The impact of organizational change on ...

human relations

The impact of organizational change on steelworkers in craft and production occupational groups

human relations 63(8) 1223–1248 © The Author(s) 2010 Reprints and permission: sagepub. co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0018726709356599 hum.sagepub.com

Nick Bacon

Nottingham University, UK

Paul Blyton

Cardiff University, UK

Ali Dastmalchian University of Victoria, Canada

Abstract This article examines the impact of organizational change on different occupational groups in the steel industry. In difficult financial circumstances and resulting pressure to downsize, a move to new forms of team-based working, in combination with staffing reductions, led to differential effects on craft and production occupational groups. Job satisfaction declined as a result of these changes with production workers reporting work intensification, while craft workers joining production teams reported skills under-utilization and reduced commitment to the organization. The existing occupational distribution of knowledge, skills and abilities led to the creation of multi-skilled production teams rather than developing teams of multi-skilled workers.The results clearly demonstrate the importance of understanding the limits imposed on new work arrangements such as teamworking by financial pressures and the occupational structure of the traditional labour process. In particular, the article highlights the significance of occupation in understanding how people experienced the work changes that occurred. Keywords change, downsizing, industrial relations, job design, occupations, teamworking

Corresponding author: Nick Bacon, Nottingham University Business School, University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

1224

Human Relations 63(8)

Introduction In response to increased global market pressures, over the last 30 years many organizations have introduced large-scale restructuring initiatives to reduce labour costs and increase productivity. In North America and Europe this has often involved seeking to develop work systems that, at least in part, attempt to reverse the highly specialized division of labour whereby work is segmented into clearly defined tasks, requiring narrow skills, and discrete occupational roles (Kern and Schumann, 1984). A number of studies have noted various positive outcomes, such as improved productivity, job quality and motivation, potentially stemming from the introduction of team-based forms of working and related job design changes (Adler, 1993; Appelbaum et al., 2000; Hackman and Oldham, 1980; Hunter et al., 2002). Other studies, however, have noted that organizations often redesign work organization alongside downsizing and staffing reductions (Osterman, 1994), and as a result workers often gain relatively little from these changes (Godard, 2004; Osterman, 2000). Work reorganization in such circumstances may extend and supplement traditional hierarchical management control (Ezzamel and Willmott, 1998) which, combined with lean staffing, may lead to increased stress as workers become more responsible for meeting quality and output targets on the shop-floor (Barker, 1993; Graham, 1995). As a result, work systems involving broader jobs and teamworking are not thought to change the relations of production, reduce the vertical division of labour, or to transcend antagonism between employers and labour where it is present (Coupland et al., 2005; Kelly and Kelly, 1991; Vallas, 2003). In his ethnographic analysis of the introduction of teamworking in manufacturing plants, for example, Vallas (2003) shows that in practice the extension of authority to workers in teams was highly restricted, creating tensions and highlighting contradictions in the organization of work, rather than diminishing them. Restructuring thus often results in limited changes to the division of labour and falls some way short of workplace transformation (Appelbaum and Batt, 1994; Edwards et al., 2006). This may occur because managers focus on improving efficiency by increasing worker effort and reducing the numbers of supervisory personnel, rather than engaging in extensive job redesign in order to boost operational effectiveness (Taplin, 2006). This propensity of managers to focus on efficiency savings is perhaps most likely where financial pressures require immediate cost reductions, and appears to be the most widely adopted approach given that many firms restructure as an imperative for organizational survival, introducing new working practices alongside workforce reductions (Osterman, 2000). In such circumstances it may not be possible to provide workers with the skills needed to operate more extensively beyond traditional job and occupational boundaries. Workers may not view as positive such changes as teamworking introduced to facilitate staffing reductions and to increase work effort. More generally, downsizing and job reductions create an unfavourable climate for participation initiatives and worker empowerment (Edwards et al., 1998). Most studies of teamworking initiatives to date have concentrated on the impacts on the vertical division of labour between supervisory tasks and the performance of work activities. Vallas (2003) for example, in his study of how teamworking impacted on worker attitudes and jobs in the US paper and pulp industry, concentrates on production workers and any changes teamworking had on the boundary between the ‘hourly paid’ production workforce and ‘salaried’ employees (managers, supervisors and engineers). Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

1225

Bacon et al.

Certain studies have noted that changes in work organization may have differential effects on managerial and non-managerial groups. For example, Batt (2004) reported different effects of teamworking on workers, supervisors and managers in the same organization. However, by largely considering all non-supervisory employees as a single category (‘workers’), neither Batt nor Vallas explore the occupational distinctions existing within that workforce. Yet, as we explain in the next section, the study of shop-floor occupations may help to further understand the limits to workplace transformation.

Occupations and work reorganization When considering the effects of work reorganization on employee attitudes and behaviours, occupational difference as a potentially important factor is generally overlooked. This reflects a broader disconnection between the study of organizations and occupations identified by several authors (Barley, 1996; Lawrence, 1998; Loundsbury and Kaghan, 2001). Despite this neglect, we suggest occupational position is important for understanding workplace change, and workers’ attitudes towards these changes, not least because the existing distribution of knowledge, skills and abilities of workers in different occupational groups may affect the redesign of work (Kochan et al., 1999). Managers are likely to restructure work partly around traditional operational precepts (Taplin, 2006), not least because the financial pressures forcing changes to working practices will also limit the extent to which the traditional occupational division of labour might be successfully changed through re-training and development programmes. Existing occupational boundaries impose limits on the flexibility and mobility of employees and create selection, training and deployment dilemmas when managers change job descriptions and reorganize work (Kochan et al., 1999). The extent to which traditional occupational divisions of labour can be overcome is likely to determine the extent to which work might be transformed and the changes welcomed by employees. These issues are most prominent in the many recent work reorganization initiatives seeking to encourage employees to work flexibly across previous occupational boundaries, to de-emphasize occupational difference, and to develop more generic and less occupationally specialized employees who are adaptable and conduct a range of tasks. The demise of traditional craft apprenticeships in the UK and elsewhere, the increased emphasis on flexibility via multi-skilling and broader job boundaries have in combination reduced the distinctiveness of occupational groups. The influence of occupation will potentially be particularly strong where the changes to work organization fundamentally alter existing occupational structures and roles. This is nowhere more evident than in the development of team structures alongside workforce reductions. Working in teams involves a rearrangement of work performance and occupational roles with a potential reduction in the division of labour (Procter and Mueller, 2000). The connotations of re-arranging the way work is organized, changing hierarchies of authority and responsibility and altering the nature of inter-employee relationships, suggest that in any given situation, teamworking is likely to have a significant impact upon the occupational structure, the work process, and attitudes of employees. We suggest that employee attitudes towards work reorganization initiatives to improve productivity may also reflect the heterogeneous effects of these changes on occupational groups. For example, changes to create more flexible and team-based working, often Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

1226

Human Relations 63(8)

introduced as part of broader attempts to downsize organizations, may have different implications for the role of craft and production workers, or manual and non-manual employees in manufacturing sites (Bowen, 1976). Thus workplace change initiatives will be perceived by employees partly in relation to their occupational position, with different occupational roles and positions giving rise to different views on the effects of change. The horizontal division of labour has also traditionally been used as a basis for job control unionism, whereby trade unions representing different occupations pursue sectional interests (Fiorito and Jarley, 2008). This entails unions seeking to protect their members from redundancy, and also from work intensification, as well as bargaining for wage increases in return for changes or expansion in job roles. Occupationally based unions may therefore influence management decisions on work redesign and negotiate the terms by which change is introduced. The extent to which unions representing each occupational group are successful in this process is likely to affect how different groups of workers perceive the changes. Furthermore, the need to balance the sectional interests of occupational unions may impose restrictions on the extent to which employers increase worker flexibility. In order to explore the potential contribution of an occupational analysis to help understand workplace restructuring, this article examines the impact of work reorganization involving the introduction of work teams alongside a significant downsizing programme across two steelworks. The move to teamworking had profound implications for the extant occupational structure, and had differential impacts on craft and production workers. In particular, the changes introduced reflected limitations imposed by the knowledge, skills and abilities embedded in the traditional occupational division of labour. The article highlights the limitations that the traditional occupational division of labour appears to impose on workplace transformation in firms restructuring for survival.

