TECHNIQUES FOR AN RESULTS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF AN EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM IN A SMALL HIGH-TECHNOLOGY FIRM Joseph C. Latona, The University of Akron ABSTRACT This paper reports the results of an employee involvement program on members of a small high tech firm. The areas of behavior (commitment) of employees and attitude of these employees toward management are described. A technique for the implementation of such a program is presented. INTRODUCTION A Brief Industry Background The computer evolution started affecting instrumentation in the early 1970's when manufacturers incorporated microprocessors in their products to created more intelligent instruments. Since that time instruments have gotten smarter, often containing microcomputers of greater power than the average personal computer (PC). This evolution in instruments can be seen even with the basic volt- ohm-meter (VOM). The first VOM was little more than a meter and switch-selected range resistor. This simple instrument has evolved into the digital multimeter (DMM) of today. These DMM's, when interfaced with a computer, make a powerful data acquisition system. The next step in this evolution was the reducing of the DMM to a single printed circuit board that plugs directory into the computer. This eliminates the cabinet, display, switches, interface and power supply from the DMM. The instrument can no longer operate "stand-alone," but this is a small penalty compared with the cost reduction achieved. Relevant Research The concept of employee involvement (EI) in the modern era was introduced as quality control circles (QC) in 1962 by Dr. Kaoru Ishikawa and the Union of Japanese Scientist and Engineers (JUSE) as a tool to enhance quality of production by Japan's large firms involved in the manufacture of durable goods (15). In the United States the first EI program was formed in 1971 at General Motors' Tarreytown, New York assembly plant, grew to 300 programs in 1979, and to over 3,000 in 1980 (15)! Employee involvement beginnings can be traced to the concept of participative management and self control originated with large firms in the private sector and was first practiced by the DuPont company after World War I. By the mid 20's, Alfred P. Sloan, Jr. of General Motors used the term "Management by Objectives and Self Control" systematically with great conceptual clarity. In the public sector the basic concepts were also strongly advocated by Luther Gulick and his associates in the mid and late 30's in their studies of the organization and administration of the Federal Government (10). Certainly today, as in the beginning, employee involvement seems to have become more popular among the large multinational conglomerates than it is among the smaller high-tech firms. It is more discussed as a tool of the large, rapidly expanding, high technology-type firms (1) (12) (16) (22) (26). Much of the literature on the subject of employee involvement has been limited to big business and large government agencies with conclusions based on a comparative analysis (1) (7) (8) (9) (16) (22) (26). Smaller high-tech firms are not implementing employee involvement for a variety of reasons which include: 1) the belief that EI is a tool that only big business can understand; 2) the belief that it require a staff of specialists that only a large firm can afford; and 3) the lack of perceived need (5) (11). This article dispels the above and points out the benefits a small high-tech firm can derive from an employee involvement program. The objectives of this study were: 1) to generate and evaluate empirical data in order to determine what influence EI would have on members of a high tech firm in the areas of behavior (commitment) of employees (4) (6) (18) (24) (27) (30) (31) and attitudes of these employees toward management (leadership) (10) (21) (25) (27) (28) (29) (30); and 2) to report techniques that were utilized by a consultant in introducing this EI program into a emerging high-tech firm. Employee Involvement -- A Tool of participative Management

