University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Interpersonal Relations In Ethnically Mixed Small Work Groups

(USC Thesis Other)

Interpersonal Relations In Ethnically Mixed Small Work Groups

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Copyright by
WOODROW WILSON SCOTT
I960
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS IN ETHNICALLY MIXED
SMALL WORK GROUPS
by
Woodrow Wr Scott
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Sociology)
August, 1959
U N IV E R SITY O F S O U T H E R N C A L IF O R N IA
G R A D U A T E SCHOOL.
U N IV E R S IT Y PA R K
L O S A N G E L E S 7 , C A L IF O R N IA
This dissertation, written by
.........Woodrpw„W,_„Scpt ...........
under the directio?i of h.X.s..Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by the Graduate
School, in partial fulfillment of requirements
for the degree of
D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
.Jl. . .
jya t e 1959
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS............. 1
The Problem..................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ................ 1
Importance of the study..................... 4
Definition of Terms U s e d ..................... 6
Stratified sampling .......................... 6
Interpersonal relations ..................... 6
Work groups................................... 6
Ethnic characteristics .................. . 6
Social tensions .............................. 6
Cooperation ................................... 7
Conflict ..................................... 7
Criteria of conflict or cooperation .... 7
Lead m a n ..................................... 7
Foremen ........................................ 7
Superintendent or supervisor .............. 7
Informal leader .............................. 7
Minority group .............................. 7
Los Angeles Metropolitan Area .............. 8
Dominant group .............................. 8
Social integration .......................... 8
iii
CHAPTER PAGE
Organization of Remainder of Dissertation . . 9
II. REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE ................... 11
Ethnic Relations in Industry ................ 11
White employers and Negro workers in the
South.................................... 12
Southern white migrants and Negroes in
northern industries ....................... 15
New ethnic groups introduced into a work
group or a factory................... 20
Survey of integration in New York State . . 23
Interpersonal Relations in Industry ......... 28
Workers' values .............................. 29
Primary group relationships in industry . . 32
Cohesion in work groups................. 37
Communication in work g r o u p s.......... 40
Summary ..... .............................. 46
III. METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS...... 48
Experimental Design ............................ 48
Selecting the S a m p l e ...................... 50
Choosing the factory................... 50
First interview of Technibilt workers . . . 51
Second interview of Technibilt workers . . 52
Interview procedure .......................... 53
Ratings of the s t u d y .................... 54
Methods and materials utilized ............ 56
iv
CHAPTER PAGE
IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF TECHNIBILT CORPORATION . . . 57
The Technibilt Corporation ................... 57
Historical background ........................ 57
Characteristics of employees .............. 61
Interviewed male employees of Technibilt
Corporation compared with the males 14
years old and older of the Los Angeles-
Metropolitan Area.......................... 72
Characteristics of the reinterviewed
•workers......................... 74
Comparison of the characteristics of the
workers of the first interview (132) and
the second interview (32)................ 75
V. A CONFLICT RATING SCALE.......................... 79
The Conflict Rating Score ..................... 81
Average conflict score by ethnic group as
reported by the members of the individual
ethnic groups .............................. 83
Conflict ratings by work g r o u p ............ 86
Conflict rating scores in work groups by
ethnic classification ..................... 88