Organizational restructuring in steel Historically, steelworks have operated with a stable segmented form of social and occupational structure with technologically differentiated departments run by production teams and serviced by offline maintenance teams (for a typical description, see Miller and Rice, 1967). Although the introduction of new computer technologies weakened traditional task boundaries from the late 1970s onwards, units and occupations continued to retain important aspects of their independence. The separateness of production and maintenance occupational groups has been reinforced in a number of ways (Blyton and Bacon, 1997). For example, in Britain the two groups maintained separate trade union representation (the main production union being the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation [ISTC] now Community, with the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union [AEEU], now Unite, as the main craft union). In addition, working time patterns of the two groups were significantly different, with almost all production workers working shifts, compared with a much smaller proportion of maintenance craftsmen engaged on shiftwork. Further, two traditional sources of tension have long characterized the maintenanceproduction difference in the steel industry. First, while most craft workers reached their maximum earnings relatively early in their career (once they had become fully qualified having served their apprenticeship), for many semi-skilled process workers their earnings continued to rise as they progressed through seniority promotion systems (Blyton and Bacon, 1997). This ascendancy through seniority hierarchies, coupled with their greater Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

1227

Bacon et al.

access to overtime and shift supplements, meant that the earnings of many senior production workers were typically higher than similarly aged/experienced craft worker counterparts. A second source of tension has been widespread attitudes towards workload/work intensity disparities – that while process work was continuous, maintenance craft activities were more periodic, with periods of intense work, for example in response to breakdowns, interspersed with periods of less work activity. Indeed, it was this recognition of maintenance workers spending significant time ‘in the cabin’ (rest room) rather than out in the works that has been one factor prompting management in the steel industry to seek an increase in craft worker utilization through the development of teamworking. The development of teamworking in the industry in recent years has generally entailed former occupational hierarchies based on seniority for semi-skilled process workers, together with the distinction between craft and production workers, being replaced by a system based on management selection of team leaders and the integration of many former maintenance craft workers into production teams. Teams may become responsible for all aspects of production, together with inspection, day-to-day maintenance and resolving the majority of breakdowns in their areas. While working in teams involves significant change for the production workers – notably an ending of the seniority system – in many respects the actual work practices involved under teamworking have a number of similarities with the former work crew system that production workers operated in the past, though the crews were far more stratified in terms of seniority. For the craft workers, however, teamworking in steel has been a much more root-and-branch change, with many former craft workers joining production crews, moving on to a shiftwork pattern and expected to engage in production activities rather than concentrate solely on maintenance work within the team. The potential main benefit of teamworking for many craft workers is an opportunity to increase their earnings and improve their opportunities for promotion to team leader and beyond.

Method The research sites In 1998 we commenced a longitudinal investigation into the negotiation and introduction of a major work reorganization programme at two large UK steelworks forming the Constructional and Industrial Steels business of Corus, at the time an Anglo-Dutch iron and steel manufacturer. The works at Teesside and Scunthorpe share a common senior management team and are similar large integrated facilities in the north of England with respective steel producing capacities of 3.5 and 4.5 million tonnes per annum. Steel-making at Teesside dates back to 1850 and to 1904 on the Scunthorpe site. Both works are major integrated operations processing iron in blast furnaces, and converting iron to steel, which is continuously cast into semi-finished slabs which are then further processed in on-site rolling mills. Reflecting difficult trading conditions, overcapacity and the high value of sterling, Corus recorded significant operating losses from 1988 to 2004 with the share price falling from £1.70 to £0.17. The resulting plan to introduce teamworking alongside a substantial cut in workforce numbers represented the largest work restructuring programme within the company for several decades. The introduction of teamworking in all departments involved widespread changes in job content and job grades, as part of an ongoing process of downsizing and restructuring. Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

1228

Human Relations 63(8)

An initial attempt to introduce teamworking in the early 1990s at the Teesside works had failed due to disputes over payment. Recognizing that work restructuring and staffing reductions had become essential to attract further investment, prolong the future of the sites, and increase the profitability of Corus, unions conceded that change was necessary and in 1998 signed ‘Teamworking Enabling Agreements’. These agreements established the overall earnings and redundancy guidelines for introducing teamworking. Managers insisted the changes must be self-financing, and wages could not increase, with wages in each team set by a weighted averaging system based upon the mean of earnings of jobs moved into the team. In return, team members previously earning above this level would have their earnings protected (‘red circled’). As a result, craft workers moving into teams could increase their earnings and production workers would have their earnings protected. A voluntary redundancy and early retirement programme aimed for a 20 percent reduction in staffing without resort to compulsory redundancies.

Data collection, measures and analysis Data collection The research data collection and fieldwork comprised three main elements with identical methods used to collect matched data. First, extensive documentary analysis was undertaken of departmental documents relating to teamwork structures. This included work study documents (termed Key Task Analysis) produced in a standard format by joint management-union groups in each of the 21 departments (21 documents in total) detailing staffing, job descriptions and utilization levels prior to teams, and staffing and job description details in the teams created. Second, a structured interview programme was conducted with managers and union representatives directly involved in introducing the changes at works level and in each department (47 interviews in total). The third component of the fieldwork assessed the impact of the changes on employees via two large-scale attitude surveys undertaken in 1999 (immediately prior to the start of introducing teams and staffing reductions) and in 2002 (following completion of changes in all departments). The company supplied the home addresses of all Corus employees working at the two plants. In 1999, a survey distribution of 9000 resulted in 2802 replies, a response rate of 31 percent. In 2002 (and following a significant reduction in workforce totals at the two works during the intervening period) a distribution of 7041 surveys resulted in 2060 replies, a response rate of 29 percent. A comparison of the two survey sets, together with a comparison with personnel records, indicates that the survey respondents are satisfactorily comparable in terms of response rates for site, department and grade. Thus, in reporting descriptive statistics for combined data, the maximum number of cases is 4862. In terms of the two key occupational groups under study, the 1999 survey included 931 production and 730 craft workers, while the 2002 data (following the introduction of the team structures) had 551 ex-production and 393 ex-craft workers. These occupational numbers will be reflected in the comparisons of the attributes of the two occupational groups in our subsequent analysis. The final data analysis, which uses multiple regression using the 2002 data, will represent 644 workers. It should be noted that even though we collected survey data in 1999 and 2002, the two sets of surveys are not able to be matched by individual respondents, owing to the anonymity of the survey forms. The data are thus not a longitudinal set of responses for the same respondents over the intervening time period. Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

1229

Bacon et al.