An employee involved program is a process whereby a group of workers doing the same or similar work in the same department or work area meet regularly and voluntarily (usually once a week on company time) to discuss problems associated with their jobs. The group's objective is to identify the real cause of a problem and to discover way(s) to eliminate that cause. This process implements the behavioral theories of Maslow and McGregor with the quality concept of Deming. This process is a subset of the broader concept of quality of work life which links productivity, motivation and job satisfaction through recognition of the importance of the employees' perception of their individual work contributions (2) (4) (7) (25) (27) (30) (31). THE BEGINNING GROWTH OF DATA INSTRUMENTS Overview Data Instruments incorporated on April 15, 1984, with the charter to design and market state-of-the-art electronic instrumentation for the personal computer market. Data's success bordered on exceptional. It's net income rose from -$71,000 (1984), -$27,000 (1985), to +$130,000 (1986), +$210,000 (1987), & +$370,000 (1988). Data markets it's products to small portion of the ever-expanding personal computer market, joining a number of manufacturers who are in the "personal instrumentation" business. These companies range from printed circuit broad manufacturers to system manufacturers. Data does not compete directly with any of the current participants but in stead identifies and ills holes in the "personal instrumentation" market. The DM-100 series was Data's first product. This instrument, designed for the APPLE and IBM user, is a printed circuit board plug-in that allows the user to make automated measurements of voltage, resistance,and frequency. The DM-100 is positioned between the traditional approach of interfacing a tabletop DIGITAL MULTIMETER to a computer and low prevision plug-in boards. The DM- 100 is a unique approach to high-precision, automated measurements. The next product was a data display scroller. This product allows a computer user to display data as a continuously scrolling graph on the computer's CRT while the experiment is in process. The present approach is to display data using a graphics controller after all the data has been acquired. Since personal computers are not capable of efficient simultaneous acquisition and display of data, this product will release the computer of the display task and give the user immediate feedback. The APPLE version of this product was released in the first quarter of 1985. Aversion addressing the rest of the market, including IBM, was released in the third quarter of 1985. Marketing The company concentrates on two major personal computers - the APPLE and the IBM PC. There are presently more than 1 million of each of these machines in the field, with APPLE having the original edge due to its greater installation base. IBM has become the standard due to its greater installation base and therefore has become the industry leader. Most technical applications of personal computers are based on one of these two machines. A realistic estimate of the percentage of these machines going to technical application is 20%. Data will be profitable by placing its product in less than 1% of these machines, or less than .2% of the total number of APPLE and IBM personal computers. There are a number of companies marketing add-on data acquisition boards for PC's. They tend to be multichannel analog input-output boards typically for low to medium resolution stimulus/measurement applications. The DM-100 product is unique in the market place, providing a low cost-method of making automated, high-precision measurements of voltage, frequency, of resistance. The current alternative is a systems digital multimeter communicating with a computer via the IEEE-488 instrument base. The cost of such an instrument is typically in the $1000-$2000 range. Additionally, an IEEE-488 interface must

be purchased for the computer at a typical cost of $500, yielding a total system cost of $1500-$2500. Clearly, a plug-in board at $550 is a more cost effective solution. The DM-100 finds applications in any industry making precise measurements of voltage, frequency, or resistance. In the analytical chemistry market, one of the major users of personal computers, the product can be connected to spectrophotometers, flourometers, PH meters, chromatographies, and scales. Another major user of the board will be companies involved in automated test and calibration of instrumentation. This includes the manufacturers of such instrumentation, as well as many electronic service and rental companies. APPLE computers have appeared in medical research laboratories, research hospitals, and universities all across the country. These institutions are using them to automate their experiments as well as to reduce collected data. Typically, they are interested in precision measurements taken from resistance temperature devices (RTD's), various flow and pressure transducers, as well as from low-level analog voltage sources. A key requirement for applications is that the equipment be electronically isolated. Since most of the available data acquisition boards are neither isolated nor precise, this is a key selling advantage for Data's boards. The company advertises in industry tarde journals such as American Laboratory, Instruments and Apparatus News, Electronic Design, laboratory Equipment, Physics Today, and Byte Magazine. Leads generated from theses advertisements are followed by Data's representatives. Advertising consists of 2/3-pages, 2-color ads enhanced by a two-color product brochure and multi-page Product Description to provide additional product information. Advertising will become more intense as sales begin to generate cash. Data has four manufacturer's representatives under contract and is actively soliciting more to achieve total domestic representation. Key Personnel One of the principle founders of Data Instruments, Inc. was James J. Flower. Flower developed his initial expertise in electronics while working for Gould Inc. (Instruments Division) in Cleveland from 1977-1978 as a design engineer. At Gould, Flower was responsible for the design and production of a system named "speed gage", a multi-capacitive transducer and microprocessor electronically controlled gaging system. Flower the moved to Gilford Instrument Laboratories in Cleveland from october 1978 until April 1984. Gilford manufactures and markets spectrophotometer based instrumentation. The two main categories of products are research and clinical chemistry analyzers. The design of these products utilizes the knowledge and effort of chemical, electronic, mechanical, and software engineering. Flower had total electronic responsibility for four major systems. Flower's educational background is an engineering degree from Cleveland State University in 1976. Roy W. Hart, the other principal founder, also developed a wide range of experience at Gould from 1976 through April 1984. hart moved through the levels of application engineer, design engineer, senior design engineer, and product manager. In the latter position, Hart was responsible for all market and business aspects of assigned products, including market research and analysis, business planning, marketing/engineering, coordination, and new product introduction. Hart's education includes an engineering degree from the University of Dayton in 1976, and an <.B.A. from Case Western Reserve in 1983. Flower's insight into the expanding opportunities of computer application in the instrumentation field ignited the entrepreneurial thrust that resulted in his convincing Hart to combine their talents in to the Data venture. Planning for the Future at Data Both Flower and Hart were pleased with positive cash flow in 1987, but they were concerned with maintaining, the innovative open climate among employees that both identified as Data's competitive strength. In 1987 they retained the services of a consultant to implement an Employment Involvement program.

