined from
 117

-.
the perspective of the front line workers. What explained this divergence? In part, the

answer lies in the role of middle management (tech support personnel), the role of

race, and my own limitations in being unable to observe from outside my own lens.

The Communities of Practice of Machine Operators

In the organization, each group represented its own community of practice.

For example, the day-shift operator group, consisting of African American machine

operators, resented and resisted anyone who was above them and felt suppressed by

the White supervisors. This group complained that anyone White was a supervisor

who resisted efforts to provide further learning on the job to African American opera-

tors. Operators viewed the work environment as hostile, with the attitude that work

was performed simply to collect a paycheck. The night-shift group of machine opera-

tors took a different perspective. Upper management was viewed as encouraging

learning on the job, with supervisors wanting operators to learn how to run the ma-

chines and produce quality parts. There was also divergence between the day-shift

operators and night-shift operators when discussing communication in the workplace.

The day-shift operators saw communication in the workplace as "worse that ever,"

while the night-shift operators felt communication was "definitely better than before."

In reviewing the organization, it was fairly evident that the work environment

followed to a large extent a traditional or control-oriented approach to workforce

management. Frontline worker performance and effort was contro lIed to increase

productivity and maximize profit. Little concern or regard was given to employee

voice since the overall assumptions were that commitment to the workplace was low
 118

and it took too long to develop more complicated skills in operators. Direction came
-.
from the top to bottom on inspecting a part, loading or unloading a part, and institut~
. . .
ing ways to improve efficiency in the plant. All activities pertaining to increasing ef~

ficiency were reserved to managers, such as tech support and owners of the plant. to

develop and implement. This traditional approach established and maintained order,

control and predictability in the workplace (Garbarro, 1991). Workers were viewed as

soldiers hired to carry on certain tasks, such as achieving certain production levels

based on standard timing for machining parts on a machining center.

Through my intervention I sought to move the organization from a control-

based system to a more commitment-based system. The literature is rich in studies

pronouncing the success of commitment-oriented systems where there are fewer lev~

els of plant hierarchy, increased communication through dissemination of informa-

tion, increased training, and greater job responsibility and flexibility (Adler & Shen-

har, 1990; Appelbaum et aI., 2000). The success of the commitment-oriented strategy

is represented in increased worker performance, efficiency, and commitment to the

workplace. Because the potential leverage of a commitment-type system on perform-

ance is so great, the natural temptation is to assume that this strategy will work in all

organizations. However, little literature is found on the process itself and the struggles

and frustrations encountered in moving from a control-type environment to a COffi-

mitment-type environment.

My actions and efforts in transitioning toward a committed oriented system

yielded an organization conflicted and unable to construct an environment more

flexible and open to greater employee involvement, improved lines of communica·

 119

-.
tion, and learning. Except for the night shift of machine operators, the focus group

sessions revealed no concrete evidence that elements of a commitment-type environ-

. . ' , ' . .
ment were taking root. Even the focus group session of the night-shift operators re-

vealed that some workers felt that opportunities for learning and greater employment

existed while other workers felt opportunities to learn did not exist. The responses

from the evening shift tended to diverge more than those of the day-shift operators.

While the organization became registered as a QS9000 company in late 1999,

this did not mean that the system was commitment-oriented. To the contrary, registra-

tion as a QS9000 organization merely confinued to a third party and outside observ-

ers that the organization's quality management system operated in the workplace as

defined in the procedure manual. This meant the organization had become better or-

ganized on paper; however, increased employee involvement, opportunities for learn- .

ing, and information sharing were still lagging. The study and follow-up focus group

sessions revealed conflicts among senior managers and various worker units within

the organization, which also served as barriers to transitioning towards a commit-

ment-oriented organization. Day-shift operators complained that their perspective was

ignored and supervisors were only interested in productivity. Tech support members

viewed day-shift operators as not really there .to learn, but rather just wanting the

money. The organization continued to operate by exerting managerial control over the

workforce, with trust in workers relatively low. Workers themselves did not possess a

strong sense of loyalty or connection to the organization.

 120

Role of Communication

A recurring comment arising from my research conducted in 1999' and 2'000

"

referred to the need for better communication. Repeatedly, day-shift workers com~

plained that «no one keeps us informed," and expressed the need for "more informa~

tion on what is going on." In response, in 1999 I instituted a company newsletter that

was distributed to all employees every two months in an effort to keep employees in-

formed. I also wrote memos on various activities. We began to hold meetings with

both shifts to review quality and performance issues as well as the sales efforts of the

organization. However, day-shift operators and tech support group members did not

find this form of communication to be fostering greater sharing of information, nor as

improving the lines of communication. The focus group sessions in early 2000 con-

tinued to find that the lack of communication and ineffective communication was a

resounding theme. Communication utilized in the organization for sharing informa-

tion and keeping workers informed was ineffective and divergent, depending on

which community one belonged to. Day~shift operators complained that "how [super-

visors] talked to operators" was poor, which did not encourage a sense of loyalty or

closer connection to the organization. Further, they viewed memos and other writings

as a way for management to complain and control the operators. Instead of memos

and newsletters serving as attempts to improve information sharing, day-shift opera-

tors viewed this form of communication as ineffective and holding little validity.

Communication also represented a way of "lying" to workers and creating

misinformation. Operators felt that senior management favored certain workers over

others, which served to create divergent treatment among workers. The day-shift op-
 121

erators, especially the African American operators, discussed concern over produc-
--
tion bonuses and how certain operators were treated as opposed to others: ~

AF: i'm like you get a production bonus every month? He's talking about
yeah, that why I be-so I said, well, I'm going.to start busting my butt
you know and try to get me some bonus checks. So I asked Cucho, I
said eucho, what is this about I hear we get bonus checks for our pro- .
duction. Well that's according to what everybody in the plant did.

AF: But that you know that wasn't the case. eucho just lied because they
were giving R_ [White operator] bonuses. R_ showed me his bo-
nus checks.

AF: Every month he was getting the bonus checks. (pp. 42-43)

Thus, disparate treatment between workers was'expressed through how senior

management gave out raises and other bonuses. The result was that dissemination of

information was biased and misleading. Another example was the use of information-

sharing by management to control the workers:

AF: Well I got one [referring to a raise] but then when I spoke I did, he
Cucho, came and told me, he said, well I can give you a bonus, but I'm
giving nobody--don't tell nobody. I'm not giving nobody else a bo-
nus, but I'm going to give you a bonus for 'your production. I said
okay. And that same week, everybody said I got a bonus. I'm like ....

AF: .... he told me he was just giving me a bonus, and everybody got a bo-
nus. Okay. Oh, I'm not happy withjust that bonus.

M: Good.

AF: I want a raise too.

M: Good, (inaudible). And ?

AF: So he gave me a raise.

M: Okay good.

AF: Then he tells me, don't tell nobody that I gave you a raise or I'm going
to take it back. (p. 10)
 122

~.

Comments as expressed above by day-shift operators revealed a lack of trust

and that information sharing was deceptive, serving to benefit only the organization.

As a· result, information-sharing from management was discounted since it was not·

consistent and valid among front-line operators. One employee would be told one

thing while another employee would be told another thing.

The night-shift operators took a different approach. Communication was

viewed as "better than before." Operators found that senior management was willing

to hear suggestions and nurtured an open-door policy. Senior managers were open to

making the work environment a place that fostered and encouraged greater learning.

Operators commented that management often sought to address concerns on the floor

by holding meetings. While the night-shift operators viewed communication dissemi-

nation as better than did the day-shift operators, some African American operators did

express concern that "passing on information is bad a lot oftimes."

The third focus group, the tech support group (consisting of day and night tech

support and front line supervisors), viewed communication as senior management's

inability at being able to get things done. Communication was also observed as a

source to control the shop floor or the machine operators. In this regard, there was

"no go to person" in the shop floor able to coor4inate and take charge of the opera-

tors. Complaints surrounded the ineffectiveness of the plant manager, Milton, in fol-

lowing through on projects and "keeping control of the floor," as well as not keeping

them in the loop. As in the case of the day-shift operators, the tech support group

stated that there was not enough sharing of information by Milton and senior man-

agement. Discussions among tech support group members revealed boundaries that
 123

separated them from the machine operators. Tech support group members viewed

machine operators as not caring to learn and only putting out enough effort to earn

some· money. Also; the· tech support viewed themseives as privileged possessing a

greater wealth of knowledge limited by time constraints to teach, but frustrated that

the floor was not being better controlled.

In manufacturing organizations, daily production and social relations among

workers are observed as taking place on the floor. Senior managers are on the floor

5% to 10% of a work shift, while middle managers or tech support members are su-

pervising the floor 90% of the tfme. If a shift constitutes a lO-hour work day, senior

managers will be on the floor no more than one hour per shift, while the remaining

nine hours are supervised by tech support. Issues pertaining to learning a task, prob-

lem-solving, inspection, packaging, production; and talking to operators were placed

in the hands of tech support. Accordingly, communication between machine operators

and tech support took on a more important role. For tech support communication this

meant controlling the plant floor. Since tech support did not view the operator as seri-

ously interested in gaining knowledge or being punctual and reliable in coming to

work, tech support never felt cqmmitted to encouraging greater participation from

employees. While initially I encouraged greater employee voice, this was viewed

negatively by tech support since it served to undercut their power and authority. Re-

peated derogatory comments of machine operators by tech support members sug-

gested resistance to creating a more open work environment. I had raised expectations

of operators without really securing ('buy in" from tech support. This led in part to

frustrations and resentment from both operators and tech support members.
 124

Senior Management as One .

Encouraging greater communication assumes an organization is fostering dia-

logue in the workplace through sharing information with its employees. The day-shift

machine operators, complained about top-down directives that only cared about pro-

ductivity. Differences between the plant manager, Miltori, and me on worker's re-

sponsibilities and their role on the shop floor created tension and conflicts between

us. However, these tensions and conflicts that I thought fostered confusion in the

workplace were not evident from the focus group meetings. All three groups did not

discuss any noticeable differences in management style between Milton and me. Day-

shift operators, observed both of us as one and the same in transmitting orders to the

floor by assigning individuals to particular workstations. Thus, workers viewed Mil-

ton and me as "they," issuing orders to workers that were simply to be carried out,

with input from the shop floor as unnecessary and a waste of time. Operators believed

"we" saw them capable of only following routine tasks. of loading and unloading

parts, with no need to understand the overall intricacies of operating the machining

center and other manufacturing techniques that improved productivity and perform-

ance.

