Journalist’s Report
Toward the Automatic Factory: A Case Study of Men and Machines.
by Charles R. Walker.
Yale University Press. 232 pp. $5.00.
The automatic factory was already known in the 18th century, but it was only with its extension into many lines of production in the 1950’s that it attracted great scientific and public attention. Consideration of the social consequences of automation has ranged from scare thrillers to dull surveys of limited cases. While there is little doubt that the excited nonsense emanating from some “experts” on automation is seriously motivated and presented, it cannot help but confuse the public. Most of the so-called “studies” aren’t much better, since they either fail to answer the questions the public is interested in or employ inadequate methods of research. An informed, balanced essay is still the best guide to the social and economic consequences of automation—that is, to all but the technical and organizational descriptions of it.
Walker’s study is neither better nor worse than most. It makes some show of following the methodology of the social sciences, but in fact it is a serious journalist’s report on his interviews with a number of managers and workers. To begin with, it studies only a single plant, the “first continuous seamless pipe mill in the United States,” located in the Lorain Works of the National Tube Division of the United States Steel Corporation. Second, no information is given as to the size and the exact basis of selection of the sample of men interviewed. Third, while it is stated that considerable attention was paid to documentary information, the text seldom refers specifically to documents. Fourth, and most important, no statistical summaries of the interviews or observational findings are given; instead we are offered quotations which might very well express the views of two or three men rather than of the workers as a whole. The terms of social science are used—for example, “repeatedly interviewed over the years 1949-1953”—but there is no indication of how many people were interviewed, how often, or how successfully.
But serious journalism needs to be taken seriously; let us see what the author says. There are regular summaries at frequent intervals throughout the book, which conveniently tie together the quotations and the author’s brief observations. One of these summaries concerns worker-supervisor relations:
- During the first round of interviews workers generally were enthusiastic about the improvement in worker-supervisor relations over the old mill. Relations with all ranks of supervision were close and cordial.
- Between the first and second rounds relations had sharply deteriorated. The workers reported that they saw less of their bosses and that interactions were accompanied by pressure, tension, and bad feeling.
- The major criticism which workers made of supervision, and especially of top supervision, was that the worker was no longer involved in production problems or asked for his advice and suggestions.
It is important that the reader remember that the condition and climates of opinion just described reflect a relatively early and still transitional period in the history of the mill.
This is informative, but such deterioration of relations can happen in almost any kind of plant at almost any time; we are given no reason to believe that this deterioration is a specific consequence of automation.
Or take the section on pay and incentives: “As far as earnings went, all members of the three crews were pleased. Most were now making more than they had on the old mills under the old plan.” It certainly is an acceptable finding that workers are pleased with a raise in pay. But more important questions are: (1) Does automation result in higher pay, and why? (2) Do some workers get displaced, so that only a certain proportion get higher pay and the rest get lower pay or become unemployed? Both these kinds of questions can best be answered by a theoretical economist or by a systematic empiricist.
_____________
However, the study contains hints and clues that a theoretical or speculative essay cannot provide. It isn’t social science, but it is suggestive and potentially useful. For example, the author writes about a worker’s appraisal of his immediate job after three years’ experience: “Generally speaking, he believed it to be ‘mentally harder’ and ‘physically easier’ than his job on the old mills, but there were certain exceptions to this generalization. The jobs that had not been mechanized when the technological revolution took place were now harder than ever, and harder in proportion to the greatly increased speed of the mill. Whereas at first they had been preferred, they were now resented. The other automatic or semi-automatic jobs also demanded somewhat more of a man’s energy, nervously or physically, when the mill went faster. But this added load was more than balanced—for most workers—by a new rhythm that had come into their working day, by an increase in skills, and by a complete loss of fear of the job or the machines. The automatics themselves were given another vote of confidence, but a curious discovery added to the men’s morale. They found that under certain conditions manual operation was more efficient than machine operation. In other words, they were still better than the machines.”
Following Georges Friedmann, the French industrial sociologist, Walker emphasizes the increasing possibilities, under automation, for man to work at his “natural” individual rhythm. He also emphasizes the increase in team feeling, as compared to such “obvious factors as high earnings and better foreman-worker relations.” Yet the workers’ main criticisms were of the incentive pay system and of worker-supervisor relations. Improvements in these two items took place in the plant after the first two years of automation, but it is not clear whether this was because of the preliminary findings of the study. An economist might inquire as to why it took so long for pay to go up. The author gives closer attention to supervisor-worker relations—for example, he finds that these are better when the relations among the workers themselves are closer.
Considerable attention is paid to the internal structure of the work group. Not only did the work group become more cohesive under automation, but it changed its attitude from one of welcoming breakdowns of machinery to doing all in its power to prevent them. The work group developed a democratic unanimity of opinion, although no individual member became its consistent leader. Despite their increasingly pro-managerial orientation, most members of the group had given up all thought of promotion within the group or out of it. The author regards this as “unhealthy” but does not attempt to explain it. While he notes that the top management allowed no suggestions for the productive process to emanate from the workers, the original hostility between the two groups disappeared.
The concluding part of the book attempts to take up the broader issues. Because the author is familiar with the literature on technological change, especially the recent studies, this latter portion is more scholarly than the main part of the book, and also more informative and useful as an analysis of the more general implications of automation. We learn that for the workers job security is recognized as “the basic value” and rapid technological change is seen as an “implicit threat” to the job and to opportunities for promotion, especially in times of economic recession. Further, the workers hold that the share which labor gets from the benefits of automation is not “fair.” After examining all the details of the relations of the workers to the automatized plant, the author concludes that “the machine has here outstripped man,” not because it has taken away his chances of being “human” but because man has only begun to explore the new opportunities for growth and a more satisfying work life.
The United States is probably undergoing the most rapid expansion of automation of any country, but it is not the place where the best studies of the impact of automation are being conducted. We have nothing quite comparable to the empirical study by the Englishmen Scott, Banks, Halsey, and Lupton, nor even to the broader gauged speculative study by the Frenchman, Georges Friedmann (for which some of his students have been providing an empirical foundation). The best American work is still in the form of brief essays, such as those by Baldwin and Schultz, by Leontieff, by Sheppard and Faunce. Walker’s book adds something to understanding, but provides no significant systematic knowledge nor guide lines for the future organization of knowledge.
_____________