METHODOLOGY Sample The firm in this study is a high-tech company in northeast Ohio with annual sales of nearly $3.2 million and total employment of thirty six full-time and twelve part-time employees. Only twenty two full-time employees participated in the program and the study. These twenty two employees were with the firm at least one year which included a four month training period and the first eight months of the employee involvement program. The remaining fourteen employees had less than one year with the firm and were not included in the training and/or implementation of the program. Questionnaire data were collected from the same twenty two members for two time periods: pre-employee involvement phase and postemployee involvement phase. All individuals were involved in the use of EI training conducted prior to initiation of the program. Nine respondents were male and thirteen female with the breakdown according to the three organizational levels and types of work (line - staff) as follows: two top-level line; one top-level staff; eight middlelevel line; four middle-level staff; two lower- level line and four lower-lever staff. Procedure The researcher worked directly with the respondents which included a four month employee involvement program. The study was approved and supported by top management, questionnaires were distributed by and returned to the researcher (who had no affiliation with the firm) and the results remained anonymous. The model utilized for the procedural section of the study contained the following phases: Interview Phase During this phase the researcher attempted to develop a non- threatening environment, thrust, confidentiality, openness, and rapport. Members were informed that all responses were anonymous; no one within the organization would see individual questionnaires; only aggregate data would be included in the feedback phase; and individuals not willing to complete the questionnaire were not required to do so. The Researcher A. Explained to employees at each level of the organization the managements's goods, i.e. 1)to determine what problems existed in the organization as perceived by members at each level through use of questionnaire 2)to generate options 3)to recommend solutions 4)to implement change B. Explained the questionnaire to members, responded to questions regarding the questionnaire, his role, etc.; C. Explained the necessity for objectivity in responding to the questionnaire. Data Gathering Phase This was the sole responsibility of the researcher. Respondents were instructed to complete the questionnaire at home and return by inter-office mail. Questionnaires were completed for the pre- employee involvement training phase (T1 Fall 1988) and the postemployee involvement implementation phase (T2 Fall 1989) by the same sixty-two respondents. Again, anonymity was emphasized; respondents were not required to sign the questionnaires. Analysis of Data Phase Conducted independently by both the researcher and members of top management of the firm. Implementation Phase

This phase was the sole responsibility of the researcher with administrative support. In this study the implementation phase consisted of 12 three-hour sessions conducted over a four-month period in which the principles and concepts of a successful employee involvement program were explained to three separate groups consisting of members from all three levels of the firm. Feedback Phase Results of both the pre-employee involvement questionnaire and the post-employee involvement questionnaire were discussed individually with each participating member of the organization and the researcher. In addition, the researcher was available for open- ended types of individual sessions which were conducted in confidence. (See Figure I). FIGURE I PRECEDURAL MODEL INTERVIEW PHASE LEVEL I LEVEL II LEVEL III Developing Climate for Researcher Development of Trust. Confidentiality. Non-threatening Environment DATA GATHERING PHASE Pre Survey (T1) By Researcher Post Survey (T2) DATA ANALYSIS PHASE Analysis of Data by Analysis of Data by Researcher Top Management Joint Analysis of Data by Top Management and Researcher IMPLEMENTATION PHASE Implememtation of EI Program FEEDBACK PHASE Pre Survey Feedback of Resources Post Survey Pre and Post Surveys 1.a. What were problems ? What changes occurred ? MEASUREMENTS OF VARIABLES A modification of the Likert questionnaire (17) (18) per Melcher (21) was utilized with the scale expanded from one to nine. In addition to being used in Likert's own work, the original instrument has been employed in recent evaluations of O.D. Programs (13) and a human relations program (14). Behavioral dimensions were measured as follows: individual behavior as measured by job involvement, work-goal commitment and sense of achievement; intra- group behavior lateral (behavior among co-workers), as measured by confidence and trust, job-related communications and cooperation patterns; intra-group behavior vertical (behavior between leader and subordinates), as measured by trust, flow of requested information, communication screening and acceptance of decisions of immediate superior; intergroup relations lateral (behavior between work groups), as measured by confidence and trust, interaction patterns and cooperation. The dimensions of attitudes of subordinates toward managers (leadership) were measured as follows: representation (superior emphasizing either need os subordinates or needs of higher management); interaction (close relationships between superior and subordinates); standards (amount of shared responsibilities in setting standards); goals (shared responsibilities in setting goals); participation (in decisions directly related to task performance); direction (close to no direction from superior); rule enforcement (strict to loose adherence); and motivation (use of rewards vs. sanctions). FINDING/IMPACT OF THE INTERVENTION PROCESS Table I indicates that there were significant changes in four of the eight dimensions of attitude of employees toward management (leadership measured). Changes in one dimension, goals, was significant at the .01 level and standard participation and motivation were significant at the .10 level using the t-test. The change in representation, interaction and direction and rule enforcement were found to be insignificant.

