1. Introduction
Participatory ergonomics is growing increasingly popular in these years. It is considered to have two major benefits. Firstly the ergonomic improvements will achieve a higher quality when the employee experience is taken into consideration and it is likely that the improvements will be more sustainable. Secondly participation is supporting empowerment of the employees and is thereby fulfilling a psychological job demand for more control. These benefits are also indicating that fully developed participatory ergonomics must be based on a bottom up strategy for involvement of all concerned employees. Otherwise, the benefits may easily be lost.
However, bottom up strategies require new methods and qualifications of all concerned parties - the ergonomic consultant, the employees and the management. And in addition these strategies raise important questions about how far can the employee participation go.
Bottom up strategies have been pursued in two action research projects. The projects were initiated by the Danish tripartite plan for reduction of simple repetitious work with 50% before year 2000. Group organisation with job enlargement and job enrichment supported by technological changes were considered the main preventive strategy in both projects. Concrete changes were as far as possible initiated and implemented by the concerned employees themselves.
The approach for the participation was based upon development of dialogue as outlined by Gustavson and Engelstad, 1986. The researchers took the role of the process consultant, and in both projects a large number of very concrete problems had to be solved. Many of these related to insecurity about the planned changes and conflicts in or between subgroups. As a consequence considerable skills in process consultation were required in both projects.
2. Project one: Reduction of simple repetitious work in a marzipan factory
The factory has 250 employees and is manufacturing marzipan in a batch production. The production is mechanized, but a number of manual operations are still necessary. Especially packing which is carried out only by women was dominated by repetitious work. The management launched a strategy for productivity and quality improvements based on development of the human resources in the factory. As a part of that strategy management also wanted to improve the working environment especially regarding reduction of repetitious work, and CASA was asked to assist in implementing a project. The management and the shop stewards made an overall agreement about a change from the traditional taylorised organisation to group organisation. This agreement worked as the framework for the project.
Dialogue conferences lasting two days were organised for each department. On the conferences the participants identified present problems, analysed them and discussed future solutions. Especially wishes for new technology and the organisational changes were requested by both the researchers and the management. It turned out to be very difficult for the employees to express clear wishes for the future. They requested the production manager to inform them on decisions about the future in order to be able to discuss and criticise them. The manager responded that it was not decided because the opinion of the employees should be included in the changes. Especially the women in the packing department had difficulties in expressing their opinion about the future technology and organisation. The consequence was that the employees did not get as much influence as possible.
After the new technology with semiautomatic packing machines and group organisation was implemented the women in the packing department had great difficulties in coping with the situation. They were now in groups responsible for planning working hours, division of labour on the various machines, and adjustment and maintenance of the packing machines. One of the group members had the function as a coordinator, a position that changes every half year. The women felt severely stressed by the new responsibility and especially the prospect of being a coordinator was a heavy burden for some of them. In order to solve those problems it was necessary to continue with support to the groups and also for individuals for a longer period of time.
3. Project two: Intervention in monotonous work
CASA is carrying out an intervention project in five companies with simple repetitious work. The companies include a plastic company, a bread company, a biscuit company, a card board company and a bank. The four production companies have 200-400 employees and the bank 5,000 although only the data entry operators (400) are included in the project. The project lasted from 1994-97 and learning from the above described project, this time more time was allocated to develop employees= ideas and upgrading of employees= qualifications were included in the project. Although the project is still not completed, some interesting experience can be drawn from the project. The five companies can be divided in three groups:
C the responsive biscuit company;
C the reactive card board company; and
C the proactive companies (plastic, bread, and bank).
The responsive biscuit company ended up doing no intervention in repetitious work. Considering the reasons for that outcome it was obvious that the company generally was pursuing a responsive strategy. The production was marked by mechanisation and taylorisation. Market demands for lower prices and increased production were reflected by more mechanisation and taylorisation. Regarding working environment the company did as little as possible and only when it was forced by government orders or strong union pressure (which was also the original reason for joining the project).
The reactive card board company did take action on repetitious work, but did in practice not use the project input about employee participation and upgrading of qualifications. The company viewed the future as automatisation and the employees as a necessary cost which has to be put into the operations yet still not automatized. At the same time the company was used to follow regulations regarding the working environment and to negotiate implementation with union representatives. The action taken on repetitious work was a limited job rotation which was considered a sufficient solution until the final automatisation.
The proactive companies made full use of the project input and considered the actions taken on repetitious work as a possibility for integration of working environment activities in the long term strategy for human resource development. The experience from the three companies is generally positive. Even though the same type of problem as in the first project was encountered, the possibilities of working with a longer time frame which opened for a more slow development of employees= ideas and the integration of upgrading of qualifications helped to solve the problems.
However, in all the three companies extensive events took place completely out of control for the project. In the plastic company a serious conflict between the production manager and the economic manager was nearly closing the project. In the bread company a white bread and a rye bread factory were merged and the originally involved production manager was expelled and the project had to be reformulated. In the bank the original bank with two thousand employees was merged with a larger bank with three thousand employees. In the end the project was continued in all three companies and in the bread company and the bank even strengthened because the integration with the future overall strategy became stronger and more visible.
4. Discussion
The two projects suggest a number of important issues to discuss.
It seems to be difficult for employees especially in low qualified work with a low level of control to participate in decisions about change of their work, if the decisions reach much further that the daily operation. It is close to impossible for the rank and file to relate to the overall company strategy even though it will have strong consequences for their work in the future as was the case at both the marzipan company and the three proactive companies.
If bottom up strategies shall open possibilities for the employees for a more far reaching influence on their work a number of conditions must be considered:
Even following the above general developments in the companies may occur which will severely influence the working conditions, but completely out of reach for the employees. Examples can be decision about closure or merge of departments, major new technology or change of product strategy. In such cases the membership of the board of directors is the only possibility for the employees= influence. In Denmark the employees have one third of the seats in the board. But this type of influence is exercised by a very small group of often highly professional representatives who are limited by confidentiality and seldom have a close contact with the shopfloor level.
It can be concluded that it is possible to develop bottom up strategies in participatory ergonomics which open possibilities for a broad and long term employee influence on development of the working conditions, but it is necessary with integration with the overall company strategy and there is always a risk for company decisions which will undermine the achievements.
References
Gustavson, B. and Engelstad P.H., 1986, The design of conferences and the evolving role of democratic dialogue in changing working life, Human Relations, Vol. 39 (2), pp. 101-116.