Measures and data analysis Both the 1999 and 2002 surveys contained a number of key measures used in this study, which will be explained below. The number of items in each measure, means, standard deviations, ranges and internal consistency reliability estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) for the overall sample and for sub-samples of production and craft workers for the measures, are provided in Table 1. The dependent variables are as follows. A 25-item measure of job satisfaction included the 16-item scale of job satisfaction developed by Warr et al. (1979), and nine items that were designed to address the specific issues in the organization being studied – for example, satisfaction with current rota pattern, current workload, or the effort required to do the job. One item measured overall satisfaction with the job as a whole (‘Taking everything into consideration, how do you feel about your job as a whole?’ with ‘extremely dissatisfied’ scoring 1 and ‘extremely satisfied’ scoring 7). A six-item measure of perceived work pressure was used based on Andries et al. (1996), measured on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (‘never’) to 5 (‘always’). A single-item question measured overall attitude to teamworking (‘strongly in favour’ scoring 5 and ‘strongly against’ scoring 1). A question in the 1999 survey also sought (on a five-point scale) employee views on whether they anticipated that following the introduction of teamworking their job would be much better (scoring 5), slightly better (4), the same (3), slightly worse (2), or much worse (1). We refer to this variable as ‘job impact’. This was repeated in 2002, this time asking whether teamworking had made their job much better, better, and so on (using the same scale as in the 1999 survey). In the second survey this question was accompanied by an additional, open-ended question inviting respondents to explain the ways in which teamworking had made their job better or worse. Five items measured an aspect of organizational commitment relating to ‘pride’ and ‘attachment’ (measured on a seven-point scale with 7 being ‘strongly agree’ and 1 ‘strongly disagree’). Items include ‘I am quite proud to be able to tell people who it is I work for’ and ‘I sometimes feel like leaving this employment for good’. Originally nine items were used from Cook and Wall (1980); exploratory factor analysis and consideration of internal reliability resulted in a five-item measure of commitment. Independent variables included occupation with only craft and production workers used in the analysis. Industrial relations (IR) climate was measured using four items from Dastmalchian et al. (1991) on a five-point scale, with 5 for ‘strongly agree’ and 1 for ‘strongly disagree’. Higher scores refer to a more cooperative and positive IR climate. In order to capture how the nature of jobs has changed (job change) five questions were asked to examine the extent to which various aspects of the employees’ jobs had increased or decreased. In 1999 the respondents were asked to respond to these questions ‘over the past five years’, whereas in 2002 the same questions were directly tied to ‘since the introduction of teamworking’ (items were measured using a five-point scale with 5 for ‘greatly increased’ and 1 for ‘greatly decreased’). Exploratory factor analysis yielded two factors: a) increased security, earnings and morale (called Job Change: More ‘Job Security’) and b) increased threat of subcontracting and job restructuring (called Job Change: More ‘Job Restructuring’). A higher score on ‘job security’ means that the jobs have become more secure, while a higher score on ‘job restructuring’ means that jobs have become more threatened by outsourcing and restructuring. It might be expected that employees would express more positive attitudes if they perceive that the introduction of Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

1230

Human Relations 63(8)

the recent changes had made their jobs more secure, reduced the threat of their jobs being subcontracted, and reduced the extent of the subsequent job restructuring required after the changes had been made. Several further measures assessed team characteristics including team composition (e.g. whether the individual worked in an all craft team or a mixture of production and craft workers); and how often team members rotated jobs and performed maintenance tasks (single items for each, with a five-point scale where 1 was ‘never’ and 5 was ‘several times per shift’). Control variables included location/site, age, shift (e.g. eight hour or 12 hour), tenure and occupational seniority of the respondents; the last to assess whether senior craft or production workers may view joining teams as an effective demotion and hold more negative views of the changes. In addition to reporting the information collected in the interviews and in-depth analysis of company documents, the survey data were analysed using quantitative techniques. Oneway analysis of variance was used to report the differences between the means of various measures between 1999 and 2002 for production and craft workers, and between craft and production workers at each time period. Regression was used to conduct a final overall analysis of examining the impact of various control and independent variables on certain dependent variables (job impact, job satisfaction and commitment) with a clear goal of finding out the occupational differences in these relationships. For this the 2002 data had to be used, as this was the only time period where the impact of organizational change could be assessed (final number for the maximum cases where complete data were available was 644).

Results Team design The work study process in each department (Key Task Analysis) detailed staffing, job descriptions and utilization levels prior to teams. On the basis of this information, managers proposed teams and staffing reductions in each area. The requirement to reduce staffing, the existing division of labour between craft and production work, and the financial restrictions on the training available, all had important effects on the types of teams created. Senior managers discussed creating teams of multi-skilled workers at an early stage. However, rather than developing teams of multi-skilled workers, following the Key Task Analysis, craft workers joined production crews to create multi-skilled teams combining their knowledge, skills and abilities. Each team thereby contained the necessary mechanical and electrical skills, required realistic amounts of retraining in difficult financial circumstances, and increased labour utilization. As a result of the changes, most multiskilled teams would perform maintenance tasks once or twice a week on average, and would rotate jobs approximately once per month. Teams differed slightly across stages of the steel-making process with a number of craft workers (17%) moving into all craft high-level maintenance teams if the numbers of craft duties were sufficient to justify this, or where complex tasks required a small number of employees with dedicated skills. The design of teams also met the unions’ requirements of placing all existing production and craft workers into jobs and, with the help of the voluntary severance and early retirement programmes, staffing was successfully reduced by 20 percent without compulsory redundancies.

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

1 1 1 1

Control variables 14. Ageg 15. Shift: 8-hr shift 16. Tenureh 17. Occupational seniorityi 3.91 0.39 6.39 0.18

0.17 2.28 3.04

0.41 3.46 3.69 2.51

2.45 0.87

4.06 3.90 2.72 3.02

b

N = 4862.Variables are reported here based on the maximum number of cases available for each. One item in work pressure scale has reverse scoring. c Two items in the organizational commitment scale have reverse scoring. d Production = 1, Craft = 2. e 1 = never, 5 = several times per shift. f 1 = never, 5 = several times per shift. g 1 = less than 20 years, 6 = more than 60 years of age. h 1 = less than 1 year, 7 = over 20 years of tenure with company. i 1 = senior craft or production, 0 = junior craft or production.

a

0-1 1-5 1-5

1 1 1 1-6 0-1 1-7 0-1

0-1 1-5 1-5 1-5

1-5 1-7

1 5

1 4 3 2

1-7 1-7 1-5 1-5

16 1 6 1

0.82 0.48 1.13 0.38

0.38 1.39 1.55

0.49 0.83 0.62 0.72

1.20 1.29

0.90 1.38 0.51 1.14

3.80 (0.69) 0.64 (0.47) 6.39 (0.92) 0.01 (0.10)

0.00 (0.00) 2.55 (1.38) 2.80 (1.36)

− − − − − − −

0.00 (0.00) 3.61 (0.79) 3.76 (0.63) 2.45 (0.75)

2.48 (1.23) 0.75 (1.22)

 0.62

− 0.89 0.71 0.72

4.17 (0.83) 3.91 (1.40) 2.65 (0.56) 3.02 (1.18)

Production workers mean (SD)

0.91  0.73 

Number Scale Mean SD Reliability (α) of items

Independent variables   7. Occupationd   8. IR climate   9. Change in job security 10. Change in job restructuring/   Outsourcing 11. Team composition: all craft team 12. Team rotate jobse 13. Team performed maintenance tasksf

Dependent variables   1. Job satisfaction (aggregate)   2. Overall job satisfaction   3. Work pressureb   4. Overall attitude   towards teams   5. Job impact   6. Organizational commitment:   pride & attachmentc

Variables

Table 1  Means, standard deviations and reliability estimates of the variablesa

3.83 (0.87) 0.44 (0.49) 6.58 (0.90) 0.45 (0.48)

0.63 (0.48) 2.13 (1.48) 3.83 (1.50)

1.00 (0.00) 3.58 (0.83) 3.77 (0.64) 2.42 (0.77)

2.27 (1.09) 1.11 (1.32)

4.30 (0.87) 3.52 (1.34) 2.76 (0.48) 2.86 (1.11)

Craft workers mean (SD)

Bacon et al. 1231

1232

Human Relations 63(8)

Overall attitudes to the changes The general level of support for teamworking (whether employees were ‘in favour’ or ‘against’ teamworking, measured on a five-point scale) declined significantly in both craft and production occupational groups over the period that saw the full introduction of the changes (Table 2). In 1999, the mean level of support for teamworking between the two production and craft occupational groups was not significantly different; by 2002, however the difference was significant (t = 2.15, p < .01) with ex-craft workers significantly less favourably disposed toward teamworking compared with their ex-production counterparts. In the 2002 survey, over 40 percent of the ex-production workers were supportive towards teamworking, compared with 30 percent of the ex-craft workers.