Table I also indicates that there were significant changes in five of the fourteen behavioral dimensions measured (all at the .10 level). Within the category of individual behavior the dimension of work goal commitment increased significantly (.10 level) from the pre- space to the post-employee involvement program. In the category of intra-group behavior lateral, again only one of the dimensions, cooperation patterns, increased (.10 level). Of the five dimensions measured within the category of intra-group behavior one was significant at the .10 level. This was trust upward. The changes in the dimension of cooperation within, the category of intergroup relations lateral, was found to be significant at the .10 level. Confidential trust and interaction patterns were found to be insignificant. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Hopefully this paper has described, through a longitudinal approach, both the influence of a consultant's intervention and the use of an employee involvement program has had on a small high tech firm. Evidently the original climated created by Flower and Hart was very employee oriented since four of the eight dimensions of attitude of employees toward management indicated any change in the post EI time period and one at the .01 level. That dimension being, not surprisingly, goals. Further evidence that the Ei climate in was unusually employee oriented was the response to the fourteen behavioral dimensions. Five dimensions changed significantly and all at the .10 level. Hopefully, the EI program will continue to maintain a productive climate. This study also reported techniques that were utilized by the consultant in introducing employee involvement into a small high firm; techniques that are affordable to this type of firm. Obviously, some of the positive effects described above are a result of the introduction of the employee involvement program. However, there is no attempt to isolate the specific causal factors due to the limitations of the methodology utilized in this study. Of course, the findings of this research are generally limited to the research setting described; however, generalizations could be derived from more broadly-based research settings that could support, modify or refute the findings of this study. TABLE 1 PROFILE OF CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ORGANIZATIONS(a) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Characteristics of the Organization Pre E1 Post E1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- LEADERSHIP (Managers) Representation (superior representing 6.16 6.70*** either needs of subordinates or needs of higher management) Interaction (between superior and subordinates) 6.30 6.40*** Standards (amount of shared responsibilities 5.40 7.20*** in setting standards) Goals (shared responsibilities in setting goals) 4.10 6.85* Participation (in decision making) 5.15 6.68** Direction (close vs. no direction from superior) 5.85 6.15*** Rule Enforcement (strict vs. loose 5.75 6.25*** adherence to rules) Motivation (use of rewards vs. sanctions) 6.25 7.10** BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS -- INDIVIDUALS Jobs Involvement 5.70 6.30*** Work-Goal Commitment 6.45 6.00*** Sense of Achievement 7.45 7.55*** BEHAVORIAL PATTERNS -- INTRA-GROUP LATERAL (among co-workers) Confidence and Trust 5.70 7.00*** Job-Selected Communications 6.45 6.00*** Cooperation Patterns 5.10 7.00*** BEHAVORIAL PATTERNS -- INTRA-GROUP VERTICAL (Between Leader and Subordinates) Trust Downward 5.40 5.95*** Trust Upward 6.45 6.00*** Flow of Requested Information Upward 5.40 6.00*** Communication Screening 7.28 7.20*** Acceptance of Immediate superior's Decisions 4.42 5.00*** INTERGROUP RELATIONS LATERAL (Between Work Groups) Confidence and Trust 6.20 6.78*** Interaction