Communicating. whether in writing or through regularly scheduled meetings

with the operators and support personnel, was ineffective rather than nonexistent.

Meetings were held only so that management could complain. Memos and newslet-

ters represented further examples of techniques to control the operators. Also, the

perception was that the White supervisors were there to tell operators what to do. Op-

portunities to learn in the workplace were limited, with workers knowing only spe-
 125

-.
citic tasks without regard to having the operator gain a broader base of knowledge.

The result was that frontline workers possessed skills of limited value outside the or-

. ganization and were unable to transfer the knowledge to another organization.

Milton had acquired his 15~year plus work experience, and honed his skills, in

a traditional control-based system. He repeatedly told stories of entering the shop

floor of his prior employer where as a supervisor he fired workers who appeared to

doing nothing or were not doing their job correctly. I was often reminded that work-

ers feared him. He was proud of his nickname, 'Hitler'. Milton had been successful

elsewhere and there was no compelling reason to change. I intellectually viewed my

approach as distinct from Milton's by fostering greater dialogue through memo-

writing, newsletters, holding more operator meetings, and by being less controlling.

But these frustrations and conflicts were not evident on the plant floor to tech support

or machine operators. In the minds of the day-shift operators, all Whites were viewed

as 'Hitlers'. As a result, my efforts did not gain buy-in from the day-shift operators.

Instead, my actions, along with those of the White supervisors led to further resent-

ment and resistance from the day-shift operators. Repeatedly, day-shift operators re~

ferred to those who were not operators as "they" or "whites" as a boundary that iden-

tified who was in and who was outside a group. Operators felt trapped, indicating that

they "couldn't quit" because that meant not being eligible to collect unemployment

benefits-so they came to work to collect a "paycheck."

The focus group findings uncovered that I also sought to control the shop

floor through an inconsistent and discriminatory reward system and in my harsh deal-

ings with certain workers. Because of my being a poor communicator, workers felt
 126

devalued, upset, embarrassed and angry. These responses suggested a more en-

trenched control-oriented environment in place than I had even suspected: From the

operators' perspective, communication had a one way direction, from me to them, top

to bottom. Comments that certain workers were rewarded differently than others also

suggested that my communication efforts were perceived as dishonest, insincere, and

having no real value. An alternative perspective for this divergence lay in how the

operators and I viewed activities and workers in the organization.

From my perspective, each operator was judged individually. and operator ac-

tivities were kept separate from others. So perfonning a poor job or failing to be at-

tentive to their job responsibilities in front of customers was to be separated from re-

viewing a worker's hourly rate or how one rewarded one operator in comparison to

another. To the day-shift operators, different treatment of workers represented incon-

sistent treatment. Maintaining hourly rate increases or bonuses private and based on

performance was viewed not as an effort to reward a worker, but as demonstrating

favoritism among operators. One action was connected to another, so rewarding one

and not all workers meant that I was dishonest, insincere, and even racially discrimi-

natory. Action was not to be viewed in isolation, but linked to other activities and

viewed from a broader or holistic perspective.

To the African American operator, the only workers being rewarded were the

White workers. As a result, the organization was perceived as fostering top-down

communication and poor communication by the day-shift operators. The implications

suggested that poor employee attitudes and behavior were negatively related to trust,

morale. equity of rewards, and even leader credibility (Zammuto & Krakower, 1991).
 127

The role of race in creating distrust and frustration cannot be disregarded and will be

discussed later in this chapter.

For tech support, communication had more to do with control or lack of con-

trol of the shop floor. Tech support viewed workers as limited and uninterested in

learning, with machine operators not properly performing their jobs and saw the shop

floor as disorganized. What was needed was "a go to person on the shop floor to keep

the machine operators in check." Senior management was viewed as weak or incapa-

ble of using communication to bring the plant floor under control. The divergence in

the focus group sessions suggested that creating a more commitment-like environ-

ment in the span of 12 months had proven exceedingly fragile and beyond my reach.

Management Inability to Change

To increase productivity and performance, an organization needs a strong

commitment towards shifting management behavior. But what accounted for the in-

ability to establish this shift in management behavior? My own limitations in express-

ing one thing and doing the exact opposite reflected unconscious resistance to change

that paralyzed the organization. I was intellectually committed to creating a commit-

ment-like environment, but found it difficult "to walk the talk" in a consistent man-

ner. Our individual behaviors often betray our intent. Years of acting in a certain way

cannot give way to taking a different path or direction. Often, people begin, in ear-

nest, to act differently, but unless we remain vigilant and on guard as to every step

that we take, the outcomes can be quite disappointing. Subconsciously, we deviate

and retreat to again acting in ways that are "practical" for us. Unable to observe im-
 128

mediate changes or continual turmoil can also serve to justity retreating from change.

This becomes even more dangerous when serving as CEO of an organization, since

who is to tell you that you are saying one thing and doing the exact opposite? Another

danger involves subordinates who act as to suggest the existence of a more open envi-

ronment for fear of retaliation behind closed doors if something different is commu-

nicated. All these factors took place in approaching change in the organization.

On closer reflection, I was also an insider unable to recognize the different

groups with boundaries that served as barriers between them. I failed to observe dif.

ferences in customs and norms that suggested that somethitig more below the surface

was taking place. It was the focus group sessions and the written transcripts that

forced me to take an outsider perspective as to the dynamics taking place in the

workplace.

The Day-Shift Operator Group and Night-Shift Operator Group

An interesting aspect of this study was the difference in how communication

was viewed between day- and night-shift operators. The answer can be partially ex-

plained in the work schedule of the plant manager and myself, and the level of inter-

action with both shifts by the tech support group. To a large degree Milton and I in-

teracted with the day shift so that our behavior and attitudes were more easily de-

tected and felt on the floor of the day shift, nine to 10 hours every day. In contrast,

rarely, if ever, was Milton present when the night shift workers commenced their

shift, except to converse with the night-shift foreman. This practice continued for

most of the time that Milton was employed with the organization. Even when I stayed
 129

to observe the night shift, it would be for only one to two hours. Also. tech support

personnel for the. night shift consisted of a night-shift foreman and. at times; an assis-

tant; which was fairly minimal when compared to the tech support personnel for the'

day shift, which consisted of 6 to 7 members. As a result, messages and instructions

transmitted to the night-shift operators possessed less noise in the work environment.

Transmitting messages and instruction to the night-shift operators tended to be more

direct without tech support members serving as intermediaries.

Simultaneously, the day shift often dealt more with customers, personnel,

launching new jobs, and changeover, which did not take place on the night shift. With

a larger tech support group on the day shift, day-shift operators were often left to per-

form the routine tasks. Fewer tech support on the night shift as opposed to the day

shift meant that night-shift workers' opportunities to act more independently in-

creased along with a greater sense of self-reliance. This was evident from night-shift

operators' comments being more positive about the opportunities to learn and the ex-

istence of better lines of communication as compared to the day-shift operators.

The focus group notes of day-shift operators and night-shift operators evi-

denced a more committed workforce from the night-shift operators. At most, the night

shift had a night foreman and assistant, while the day shift had a tech support consist-

ing of six or seven individuals. Thus, interaction between night-shift operators and

tech support from the day shift was kept to a minimum while allowing for greater op-

portunities for learning. It was often remarked among managers that night-shift opera-

tors handled their own inspections, packaging, and even tool change despite the lim-

ited tech support on the night shift.

 130

Divergent Communities of Practice in the Day Shift

In spring of 1999, I had distributed information on employee attendance and

instituted a bonus plan based on perfect attendance over a 90-day period. But atten-

dance diverged among the day shift workforce. One pattern disclosed workers who

tended to have a higher number of tardiness and absences than others. Increases in

earnings or earning bonus dollars did not improve attendance. Certain workers in"

variably arrived late to work or missed work, while another set of workers was more

punctual and rarely missed a day. Days missed from work were planned ahead of

time by this latter set of workers, while the other group rarely planned ahead of time

when days would be missed from work.

The two communities of particular interest in the organization for further

analysis were the day-shift operator group and the tech support group. These groups

were selected because they worked side by side each day; with one group of operators

typically working under the direct supervision of the other, the tech support group.

The day-shift operator group was made up of six day-shift operators who had been

with the organization from two to four years. This group consisted of African Ameri"

cans who had initially begun working in the organization as machine operators.

Members often shared transportation to and from work and were family related. The

group possessed a general belief that Whites were the supervisors and that that they

(African Americans) as a group had limited learning opportunities and were under-

compensated in comparison to other groups. They all had completed high school and

by 1999 had at one time .or another served as floor leaders, senior operators and tool

change technicians. Two workers, Laura and Jill, were half-sisters having the same
 131

father, while two other workers, Get and Moore. were brothers. During the two and

one half years that Get and Moore worked at the organization, neither obtained a

driver license, making getting to work always a challenge. By 1999. these workers

earned from $9.00 to $14.50 an hour, which placed them just shy of the more sea:'

soned technical personnel, and substantially higher than the minimum hourly wage of

$7.50 paid to starting machine operators. Instead of driving their own vehicle, mem-

bers of the group often shared transportation to and from work. Members socialized

with one another during and after work. "hanging out together," and even attending

sports events together.

My talks with this day-shift operator group emphasized the need to eliminate

tardiness, absences, and to become more technically skilled in performing their jobs.

Discussions pertained to arriving at work on time, completing paperwork, and learn-

ing the finer points of the job. Members of this group would often admit being late

too often, or ~ndicate, "Yes. I understand." Other times. they merely sat in my office

with no response, or simply smiled to my comments or questions, suggesting that

there was no response that could be provided to being late or absent. No severe disci-

plinary action was taken except to threaten them that eventually their coming to work

late or not showing up would affect their earnings and ability to be promoted. The

focus group interviews, on the other hand. revealed that day-shift operators felt unap-

preciated and undervalued:

OM: Okay. When a problem arises in your machine or on the floor, do you
offer input into solving the problem?
AF: Yes.
AF: Do we what?
 132
:,

M: Offer input to solve the problem?