Effects of the changes on job quality The deterioration in attitudes towards teamworking reflected the large number of both craft and production workers who perceived that their job had got worse as a result of the changes (Table 2). At both survey points, the feeling among craft workers that their job would get worse/had got worse as a result of the changes was more widespread than among the production worker group. In the 2002 survey for example (after the changes were introduced) 24 percent of production workers perceived their job had got better as a result of the changes, compared with 14 percent of craft workers. Among the 54 percent of production workers in 2002 who perceived their job had got worse as a result of the changes, the overwhelming reason given for this was the greater effort now required owing to the reduction in manpower that had occurred alongside the introduction of teamworking. For example, the Key Task Analysis at the BOS (basic oxygen steel-making) department identified a labour utilization level of 75 percent before reorganizing employees into four process teams, and moving from two to a single control room, allowing a reduction from 237 to 210 employees. As a result of these changes a Table 2  Production and craft workers’ overall attitude to the introduction of the changes and job impact as a result of change: 1999 and 2002 surveys Overall attitude

1999 survey 2002 survey

Mean SD Mean SD

Job impact: Jobs will be/are better or worse t value 1999 survey

2002 survey

t value

1999– Mean SD Mean SD 2002

1999– 2002

Production 3.20 1.27 3.02 1.18 2.73** 2.89 1.33 2.48 workers (n = 917/545) Craft workers 3.09 1.17 2.86 1.12 3.16** 2.57 1.26 2.27 (n = 723/386) t value 1.92 2.15** 4.95*** 2.71** productioncraft

1.23 5.86*** 1.09 3.97***

**p < .01; ***p < .001. Note: responses on a five-point scale ranging from ‘strongly in favour’ (5) to ‘strongly against’ (1). Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

1233

Bacon et al.

production worker reported that teamworking had made his job much worse owing to ‘more work under pressure’. At the Coke Ovens a production worker now rotating jobs on a weekly basis in a team of six felt teamworking had made his job much worse, commenting ‘Teamworking has done away with manpower making the job harder and less safe’. A production worker with similar views simply commented that as a result of the changes he was ‘doing more work for the same pay’, and another production worker in the Heavy Section Mill commented ‘the manning levels in my team are inadequate. This means the workloads have increased with very tight deadlines. This combined with lack of job security makes the job very stressful.’ In the same mill, another production worker in a team of four felt his job had got slightly worse: ‘The job has got worse with three jobs to keep going and not having the manpower to cover.’ To take another departmental example, the Beam Mill created 11 teams including a straightening team of nine team members covering nine tasks (straightening, pulpit operation, stocktaking, crane driving, quality control, lubrication, mechanical, electrical and engineering work) formerly undertaken by 13 employees with 13 different former job titles (for example, ‘straightner’, ‘feeder’, ‘marker checker’ and ‘crane driver’). A production worker commented that as a result it had become necessary to rotate between jobs several times a shift, but he was very dissatisfied with manning levels and the level of safe working procedures in the team, arguing that there was now ‘less attention to quality and more production pressure’. However, rather than work intensification reflecting the reductions in workforce numbers, a distinct set of factors was evident among the three-fifths (60%) of craft workers who perceived that their job had got worse as a result of the changes. Two of these factors were particularly prominent in comments. The first was a feeling that learned skills were being lost because of not being sufficiently utilized within the new teamworking structure. In the Blast Furnaces, for example, a new team created in the operations area of the blast furnace involved 14 team members covering the 11 production tasks (for example, crane driving, slag process duties, mechanical and electrical engineering) undertaken by 19 workers previously (with seven job titles such as ‘keeper’ and ‘waterman’). A craftsman moved into the production team was not able to rotate between production jobs, was called on to perform maintenance tasks once or twice a week, and was particularly dissatisfied with his duties and the job rotation arrangements, commenting: ‘I have been de-skilled. A tradesman doing a labourer’s job . . . Craftsmen have had a raw deal’. A former craft colleague who moved into another production team in the same department did rotate jobs once or twice a week and also had to perform maintenance tasks once per shift. Explaining why his job had become worse under teamworking he commented: I used to be pro-active, now I just do my job. I used to be a skilled craftsman, now I’m just a number. I took a pay increase to join the production team, but I’m still paid less than them [due to red circling] and they do not have my level of qualifications. It is not recognized what I can do for the firm . . . my job has changed completely. I used to be proud of the fact that I was responsible for repair and maintenance of the blast furnaces. Now I sit in the casthouse, doing mundane tasks that could be done by anyone with a week’s training. I am occasionally asked to do repairs in a pressure situation but I don’t have the back-up I used to enjoy. For example, I don’t have access to the computers to locate spares. I’ve now got no respect from other people as my job has been ‘dumbed down’. I’m paid the same rate as a new starter in the team but less than the other team members . . . Other team members are doing the same job they have always done. Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

1234

Human Relations 63(8)

Other craft workers similarly complained: ‘No longer use skills that I was trained for’; ‘Lost my craft skills’; ‘My electrical skills have dropped. Stuck in a 10 foot by 10 foot box doing dead end production job for 12 hours’; and ‘I did a four year apprenticeship to become a knob pusher.’ The second distinct factor identified by the craft workers related to perceived inequities in the way teamworking operated in practice. In particular, craft workers saw themselves as being called upon to shoulder responsibility for maintenance activities and breakdowns when they occurred and then return to production at other times. This they contrasted with production workers in the team who were seen to take very little part in maintenance/breakdown activities. Even though training had been provided for production workers in basic mechanical and electrical areas to provide assistance to the skilled mechanical and electrical craftsmen in the teams, this training was seen as inadequate to be of any real use. The upshot as perceived by craft workers was that their own responsibilities had increased significantly (to fulfil maintenance tasks, supervise men supposedly assisting them in that task, but not in practice doing so, and undertake production work), which they contrasted with production workers who not only were seen to have fewer responsibilities in the team, but – as a result of earnings guarantees agreed as part of the move to teamworking – were in some cases being paid at a higher rate than the craftsmen moving into teams. For example, at the Beam Mill described above, a craftsman explained: As a shift electrician I am constantly on call, responsible for switching and immobilizations, attend breakdowns, responsible for maintenance and repairs subject to pressure from production superiors, required to perform production duties and I am paid less than everybody in the mill!! . . . There is no doubt I am the busiest member of my team. Maintenance, repairs, switching, immobilizations, breakdowns and production tasks ensure I rarely have a quiet shift . . . The reason for my low morale is simply rate of pay. I am the most qualified member of my team, I have the longest service in my team, I have the most responsible job in my team. I work if the mill is rolling or stopped (as opposed to pure operators who work only when the mill is rolling) and I am the lowest paid member of my team. I enjoy my job but the terrible injustice and unfairness of the whole situation is infuriating and depressing . . . As we stand at present I am hoping for a plant closure so I can take my redundancy and move to a firm where my skills and talents are appreciated. This can be the only firm in industry where semi-skilled men are paid greatly in excess of their skilled counterparts.