Adverse Evaluations ............................ 91
Adverse evaluations by ethnic group .... 92
Adverse evaluations by criteria of conflict 92
CHAPTER PAGE
Adverse evaluations by ethnic group and
criteria of conflict .................... 95
Adverse evaluations by work group and
criteria of conflict ............. 97
Thirty-Two Reinterviewed Workers from
Technibilt................................. 99
The conflict rating score .................. 100
Average conflict score by ethnic group as
reported by the members of the individual
ethnic groups ............................. 102
Average conflict ratings by work group . . 104
Conflict rating scores of Technibilt
workers by ethnic classification in work
groups................................... 106
Adverse evaluations by ethnic group .... 108
Average adverse evaluations by six criteria
of conflict............................... 110
Adverse evaluations by ethnic group and
criterion of conflict .................... 112
Adverse evaluations by work group and
criterion of conflict .................... 115
Conclusions.................................... 119
VI. A COOPERATION RATING S C A L E .................... 122
The Cooperation Rating Scale ............... 124
vi
CHAPTER PAGE
The cooperation rating scale by ethnic
classification ............................. 124
Cooperation ratings by ethnic group as
reported by fellow workers of each ethnic
group...................................... 126
Average cooperation rating scores by work
group...................................... 129
Cooperation rating scores of Technibilt
workers by ethnic classification in the
work g r o u p ................................ 131
Cooperative Evaluations ...................... 135
Cooperative evaluations by ethnic group . . 137
Average cooperative evaluations by the
seven criteria of cooperation ......... 137
Cooperative evaluations by ethnic group and
criteria of cooperation .................. 139
Cooperative evaluations by work group and
criterion of cooperation ................ 142
Cooperative evaluations by work group and
criteria of cooperation .................. 144
Thirty-Two Reinterviewed Workers from
Technibilt Corporation .................... 147
The cooperation rating score ............. 147
Average cooperation rating scores by ethnic
group...................................... 149
vii
CHAPTER PAGE
Average cooperation rating scores by work
group and r a n k .................... 152
Average cooperation rating scores by work
group and ethnic group ......... 155
Cooperation rating scores given by members
of the different ethnic groups .... 157
Cooperative evaluations by ethnic group . 159
Average cooperative evaluations by seven
criteria of cooperation ................ 161
Cooperative evaluations by ethnic group
and criteria of cooperation....... 163
Average cooperative evaluations by work
group................................ 165
Cooperative evaluations by work group and
criteria of cooperation ................ 168
Conclusions............................. 170
VII. A FRIENDSHIP S C A L E ...................... 172
The Friendship Scale ....................... 173
The friendship scale by ethnic group . . 174
The friendship scale scores by each
ethnic group ........................... 176
Friendship score by work g r o u p.... 176
Friendship scores by work group and
ethnic classification .................. 180
viii
CHAPTER PAGE
Average friendship scores by ethnic
group of evaluators....................... 183
Thirty-Two Reinterviewed Workers from
Technibilt................................... 18b
Average friendship scores by ethnic group 185
Average friendship score by ethnic group
as given by members of other ethnic
groups..................................... 187
Average friendship scores by work groups . 189
Average friendship scores by work group
and ethnic classification................ 191
Conclusions................................... 191
VIII. AN ETHNIC IMBALANCE I N D E X ..................... 194
The Ethnic Imbalance Index .................. 195
A comparison of the conflict rating scores
and the ethnic imbalance index by work
g r o u p ..................................... 197
A comparison of the cooperation rating
scores and the ethnic imbalance index
