AUTOMATED PROCESS OPERATORS: WORK ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOUR*
| Date | 01 November 1973 |
| Published date | 01 November 1973 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1973.tb00877.x |
| Author | CLIVE Vamplew |
AUTOMATED
PROCESS OPERATORS
:
WORK
ATTITUDES
AND BEHAWOUR*
CLIVE
VAMPLEWt
THE
findings presented here derive from
a
hundred and sixty-four inter-
views with operators on automated chemical process plants.
A
semi-
structured schedule was used to conduct in-depth interviews. This had the
disadvantage of being somewhat inflexible by comparison with, say, the
focused interview, but in this study, where a great deal of data was
gathered from each respondent, it had overriding advantages at the data
preparation stage.
An
oil refinery in South Wales and three chemical works-in South-
East Scotland, the Manchester area, and on Severnside-have been
investigated. In the case
of
three works the sample was drawn syste-
matically, and at the other site all but
a
few men on the three most highly
automated plants were interviewed. The most highly instrumented plants
within each works were selected, although precise quantification of the
degree
of
automation was beyond our resources.
We
depended on infor-
mation provided by the management
of
each organization and supple-
mented this with our own observation. It was felt that by drawing our
respondents
from
several geographically distinct regions
a
quite high
level
of
generalization would be achieved. Moreover, the influence
of
subcultural variation could be studied.
In broad terms, the study set out
to
test two conflicting sets of hypo-
theses about work in this technical setting.
On
the one hand there is the
assertion that the work
is
dehumanizing as men become remote from the
product and process of production. The worker is subject to stress en-
gendered by heavy responsibility coupled with feelings of powerlessness
in the face
of
massive and complex machinery. Moreover, he is either too
bored or too busy.l On the other hand
a
freedom from the domination of
the machine
is
held to lead to more enriched work.
The
technology
is
challenging and interesting, bestowing on operators a new responsibility
and meaning in work. This view sees it as the antithesis of the assembly
linema
Furthermore, it has been proposed that the work situation
of
chemical
*
The study was financed by a grant from S.S.R.C.
to
Stephen Cotgrove. The author is
grateful
to
him and
to
Michael Rose
for
their comments on an earlier draft
of
this paper,
At
the time
of
writing, the author was Research Officer
at
Bath University, and
is
currently
carrying out research in the social services.
See,
for
example,
F.
Mann and
L.
R.
Hoffman,
Automation
and
thc
Worker,
New
York,
1960;
and
F.
E.
Emery and
J.
Marek, ‘Some Socio-Technical Aspects
of
Automation’,
Human
Relations,
1962.
a
See
R.
Blamer,
Alienation
and
Freedom,
University of Chicago
Press,
1964,
pp.
124-165
415
416
BRITISH JOURNAL
OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
process workers may lead to significant modifications in their social
perspectives. The work has been depicted, particularly by BlaunerY3
as
clean (more akin to the office than the shop floor)
;
involving a high level
of responsibility (a feature more reminiscent of white collar than manual
work)
;
and most importantly, as having a finely skill-graded structure
of
opportunity. The operator may progress up this skill ladder by individual
effort in contrast to achieving better pay and conditions by collective
action. This kind
of
structure
of
individual opportunity is again more
typical
of
non-manual workers.
If
process work is indeed characterized
by
these features, and operators do have more in common with white than
blue collar workers, then it seems plausible that the work situation will be
reflected in attitudes towards management, in images of the class structure,
in life styles, and in voting behaviour.
Our
theoretical framework incorporates two currently dominant
approaches to the interpretation of work in industry-the socio-technical
and the social action approaches. The purpose of this essay is to present
our findings against this theoretical background, at the same time con-
sidering the usefulness and limitations of the two perspectives.
As
a pre-
liminary to this, however, it would be useful to describe briefly what
is
meant
by
the socio-technical and social action frameworks,
THE
SOCIO-TECHNICAL
APPROACH
The socio-technical or ‘technological implications’ approach would
claim to go
a
long way towards accounting for the marked attitudinal and
behavioural variations that have been observed between different industries
and occupational
group^.^
Its
exponents argue that technology-the
machines and tools
of
production-is
a
fundamental determinant of
behaviour because it structures the tasks which men must perform.
Moreover, within a given technological framework, the organization of
work-the division and allocation of tasks to individuals and the co-
ordination of their activities-is largely, though by no means entirely,
circumscribed
by
the technology.6
A
corollary of this is that each distinctive
technology, be it
a
motor car assembly line or the production of chemicals
by an automated process, will give rise to characteristic work tasks and
roles. In other words, the technological framework of an enterprise
is
an
important determinant of what people do at work, how they do it, and
their interaction with others in the organization, and hence
of
the amount
of interest and satisfaction they derive from their jobs. There is, in fact, an
impressive array
of
evidence which demonstrates the significance
of
technology and work organization-to the extent that the socio-technical
Ibid.
4
For
example,
R.
Blauner,
op.
cit.;
L.
R.
Saylea,
&hauiour
af
Inductrial
work
Croups,
New
II
J.
Woodward,
Industrial
Organization:
?71emy
and
Practics,
Oxford
University
Press,
1965
York,
1958;
E.
L.
Trist
ct
al., Organizational
Choice,
London,
1963
To continue reading
Request your trial