.'
..." .
~

..!
AF: No.

AF: We might get - you might offer it, but they might say you don't know
what you're talking about.

AF: Shut uP. you don't know what you're talking about.

AM: Yep.

AF: I think this happening, so and so, you know, well you don't know what
you're talking about. This is too much for you all on a new machine.
~m "
Comments such as "management can't make mistakes" or "all that matters,

just the parts, their parts" left the impression in the workers that management did not

care and were only interested in productivity. This group reflected a high level of dis-

tance, detachment, and anger towards the organization:

AM: It's a paycheck, that's about it.

M: It's what?

AM: It's a paycheck, that's about it. (p. 9)

*****
AF: Well you've gotto give it to get it, the way I see it. You know?

M: That you would have the commitment if yo~ recognized ...

AF: Yeah you have to - in order to (inaudible) committed to you.

M: Okay.

AF: You know we've got come to some middle ground somewhere.

M: Okay.

AF: Right.
 133

AF: And then it's the management, it's the way they talk to people, too.
They don't know how to communicate. (p. 12)

For day-shift operators "you've got to give it to get it" signaled a level of re-

sistance as reflected in how they controlled their tardies and absences. Since man-

agement viewed them negatively, workers responded in ways that irritated and frus- .

trated management, i.e., arriving late to work or not calling in to work when absent.

The 1999 attendance records disclosed that members of the day-shift operator

group averaged 43.5 tardies per member or a total of 261 days late to work and

missed an average of 15.5 work days per member for a total of 90 work days. Ab-

sences and tardies were evenly spread throughout all three periods. However, three

workers in this group each averaged over 64 or four times the average number of ab-

sences. Repeatedly. supervisors and I would discuss with them their high level ortar-

diness and absences. To learn more about the group's attendance prior to 1999, I re-

viewed their 1998 attendance records and discovered that tardies averaged 21.83 per

member and eight absences per member. The 1998 attendance figures represented a

lower average number in comparison to 1999. I also then reviewed the 2000 atten-

dance records and noticed that average tardies were reduced to 12.6 per member and

that average absences were 10.8 per member. Thus, the greatest number of absences

and tardies occurred in 1999. The information suggested that the actions taken and

events of 1999 within the organization were associated with the behavior and per-

formance of the day-shift operators as expressed in the focus group sessions held in

2000. Rather than increasing attendance and lowering tardies, the actions taken in

1999 were viewed negatively by day-shift operators in not fostering a positive work~

ing environment..
 134

I then reviewed the data on the tech support group, especially four individuals,

three being Caucasian, who had worked for the organization at least four years. Each

member owned hislher own vehicle to go to and from work, and two individuals were

cousins related to one of the owners of the organization. Also, many members of this

group had links to upper management, which insulated them from harsh treatment,

such as being fired. In addition, one of the cousins had also dated another tech sup-

port member. Most members had advanced from machine operators to a technical po-

sition with the organization. Hourly rates varied between $9.00 and $20.00. I never

held any meetings with them or discussed individually their attendance. Senior man-

agement viewed the second group as dependable ("always can be called upon") and

reliable to perform additional tasks. Two workers, Sue and Jane, earned bonuses dur-

ing 1999 based on perfect attendance.

In 1999 the tech support group compiled a total of 45 tardies or an average of

11.25 tardies per member, and missed an average of two work days per member or a

total of eight work days. Most tardies, that is, 24 of the 45 tardies, occurred during the

first period of 1999 and were attributable to one individual. I then reviewed the 1998

attendance record and found that tardies averaged eight per member and absences av-

eraged four per member. In 2000, tardies averaged 8.5 per member while there were

no absences for this group. Again, absences and tardies for 1999 were higher than in

1998 and 2000. The data from the tech support group also suggested that the actions

and events of 1999 had been felt.

When comparing the two groups, the day-shift operator group averaged nearly

five times more tardies (43.5 tardies per member vs. nine tardies per members) than
 135

the tech support group. In addition, the day·shift operator group averaged nearly eight

times more absences than the tech support group (15 absences per member vs. two

absences per member). Comparison for years 1999 and 2000 disclosed sim'i1ar dispar.

ity between the groups but, not as large as for 1999.

In communicating policies and procedures, organizations must process infor-

mation in a matter that is understood by all members of the organization. How the

information is decoded or interpreted are reflections of a group's perspective, inc1ud·

ing its preference for hierarchy. formalization, and participation, as well action taken.

To the extent that the receiver's understanding and sender's thoughts are the same,

communication is effective (Chaney & Martin, 2000). Talk is a component of culture,

which creates thoughts and feelings, enhancing or inhibiting relationships, prob·

tern-solving, and learning. It can also be unclear, garbled, and noisy. Information dis-

seminated can be clearly understood and given a level of importance due to shared

meaning. Review of these two groups reveals that receipt of the same information,

when decoded, gave rise to different outcomes and actions from the groups.

Adopting dimensions from intercultural communication, I selected dimensions

or attributes pertaining to time, relationships with people, communication style, be-

liefs and values, and race as a basis for tracking certain patterns between the two

groups (Hoecklin, 1995). These attributes were studied and compared. Table 4 pre-

sents the results of this comparison.

With the day-shift operator group, time was viewed as unlimited with other

activities having a higher priority than arriving to work on time or working every day

of the week. Reasons given for tardies or absences included taking care of "personal
 136

Table 4

Comparison of Attributes

Attribute Day~shift operator Group Tech Support Group

Time Time is unlimited Time is limited
There is a cost Socialization
Relationship with Reality is based on personal Task~oriepted. ties with
people ties with people people secondary
Communication style Indirect Tends to be more direct
Beliefs and values Employment is an Employment is an
entitlement opportunity
Race African American White

business." "oversleeping," or "couldn't find a ride." However, the focus group ses-

sions revealed a much deeper level of frustration expressed in terms of limited learn-

ing and inconsistent reward system for the work performed. The reference in the fo-

cus group meetings to not being eligible to receive unemployment benefits also sug-

gested an awareness of the consequences,to getting fired. Although not addressed fur-

ther in the focus group session, comments about collecting unemployment benefits

suggested that these operators was seeking to push the envelope as far as possible and

get the organization to fire them to qualify for unemployment benefits. The tech sup-

port group viewed time as limited, that is, having an associated cost. With this group

(tech support), meeting objectives and keeping to a schedule was a very important

aspect. In contrast, relationships with people were important for the day-shift operator

group and viewed as an ongoing social event during work hours. Complaints were

often made by the tech support group that the day-shift African American operators

spent too much time socializing with fellow workers. One member of the day~shift
 137

operators, although married, continued a sexual relationship with a fellow worker. In

addition, spending time together or hanging out after work hours was an important

.component to this group. The focus· of the tech support group was on completing the.

task on time and on keeping personal relationships controlled and not interfering with

work. Talking to fellow workers was subordinated to completing the task on a timely

basis. Even though two members of tech support had dated on and off, it was unno~

ticeable to the outside world since they never communicated or even spoke to one anM

other except as to business-related matters during work hours.

The day-shift operator group's approach towards communicating or talking to

me was indirect and unclear. Reading between the lines and interpreting meaning was

often difficult, since thoughts were not explicitly expressed. Members would sit in my

office with "no response" expressed in their faces, or simply shrug their shoulders

regarding their attendance. On the other hand, the tech support group tended to avoid

beating around the bush and took a more direct manner in expressing what they

wanted or needed. In fact, one member of the tech support group was so blunt that he

often had to be restrained from using harsh language, such as: "That guy just never

will get any better; get rid of him." or " That guy is always f_king around; I don't

have time to baby~sit him." This level of frustration was reiterated in the focus group

session of the tech support group when commenting that there was no go-to person on

the plant floor and that operators did not really care about learning.

WF: But then when we do bring up something where okay we're going to
have classes like... .

M: Yes.

WF: .. , we did have a few classes.

 138

M: Yes you did. I have a question about that, yes:

WF: And nobody shows up.
M: Is· that true? I heard that everybody showed up at the beginning and
that tJte classes ended.
WM: They did in the beginning.
. AF: And that was due to them getting paid, not for them leaming. That's
another thing.
M: Yeah, okay.
AF: You know they wasn't really there to learn. They was just wanting the
money. (pp. 4-5)

*****
WM: I think right now we have - there's not even a go to person-there's
no go to persons even, it's just a random ...

WF: It's whoever's there.

WM: ... that's a lot of frustration on the people to get an order from a differ-
ent person each time.
M: Yes, yes.
WM: Oh now you're telling me, and this time you're telling me, and this
time you're telling me. I think it would be a lot more smoother if they
pass on the chain of command through a person. (p. 11)
Another difference related to how the two groups viewed employment in the

organization.. Even though' I repeatedly infonned workers that drinking and drug us-

age at work was prohibited, it was not interpreted as important. To be fired for drink-

ing or drug use implied a "ticket" to collect unemployment The focus group inter-

views revealed that African American operators were quite knowledgeable about the

prerequisites for collecting unemployment with reference to not being able to collect

if one quits.
 139

AF: You know I'm so sick of you saying, everybody always coming to me
talking. Fire me, fire me. I want to go, give me some unemployment.
. (p.44). .

*****
AF: But you don't want to quit because you can't draw on unemployment
when you quit. (p. 45).

Employment was an "entitlement" or an inalienable claim that could not be negoti"

ated away without receipt of some form of severance pay regardless of performance.

This became evident when four of the six African American workers from the day"

shift operator group who were dismissed from employment for drugs and drinking in

late 2000 filed "claims for State unemployment benefits, which they aggressively pur-

sued. The other two members remained employed at the organization with some im"

provement in attendance. On the other hand, the tech support group viewed employ"

ment as an opportunity to work and advance. It was an opportunity to be exploited

and gain further knowledge in how to better perform their job. I recall that on a cou"

pIe of occasions a member of the second group, Sue, was exceedingly upset that she

could not work on Saturdays, given her perfect attendance record.

Role of Race
The USe of communication to identify race as an important social dynamic of

the workplace cannot be ignored. Reference in the focus group session by the day"

shift operators group that anyone White was a supervisor, revealed operator percepw

tion that no real opportunity for growth existed in the organization for non"Whites.

