(5) The interviewer was to make clear to each employee that the interviews would be kept strictly confidential; i.e., the employee could tell the interviewer anything, no matter how bad it was, without getting it trouble himself or getting his supervisors or his co-workers in trouble. The interviewer was to explain that no names or company numbers would appear on any records and that the people who read the interviews or heard them read would not be told who the employee was or where he worked. Anything the employee said which might identify him with his supervisor would be deleted from his interview.
(6) The employee was to be told that the company was as much interested in the things he liked as in those with which he was dissatisfied and which he thought needed to be corrected.
(7) The interviewer was to take almost verbatim notes as the employee talked. He was to explain to the employee that he was writing down what was said word for word so that there would be no possible chance of misrepresenting or forgetting anything. (At first it was thought that taking notes might make the employee reluctant to talk, but this was found not to be true.)
(8) The interviewer was to be sympathetic and a good listener and to let the employee know that he was really interested in his problems and complaints.
(9) Strict care was to be taken to express no agreement or disagreement with the complaints the employee made. The interviewer was to let the employee know that he himself was in no position to judge the correctness or incorrectness of what the employee was saying.
(10) The interviewer was not to inform the employee of the nature of the complaints made by other employees.
(11) The interviewer was not to give the employee advice as to what he should do. In rare cases he might advise an employee to see his supervisors, or tell him about the various benefit plans, the Hawthorne evening school, or similar things. However, the interviewer was not to hesitate to offer encouragement to any employee if he thought it would do him good.
(12) The interviewer was to write up the interview under six headings. The opinions of the employee were to be divided first into three categories: working conditions, supervisions, and job. Each of these heading was to have two subclassifications, likes and dislikes
The reaction of the employees to this program was generally very favorable. A typical reaction was, “It is a good idea to interview the operators, as they may have something in their minds that they want to talk over with someone and this gives them a chance to do it.” Another type of reaction was, “I never really thought this interviewing amounted to very much, but since you explained it to me I see where I can tell you something that may help in the supervisors’ conferences.” Other reactions were illustrated by still another type of response: “Now may be some of the people will take a hint and learn that they have not been doing the right thing, especially some of these underhanded bosses. I hope they get their share of this”.
Some employees attributed changes in conditions to the interviews when in reality the only change that occurred was in the attitude of the person interviewed. For example, one woman believed that the food in the cafeteria was better some employees, one other hand, believed that management would make no changes at all; a few were very suspicious.
Naturally, one should expect all types of reactions to an interviewing program, and this was no exception. The success or failure and the final total reaction depend entirely upon whether the employees understand and endorse the real purpose and whether the company’s actions conform to it. Because in this instance they did, it was possible to obtain a tremendous amount of information that could not have been secured in any other way. Not only was employee reaction favorable, but the reaction of the supervisors was also. One quotation illustrates this: “Did you go to the last conference we had? Say, they are getting to be good. You know, I am getting a lot of help from them. I am learning to see the operator’s viewpoint of things, and really believe I am learning to do my job much better by attending these conferences.”
Another outstanding aspect of this part of the Hawthorne Studies was its flexibility. The program was expanded and the method of conducting interviews underwent drastic changes as the facts became known. Although originally the interviews were not meant to be of the questionnaire variety, there nevertheless was a typical way of beginning each interview and during its course specific points were covered by direct questions.
At conferences it was reported that employees often discussed irrelevant topics, that is irrelevant from the point of view of the subject matter the interviewers were to cover-supervision, working conditions, and the job. Since this happened fairly frequently, it was decided that these discussions were not irrelevant at all. Analysis showed that direct questions put the employees in a “yes or no” frame of mind often impeded the progress of the interviewer, and inhibited the spontaneous expression of their real convictions,
As a result, the interview procedure was changed to the indirect method. The employee had considerable freedom in choosing his own topic at the start of the interview and the interviewer allowed him to continue to talk. This change in technique resulted in an increase in the average length of the interview from a half-hour to one and one-half hours. The material on which the report was based also increased from two and a half to ten pages. When the program was suspended because of the depression, 21,126 employees had been interviewed.
The ramifications of the various phase of the interviewing program were many.
The interviews had a real effect on the company’s supervisor training courses. It provided management with a list of complaints about specific environmental conditions that could be investigated. Data concerning employee attitudes and opinions were made available on a large scale. It was also found that the employees benefited psychologically merely as a result of being interviewed.