Other quotes summarizing similar craft worker perceptions included the following: Leading a team in maintenance work who have no mechanical skills through lack of training or who are not interested in assisting. I am now expected to do more production tasks as a fitter previously. I find I get no help on the mechanical side from production though! As a former craftsman, more work, more responsibility i.e. for welfare of former production men. In short, like most ex-craftsmen I have more responsibility, more work, more onus on us than ex production men, but get paid the same.

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

1235

Bacon et al.

More pressure, increased workload. No job rotation and help from other team members. All the work is one way, I do all theirs and there is no reciprocal help. I now have got two jobs, one man’s pay and no say. As the only electrically skilled team member I have no assistance from others. An electrical breakdown means I am the only one working and my ‘team-mates’ do nothing. When team-mates get a break in production I have to go to other jobs that have been piling up while I have been doing the production side of my job. This happens to ‘craftsmen’ but not the ‘original’ production workers.

Other issues raised by the ex-craft workers included a greater sense of isolation (often individuals were the only craft worker in a team, and as a result were often working alone), a loss of independence, and an inadequacy of training (leading in a number of cases to a feeling that health and safety levels have declined; see below).

Work pressure The introduction of teamworking, alongside the significant decline in workforce totals, resulted in a perceived increase in work pressure among many remaining employees. As Table 3 shows, this increase in work pressure was reported particularly by production workers, with five out of the six survey items relating to work pressure recording a significant increase between 1999 and 2002. Among the craft workers, perceived work pressure before and after the changes showed less marked change. All six items recorded an increase in work pressure over the time period, but only one of these – the frequency of mental tiredness – reached statistical significance in the craft worker group. The final columns in Table 3 show that production workers were more likely than craft workers to report working under a great deal of pressure and mental tiredness only after the change to teamworking (2002 survey), with craft workers less likely to report having enough time to get work done both before and after the introduction of teamworking.

Job satisfaction Given the foregoing pattern of results regarding increases in work pressure and perceptions that their job had got worse as a result of the changes, it is not surprising that among both production and craft workers, average levels of job satisfaction were significantly lower in the survey undertaken after the introduction of the changes, compared with the earlier survey. Further, at both survey points, craft workers were significantly less satisfied with their job overall compared with the production workers (for example, 2002 survey, t = 4.39, p < .001) (Table 4). In terms of satisfaction with individual aspects of the job, between the two survey points, in the production worker group there was a significant decline in satisfaction in six areas (choice over work method, amount of variety, rate of pay, current workload, effort and overall satisfaction) and a rise in satisfaction in three areas (hours of work, rota

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

3.15 0.87 3.05 0.90

1.88

-0.25

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. a Responses measured on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘never’ = 1 to ‘always’ = 5 b Reverse scoring in overall work pressure scale.

3.14 0.87 3.39 0.87 -5.20*** 3.20 0.74 3.29 0.86 -1.86 +0.06 3.15 0.98 3.45 0.95 -5.74*** 3.10 0.83 3.27 0.91 -3.16** -0.05 2.06 0.60 2.25 0.59 -5.86*** 2.12 0.52 2.22 0.56 -2.83** +0.06

2.88**

0.88

3.40 0.86 3.26

-0.12

+0.05 -0.06

-1.63 1.16 -0.78

-0.10 -0.18 -0.03

5.89*** -0.21

-1.59

-0.55 -1.34

difference

+0.07

SD

0.92 -5.13*** 3.17 0.79 3.24 0.85 -1.44

M

3.10 0.96 3.36

SD 0 +0.06

M

0.88 -0.42 3.09 0.71 3.14 0.75 -1.23 0.93 -3.87*** 3.38 0.77 3.46 0.78 -1.74

SD

3.09 0.92 3.09 3.32 0.96 3.52

M

difference

1.54 2.95** 0.77

3.73***

2.06*

-1.05 1.01

t-value

Mean

Mean t-value

difference 2002

difference 1999

Working at high speed Working to tight deadlines Working under great deal of pressure Enough time to get work doneb Physically tired Mentally tired Overall work pressure scale (6 items)

t-value

SD

2002 (n = 386)

M

1999 (n = 723)

Production-craft

Production-craft



t-value

Craft workers

1999 (n = 917)

2002 (n = 545)

Production workers





Table 3  Comparison of work pressurea reported by production and craft workers 1999 and 2002

1236 Human Relations 63(8)

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

4.10 1.38

4.09 1.37

3.33 1.44 3.97*** 3.38 1.27 2.91 1.28 4.48 1.37 -3.13** 4.42 1.09 4.28 1.29

4.45 1.30

4.24 1.37

3.66 1.46 4.26 1.22

Choice over work method The amount of variety in your job Your rate of pay Your overall hours of work Your job security Amount of responsibility given Your current rota pattern Involvement in decisions Your current workload The effort required to do your job

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

4.23 1.20 4.51 1.15

4.07 1.36 4.33 1.18

3.45 1.38 -2.19* 3.21 1.35 3.38 1.37 -1.95

3.29 1.33

2.32* 4.07 1.17 3.86 1.25 2.68** 4.31 1.10 4.08 1.20

2.77** -0.16 3.27*** -0.20

-0.08

2.79** 3.46***

1.14

-4.50***

4.65 1.80 -4.19*** 4.61 1.36 4.29 1.62

4.30 1.59

3.63*** +0.31

4.88*** 0.01

3.29 1.40 -1.41 2.83 1.42 3.19 1.38 -4.04*** -0.35 4.26 1.20 0.40 4.29 1.15 4.08 1.22 2.89** 0

2.03* 4.49 1.30 4.22 1.37

4.96*** 4.56 1.17 4.25 1.32

3.18 1.49 4.29 1.25

difference

4.11*** -2.67**

SD

5.89*** -0.28 1.92 +0.16

M

-3.91***

SD

3.26*** +0.25

M

t-value

-0.21 -0.25

-0.07

-0.36

-0.10 -0.18

-0.42 0

+0.13

+0.15

difference

Mean

(Continued)

2.48* 3.24***

0.77

3.40***

1.15 2.34*

4.91*** 2.31*

-1.55

-1.72

t-value

difference 2002

Mean

difference 1999

-1.74

SD

t-value

Production-craft

Production-craft

4.04*** +0.11

M

2002 (n = 386)

SD

1999 (n = 723)

M

t-value



2002 (n = 545)

1999 (n = 917)



Craft employees

Production employees



Table 4  Job satisfaction among production and craft workers 1999 and 2002

Bacon et al. 1237

1999 (n = 917)

SD

M

4.03 1.38





Opportunity to use your abilities Your chance of promotion Level of health and safety Your fellow workers The physical working conditions Your immediate boss The industrial relations The way organization is managed Attention paid to suggestions made Overall satisfaction

SD

SD

4.98 1.15 0.09 5.00 1.13 4.99 1.15 0.08 4.05 1.29 -0.36 3.83 1.33 3.95 1.21 -1.33

4.24 1.55 3.13 1.31 3.26 1.24

3.54 1.35

3.92 1.40

4.98 1.21 3.99 1.46

4.35 1.44 3.19 1.42 3.31 1.33

3.55 1.34

4.10 1.36

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

+0.10

-0.21 -0.14 -0.40

2.64** -0.36

0.25

0.34 0.19 1.07

+0.02 -0.16

Note: Job satisfaction items measured on seven point scales ranging from ‘extremely dissatisfied’ = 1 to ‘extremely satisfied’ = 7. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