AM: Yeah because they don't have titles because I actually - Bill ain't
nothing but the maintenance man.
 140

AM: Right.

AM: But he still tells you what to do.

AM: Up on the floor.

AF: Right.

AF: Yes.
AF: We want (inaudible).

AM: David is like what the safety coordinator or something, or something.

AF: Safety ...

M: Okay.
AM: You know, and he goes around telling people what to do. I mean actu-
ally to put it bluntly ...

AF: Don't even know.

AM: ... the white people are in charge regardless of what their title is.
(p.34)

*****
AF: And he'll sneak and do little favors for people, like I'm going to use a
person. This is a white person to another white person. Now when I
first got hired in, I told R--' R_'s a white guy, I told him to come
out here and get a job. R_ came out here and got a job. They then
gave R_ a raise no sooner than he got hired in, like within thirty
days.

M: Why?

AF: Because he's white, and because of his age, and because Milton, I
mean he'd be doing some ... (p.41)

Preference was perceived as being given to Whites over African Americans,

as reflected in higher pay for White operators than for African American operators.

Information on the organization revealed that non-White operators' perceptions were

valid. The tech support positions and "semi" supervisors always appeared to end up
 141

with White workers. Day-shift workers repeatedly commented that communication

was "getting worse," resulting in resistance from the operators. This was evident

when the comments from the focus group sessions of day- and night-shift operators

were compared.

Review of the transcripts of the night-shift operators revealed that a White op-

erator, that is, a White male, often commented about the open-door policy, while Af-

rican American operators remained silent. For day-shift operators in general, work

was simply about a "paycheck, that's about it," with repeated reference to members

of the tech support group as being nobodies. The tech support group, made up mostly

of White employees, viewed communication as a way to control the operators, who

were viewed as not interested in learning.

The inability of Milton to take charge revealed him as not simply an ineffec-

tive communicator, but as someone who did not bring the plant floor or, more specifi-

cally, the African American operators, under control. At the same time, the tech sup-

port group commented that they did view themselves as a team who "were in tune

with each other" suggesting that they were different than the operators, and even

privileged. The outcome was animosity between African American day-shift opera-

tors and White tech support members that suggested an organization with a workforce

that was racially segregated.

Those with superior access to upper management and greater knowledge of

the machines were the White workers of the organization. White workers were better

positioned to benefit and gain when compared to the African American operators. I

recall how even Dick often complained about certain operators being "incompetent." .
 142

Realizing that the information came from tech support members, I would press for

further information. Dick would admit that the information had come from'members

of the tech support group which often revolved around "African A.ID.erican" operators

and not "white" workers. This suggested bias against "African American" workers

and a continued practice of racial inequality in the workplace.

Conclusions

As there are many different national cultures, there are different units or

communities of practices that exist within an organizatio~ (Liedtka, 1999; Wenger,

1998). A group shares many things including similarity of language, distance, space,

time, and quality of life. Communities of practices give rise to boundaries, and can

thus be a source of fragmentation (Wenger, 1998). My notes and records of workers

revealed patterns suggesting at least three different units or communities of practices

had emerged within the organization, each with its own statement of values. These

three groups revealed divergent practices regarding separation and disconnectedness

from one another as reflected outwardly in worker attendance and absences, as well

as attitudes toward the organization.

The mere fact that units or communities of practice are revealed does not sug-

gest a positive process (Wenger, 1998). The creation of such communities within an

organization indicate that they are composed of all the processes that give rise to their

unique identities that serve to create any community, and are neither good nor bad.

However, an effective organization comprises a constellation of interconnected com-

munities of practice, each dealing with specific aspects of the company's competence,
 143

which leads to positive productive patterns. Communities that are able to effectively

interact face~to~face with each other lead to increased levels of participation. When
. . .
applied to my organization, the constellation was weak, with each community pos~

sessing a focus or connection that often conflicted and produced counterproductive

patterns, racism, and abuses. Conversations led to disagreement and fragmentation,

rather than a tight interweaving of participation and sharing of experiences among

and between the various communities.

I sought to implement a broad level of activities in the organization that would

lead to increased worker development and performance through on~the~job training,

newsletters, meetings, etc. The outcomes from the focus group sessions revealed that

simple senior management directive is not enough. Iristead of applauding my effort,

non~White operators were in general bitterly disappointed and discouraged. There

was a clear gap between what I had initially intended to create and the product that

resulted. One factor that I had not anticipated was the importance of "buy~in" from

middle management personnel, such as tech support, as being imperative to develop a

work environment that was receptive to more commitment~system practices. I had

increased the expectations of the frontline operators without really enhancing the ca~

pabilities of middle managers to effectuate and deal with change. At no time had tech

support members been trained on communication style, different supervision styles,

etc. The response from tech support was one of resentment and resistance to senior

management initiatives. If anything, tech support viewed the plant floor as being out

of control.
 144

Last, race permeated the organization. By promoting barriers, subcultures or

divergent communities of practices were allowed to emerge, which to a large degree

was based on color. Repeated comments by dayshift operators that Whites were in

charge reflected a continuation of a race-based policy of exclusion and inclusion.

Also, the existence of different groups fostered a sense of separation where tech sup-

port members indirectly felt superior to others and African American operators felt

that they could only rely on one another.

Race is often ignored in the workplace as a factor in explaining practices such

as performance and commitment in an organization as in a manufacturing environ-

ment. White tech support members preferred themselves over others and excluded

from participation non-White workers. White workers (tech support members) in

general were paid more, had longer length of service, and held higher-privileged posi-

tions of responsibility in comparison to non-White workers.

Racial preference continued to persist as evidenced by a recent incident in-

volving the hiring of a logistics person. After posting the vacancy, three workers ap-

plied. One worker was White and two were African Americans. The White worker

possessed less seniority, and yet he won the position over more senior African

American operators. Such a pervasive practice of inequality can not easily be elimi-

nated. African American operators are perceived as acting in a certain way, such as

being habitually late to work and not being as reliable, while the White worker is

viewed as quicker and more reliable. The result is an entrenched practice of racial ex-

clusion that goes unchallenged Membership to the club, such as the tech support

group, is in part determined by color. Organizations are made up of individuals pos-

 145

. sessing biases and prejudices that cloud decision-making when brought to the work-

place. Reasons are given explaining why the White· operator was preferred over the

African American· operator. Organizations disguise the race factor by offering nonra-
cial explanations for actions taken, but beneath the surface exist race~based practices
that explain the real reasons why certain workers are advanced or promoted over oth-

ers.

I
,,,
I
Ij
I
[
!
i
 CHAPTER 10

A REVISIT TO THE WORKPLACE

OF A SMALL MANUFACTURING ORGANIZATION

Introduction

The preceding chapters discussed the role of learning and communication in a

small manufacturing organization in enhancing or limiting worker and organizational

performance and productivity. I began my discussion by outlining the literature on

high-performance systems or commitment-led systems and the benefits that could be

derived from adoption of such a system in the organization. The literature clearly im-

plies that transitioning from a control-based system to a more open work environment

leads to improvement in both organizational and worker performance and productiv-

ity.

My study of the organization was participatory-oriented in pursuit of practical

solutions to improving performance, productivity and commitment among hard-to-

place workers from the inner city that would lead to higher worker retention and en-

hanced worker performance. Action taken sought to create change in communication

with workers and the job skills of frontline workers through worker meetings and in-

volvement, distribution of newsletters and dissemination of information on productiv-

146
 147

ity, and worker training sessions. The findings, as revealed through worker focus

group meetings, found that communication between management and workers was

lacking and "worse than ever," and that opportunities for learning were similarly

lacking. Data on employee productivity, performance, and retention was inconclu-

sive.

Chapters 8 and 9 portrayed a small manufacturing organization engulfed in a

full range of social and political relationships that fostered divergent groups or com-

munities of practice. Those excluded from the benefits derived from membership in

the "privileged" group were frustrated and resentful. The outcomes from actions

taken exposed disconnection and gaps between how I viewed my actions and how

workers viewed events unfolding on the floor. Worker perspective on communication

and the process of learning did not comport with my perspective as fostering im-

proved lines of communication and opportunities for learning on the job. As CEO of

the organization, I initially explained away the facilitator findings of the worker focus

group sessions. Surely, the facilitator had misinterpreted the information provided or

did not have an in-depth understanding of the organization. Something was amiss that

rendered the facilitator unable to open the door to reveal a textbook transformation of

an organization to a more high-performance system. Receipt of the written transcripts

of the focus group sessions almost 12 months after reviewing the initial written find-

ings afforded me the opportunity to revisit more closely the activities of the plant

floor from the perspective of those who felt most alienated in this small manufactur-

ing setting.
 148

Role of Communication

In Chapter 9. I discussed communication in the workplace of a small manu-

facturing organization as being quite divergent. I discerned that organizations are not

homogenous entities, but rather are made up of various communities of practice. Eac~

community of practice reveals particular patterns of practice and communication

among members that binds each member to the community. My study revealed three

communities of practices: the day-shift operator group, the night-shift operator group

and the tech support group, each with its unique practices, norms and customs.

Wenger (1998) argues that the success of an organization depends on its abil-

ity to comprise a constellation of interconnected communities of practice, which leads

to positive productive patterns. A community also serves as boundary for inclusion

and exclusion. which can lead to divergence and segregation. What made the diver-

gent communities more segregated was the role of relationships and race in defining

membership in these communities of practice. For example. clear barriers existed be-

tween White workers from the tech support group and African American workers

from the day-shift operator group. Instead of interconnected communities of practice

that led to productive outcomes, these communities were disjointed and disconnected.

Boundaries or barriers separating the various communities of practice harbored alien-

ation and counterproductive activities among various levels of workers. As the quality

manager stated prior to leaving the organization recently, "We do not operate as a

team and never have; instead, we are so disjointed and separated we are lucky that we

get anything accomplished. "

 149

Each group in the organization viewed those outside the boundaries of the

group as outsiders. Participation and engagement across the different conmiunities of

practice was rare. Information~sharing was limited arid not encouraged, resulting in

communication often being fragmented. Employees were more loyal to the commJ.l.~

nity of practice than to the organization so that working as a cross~functional team

was rare and difficult to attain. Day-shift operators resented management, regardless

of whether one was a member of the tech support group or senior management. From

the machine operator's perspective, "we" were one and the same who controlled them

and limited advancement and learning, controlled infonnation, and limited their earn~

ing power. Similar feelings of alienation were expressed by the tech support group

toward both senior management and the day-shift operator group. Day~shift operators

lacked skills and ability, while senior management was unable to maintain stronger

control of the plant floor.