Patterns 5.20 7.00*** Cooperation 5.45 6.95*** ---------------------------------------------------------------- * Significant at the .01 level ** Significatn at the .10 level *** Not Significant (a) Questionnaire and continuous (see below) used in this research are modifications taken from Structure and Process of Organizations: A Systems Approach, Arlyn J. Meloner. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976, Appendix A,. pp. 435-445. 1--------to-----------9 Low High REFERENCES (1) Adams, Tom, "Wierton Steel Bets on Quality", Quality, 23, No. 4, April 1984, 23-25. (2) Bretz, R.D. and Dreher, F.F., "Individual Group of Organizationally Oriented Personal Systems: Implications for Staffing the High-Technology Firm", Proceedings, Managing the High-Tech Firm, 1988, pp.2-8. (3) Burke, R.D. and Wilcox, D.S., "Characteristics of Effective Performance Review", Personnel Psychology, 22 (1969), 291- 305. (4) Cascio, W.F., "Strategic Human Resource Management in High Technology Industry, " Proceedings, Managing the High- Technology Firm, 1988, pp. 9-18. (5) Cash, Bill, "Quality Circles: Should We or Shouldn't We?" Quality, 23, No. 12 (December), 48-49. (6) Chesser, R.J., "The Development of Change Models of MBO Reflecting Moderator Effects of Personality Characteristics", Proceedings 33rd Academy of Management, 1973, pp. 389-394. (7) Dailey, John J., Jr., Kagerer, Rudolph L., "A Primer on Quality Circles", Supervisory Management, 27, No. 6 (June 1982), 40-43. (8) Dale, B.G., and Hayward, S.G., "Some of the Reasons for Quality Circle Failure: Part 1", Leadership and Organization Development Journal (UK), 5, No. 1 (1984), pp. 11-16. (9) DuLuca, Mike, "Employee Involvement in Management", Management quarterly, 15, No. 4 (Winter 1983), pp. 5-8. (10) Drucker, P.F., "What Results Should You Expect? A User's Guide to MBO", Public Administration Review, No. 1 (January/February 1976), 12-13. (11) Francis, G. James, "MBO and the Small Organization", American Journal of Small Business, 1 (July 1976), pp. 16. (12) Gibson, W. David, "Employee Involvement Teams Ring Olin's Bell", Chemical Week, 136, No. 26 (June 26, 1985), 95. (13) Golembiewski, R. T. and Carrigan, S.B., The Persistence of Laboratory-Induced Changes in Organizational Styles", Administrative Science Quarterly, 15 (1970), pp. 330-340. (14) Hand, H.M., Richards, M.D., and Slocum, J.W., Fr., "Organizational Climate and the Effectiveness of a Human Relations Training Program" Academy of Management Journal, 16 (1973), 185-195. (15) Hanley, Joseph, "Our Experience With Quality Progress", 13 (February 1980), pp. 22-24. (16) Haskew, Michael, "Management and Quality Circles: Communicating and Cooperating", Quality Circles Journal, 8, No. 2 (June 1985), pp. 16-19. (17) Ishikawa, Kaoru, "The Cause and Effect Diagram", Quality Circles: Application, Tools, and Theory (Milwaukee: American Society for Quality Control, 1976).

(18) Klein, Janice A., "Why Supervisors Resist Employee Involvement" Harvard Business Review, 62, No. 5 (September/October 1984), pp. 87-95. (19) Likert, R., New Patterns of Management (New York: McGraw- Hill, 1961). (20) Likert, R., The Human Organization (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967). (21) Litwin, G.H. and Stringer, R.H., Motivation and Organizational Climate (Boston: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1968). (22) Marchington, Mick, "Opinion: Industrial Relations- Involvement and Intervention", Management Decision (UK), 21 No. 1 (1983), pp. 22-30. (23) Melcher, A.J., Structure and Process of Organizations: A Systems Approach (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, 1976). (24) Meyer, H.H., Kay, E., and French, J., "Split Roles in Performance Appraised", Harvard Business Review, 43, No. 1 (1965), pp. 123-129. (25) Nave, James L., "Z: From Theory to Practice", Management World, 12, No. 4 (May 1983) pp, 10-12. (26) O'Dell, Carla, "Changes in Pay and Benefits Spur Productivity", Canadian Business Review, No. 1 (Spring 1984), pp. 15-17. (27) Quible, Zane K., "Quality Circles: A Well-Rounded Approach to Employee Involvement", Management World, 10. No. 9 (September 1981), pp. 10-11. (28) Schneider, B., and Bartlett, C. J., "Individual Differences and Organizational Climate", Personnel Psychology, 21 (1968), pp. 323-333. (29) Werther, William B., Jr., "Out of the Productivity Box", Business Horizons, 25, No. 5 (September/October 1982), pp. 51-59. (30) Werther, William B., Jr., "Productivity Improvement Through People" Arizona Business, 28, No. 2 (February 1981), pp. 14- 19. (31) Werther, William B., Jr., "Quality Circles: Key Executive Issues", Journal of Contemporary Business, 11, No. 2 (1982), pp. 17-26.

25.pdf

IN A SMALL HIGH-TECHNOLOGY FIRM .... the levels of application engineer, design engineer, senior design engineer, and product ... Displaying 25.pdf.

75KB Sizes 2 Downloads 242 Views

Recommend Documents

No documents