2.43* 3.74 1.33 3.52 1.34

0.38 3.65 1.41 3.54 1.37

1.43 4.14 1.55 4.11 1.58 0.45 3.05 1.33 3.00 1.33 0.52 2.91 1.31 2.83 1.28

4.21 1.36 -0.71 4.40 1.32 4.18 1.33

4.16 1.47

2.79** +0.24

3.35 1.42

3.39 1.35

5.34***

-1.48

2.76** 2.65** 6.08***

-0.33 2.35*

-3.49***

6.43***

-1.33

difference

-0.40

0

-0.13 -0.13 -0.43

+0.01 -0.10

-0.03

-0.09

-0.14

difference

4.39***

-0.06

1.20 1.61 5.27***

-0.09 1.48

0.52

2.06*

1.56

t-value

Mean

Mean t-value

difference 2002

difference 1999

-0.44

M

t-value

0.41 2.95 1.37 3.26 1.42 -2.41*

SD

2002 (n = 386)

+0.09

M

1999 (n = 723)

Production-craft

Production-craft

1.99*

t-value

Craft employees

4.09 1.33 -0.84 4.12 1.37 3.95 1.43

M

2002 (n = 545)

Production employees



Table 4  (Continued)

1238 Human Relations 63(8)

1239

Bacon et al.

and involvement in decisions). Among the craft worker group, however, there was a significant decline in satisfaction in eight areas (choice over work method, amount of variety, rate of pay, amount of responsibility, rota, workload, effort, opportunities to use abilities, health and safety and overall satisfaction), and an increase in satisfaction in just two areas (level of job security and chances of promotion) (Table 4). In addition to the differences in attitudes towards pay, effort and the way the organization is managed, production and craft groups also differed in their attitudes towards working time, where production workers registered a significant growth in satisfaction between the two survey periods, compared with their craft counterparts, who recorded lower satisfaction concerning overall hours. Two related factors help to account for this. The changes were accompanied by the adoption of a new five-shift system, replacing the former four-shift system. At one of the works (Teesside) this new system was introduced on the basis of 12-hour shift working, replacing the former eight-hour shift length (which continued to operate at Scunthorpe). For those already on shifts at Teesside the change was popular (indeed had been sought as part of the agreement accepting the changes). This popularity was based on the fewer shifts overall that the new pattern entailed, and the substantially greater number of non-work days. However, for those who had not previously worked shifts regularly (many of the craft workers) this change to 12-hour working at one of the works further heightened the transition required from a ‘days-only’ schedule of eight hours to a continuous shift working system of 12-hour shifts. The final columns in Table 4 show that both before and after the work organization changes, production workers were more likely than craft workers to report greater satisfaction with six items: rate of pay, workload, effort, chance of promotion, the way the organization is managed, and overall satisfaction. The greater craft worker satisfaction reported in 1999 disappears after the introduction of teamworking on four issues: variety in the job, hours of work, rota pattern, and health and safety. Increased craft worker satisfaction with job security suggests that protecting their jobs was the main benefit from teamworking for craft workers. Thus, in terms of employee perceptions of these organizational and job-related changes, this pattern of results from the 1999 and 2002 surveys reveals both similarities and differences between the two occupational groups. While both groups recorded declines in job satisfaction, and perceived that their job had got worse since the changes were introduced, in many aspects this negative perception was heightened in the craft worker group, for example, with a higher proportion reporting their job had deteriorated, and with craft workers identifying several more aspects of their job where their level of satisfaction had declined between the two survey points. This pattern of results is despite the fact that it was the production workers who perceived the greater increase in work pressure since the introduction of the changes.

Multivariate analyses In order to examine further the impact of the changes on different occupations, multivariate analyses were used. A series of ordinary least squared regressions were computed as shown in Table 5. The ‘job impact’ of the changes (whether it had become better or worse), the aggregate satisfaction measure, using Warr et al.’s (1979) measure, and pride and attachment to the organization (an aspect of commitment) were dependent variables for each of the three regressions. The independent and control variables consist of:

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

1240

Human Relations 63(8)

Table 5  The relationships between individual, team and organizational variables and job impact, job satisfaction and commitment (ordinary least squared regressions)

Job impact: Job made better or worse as a result of change



Model 1 (a) n = 630

Model 2 (a) n = 582

Model 3 (a) n = 582



β

β

β

Individual characteristics Age Tenure with company Occupation (craft = 1, production = 0)

-0.084 -1.744 -0.086 -2.006 -0.065 -1.332 -0.034 -0.784 -0.084 -2.126* -0.215 -4.696***

t

Organizational and team characteristics Industrial relations climate Site (Teesside = 1, Scunthorpe = 0) Job change: more job security Job change: more job restructuring/outsourcing 8-hour shift dummy (1,0) All craft workers in team dummy (1,0)a All senior grades in team dummy (1,0) Team rotates jobs Team performs maintenance activities Interactions Occupation × IR climate Occupation × change in job security Occupation × job change; more job restructuring/ outsourcing Occupation × all craft workers in team Occupation × all senior grade in team Constant Adjusted R2 Overall F

t

0.254 6.378*** -0.055 -0.638 0.322 8.134*** -0.062 -1.711 -0.093 -1.073 0.139

3.072**

t

-0.087 -1.360 -0.072 -1.956 -0.448 -2.402*

0.325 0.041

3.240*** 0.872

0.404 4.073*** -0.035 -1.159 0.031

1.032



-0.097 -2.690**

-0.138

0.051 1.366 -0.014 -0.371

0.054 1.750 -0.107 -0.539



-.535

-0.053 -0.314 -0.221 -1.040



0.160

3.560***



0.059

0.633

2.154*** 0.022 5.617***

1.623*** 0.291 20.844***

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

-2.264*** 0.299 24.851***

1241

Bacon et al. Table 5  (Continued)

Satisfaction with job: Aggregate



Model 1 (b) n = 624

Model 2 (b) n = 579

Model 3 (b) n = 579



β

β

β

Individual characteristics Age Tenure with company Occupation (craft = 1, production = 0)

0.010 0.211 -0.025 -0.704 0.007 0.151 0.010 0.267 -0.134 -3.359*** -0.220 -5.732***

t

t

t

-0.034 -1.070 -0.013 -0.413 -0.331 -2.037*

Organizational and team characteristics Industrial relations climate 0.523 15.675*** 0.470 5.372*** Site (Teesside = 1, 0.090 1.255 0.012 0.284 Scunthorpe = 0) 0.287 8.629*** 0.374 4.321*** Job change: more job security Job change: more job -0.034 -1.102 -0.006 -0.222 restructuring/outsourcing 0.037 0.509 0.033 0.770 8-hour shift dummy (1,0) 0.100 2.633* All craft workers in team dummy (1,0)a All senior grades in team -0.033 -1.075 -0.012 -0.444 dummy (1,0) Team rotates jobs 0.012 0.375 0.003 0.123 Team performs maintenance 0.037 1.186 0.092 3.286*** activities Interactions Occupation × IR climate Occupation × job change: more job security Occupation × job change; more job restructuring/ outsourcing Occupation × all craft workers in team Occupation × all senior grade in team Constant Adjusted R2 Overall F

0.105 0.710 -0.270 -1.459



3.975*** 0.013 3.804***

1.710*** 0.510 50.737***

0.092

2.349*

1.611*** 0.514 44.326*** (Continued)

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

1242

Human Relations 63(8)

Table 5  (Continued)

Commitment: Pride and attachment



Model 1 (c) n = 628

Model 2 (c) n = 579

Model 3 (c) n = 579



β

β

β

Individual characteristics Age Tenure with company Occupation (craft = 1, production = 0)