Learning on the floor often went through tech support members, which cre~

ated its own set of problems. Without input and interaction from the tech support

group, opportunities for engaging in learning was limited or even nonexistent. In

practice, knowledge acquisition became bottlenecked with the tech support group,

who controlled how and what training or learning was to be provided. Day-shift op-

erators viewed opportunities for learning as non-existent, leading to frustration and

resentment.

In addition, information dissemination created problematic outcomes. For ex-

ample, when information reached the plant floor, frontline workers viewed such in~
 150

formation as not truthful or valid. From the operator's perspective, information was

viewed in light of everything taking place on the plant floor. Management was

. viewed as saying one thing, which was untrustworthy when compared to the actions

taken by tech support members on the plant floor. Management's encouraging leam:-

ing or acquiring a skill made no sense from the perspective of the day shift machine

operator when tech support members did not put in practice what was being dissemi-

nated onto the plant floor. Also, communication was fragmented and limited. As in-

formation was communicated from the top to the bottom. information became lost or

misinterpreted.

Joining the tech support group was difficult and beyond the reach of day-shift

operators and other frontline workers. Tech support group membership required

sponsorship and substantial technical work experience. Except in the case of Sue re-

ceiving support from a member of the tech support group, exclusion ruled the day. As

I reference later, Sue's position in quality as opposed to programming and tooling,

. her punctuality, and her strong relationship to Jane afforded her protection and an op-

portunity to join this group. Sponsorship was rarely given to outsiders who lacked

contacts, the appropriate relationship. or skin color. Even in the focus group sessions,

members of the tech support group discussed how they differed from the day-shift

operator group in being punctual to work and in working as a team. The complexities

of such interaction was further evidenced in their access and close working and per-

sonal relationship to the "master," which strengthen the exclusivity of the club.
 151

Finally, operators lacked technical experience. As one operator repeatedly

stated, "We are expected only to load and unload the part, and that's all." Operators

were hired with no prior work-related experience. Initially, learning to load and

unload parts onto a machining center represented opportunities to acquire knowledg~.

However, longer-term workers, such as day-shift operators, found that further oppor-

tunities to engage in learning were not encouraged by management. Machine opera-

tors were unable to learn more difficult tasks, such as programming, machine repairs

or tool changing, since it went beyond "loading and unloading parts."

Role of Learning on the Job

An important concept in a commitment-type system is developing a workforce

that is being continuously trained and where knowledge is being acquired. Lave and

Wenger (1991) argue that learning takes place beyond the formal classroom and in-

stead is a process that takes place in a participation framework. Thus, learning occurs

through engagement, alignment, and negotiation (Wenger, 1998). This also suggests

that learning is not a neutral process as in the classroom where abstract concepts are

transmitted to the student. Instead, learning is a social process, which can simultane-

ously be subjective, biased, productive and counterproductive. Learning is part of a

community setting were individuals are bound together or not in coproducing knowl-

edge. The further removed an individual is from the core or the center of a practice

that is the source of knowledge, the greater the limit in acquiring knowledge.
 152

Knowledge acquisition in the organization was based on membership in the

tech support group or sponsorship by a master or member of the tech support group.

Day-shift operators continually referenced how members from the tech support group

could do no wrong, or possessed the right color of skin. The dynamics of the work-

place revealed social and political relationships that served to bind members of the

tech support group to a master. Also, a master, or someone with substantial years of

work-related experience in an organization who possessed extensive technical skills

and knowledge, such as Dick, served as a powerful force in deciding which candi-

dates were in or out.

In the organization, learning occurred through apprenticeship where a master

worked in conjunction with an apprentice in coproducing different forms of produc-

tion. As in the apprenticeship settings, a complex system of work and learning was

rooted in and across relations between newcomers and old-timers. (Lave & Wenger,

1991). Within the organization, learning involved an alignment mostly based on fa-

milial connections. Conditions that place newcomers in deeply adversarial relations

with masters, bosses, or managers, or limit workers' abilities to participate, serve to

distort or limit the opportunities for learning. Those who did not have a farniliallink

to the master were unable to acquire knowledge or actively participate in knowledge

acquisition. The result was frustration and adversarial relations between White and

non-White workers.

Dick, as a master, determined membership in the tech support group based on

a familial relationship to him. At least four members of the tech support group were
 153

related directly or indirectly to Dick: a son, a girlfriend of the son, a nephew, and a

brotherwjQ-Iaw. Inclusion afforded members a closer working relationship and the op-

portunity to have direct on-the-job training with Dick to coproduce"products. Dayshift

operators lacked such links to Dick so that identification was limited and almost non-

existent. Not only did the vast majority of frontline workers lack a familial relation-

ship, they also lacked technical skills, which made them unable to transfer those skills

elsewhere.

Learning could also be expanded to frontline workers who obtained sponsor-

ship from a tech support member. Differences between African American operators

and Hispanic operators offer an interesting contrast. The case of the Hispanic opera-

tors and Jose, who had substantial machining work experience, illustrates the use of

sponsorship in fostering a link between Hispanic operators and tech support members.

Jose, as a member of the tech support group, possessed experience and skill that pro-

vided him with standing and respect in this group, as well as with the Hispanic opera-

tors. On closer reflection, Jose's important role could also be explained because of his

mastery of the Spanish language. Conversation with Hispanic operators took place

with Jose serving as the interpreter. Since Hispanic operators spoke no English, the

language barrier created an opportunity to develop a connection between the tech

support group and Hispanic operators with Jose as the liaison or intermediary. Jose

could communicate to both groups in ways that reduced tensions between them by

selecting words or phrases, whether in English or Spanish, that minimized con~onta­

tions.
 154

Jane's mentoring of Sue, who was promoted from machine operator to quality

a
inspector, was another example of sponsorship ofa different sort. Jane, as member

of the tech support group and quality coordinator, assumed direct responsibility and

training of Sue. This relationship developed beyond just Jane training Sue. Often S1:le

and Jane would be observed sharing time together during morning or lunch breaks

and even spending time together after work. This fostered a bond that continued to

grow and built loyalty and trust between them that could also be explained because

they were the only female members of the tech support group. This protected and in-

sulated Sue. Other factors that could also serve to explain the relationship were that

both possessed similar personalities and were females. Both were punctual and delib-

erate in performing their tasks, which met the performance norms of the tech support

group.

When applying the cases of apprenticeship to African American day-shift op-

erators, the organization had no sponsor on the floor nor a tech support member who

connected with these workers. The link that an African American tech support group

member could provide, as in the case of Hispanic operators, was missing. Learning

was limited to routine tasks best determined by the tech support group and Dick.

Those longer employed in the organization, such as the day-shift African American

operators, expressed frustration and resentment that they were blocked from access-

ing opportunities for learning in the organization. Longer-employed machine opera-

tors had mastered what had been taught and now were kept from acquiring further

skills. Lave and Wenger (1991) recognized that limiting access to learning can curtail
 155

or extinguish apprentices' access to the full range of activities of the job, and hence to

possibilities for learning what they need to know to master a trade. In this particular

work setting, day~shift operators did not even gain access to becoming an apprentice.

Instead, they were simply excluded from being a participant, with acces~ to furthe~

learning.

Role of Relationships and Race

A diverse workforce includes different races, genders, and familial connec-

tions that impa~t on how learning is disseminated among workers. In addition, human

beings are members of groups with shared meanings that offer a way of looking at

our surrounding, or a lens to see how one views events and other people. These lenses

distort how we view others and how others view us.

The role of relationships serves as an important feature in an organization. Es-

tablishing a link, whether based on technical knowledge or familial connection,

makes it easier for individuals to be sponsored or supported in acquiring knowledge.

The participation of Jose, and even my position as a Hispanic CEO in the organiza-

tion, served to foster closer lines of communication, especially with the Hispanic op-

erators, on work scheduling, raises, performance, and even productivity expectations

from senior management. My relationship to Jose represented a form based on an ap-

prenticeship setting. Jose served as my apprentice on the floor when it came to inter-

acting with the Hispanic operators. If the interpretation of Spanish or English by Jose

had created too much confusion or conflict, then it would have been left to me to re-
 156

solve the difference. Being Hispanic fostered a link among Jose, the Hispanic opera-
--
tors, and me, since communication would often be in Spanish.. Cultural and language

affinity made it easier for Hispanic workers to associate with the organization and

increased the level of accessibility. Thus, having Jose, as a member of the tech s~p­

port group strengthened the connection between the Hispanic machine operators and

the tech support group, and simultaneously reduced conflict and misunderstandings.

However, non-Hispanic machine operators were left on the fringes of the organiza-

tion, unable to establish a line of communication that fostered a connection or bond.

A similar link existed within the tech support group, made up of relatives of

Dick. Personal attention and training was available to members of this group, not only

because Dick expected this level of connection, but also because the apprentices ex-

pected to be further trained by Dick The connection or access was not only formal

and informal, but based on a personal relationship that was almost unbreakable. A by-

product of this relationship was that workers who acquired more knowledge served as

gatekeepers, determining who could or could not enter. In general, machine operators

were excluded from membership in the tech support group and access to Dick. Dick

not only excluded nonrelatives from membership in the tech support group, but pro-

moted directly or indirectly relatives being positioned to enhance or limit knowledge

acquisition. The exceptions were the cases of Jane and her training of Sue, and Jose in

serving as a liaison between the Hispanic operators and the tech support group. Ac-

cess and opportunities for learning for the African American day-shift operators was

virtually nonexistent. The exclusion of machine operators raises interesting questions

 157

on the application of power and control in the organization by the tech support, which

goes beyond the scope of this ARP and merits further consideration.

Often disguised on·the plant floor of a manufacturing organization is the role

of race as a barrier to learning or fostering communication among workers. Day-sh~ft

operators repeatedly remarked that Whites controlled the organization and could do

no wrong. Although, the facilitator referred to racial comments in her findings, the

role of race was understated when compared to the transcripts of the focus group ses-

sions. Comments from operators and tech support personnel revealed that learning or

acquiring knowledge in a manufacturing setting was dependent on race or color of

skin. In my exit interview of the quality manager, who happened to be White, he

stated: "If you aren't white you stand no chance to advance here."

