The Anthropology of Organisations

Alberto Corsin Jimenez

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9780754625957
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351894852
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Social Sciences

The Anthropology of Organisations offers a critical overview of the work that for over sixty years anthropologists have been carrying out in and on organisations and of the contribution that this work has made to social theory at large. Moving beyond earlier preoccupations with 'culture' and 'relationality', the volume brings together a selection of classic and contemporary articles that cast new light on the relevance of ethnography for organisational and social theory. It offers an indispensable resource for students and scholars interested in the politics behind the institutionalisation of social life.

Part I
Human Relations

[1]
METHODS FOR THE STUDY OF HUMAN RELATIONS IN INDUSTRY*

BURLEIGH B. GARDNER AND WILLIAM FOOTE WHYTE

THE Committee on Human Relations in Industry¹ at the University of Chicago was organized early in 1943 to carry on research in the social organization of industry and of our industrial society. On the basis of our own and earlier studies we have formulated certain ideas as to the research approach to this field, which will be discussed here.

We do not offer any fundamental innovations in methodology. Rather we are concerned with the application and adaptation of certain well recognized methods to this relatively new field.

Experience has shown that effective research on human relations in industry requires the fulfillment of certain conditions:

1. The researcher must be able to get into industry.

2. He must be able to establish and maintain relationships within the organization to be studied.

3. He must have tools for collecting the pertinent data without interfering with his relationships.

4. For anything more than superficial studies, there must be a continuity of research relationships with a given organization.

5. To permit such relationships to continue and to allow for the possibility of experimentation, management must understand the research and take an interest in its development. (Where unions are involved in the studies, this same condition applies to them.)

It must be remembered that factories are social organizations with walls around them. Management controls the admission of people within these walls, and there is no access without such permission. Further-more, management tends to be touchy about exposing its personnel problems to outside scrutiny and fearful of the effects of permitting outsiders to enter the organization. There is a widespread belief that allowing a researcher to interview a worker upon his problems will create in the worker’s mind problems that he was not previously aware of and will therefore build up antagonism toward management. So we find that where managment considers its human relations to be in good shape, it is inclined to “let well enough alone,” and where it recognizes serious frictions it is inclined to bar access to the researcher on the grounds that he may touch off an explosion.

A position in a prestige institution such as a university may be of some help in overcoming these barriers, but identification with the social sciences is of dubious value. While executives may recognize that a real social science would be of value to them, they are inclined to look upon us as impractical dreamers who talk a language they do not understand and who are out of touch with the realities they face.

Nevertheless, it has been possible to gain access to industry—and in several ways. Here we talk primarily of our own experience, recognizing, of course, that we are not the only people who have carried on in-plant studies.

By one approach, the researcher obtains employment and enters the organization through the regular channels. When this is done without knowledge of the organization, he can function only as a participant-observer and is strictly limited by the job he is on. Thus he may have little freedom of movement and may have contact with only a small segment of the organization.

In spite of the limitations this imposes on the observer, it does provide opportunity to study the situation without the behavior being affected by the study itself. Some of the best descriptions of the daily experiences of the worker and of the dynamics of the informal relations in work groups have been obtained in this way.

Another limitation of this method is that after putting in a full day at work the observer has little time or energy left to record his observations and experiences or to think about them. If he is to get the most out of this experience, he must keep his work diary faithfully and make a very detailed report on his observations. In some cases a part time job has enabled the observer to do a better job of recording and organizing his material.

Sometimes it has been possible to place the observer on a selected job with the knowledge and permission of management and the union. This permits somewhat more freedom since the observer may be able to select the best job for his purposes or can be transferred from job to job to get more extensive material. This has to be handled carefully lest the fellow workers become antagonistic and the observer must conduct himself so that they do not feel he is spying, yet will not be disturbed when they realize he is doing more than just the job. In some cases this has been handled by the observer letting it be known that he was a student interested in learning at first hand about work situations.

Aside from its merits for research, we regard this approach as excellent training for the student. Doing a job in industry and recording his observations gives the student a “feel” for the phenomena of human relations in this field. While intuition is no substitute for scientific research, it can serve to point out profitable areas of investigation.

When the observer attempts to enter the factory for the acknowledged purpose of research, the way must be carefully paved for him. The purpose of the research must make sense to management. The executive must see possible benefits to the organization, must have confidence that the study will not disturb the plant, and must be assured that the data will be confidential and not put to use in any way which will harm the organization.

How can these assurances be given? We have found that we cannot count upon logical explanations of the purpose of the research plus the appropriate promises as to the methods to be used and to the confidential nature of the findings. Fundamentally, management must have confidence in us and in our research assistants. This cannot be put across in a sales talk. It must generally grow out of a more informal sort of relationship maintained over a period of time.

Our experience here is instructive. We received our first financial support from management on the basis of projected studies of the worker in the community. Nothing was said of in-plant studies.

As the community research got under way, Gardner visited the plants and offices of the sponsoring companies periodically and interviewed executives upon the problems they faced. We held dinner meetings for these executives about once every six weeks. while these were organized around presentation of a paper of research findings, we undertook to make them as informal as possible. Aside from promoting a closer relationship between executives and research directors, the meetings gave us the opportunity to learn how to translate our ideas into symbols that would make sense to executives.

Several months of this process led to our first in-plant study. One of the sponsor companies had some serious personnel problems in one of its departments. In fact, the situation was so bad that it did not seem possible for us to make it any worse. Therefore we were invited in and Gardner directed a study of the department. Fortunately, we were able to point the way to a considerable improvement in that situation, and the practical application of the research was received with satisfaction by both management and the union.