0.018 0.369 0.006 0.132 -0.119 -2.962**

t

Organizational and team characteristics Industrial relations climate Site (Teesside = 1, Scunthorpe = 0) Job change: more job security Job change: more job restructuring/outsourcing 8-hour shift dummy (1,0) All craft workers in team dummy (1,0)a All senior grades in team dummy (1,0) Team rotates jobs Team performs maintenance activities

t

0.006 0.127 0.011 -0.004 -0.098 0.003 -0.193 -4.078*** -0.348

0.250 0.075 -1.382

0.342 8.362*** 0.268 -0.004 -0.045 -0.008

5.442*** -0.092

0.197 4.837*** 0.246 -0.096 -2.558* -0.102

5.095*** -2.294*

0.016 0.089

0.179 1.914

0.021 0.099

-0.019 -0.514

-0.022

-0.582

0.072 0.054

1.863 1.398

0.068 0.053

1.775 1.379

Interactions Occupation × IR climate 0.346 -0.275 Occupation × job change: more job security Occupation × job change; 0.089 more job restructuring/ outsourcing Occupation × all craft workers in team Occupation × all senior grade in team Constant Adjusted R2 Overall F

0.663 0.009 3.003*

t

-1.062* 0.249 16.982***

0.233 2.096*

2.675** -1.759 0.492

-1.081* 0.255 14.222***

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Notes: The impact of team structure on the job measured from ‘much better’ = 5 to ‘much worse’ = 1. Job satisfaction measured from ‘extremely dissatisfied’ = 1 to ‘extremely satisfied’ = 7. Commitment measured from ‘strongly agree’ = 7 to ‘strongly disagree’ = 1. a This variable was excluded from (or could not enter) some of Model 3 regressions due to collinearity.

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

1243

Bacon et al.

1) individual characteristics (age and tenure and occupation of the respondents); 2) organizational and team characteristics (industrial relations climate, whether the changes have affected job security and job restructuring/outsourcing, whether all team members were craft, shift, location/site dummy variable, and the extent to which teams allowed members to rotate jobs and to perform maintenance activities); and 3) interactions between occupation and the significant organizational and team variables for each set of regressions. For each dependent variable three regressions were computed: one with individual level variables only (model 1), one with individual, team and organizational variables without the interaction effects (model 2), and with individual, team and organizational variables with the interaction effects of significant independent variables (model 3). It should also be noted that in order to perform the above analysis, logically only the 2002 data were used. In addition, only the employees who were either craft or production in 1999 (before the introduction of change) were selected, and only those who worked either eight- or 12-hour shifts were selected. This meant that the maximum total number of cases for the regression analyses was 644 cases (the exact number of cases for each regression model is shown in Table 5). The results show quite consistently across the three regressions that craft employees were less satisfied, had a more negative view of the impact of change on their jobs and had less commitment to the organization. These findings are consistent with the results reported earlier using the comparisons of 1999 and 2002 data. The analyses also show the significant impact of cooperative industrial relations climates on the positive outcomes from the introduction of the changes (higher satisfaction, more positive impact on their job and higher commitment levels). Similar results are found for the variable measuring the impact of organizational change on job security: where there is a perception that the introduction of teamworking has resulted in more job security, views on the impact of change on employee outcomes are much more positive. Interestingly enough, when teams are made up entirely of craft employees, the views on the outcomes of changes are more positive (for two of the three regression models). When the interaction effects are considered, this latter finding was reinforced in the case of job impact and job satisfaction as dependent variables. In these cases (models 3a and 3b) the interaction effects for occupation and ‘all craft team membership’ are significant indicating that the positive job impact and levels of overall job satisfaction (owing to the changes introduced) are higher when the respondents belong to teams that are entirely made up of craft employees. In other words, despite the overall finding that craft employees are less positive about the outcome of change for them, this view is likely to be changed to a more positive sense if the craft employee is a member of an ‘all craft’ team. We believe that this reflects the tendency for jobs in all-craft teams to have changed less as a result of teamworking – and in particular, to be less likely to entail more responsibilities for supervision as well as production – compared with the jobs of craft workers moving into production teams. Another finding from Table 5 worth highlighting is that the frequency of opportunities to do maintenance work in teams has a positive impact on the aggregate measure of job satisfaction.

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

1244

Human Relations 63(8)

Discussion The negative attitudes expressed overall towards the work reorganization reflect the difficulty reported in other studies of generating employee support for change when workplaces are under threat (Hunter et al., 2002). The analysis presented here goes further to show the differential impact of organizational change on occupational groups and to explain this by linking the market context of the firm to changes in the labour process. For production workers, the main perceived effect of moving to teams was harder work owing to lower manning and higher output targets. For many production workers at Teesside, perceived greater job intensity was partially offset by a new shift system that delivered more nonwork days. This reinforces the overall pattern that can be inferred from the results reported in Table 5 that production workers showed a more consistent pattern of positive outcomes in relation to the introduction of organizational changes than craft workers. The changes for craft workers generated more negative attitudes than their production counterparts. For craft workers, it was not that teamworking combined with a smaller workforce entailed greater effort, but that responsibilities were seen to fall disproportionately on the craft members in the teams, who had to take responsibility for maintenance activities, for supervising any assistance they received, and also for undertaking production work at other times. This outcome can be seen partly to reflect the training associated with teamworking – that while production workers received training in the rudiments of craft activities, this was insufficient, particularly in the electrical areas, to reduce the responsibilities of the craft workers in teams. Further, while production workers received some basic training in the mechanical and electrical areas as part of the changes, for many craft workers teamworking involved a perceived loss of skill: the perception that many of the skills they had trained in were becoming lost through lack of use. The overall regression results confirm this general finding and reinforce many of the observations of the research team regarding the uniformly less positive outcomes for the craft employees. The decision to create multi-skilled teams (rather than teams of multi-skilled workers) ensured that differences in knowledge, skills and abilities between former craft and production workers led to different roles in the teams on the basis of former occupation. As a result of the changes, production and craft workers report distinct versions of increased work pressure. The craft workers perceive that they have to do more because they are now required to undertake both production and maintenance tasks. The production workers perceive that they have to do more because they have to take up the slack left following staffing reductions. Whereas production workers appeared resigned to these changes, craft workers report the changes having a negative knock-on effect, reporting lower job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Pay and de-skilling issues were both important in explaining employee attitudes to the changes. If management had introduced teams in a way that preserved the skills of craftsmen and paid them accordingly, they might have been less dissatisfied. It was not the introduction of teams per se or the staffing reductions, but the financial performance of the firm that led to the creation of multi-skilled teams rather than teams of multi-skilled workers, and the failure to compensate craft workers for the skills they brought into teams. These decisions also reflected the desire of the production unions to protect (‘red circle’) the earnings of their members, and the desire of both the production and craft unions to prevent compulsory redundancies. Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

1245

Bacon et al.