by work g r o u p ............................ 199
A comparison of the average friendship
scores and the ethnic imbalance indices
by work g r o u p ............................ 201
Thirty-Two Reinterviewed Workers from
Technibilt................................... 203
ix
CHAPTER PAGE
A comparison of the 1957 conflict rating
score and the 1957 ethnic imbalance
index by work g r o u p ..................... 205
A comparison of the 1957 cooperation
rating score and the 1957 ethnic
imbalance index by work g r o u p ........... 205
A comparison of the 1957 average
friendship score and the ethnic
imbalance index for 1957 by work group . 208
Conclusions................................... 208
IX. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, Aid CONCLUSIONS............... 211
Summary........................................ 211
The Findings................................... 211
Conclusions................................... 215
General Conclusions ..................... 216
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................. 217
APPENDIXES............................................... 234
Appendix A. A Comparison of Six Population
Characteristics of Technibilt Corporation
Interviewed Male Employees and the Los
Angeles Standard Metropolitan Area Males
14 Years Old and O v e r ..................... 235
Appendix B. Characteristics of 32 Reinter
viewed Workers of Technibilt Corporation,
1957 .......................................... 241
CHAPTER PAGE
Appendix C. A Comparison of the Character
istics of 132 Interviewed Technibilt
Workers and 32 Workers Reinterviewed
After One Year............................. 249
Appendix D. Personal Interview Schedule . . 257
Appendix E. Statistical Formulas ........... 265
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
I. Ethnic Classification of Workers at
Technibilt Corporation, 1955-1956 .... 62
II. Ethnic Classification of Workers Inter
viewed at Technibilt Corporation, 1955-
1956 64
III. Years of Schooling of Workers Interviewed
at Technibilt Corporation, 1955-1956 . . 66
IV. Place of Birth of Workers Interviewed at
Technibilt Corporation, 1955-1956 .... 67
V. Length of Employment at Technibilt Corpor
ation of Workers Interviewed, 1955-1956 . 69
VI. Number of Workers Interviewed and Total
Number of Workers at Technibilt Corpor
ation Classified by Work Group, 1955-1956 71
VII. Number of Months Employed at Technibilt
Corporation of Workers Interviewed by
Work Groups, January, 1956 73
VIII. Average Conflict Score by Ethnic Group,
1956 82
IX. Average Conflict Rating Score of Each
Ethnic Group as Reported by the Workers
of Each Ethnic Group as Fellow Workers,
Technibilt Corporation, 1955-1956 .... 84
xii
TABLE PAGE
X. Average Conflict Ratings by Work Group of
144 Workers at Technibilt Corporation,
1955-1956.................................. 87
XI. Conflict Rating Scores by Work Group and
by Ethnic Group of 144 Workers, Techni
bilt Corporation, 1955-1956 ............... 89
XII. Percentage of Adverse Evaluations Between
Individuals in Work Groups by Ethnic
Classification as Indicated by Fellow
Workers, Technibilt Corporation, 1955-
1956 93
XIII. Average Adverse Evaluations Between Indi
viduals in Work Groups by Criteria of
Conflict as Indicated by Fellow Workers,
Technibilt Corporation, 1955-1956 .... 94
XIV. Adverse Evaluations Between Individuals
in Work Groups by Ethnic Group and
Criteria of Conflict as Indicated by
Fellow Workers, Technibilt Corporation,
1955-1956 .................................. 96
XV. Percentage of Adverse Evaluations of Fellow
’ Workers by Work Group, Criteria of Con
flict, and Rank from the Evaluations of
Interviewed Workers, Technibilt Corpora
tion, 1955-1956 ........................... 98
xiii
TABLE PAGE
XVI. Average Conflict Rating Score by Ethnic
Group as Reported by 32 Reinterviewed
Fellow Workers, Technibilt Corporation,
1 9 5 7 ......................................... 101
XVII. Average Conflict Rating Score of Each
Ethnic Group as Reported by Reinterviewed
Fellow Workers from Different Ethnic
Groups, Technibilt Corporation, 1957 . . 103
XVIII. Average Conflict Rating Score by Work Group
and Rank Based on the Evaluations of 32
Reinterviewed Workers, Technibilt Corpor
