(2) The efficacy of a wage incentive was so dependent on its relation to other factors that it was impossible to consider it as a thing in it self having an independent effect on the individual. Only in connection with the interpersonal relations at work and the personal situation outside work, to mention two important variables, could its effect on output be determined.
By period 13 the experimenters realized that they had not studied the relation between output and fatigue, zmonotony, etc., but had performed a sociological and psychological experiment. By trying to control variables they had introduced a new one, a social situation that involved changed attitudes and interpersonal relations.
The chief result of years of work had been to demonstrate the importance of employee attitudes. For management, however, there were other practical results. They introduced rest pauses on a wide scale. They began to question many assumptions they had previously made, and they realized the errors of oversimplification. They saw that one could not predict the effect of a single factor if it were part of a total situation. They also realized the importance of gaining more knowledge about employee attitudes; this led to study 3.
Study 3. Mass Interviewing Program: -
Study 2 allowed the surmise that a relation existed between employee morale and supervision. It was believed that an improvement in supervision would improve morale. Since there was a dearth of facts on how to improve supervision and the material that was available was highly opinionated, it was decided to interview the employees in order to secure information. The Relay Assembly Test Room experiment showed that the employees were exceedingly disparaging about the supervision, whereas management had believed that the supervision, especially in this department, was good. This raised the possibility either that management knew little about what constitutes good supervisory methods or that they knew nothing of the employee attitudes on the subject. Thus, in this experiment the emphasis shifted from a study of changes in environmental work conditions to a study of human relations or of attitudes concerning human relations.
The Relay Assembly Test Room also showed that as the girl’s attitudes improved toward each other, their work, the supervisor, and the company, their production increased. In other word, their morale affected their morale affected their production. The company had been conducting supervisor training courses, and it decided that instruction in improving employee morale should be part of this course. Five meetings were planned, but two sessions made it clear that no factual data were available for this purpose. Consequently, as has been said, it was decided to interview the employees.
The interviewing program was launched in the inspection branch, in which about 1600 workers were employed. Three men and two women supervisors were chosen to conduct the interviews; they were told that the purpose was to gain information about employee attitudes, not to spy on supervisors or anyone else.
The first interview was conducted as follows:
(1) Each interviewer was assigned a certain territory to cover. From the foreman of each department in his territory he was to obtain a list of the employees’ names.
(2) When the interviewer was ready to start interviewing in any department, it was recommended that he first go to the foreman in charge and make his presence known.
(3) It was recommended that the interviewer select the man he wanted to interview because otherwise the supervisor might be tempted to give him all his “problem cases” first. However, the interviewer was to cooperate with the supervisor so that the operation of the department would be interfered with as little as possible.
(4) The interviewer was to asked the supervisor’s advice about where the employee should be interviewed - whether away from the job or on the job. (Subsequent experience showed that it was usually advisable to interview an employee away from his work. Thereafter it was recommended that the interviewer ask the department chief for a bench or desk where he could conduct the interviews without interruption.)
(5) The interviewer was to make sure that the necessary arrangements were made for paying the employee his average earnings for the time consumed in the interview.
(6) In his contacts with supervisors the interviewer was to be careful not to betray the confidence of any employee and to refrain absolutely from discussing the content of the interviews with the supervisors.
(7) Only a few employees from any one location were to be interviewed on the same day, so that the work of the department might go on normally and without undue confusion or curiosity.
The following careful instructions with regard to approaching the employee and conducting the interview were also given the interviewers:
(1) Whenever possible, the employee was to be formally introduced to the interviewer by the supervisor. Interviewers were not to interview employees whom they knew, because the acquaintance might influence the employees’ comments.
(2) When the interviewer and employee were seated and ready to proceed with the interview, the employee was to be told the interviewer’s name again.
(3) The interviewer was to explain to employee the purpose of the interview, i.e., why any comments, either favorable or unfavorable, that the employee cared to make about his supervisors, working conditions, and job were being solicited.
(4) The employee was to be told how the interviews would be used; for example, any complaints he had about working conditions would be investigated, together with those of the other employees, and, as far as practicable, remedial action would be taken. The manner in which the material gathered from the interviews was to be used in supervisory training conferences was also to be explained.