Conclusion In order to build on previous work highlighting important factors that appear to limit the extent to which working practices are transformed (Appelbaum and Batt, 1994; Taplin, 2006; Vallas, 2003) this study connected the organizational conditions of severe market and corporate pressure to the occupational division of labour in work settings. Overall, the findings highlight the different ways in which the change to multiskilled teams alongside a job reduction programme affected two occupational groups, resulting in distinct occupational attitudes to the new work arrangements. In broader terms, the study underlines the value of seeking to identify different patterns of worker attitudes to organizational change initiatives, and to examine the potential importance of occupations in understanding employee perceptions of, and attitudes towards, organizational change. We highlighted the limits placed on the teamworking initiative by the horizontal division of occupational labour. Both financial pressures and the distribution of knowledge, skills and abilities among craft and production workers led to the creation of multiskilled teams rather than teams of multi-skilled workers. This in turn helped to explain the different attitudes of craft and production workers to the changes and the enduring differences in their attitudes despite relocation into shop-floor teams. The limited redesign and enrichment of jobs help to explain the lack of improvement in levels of job satisfaction and commitment. Decisions to change the content of work are embedded within the context of a horizontal division of labour that limits the extent to which workplaces are transformed. In this process, occupationally based trade unions sought pay and voluntary severance systems that protected their members’ interests and shared some of the concessions between different occupational groups. The focus on occupations shows that in redesigning work managers take into account the existing distribution of knowledge, skills and abilities of workers in different occupational groups (Kochan et al., 1999), and unions seek to ensure that the occupations they represent are protected during the process. As a result, work was restructured partly around traditional operational precepts (Taplin, 2006) and the financial constraints forcing changes to working practices limited the extent to which managers might successfully overcome the traditional occupational division of labour. Differences between occupational economic, social and psychological rewards were recreated with different attitudes towards the changes expressed by former craft and production colleagues. The social stratification of knowledge, skills and abilities appears to impose limits on workplace transformation. Finally, as the changes were introduced in a context of downsizing and staff reductions at both works, further occupational comparisons of attitudes towards work redesign might be quite different if the research were carried out in firms not undertaking restructuring. It is precisely in downsizing cases that an occupational analysis may be most revealing because in such cases, managers will be least able to change the knowledge, skills and abilities associated with the traditional occupational division of labour, and unions must balance occupational interests and protect employment. However, the case described might not be untypical as firms under severe financial pressures are perhaps both more likely to innovate and are probably least able to afford the training levels required for fundamentally transforming work systems. Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

1246

Human Relations 63(8)

Acknowledgement The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding provided by ESRC Grant Number R022250202 to conduct this research.

References Adler PS (1993) Time and motion regained. Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 97–108. Andries F, Kompier M, and Smulders P (1996) Do you think that your health or safety are at risk because of your work? A large European study on psychological and physical work demands. Work and Stress 10(2): 104–118. Appelbaum E, Bailey T, Berg P, and Kalleberg A (2000) Manufacturing Advantage: Why Highperformance Work Systems Pay Off. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University/ILR Press. Appelbaum E, Batt R (1994) The New American Workplace. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Barker JR (1993) Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 38(3): 408–437. Barley SR (1996) Technicians in the workplace: Ethnographic evidence for bringing work into organizational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly 41(3): 404–441. Batt R (2004) Who benefits from teams? Comparing workers, supervisors and managers. Industrial Relations 43(1): 183–212. Blyton P, Bacon N (1997) Recasting the occupational culture in steel: Some implications of changing from crews to teams in the UK steel industry. Sociological Review 45(1): 79–101. Bowen P (1976) Social Change in Industrial Organisations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Cook J, Wall TD (1980) New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need for non-fulfillment. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology 53(1): 39–52. Coupland C, Blyton P, and Bacon N (2005) A longitudinal study of the influence of shop floor work teams on expressions of ‘us’ and ‘them’. Human Relations 58(8): 1055–1081. Dastmalchian A, Blyton P, and Adamson R (1991) The Climate of Workplace Relations. London: Routledge. Edwards P, Bélanger J, and Wright M (2006) The bases of compromise in the workplace: A theoretical framework. British Journal of Industrial Relations 44(1): 125–145. Edwards P, Collinson M, and Rees C (1998) The determinants of employee responses to total quality management: Six case studies. Organization Studies 19(3): 449–475. Ezzamel M, Willmott H (1998) Accounting for teamwork: A critical study of group-based systems of organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly 43(2): 358–396. Fiorito J, Jarley P (2008) Trade union morphology. In: Blyton P, Bacon N, Fiorito J, and Heery E (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Industrial Relations. London: SAGE, 189–208. Godard J (2004) A critical assessment of the high-performance paradigm. British Journal of Industrial Relations 42(2): 349–378. Graham L (1995) On the Line at Subaru-Isuzu: The Japanese Model and the American Worker. Ithaca, NY: ILR/Cornell University Press. Hackman JR, Oldham GR (1980) Work Redesign, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hunter LW, Macduffie JP, and Doucet L (2002) What makes teams take? Employee reactions to work reforms. Industrial & Labor Relations Review 55(3): 448–472.

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

1247

Bacon et al.

Kelly J, Kelly C (1991) ‘Them and us’: Social psychology and ‘the new industrial relations’. British Journal of Industrial Relations 29(1): 25–48. Kern H, Schumann M (1984) The End of the Division of Labour. Munich: Beck. Kochan TA et al. (1999) The Changing Nature of Work: Implications for Occupational Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Lawrence T (1998) Examining resources in an occupational community: Reputation in Canadian forensic accounting. Human Relations 51(9): 1103–1131. Loundsbury M, Kaghan B (2001) Organizations, occupations and the structuration of work. In: Vallas SP (ed.) Research in the Sociology of Work: The Transformation of Work. New York: JAI/Elsevier, 25–50. Miller EJ, Rice AK (1967) Systems of Organization. London: Tavistock. Osterman P (1994) How common is workplace transformation and who adopts it? Industrial and Labor Relations Review 47(2): 173–188. Osterman P (2000) Work reorganization in an era of restructuring: Trends, in diffusion and effects on employee welfare. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 53(2): 179–196. Procter S, Mueller F (eds) (2000) Teamworking, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Taplin IM (2006) Strategic change and organisational restructuring: How managers negotiate change initiatives. Journal of International Management 12(3): 284–301. Vallas SP (2003) The adventures of managerial hegemony: Teamwork, ideology and worker resistance. Social Problems 50(2): 204–225. Warr P, Cook J, and Wall T (1979) Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology 52(2): 129–148. Nick Bacon is Professor of Human Resource Management at Nottingham University Business School. He has previously published work in Human Relations on teamworking, small and mediumsized enterprises and private equity. His current work includes studies of industrial relations partnership, union learning reps and union equality reps. He has recently co-edited both The SAGE Handbook of Industrial Relations (2008) and The SAGE Handbook of Human Resource Management (2009). He is a former Editor of Industrial Relations Journal. [Email: [email protected]] Paul Blyton is Professor of Industrial Relations and Industrial Sociology at Cardiff Business School and Research Associate in the ESRC Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society (BRASS) at Cardiff University. His research interests include employee responses to organizational change, working time, and work–life balance. Recent and forthcoming publications include The SAGE Handbook of Industrial Relations (co-edited with Nicolas Bacon, Jack Fiorito and Edmund Heery; SAGE, 2008), Ways of Living: Work, Community and Lifestyle Choice (co-edited with Betsy Blunsdon, Ken Reed and Ali Dastmalchian; Palgrave Macmillan, 2010) Reassessing the Employment Relationship (co-edited with Edmund Heery and Peter Turnbull; Palgrave Macmillan, 2010) and Researching Sustainability (co-edited with Alex Franklin; Earthscan, in preparation). [Email: [email protected]] Ali Dastmalchian is Dean and Professor of Organizational Analysis at Faculty of Business, University of Victoria, Canada, and is past Chair of Canadian Federation of Business School Deans. His research interests include organizational design, flexibility and change, organizational culture,

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015

1248

Human Relations 63(8)

IR and HRM climates and cross-national management and leadership. His work has appeared in journal such as Organization Studies, Journal of Management Studies, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Academy of Management Executive and British Journal of Industrial Relations. Recent and forthcoming books include Work–Life Integration: International Perspectives on Balancing Multiple Roles (Palgrave MacMillan, 2006), and Ways of Living: Work, Community and Lifestyle Choices (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010) (both co-edited with Paul Blyton, Betsy Blunsdon and Ken Reed). [Email: [email protected]]

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at City University Library on April 1, 2015