ation, 1957 ................................ 105
XIX. Average Conflict Rating Score by Work Group
and Ethnic Classification Based on the
<
Evaluations of 32 Reinterviewed Workers,
Technibilt Corporation, 1957 107
XX. Possible Conflict Evaluations by Ethnic
Group, Technibilt Corporation, 1957 . . . 109
XXI. Average Percentage of Adverse Evaluations
Between Individuals in Work Groups by the
Six Criteria of Conflict as Indicated by
32 Reinterviewed Workers, Technibilt
Corporation, 1957 .......................... Ill
XXII. Percentage of Adverse Evaluations by Ethnic
Groups and Criteria of Conflict as Given
xiv
TABLE PAGE
by the Evaluations of 32 Reinterviewed
Workers, Technibilt Corporation, 1957 . . 113
XXIII. Percentages of Adverse Evaluations of
Fellow Workers by Work Group from the
Evaluations of 32 Reinterviewed Workers,
Technibilt Corporation, 1957 116
XXIV. Cooperation Rating Score of Fellow Workers
by Ethnic Group, Technibilt Corporation,
1955-1956 ................................... 125
XXV. Average Cooperation Rating Scores by Ethnic
Group as Indicated by Fellow Workers by
Ethnic Classification, Technibilt Corpor
ation, 1955-1956 127
XXVI. Average Cooperation Rating Scores by Work
Group Based on Seven Personal Factors
Indicating Cooperative Relations for
Technibilt Corporation Workers, 1955-1956 130
XXVII. Cooperation Rating Scores by Work Group and
by Ethnic Group for 144 Workers, Techni
bilt Corporation, 1955-1956 .............. 132
XXVIII. Cooperation Rating Scores of Fellow Workers
by Ethnic Group of Evaluators, Techni
bilt Corporation, 1955-1956 .............. 136
XXIX. Percentage of Cooperative Evaluations
Between Individuals in Work Groups by
XV
TABLE PAGE
Ethnic Classification as Indicated by
Fellow Workers, Technibilt Corporation,
1955-1956 ................................ . 138
XXX. Average Cooperative Evaluations Between
Individuals in Work Groups by Criteria
of Cooperation as Indicated by Fellow
Workers, Technibilt Corporation, 1955-
1956 140
XXXI. Percentage of Cooperative Evaluations
Between Individuals in Work Groups by
Ethnic Group and Criterion of Cooperation
Indicated by Fellow Workers, Technibilt
Corporation, 1955-1956 141
XXXII. Percentage of Cooperative Evaluations by
Work Group from the Evaluations of 132
Interviewed. Workers, Technibilt Corpora
tion, 1955-1956 ........................... 143
XXXIII. Percentage of Cooperative Evaluations of
Fellow 'Workers by Work Group and Criteria
of Cooperation from the Evaluations of
Interviewed Workers, Technibilt Corpora
tion, 1955-1956 ........................... 145
XXXIV. Average Cooperation Rating Score by Ethnic
Group as Reported by 32 Reinterviewed
Fellow Workers, Technibilt Corporation,
xvi
TABLE PAGE
1 9 5 7 ........................................ 14 S
XXXV. Average Cooperation Rating Score of Each
Ethnic Group as Indicated by 32
Reinterviewed Fellow Workers, Technibilt
Corporation, 1957........................... 150
XXXVI. Average Cooperation Rating Score by Work
Group and by Rank Based on the Evalua
tions of 32 Reinterviewed Workers,
Technibilt Corporation, 1957 153
XXXVII. Average Cooperation Rating Score by 'Work
Group Based on the Evaluations of 32
Reinterviewed Workers, Technibilt
Corporation, 1957 ......................... 156
XXXVIII. Average Cooperation Rating Scores Given
Fellow 'Workers by Ethnic Group of the
32 Reinterviewed Evaluators, Technibilt
Corporation, 1957 ........................... 158
XXXIX. Percentage of Cooperative Evaluations
Between Individuals in Work Groups by
Ethnic Classification by 32 Reinterviewed
Evaluators, Technibilt Corporation, 1957 160
XL. Average Percentage of Cooperation Evalua
tions Between Fellow ’ Workers by Criteria
of Cooperation as Indicated by 32
Reinterviewed Workers, Technibilt
XVll
TABLE PAGE
Corporation, 1957.......................... 162
XLI. Percentage of Cooperative Evaluations by
Ethnic Group and Criteria of Cooperation
as Indicated by the Evaluations of 32
Reinterviewed Workers, Technibilt
Corporation, 1957.......................... 164
XLII. Percentage of Cooperative Evaluations by
Work Group from the Evaluations of 32
Reinterviewed Workers, Technibilt
Corporation, 1957 .......................... 166