This demonstration that we had some knowledge of practical value opened up much broader possibilities for our studies. We developed our in-plant studies to a point where we are more limited by shortage of trained research assistants and directors than by inability to gain access to plants. In fact, we are approaching a position where we can pick and choose the types of studies we want to make and then carry through the necessary arrangements.

while no in-plant study can be undertaken without the approval of top-management, such sanction is not enough in itself to assure its general acceptance. The research must be explained to all levels of the organization which are involved in it. It must be explained by top management, and it must also be explained and reexplained by the researchers as they go along making their contacts. A full and elaborate explanation is not necessary, but people must have some simple and clear definition of the researcher’s role. Otherwise they will develop anxieties and work up their own definitions.

If the research is to include observations or interviews at the worker level, it will also be explained to the workers. Where the plant is organized, the research must also be discussed with the union leaders and then presented to the rank and file, preferably at a general meeting.

We have undertaken a number of studies involving union acceptance of our work, and we are expanding our research in the area of union-management cooperation. This may seem a paradoxical situation since all of our non-university financial support has come from mangement. Nevertheless, we have experienced no difficulties on this score.

There seem to be several factors which allow us to proceed in this manner. Our university positions give us at least some claim to impartiality. We do not work with companies which are engaged in union busting campaigns. This does not mean that union-management relations are always harmonious where we operate. It does mean that management is committed to trying to get along with organized labor. Our position on this point is simple. Getting along with a union requires more than simple good will. Skill in human relations and an understanding of the social system of factory and union are also necessary. As we study union-management friction, we are in a position to provide the information which will make more cooperative relationships possible.

Apparently this approach makes sense to union leaders. We assure them that all individual confidences will be respected and that we will not become substitutes for the union in adjusting individual grievances with management. They recognize, however, that we can be a channel to transmit to management an analysis of problems at the work level which the union may be unable to get across. The union leadership may be looked upon by management as having an axe to grind. As long as we can maintain our position of having an unbiased interest in discovering how to make a cooperative system work, we can count on the support of both sides, even when there is considerable friction betwen them.

When the initial relationships with management and the union have been established, the researcher is free to enter the factory, but unless he can maintain good relationships at all the levels to be studied, he has difficulty in collecting data and runs the risk of creating so much disturbance that he may be forced to withdraw from the situation.

Certain guides should help in creating and maintaining proper relationships. The job cannot be done in a hurry, nor, once done, will it stay done. This must be a continuing process. The researcher must feel his way into the situation. He must try to size up the factory pattern of relationships and fit in unobtrusively. He must be friendly and interested in people, without forcing himself upon them. He must avoid taking sides in arguments and must be very careful not to subordinate people in word or manner. He must be considered trustworthy—and this especially takes time. He cannot expect that promises as to the confidential nature of the work will suffice. People will only have full confidence in him as they get to know him and make up their minds as to what kind of a person he is.

If the researcher needs to maintain a good relationship over a long period of time, it is necessary for him to maintain his interaction in the organization. Time and again we have met the following difficulty. The researcher spends considerable time in a factory and builds up friendly relations with the personnel, so that they talk freely of their problems. Then for a period of a month or two he is unable to visit that plant. When he does return, he finds the people still friendly but somewhat cool and uneasy and not talking so freely. From such experiences we conclude that frequency of contact is important to maintaining close relations and that after any long period of absence, the researcher has to spend some time in restoring his former relationship.

Another factor which seriously affects the development of good relations is the general social tone of the situation. Where there is antagonism between levels and apprehension of authority, it is always difficult to gain acceptance. The tension in such situations makes everyone more wary of what he does and says, especially before the outsider who is sanctioned by management and might be a channel of communication to the top. Where such apprehension of authority is at a minimum there is little difficulty in gaining easy acceptance.

Significantly enough, in tense situations the lower supervisors are often the slowest to accept researcher. If the shop is organized the approval of the union leaders is often all that is needed to gain the acceptance of the workers. In such situations there is often strong antagonism to the intermediate levels and the workers feel that the research presents an opportunity to communicate their feelings to top management in spite of their immediate supervisors.

Even where foremen or workers are very apprehensive of management, it has been possible for interviewers to win their confidence so that they discuss their problems freely. Aside from the skill and University ties of the interviewer, there seems to be one other major factor which makes such a relationship possible. Where we find such anxieties at the bottom levels, we also find that upward communication in the organization has been blocked off. The men at the bottom don’t feel free to discuss their problems with their superiors. They must keep their worries to themselves, no matter how insistently the problems demand expression. If the interviewer comes along and handles his role correctly, the opportunity to blow off steam cannot be indefinitely resisted.

In his efforts to build up rapport at the lower levels, the researcher must take care lest he build anxieties and lose support at the top. We had such an experience in one plant. The researcher came in with the support of the plant manager. First interviews were with him, and he saw to it that the researcher was properly introduced to the next lower levels. The interviewing was then carried on at successively lower levels until the researcher settled down and began intensive work with workers and first line supervisors.

In the beginning of the study, the researcher enjoyed frequent informal contacts with the manager, but, as the study proceeded at the bottom levels, these contacts dwindled away. At the end of about two months, the researcher noted a decided change in the manager’s attitude toward him. The man had only been on the job for five months when the study began, and he knew that some supervisors and Workers were strongly hostile to him. Subsequent interviews sho...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Series Preface
• Introduction
• Part I Human Relations
• Part II Social and Political Relations
• Part III Productive and Power Relations
• Part IV Bureaucratic and Administrative Relations
• Part V Organisational Culture
• Part VI Anthropological Cultures
• Part VII Anthropological Institutionalisations
• Part VIII Re-Institutionalisations of the Contemporary
• Name Index