Review of the organizational work structure disclosed divisions along racial

lines. Tech support group members all were White except for one Hispanic and an

African American quality inspector, while frontline workers were almost all non-

White. During my tenure as CEO, numerous reasons were given explaining why Af-

rican American operators were overlooked for promotion in favor of less seniority

White operators. White operators- were viewed as more reliable, more punctual, and

more dependable. On the surface, such comments disguised the fact that an African

American operator was not White. Such separation within the organizational structure

served to foster hostility and bitterness toward the organization.

In today's work environment, race is often purposely not discussed and is

overlooked as not fashionable nor in line with society's goal of being colorblind in
 158

the twentywfirst century. Discussing race becomes a taboo subject in the workplace or~

even worse, is not seriously treated in writings about organizations. In contrast~ it is

. my intent to highlight the importance of race in explaining the social relations in or·

ganizations. Middle managers offer nonracial reasons for certain actions taken on the

plant floor that impact on workers' ability to advance or be promoted. Yet, my find·

ings reveal that non·Whites faced limited opportunities for advancement in small

manufacturing settings. Perception of bias is followed by confirmation, as White op·

erators with less work experience are promoted over more senior non·White opera·

tors. I recall that as CEO, at least nine individuals were hired as members of the tech

support group. Of the nine individuals hired only one was non·White. Applications

for technical positions from African Americans were rare. When African Americans

did apply, Dick and other members of the tech support group offered reasons why

such candidates were not suitable and should not be hired.

In contrast, at the lowest level of the organization, 90% of all machine opera·

tors were non White. White operators received greater opportunitY to be promoted or
w

be assigned to the more chaUengingjobs on the floor that led to greater earnings. We

cannot shy away and ignore the role of race in organizations; instead, we should rec-

ognize that it is present in order to develop realistic and practical approaches to reduc-

ing barriers that impede performance, productivity, and commitment.

Participation and nonparticipation are forms of identification defining who is

or is not a member of a community. This should not be assumed to be a positive proc-

ess. For instance, the formation of strong ties of identification at one level may serve
 159

_.
to drive people apart at another level. As a result, instead of resolving or addressing

racism, it is exacerbated by the sense of communities developing specific segregated

neighborhoods or groups within organizations (Wenger, 1998). The tech support

group consisting of White members and the day-shift operator group consisting ~f

African Americans illustrates how racism becomes an acceptable or normal practice

in the workplace. Race served to create identification and marginality in how diver-

gent communities of practice operated as well as providing norms about work and job

performance.

Observing the social dynamics of the workplace, along with review of the fo-

eus group transcripts, revealed that race was a factor in decision-making, learning,

and advancement. Personnel files of workers will often be void of any racial com-

ments from a manager on a worker. Society and organizations have become more at-

tuned to what is or is not acceptable practice and policy. Middle managers, such as

members from the tech support group, have become experienced in offering non-

racial reasons in how opportunities for employee advancement in an organization are

to be distributed. Code phrases have become fashionable in distinguishing workers

eligible for inclusion or exclusion.

These comments should not to be viewed as suggesting that race plays the

most important factor in manufacturing organizations. Rather, race was a factor in my

organization in determining inclusion or exclusion from opportunities for learning

and advancement. The focus group transcripts suggested strongly that race was a pre-

requisite to membership in certain groups, and therefore defined and distributed

 160

power and control in the organization. For White workers, membership in the tech
--
support group offered accessibility to learning and advancement, as well as access to

information.

Implications for High-Performing Systems

When viewing situated learning and communities of practice in the context of

a high-performing or commitment-type system, the literature understates the cost and

benefit gained from transitioning to such a system. A more rigorous perspective on

knowledge or skill acquisition is needed. The literature often discusses high perform-

ance systems in Japan or other settings that contain cultural or racial compositions

that are more homogenous than in other settings. In the case of larger urban areas of

the United States, the coloring ofthe workplace continues to take place, rendering the

workplace more heterogeneous. In today's workplace, it is common to have workers

that are Hispanic, Asian, African American, Native American and yes, even White.

At the same time it is commonplace for researchers of work organizations and busi-

nesses to talk of radical change and discontinuity taking place. Management theorists

proclaim a ~'revolution" (Hammer & Chumpy, 1993; Kanter, 1989), a new workplace

(Ackers, Smith, & Smith, 1996), and new fonns of work organizations and new work

structures that are evolving (Geary, 1995).

Transitioning to a high-performance system is based on enhancing worker

performance and productivity through greater access to learning and information-

sharing, along with adoption of a full complement of innovative work practices. Thus,
 161

_.
a complex combination of social and technical features in small manufacturing or-

ganizations is influential in designing a high-performance manufacturing ~rganiza-

tion. In general, these systems emphasize the integrated nature of human resource

practices within the production system to demonstrate that the interrelationship b~­

tween them leads to high commitment and high worker performance. The major in-

fluence on this view of high performance management is the Japanese model.

Transforming such concepts discussed to the plant floor of a small United

States manufacturing facility reveals tremendous resistance and fear of change from

senior managers to tech support group members. Social and political relationships

serve as both opportunities and challenges and tend to be understated in many such

studies. My research uncovered distinctive communities of practice prevalent in the

organization, with each baving its own code of conduct and criteria. Instead of com-

munities of practices working toward a common goal and interacting with each other,

workers would regularly go to some length to demonstrate the distance that remained

between themselves and other workers. This undermined building a workplace with

heightened commitment by workers to the organization.

Rather than creating distance or divergence, the example of Jose, as a liaison

between the machine operators and tech support members, illustrates how a coordi-

nated constellation of communities of practice can serve to cross boundaries and cre-

ate connections that were previously nonexistent in the organization. Jose, as a chan-

nel of communication, served to combine and connect the diverse practices. The re-

suIt was the coordination of multiple kinds of knowledgeability into a process of or-
 162

ganizationallearning, with each group contributing in its own way to the constitution
--
of the overall constellation that led to positive outcomes (Wenger, 1998): The suc-

cessful organization is one that is able to coordinate the various communities of prac- .

tice in an organization, contributing to the constitution of an overall constellation. ~or

example, joint engagement in activities and cross-sharing of knowledge among the

various communities would foster a basis for constituting an overall constellation.

More focus is required on the complexities that exist in the workplace and the

important role that social relationships and role of race play in such organizations.

The role of apprenticeship in the manufacturing setting also serves as an important

factor in fostering or limiting worker commitment. In practice, the level of commit-

ment was based on attaining membership in certain communities of practice and the

links that existed to other sponsors, masters, and other communities. In the organiza~

tion, the privileged group, the tech support group, gained knowledge and greater ac-

cess to information as opposed to the other workers. Inclusion afforded this group ac-

cess to opportunities to learn and gain mastery in a trade, which fostered higher levels

of commitment. But for others, such access was limited so that the links were weaker

and almost non~existent. This in tum fostered barriers and fragmentation, which en-

tailed separation and disconnectedness.

To transition to a commitment-based system, organizations need to pay par-

ticular attention to winning the hearts and minds of middle managers and securing

buy-in from the masters. Middle managers need to be convinced that transitioning to

a commitment-based system will benefit them as members and as a group_ As gate~

 163

keepers, they play a key role in fostering teamwork, learning, training, and involve-

ment on the plant floor. Through participation or buy-in, middle managers are able to

transfer knowledge or skills to others, which translates to higher performance. In ad-

dition, buy-in from a master to expand opportunities for learning to a greater popula-

tion of workers is paramount to transitioning to a commitment-based system. If rela-

tions between newcomer and old-timer are to expand, more research and study is

needed to identify ways to expand opportunities to those of different skin color or

with non-familial connections. For example, as in the case of Jose and the Hispanic

machine operators, more Joses are needed for the African American operators or

other groups that find themselves excluded from engaging in more productive activi-

ties. Identifying and recruiting more Joses can be difficult if groups are predisposed to

discount the experience and skills of such individuals because of different skin color

or the need to protect familial connections.

The literature often ignores the important role situated learning and communi-

ties of practice play in serving to create an interconnected group of communities that

fosters a higher performing system. The productive system consists of various com-

munities of practice or constellations of practices, that are able to peacefully coexist

and negotiate their place within the overall structure (Wenger, 1998). Often, the lit-

erature on high performance systems assumes that all levels are connected, while ig-

noring the various groups or communities of practices and the separation that exists

between them. The literature on high performance systems omits the importance of

properly managing boundaries that separate diverse communities that foster fragmen-
 164

tation. Instead, these boundaries must be carefully managed to foster opportunities for

learning that lead to productive outcomes.

Finally, a review of the practices initiated in the organization reveal that I had

not been consistent in adopting the full complement of innovative work practices. I

had been selective and inconsistent. For example, an important component is the use

of work teams, consisting of frontline workers and tech support members, in problem

solving. As the focus group transcripts from the day-shift operators revealed, prob-

lem-solving techniques were never encouraged to develop in the workplace. Day-shift

operators were merely engaged to follow directions. Issues regarding cost reduction,

productivity, efficiency improvement, quality, and workplace safety remained vested

in the exclusive hands of the tech support group. Even training was inconsistent; it

was started and stopped. Training never developed and continued on a regular basis in

the organization. As the literature indicates, a full system of innovative work practices

leads to higher levels of productivity and quality (Ichniowski & Shaw, 1997). Such

was not the case in the organization. My initiatives in the organization had been se-

lective, providing some worker training that was not maintained on a regular basis.

Communication also appeared lacking and suspect, as was commented by workers.

Public Policy Implications

State and federal governments have hundreds of programs that affect work-

places (Levine, 1995). Coherent workplace policy must take into account the realities

that exist in smaller organizations. Studies indicate that many organizations are con-
 165

trol~based systems where top--to~bottom direction is common and managers expect

--
routine tasks to be performed by workers (Ichniowski, Kochan, et aI., 1996). Manag~

ers seek a reliable and dependable workforce, ·while workers seek a workplace that

fosters learning and acquisition of skills. State and federal programs need to consider

. working more closely with smaller organizations to better collaborate on what is

needed in the workplace.

