Company Development Programme based on New Management Philosophy
| Published date | 01 January 1971 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb055195 |
| Date | 01 January 1971 |
| Pages | 73-78 |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
PERSONNEL REVIEW
new
personnel
practice
Company
Development
Programme
based on New
Management
Philosophy
A book* published this month gives a detailed account
of a new approach to improving motivation and per-
formance adopted by a
UK
oil manufacturing company.
Faced with the problems of inadequate motivation and
low productivity with which sectors of British industry
are only too familiar, Shell UK Ltd set up a small plan-
ning team within its personnel function to study its
problems in depth and to produce some long-term solu-
tions.
The team's proposals were to lead to a far-reach-
ing development programme, based on a major change
in the formulation of the company's objectives and in
its management philosophy.
This extract from the book describes how the plan-
ning team carried out its task and the actions it recom-
mended to the company's management.
PROBLEMS DIAGNOSIS AND
PROPOSALS FOR ACTION
The employee relations planning unit
(ERP)
started
its work at the beginning of 1964. General expectations
in the company at that time were that it would produce
some form of plan for productivity bargaining. Cer-
tainly the focus of attention was on how to increase
productivity at shop floor level, where some dramatic
improvement was clearly needed.
Protected from the day-to-day pressures of the tactical
industrial relations situation, the
ERP
team was able to
read, reflect, visit other companies in the UK, the
Netherlands and North America and build up their
ideas.
It became clear to them that the problem of shop-
floor productivity could not be looked at in isolation:
it was only part of a larger-scale problem.
The team relied most heavily upon their own experi-
ence of working in the company and that of their
colleagues in the refineries. But they were impressed
and encouraged to find that their own experienced-
based views on the nature and scale of the problem
seemed to be supported by the writings and findings of
the social scientists—some of whose books they now
at last found time to read.
At this stage, with the exception of the Glacier pro-
ject, the team was unaware of the work which had been
done in this field by the Tavistock Institute. The Glacier
* Paul
HIII,
Towards a New Philosophy of Management.
Gower Press, 1971.
1 A H Maslow, Motivation and Personality, Harper, 1954.
results were looked at, but the approach did not seem
to promise any solution to the company's problem.
Most relevant at that time seemed to be people like
A H Maslow1 and Frederick Herzberg2 with their
research and theories about motivation and the causes
of satisfaction or dissatisfaction in the work situation;
and Douglas McGregor3 with his notion of theory X and
theory Y assumptions about the nature of man, and his
arguments in favour of a participative style of manage-
ment.
DIAGNOSIS OF THE PROBLEM
The team reported its diagnosis of the problem and
its proposals for action in January, 1965. Two major
problem areas were identified: first, the unfavourable or
negative attitudes which many hourly-paid employees
had towards their jobs and towards the company; and,
secondly, the many restrictive and inappropriate terms
and conditions of employment which had been incor-
porated over the years in the trade union agreements
and with which managers were only too familiar. It
was suggested that the two problems were interlinked
and that until a more favourable general working climate
and more positive attitudes could be induced, there
were limits to what could be achieved through con-
ventional productivity bargaining.
ERP'S report put it in the following terms:
"We consider that there are definite limitations to the
amount of progress we can hope to make in the future
in achieving greater productivity by more effective use
of manpower through conventional bargaining tactics,
given the present climate of relationships at Shell Haven
and Stanlow refineries. ... In the present climate it is
inevitable that there will continue to be a barrier of
opposition and mistrust on the part of many men. . . .
Fundamentally the men are not committed to the com-
pany's objective and the most we can hope for is that
they will honour the bargains they have entered into.
Experience at Fawley, for example, has been that the
"Blue Book" bargains have been honoured, but that
the men are not prepared to extend their co-operation
to cover any work not specifically mentioned in the
agreement. (Flanders4).
It is our opinion that in order to open up the way
2 F Herzberg, B Mansler, and B Snyderman, The Motivation
To
Work,
Wiley, 1959.
3 D McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill,
1960.
4 A Flanders, The Fawley Productivity
Agreements,
Faber &
Faber, 1964.
73
To continue reading
Request your trial