First, attention should be paid to enhancing the skills of the frontline workers

to perform routine tasks in the most efficient and productive manner. Learning must

expand beyond the classroom to include learning on the job. This may include provid-

ing job enhancement funds to smaller organizations with limited financial resources

to enable them to assign a middle-level supervisor or technician to provide the on-the-

job training. The tech support group complained in the focus group sessions that they

were unable to provide further training because of limited time. Smaller organizations

need funding to enable middle managers to provide training on fundamentals skills to

frontline workers. Once tasks are mastered, such supervisors or technicians need to be

positioned to provide further training on enhancing the skill and ability of these front-

line workers. Enhanced worker skills serve to address two objectives simultaneously:

(1) Increase worker sense of commitment to the organization while increasing the

skill level of workers, and (2) Increase the .bottom profit line of the organization

through improved performance and productivity.

Second, why not consider certification of technical skills? My research found

that learning occurred on the job where knowledge acquisition was viewed as analo·
 166

gous to an apprenticeship. Accessing apprenticeship is especially difficult for non"

White workers who are unable to access mentors or sponsors positioned to provide

the necessary training and learning. In mamifacturing, learning a trade such as pro"

gramming and tooling, quality techniques, and other technical aspects, requires wo~k­

force programs that provide workers with skills that are adaptable to the workplace of

the organization. This means fonning partnerships between smaller organizations and

workforce development programs that foster development of skills tailored to the

needs of the smaller organizations through masters or experienced and knowledgeable

personnel. This may include bringing in middle or senior managers from smaller Of"

ganizations who can be trained to teach and, in turn, provide further training and cer"

tification to frontline workers. With greater outsourcing to smaller manufacturing or-

ganizations, the need for a more highly skilled and trained workforce will continue to

grow. Thus, a closer working relationship between these programs and manufacturing

organizations must be encouraged through state and federal funding to address the

costs of training workers, essentially hard-to-place workers, while also addressing the

needs of the employer. Government funding reduces the fear that employers have that

providing additional training to frontline workers leads to workers quitting to find

higher-paid employment elsewhere. Instead, through such programs, employers will

have a ready supply of workers that are certified with certain skills readily adaptable

in the workplace.

Third, the location of the workplace in the suburbs while frontline workers re-

side in the inner city requires "having an accessible transportation to and from work. If
 167

necessary, workforce development programs need to consider adopting transportation

services or providing employers with transportation funding to permit workers with

an easier and dependable means of reaching the workplace.· Often, it is the non-White

worker who resides in the inner city who does not have access to vehicle to get to ~d

from work. Access to public transportation, if available, is often difficult or impracti-

cal to utilize since it may mean two or more hours of traveling by bus from the inner

city to the workplace in the suburb, a trip that might normally take only 30 to 45 min-

utes by automobile. Worse, sometimes public transportation is not dependable. Pro-

viding transportation funding to employers encourages hiring and retaining workers

from the inner city who may be unemployable in the suburbs because oflack oftrans~

portation.

Final Comments from a CEO

As I come to the close of this adventure, I present some general observations

for both business and academia that may serve of future value. As referenced, the re-

search findings did not support a finding of an organization transitioning to a com-

mitment-like system. To the contrary, typical techniques for controlling frontline

workers were more entrenched then ever before. I had begun with a vision of an or-

ganization that fostered opportunities for learning and information-sharing, but be-

came lost in the complexity of social relationships and politics that engulfed my or-

ganization.
 168

The literature on high~perfonnance systems fails to provide the tools or tech-

niques needed to move from a control-based to a commitment-:-based system. That is,

there is no "how-to" recipe. It is trial and error and depends on the particular circum-

stances of each organization. What may work in the workplace of one organization

may not be easily adaptable in another setting. Organizations that seek change must

be prepared to understand that numerous visible or invisible associations of workers

exist. Understanding these associations and how they interact with one another is imw

portant to creating or implementing change.

Reflecting on my experience and findings from studying my organization, I

offer the following ideas for consideration. First, change requires buy-in or winning

the hearts and minds of senior managers. In my particular case, the frustration in be-

ing unable to convince both the plant manager and my partner of the benefits in tran-

sitioning to a commitment-like system meant I walked alone in the path to salvation.

Changing attitudes and behavior takes time, education, and patience. In my case,

walking alone led to frustration and eventually retreating to my office, unable to con~

tinue the transition. I had tried the flavor of the month and found the results mixed.

Senior management did not understand or accept how less control, greater informa-

tion-sharing, and greater access to learning served to improve the quality of work in

the organization. To counter initial frustrations that will be faced, senior management

must realize that change takes time and will appear initially as unproductive or coun-

terproductive. The social dynamics of the workplace should not be understated and

underestimated.
 169

Senior management must first be educated to understand the overall benefits

of such a system. A high-performance system consists of a full complement of work

practices that focuses on different approaches towards use of work teams, training,

communication, employment security. and compensation. These practices are cpn-

trary to the traditional norms in place in the workplace, which cause resistance and

lead to greater frustration and turmoil. An alternative that senior executives often re-

fuse to consider is "cleaning house." Senior executive officers, especially in smaller

organizations, depend on senior managers and view them almost as irreplaceable. The

failure of Dick to expand membership beyond familial ties rendered advancement in

the organization exceedingly difficult and contributed to widespread resentment and

frustration among frontline workers. Senior executive officers, if truly committed to

expanding learning and creating opportunities, must be willing and prepared to pro~

mote change that starts at the top of the organization. As my chief engineer men-

tioned to me recently "No one is irreplaceable." Such change will send a clear mes-

sage throughout the organization of the commitment to changing the work environ-

ment.

Second, securing support from the community of middle managers, the privi-

leged, group is paramount. Change is implemented on the plant floor and not in the

front office, which means that securing active support and involvement of middle

managers is essential. This prospect is particularly challenging in smaller manufactur-

ing settings since the educational level of middle managers tends to be more limited

and lower than those found in larger organizational settings. Middle managers feel
 170

threatened with loss of status and control if opportunities for learning and greater

sharing of infonnation are extended to the front line workers.. Senior managers must

find ways to adequately address and alleviate the concerns of middle managers. One

such way is to identify more Joses who can serve as liaison between different groups.

In this regard, knowing the ethnic and racial background of the frontline workers

should clue senior management on how to expand the ranks of the middle managers.

Third, there must be openness to expanding membership in the community of

middle managers. My preliminary study of the organizational structure revealed sharp

divisions along racial lines and based on familial relationships. Apprenticeship leam-

ing plays an important role in the manufacturing organization. But how one obtained

apprentice status was based on factors that limited opportunities for the vast number

of workers. If organizations are to grow membership in communities of practice, es-

pecially, the community of middle managers must be more diverse. For smaller or-

ganizations, admission to the middle manager group often depends on race arid rela-

tionship to a master.

Given the changing racial profile of the workplace in the United States, ex-

panding membership must be given serious consideration. Otherwise, continual frus-

tration will surface and lead to conflicts on the plant floor. Attracting middle manag-

ers of different racial and ethnic background is important in fostering stronger links

and connections with various levels of the organization. Greater racial representation

serves to counter perceptions by frontline workers on who benefits and who does not.

To gain majority acceptance by middle managers will require recruiting candidates

 171

possessing skills and experience similar to those held by Jose. This means actively
-.
seeking candidates of diverse racial backgrounds who have extensive technical exper-

tise (based on years of work experience, education, and informal training) and work·

habits that fit the customary norms of the middle managers group.

Last, senior executives need to explore and identify the diverse communities

of practice within the organization and areas of disconnection or marginality that

cause separation and disconnection. All organizations, but especially smaller organi-

zations, need to carefully manage the boundaries to minimize fragmentation and in-

stead foster opportunities that enhance performance. This means encouraging en-

gagement among the various groups that leads to useful connections beyond the

boundaries of these communities. Otherwise, risk of deeper fragmentation between

communities can lead to the type of frustrations and resentments evidenced by the

dayshift-operator group as well as the tech support group. One way of identifying

communities of practice and fostering engagement is for organizations to bring out

the voices of workers through focus group sessions that are kept confidential and give

assurances of anonymity to workers. Often this means working with facilitators who

are not connected to the organization and who are engaged to allow workers to speak

their minds without fear of recrimination from middle or senior managers. Senior ex-

ecutives must fight the temptation to retreat from the information provided and in-

stead view the findings of the focus group sessions from an outsider perspective. Sen-

ior executives should be prepared to assume that the information provided is accurate,

and then consider ways of tackling the challenging issues facing the organization.
 172

Similar focus group sessions should also be fostered among middle and senior man-

agers who may be able to contribute by providing a different perspective 'on the or-

. ganization. As is co~monly stated, "Where there is smoke, there is fir(\" should be

viewed as a call for deeper analysis and review. .

My research has centered on a small manufacturing organization doing busi-

ness in the manufacturing industry and the role of communities of practice in limiting

participation and engagement in knowledge being created, shared, organized and

passed on. This project did not develop a model that contributed to lower turnover

among hard-to-place workers from the inner city. Instead, I discovered that inner-city

workers faced a number of obstacles such as racial barriers and exclusion from mem-

bership in group settings, which prevented advancement in learning and knowledge

acquisition. I uncovered that perfonnance and commitment enhancement depends on

developing a coordinated constellation of communities sharing a common vision.

These communities consist of various social reiatiQns, boundaries, and identities in

the workplace that are complex and often messy. Those organizations that minimize

separation and disconnection are more apt to foster and enhance worker attitude and

performance.
 REFERENCES

2 rt century skills jor 2 p;t century jobs. (1999). A Report of the u.s. Department of
Commerce, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Labor, Na-
tional Institute of Literacy, and the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Ackers, P., Smith; C., & Smith, P. (1996). The new workplace and trade unionism.
London: Routledge.

Adler, P. S., & Shenhar, A. (1990). Adapting your technological base: The organiza-
tional challenge. Sloan Management Review, 32(1),25-37.

Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. (2000). Manufacturing advan-
tage: Why high-performance work systems payoff. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University.

Arthur, J. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance

and turnover. Academy ofManagement journal. 37, 670-687.

Aspen Institute. (1998). Domestic Strategy Group. Paper presented at the Work and
Future Society Seminar Series.

Black, S. E., & Lynch, L. M. (2000). What's driving the new economy: The benefits of
workplace innovation (NBER Working Paper 7479).

Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Lon-
don: Sage.

Case, A., & Katz, L. (1991). The company you keep: The effects of family and
neighborhood on disadvantaged youth (Working paper 3705). Cambridge,
MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Chaiklin, S., & Lave, J. (1993). Understanding practice: perspectives on activity and
context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chaney, L., & Martin, J. (2000). Intercultural business communication. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Connecting the urban poor to work: A framework and strategy for action. (1998). De-
troit: Michigan Future.

173
 174

Cooke, W. N. (1994). Employee participation programs, group-based incentives, and

company performance: A union-nonunion comparison. Industrial and Labor
Relations ReView, 47(4),594-609. .
. . .

Delrey, J. E .• Guptt~, N., & Shaw, 1 D. (1997). Human resource managem~nt and
firm performance: A systems perspective. Paper presented at the 1997 South-
ern Management Association Meetings, Department of Management, Univ~r­
sity of Arkansas. Fayetteville.

DertollZo, M., Lester, R., & Solow, R (1988). Made in America. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.

Freeman. R B., & Gottschalk, P. (1998). Generatingjobs: How to increase demand

for less-skilled workers. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

From the bottom up: Toward a strategy for income and employment generation
among the disadvantaged (1993). The Aspen Institute.

Gabarro, J. (1991). Managing people and organizations. Boston: Harvard Business

School Publications.

Geary, J. (1995). Work practices: The structure of work. In P. Edwards (Ed.), Indus-
trial relations: Theory and practice in Britain (pp. 368-396). Oxford: Black-
well.

Gheradi, S., & Nicolini, D. (2000). The organizational learning of safety in communi-
ties of practice. Journal ofManagement ofInquiry, 9(1), 7-18 ..

Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to action research. London:

Sage.

Hammer, M.• & Chumpy. J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for
business revolution. New York: HarperBusiness.

Haveman, R., & Wolfe. B.. (1994). Succeeding generations. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.

Heckman, J. J. (1999). Doing it right: Job training and education The Public Interest,
135,86-107 ..

Hodgkinson, H. (1999). Creating solutions for the region. Paper presented at the
Workforce Development Summit, Flint, MI.

Hoecklin, L. (1995). Managing cultural difference, strategies for competitive advan-

tage. N.Y.: Addison-Wesley.
 175

Holmstrom, B., & Milgrom, P. (1994). The firm as an incentive system. American
Economic Review. 84(4),972-991.

Hol~er. H. J. (1996). What employers want: Job prospects for less-educated workers.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation. .

Ichniowski, C., Kochan, T. A., Levine, D., Olson, c.; & Strauss, G. (1996). What
works at work: An overview and assessment. Industrial Relations, 35, 299- -
322.

Ichniowski, C., & Shaw, K. (November 1997). The effects of human resource man-
agement systems on economic performance: An internatiofl;al comparison of
u.s. and Japanese plants. Unpublished working paper.
Kanter, R. (1989). The new managerial work. Harvard Business Review, 67(6), 85-
92.

Kenney, M., & Florida, R. (1993). Beyond mass production: the Japanese system and
its transfer to the u.s. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kruegar, A., & Rouse, C. (1998). The effect of workplace education on earnings,
turnover, andjob performance. Journal ofLabor Economics, 16(1),62..

Ladd, J. J. (1998). Welfare law: HR's role in employment. Workforce, 77(1),30-38.

Lave, 1. (1988). The culture ofacquisition and the practice of understanding (IRL 88-
0007). Palo Alto, CA: Institute for Research on Learning.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning, legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levine, D. (1995). Reinventing the workplace: How business and employees can both
win. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Liedka, 1. (1999). Linking competitive advantage with communities of practice.

Journal ofManagement Inquiry, 8(1),5-16.

Lynch, L. M. (1997). Do investments in education and training matter? Paper pre-

sented at the 9th Annual European Association of Labour Economists, Aar~
hus, Denmark.

National Center for Research in Vocational Education (NCRVE). (April 1996). Work~
place skills in practice, MDS-773. University of California at Berkeley,
Graduate School of Education.
 176

Odom, R. Y., Boxx, W. R., & Dunn, M. G. (1990). Organizational culture, commit-
ment, satisfaction and cohesion. Public Productivity & Management Review,
14(2) 157-169). .

Pasmore, W. (1988).· Designing e!fectiveorganizations: The sociotechnical systems

perspective. Reinventing the workplace. (1995) The Brookings Institute.

People to work report: Enhancing job training and placement in greater Detroit.
(1997). Detroit: Metropolitan Affairs Coalition. .

Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, O. M. (1991). The psychometrics of the competing values
culture instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on
quality of life. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Passmore (Eds.), Research in or-
ganization change and development, Vol. 5 (pp. 115-142). Greenwich, CT:
JAIPress.

Reinventing the Workplace. (1995). The Ford Foundation.

Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A.. & Swartz, E. (1998). Doing research in busi-
ness and management. London: Sage.

Rosenbaum, J. (1995). Changing the geography of opportunity by expanding residen-

tial choice: Lessons from the Gautreaux program. Housing Policy Review,
6(1), 231-269.

Sathe, V. (1985). Culture and related corporate realities. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Schein; E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Stringer, E. T. (1996). Action research: A handbook/or practitioners. London: Sage.

U.S. Small Business Administration. SBAfiscal year 1999 performance plan. creat-
ing opportunities/or small business success.

Victor, D. A. (1992). International business communication. New York: Harper

Collins.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities o/practice, learning, meaning. and identity. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Whyte, W. F. (1994). Participant observer: An autobiography, Ithaca, N. Y.: ILR.

Womack, J., Jones, D., & Roos, D. (1991). The machine that changed the world. New
York: RawsonlMacMillan.
 177

Workforce issues: Now andfuture. (1999). Paper presented at the Projects for Urban
and Regional Affairs, Flint, MI.

Zammuto~ R. F., & Krakower, 1. Y. (1991). Quantitative and qualitative studies of

organizational culture. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Passmore (Eds.), Re-
search in organization change and development, Vol. 5 (pp. 81-114). Green-
wich, CT: JAI Press.
 APPENDICES

Appendix A: Description of Characters, p. 179

Appendix B: Organizational Chart. p. 181

Appendix C: Plant Layout, p. 182

Appendix D: Tech Support Office, 183

Appendix E: Plant Floor, South Side, p. 184

Appendix F: Plant Floor, North Side, p". 185

17&
 179

APPENDIX A
DESCRIPTION OF CHARACTERS

Disguised Name Position and Responsibility in Organization

Cucho Hispanic CEO of organization and member ot

senior management.

Bill Tech support member responsible for repair and

maintenance of machines as well as assembling
holding fixtures. Bill was the son of Dick.

David Tech support member responsible for ordering

and maintaining cutting tools, programming,
and changeover of jobs in the plant floor. David
was the nephew of Dick.

Dick Chief Programmer, part owner, and partner to

CEO of organization, as well member of senior
manageIllent. Also viewed as teacher or master
in the organization, possessing over 35 years of
related machining experience.

Hombre African American male machine operator on

day shift, who became a storm water inspector
and assistant to Bill in performing maintenance
tasks. Member of day shift operator group.

Jane Tech support member serving as quality

coordinator responsible for inspecting parts
being machined on the plant floor and
responding to quality concerns raised by
customers and taking corrective action.

Jill African American female machine operator on

day and night shifts, who eventually began
working the day shift. Member of day-shift
operator group.

Jose Hispanic tech support member hired in 2000.

Skilled and experienced in tool-making and
assembling holding fixtures. Served as
 180

interpreter between Hispanic operators and tech

support group.

Louise· . African American female machine operator on

day, and member of day·shift operator group

Milton Member of senior management serving as plan~

manager of the organization. Responsible for
production scheduling, delivery and shipment of
material, hiring and firing of machine operators.
Initially secured QS9000 status for the
organization.

Steve Tech support member serving as plant

supervisor for plant. Originally hired to serve as
night foreman and replaced Milton. Steve was
btother-in~law to Dick.

Sue Ex-felon African American inner~city resident

hired as machine operator who eventually was
promoted to quality inspector. Mentored by
Jane and eventually became member of Tech
Support Group.

M Facilitator in charge of scheduling and

conducting focus group .s~ssions.

AF Unidentified African Female worker referenced

in the written transcripts of focus group
sessions.

AM Unidentified African Male worker referenced in

the written transcripts of focus group sessions.

WM Unidentified White Male worker referenced in

the written transcripts of focus group sessions.

WF Unidentified White Female worker referenced

in the written transcripts of focus group
sessions.
 181

APPENDIXB

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

I
I I I
QW£~iH VIJIa.r, ~~M,. SalsfirtlasiD9', c&e.m,.
frOO !It lid Q.do Il&fiej

I
J I I
rcdiag&~ ~rUi_ Tcd&rleli, ~)l1f;ISuFfiiI« ~i~CcdDIti ClITdii»
roo 81 .l19! ~ Jail .1r&fiOO.

I
~M. Dlt~Nft. ~M~~SllMiiN ft«~..
IbW,m ~. _ &e
J
AIiaIM.ei:allatss
 182

APPENDIXC

PLANT LAYOUT
J

r .. ...-.
~
I

Warehouse

OJ~
\TC I
~ ---~i --------~1li~
-qr--- O~
Plant Floor ~ -1;- Ott

~ i¥
- . --
•
_hb. ____
--- ~
,-
--j-----
-

I'
t:::J

~
II

I IX
I
-----------i
,, '.".
i~---.~~-
.
I~X
I, U
I ____ c:::J_-i
l
)I ::,~"l 0--lr~i-A-
c :.. :
WQ.t'. ~
0
Ih
t

Administrative Otlice
 183

APPENDIXD

TECH SUPPORT OFFICE

(Separates Plant Floor from Administrative Offices)

 184

. APPENDIXE

PLANT FLOOR, SOUTH SIDE

(Common walking area, machines located at right and left of photo)

 185

APPENDIXF

PLANT FLOOR, NORTH SIDE

(Common walking area, machines located at right and left of photo)