XLIII. Percentage of Cooperative Evaluations of
Fellow Workers by Work Group and
Criteria of Cooperation given by 32
Reinterviewed ’ Workers, Technibilt
Corporation, 1957 ........................ 169
XLIV. Average Friendship Score by Ethnic Group
as Given by Fellow Workers, Technibilt
Corporation, 1955-1956................... 175
XLV. Average Friendship Score by Ethnic Group
of 'Workers and by Ethnic Group of
Evaluators, Technibilt Corporation,
1955-1956 .................................. 177
XLVI. Average Friendship Scores by 'Work Group as
Evaluated by Fellow Workers, Technibilt
Corporation, 1955-1956 .................. 179
XVli
TABLE PAGE
XLVII. Average Friendship Scores by Work Group
and by Ethnic Group as Evaluated by
Fellow Workers, Technibilt Corporation,
1955-1956.................................. 181
XLVIII. Average Friendship Scores Given Fellow
Workers by Fellow Workers from Different
Ethnic Classifications, Technibilt
Corporation, 1955-1956 184
XLIX. Average Friendship Scores by Ethnic Group
as Given by 32 Reinterviewed Fellow
Workers, Technibilt Corporation, 1957 . . 186
L. Average Friendship Score by Ethnic Group
of Fellow ’ Workers and the Ethnic
Background of 32 Evaluators, Technibilt
Corporation, 1957 ......................... 188
LI. Average Friendship Score by ’ Work Group
as Evaluated by 32 Reinterviewed Workers,
Technibilt Corporation, 1957 ' 190
LII. Average Friendship Scores by Work Group
and Ethnic Classification as Evaluated
by 32 Reinterviewed Fellow ’ Workers,
Technibilt Corporation, 1957 192
LIII. The Average Ethnic Imbalance Index by Work
Group for Technibilt Corporation, 1955-
1956 196
xix
TABLE PAGE
LIV. A Comparison of the Conflict Rating Score
and the Ethnic Imbalance Index by Work
Group for Technibilt Corporation, 1955-
1956 198
LV. A Comparison of the Cooperation P.ating
Score and the Ethnic Imbalance Index by
Work Group for Technibilt Corporation,
1955-1956 .................................. 200
LVI. A Comparison of the Average Friendship
Score and the Ethnic Imbalance Index by
Work Group for Technibilt Corporation,
1955-1956 .................................. 202
LVII. Ethnic Imbalance Index by Work Group for
Technibilt Corporation, 1957 204
LVIII. A Comparison of the Conflict Rating Score
and the Ethnic Imbalance Index by Work
Group for Technibilt Corporation, 1957 . 206
LIX. A Comparison of the Cooperation Rating
Score and the Ethnic Imbalance Index by
Work Group for Technibilt Corporation,
1957 207
LX. A Comparison of the Average Friendship
Score and the Ethnic Imbalance Index by
Work Group for Technibilt Corporation,
1957 209
TABLE
LXI.
LXII.
LXIII.
LXIV.
LXV.
Comparison of the Age Distribution of
Technibilt Corporation Interviewed Male
Workers, 1955-1956, with the Employed
Males 14 Years Old and Over in the Los
Angeles Standard Metropolitan Area, 1950
Comparison of the Marital Status of
Technibilt Corporation Interviewed Male
Workers, 1955-1956, with the Employed
Males 14 Years Old and Over in the Los
Angeles Standard Metropolitan Area, 1950
Comparison of the Years of Schooling
Completed of Technibilt Corporation
Interviewed Male Workers, 1955-1956,
with Males 25 Years Old and Over from
the Los Angeles Standard Metropolitan
Area, 1950 .................................
Comparison of the Occupational Classifica
tion of Technibilt Corporation Inter
viewed Male Workers, 1955-1956, with
the Employed Males 14 Years Old and Over-
in the Los Angeles Standard Metropolitan
Area, 1950 .................................
Comparison of the Race, Nativity, and
Citizenship of the Technibilt Corpora
tion Interviewed Male Workers, 1.955-1956,
PAGE
236
237
233
239
xxi
TABLE PAGE
with the Los Angeles Standard Metro
politan Area Male Population 21 Years
Old and Over, 1950 240
LXVI. Ethnic Classification of 32 Reinterviewed
Technibilt Corporation Workers, 1957 . . 242
LXVII. Age Distribution of 32 Reinterviewed
Technibilt Corporation 'Workers, 1957 . . 243
LXVIII. Marital Status of 32 Reinterviewed
Technibilt Corporation Workers, 1957 . . 244
LXIX. Years of Schooling of 32 Reinterviewed
Technibilt Corporation Workers, 1957 . . 245
LXX. Place of Birth of 32 Reinterviewed
Technibilt Corporation Workers, 1957 . . 246
LXXI. Occupational Classification of 32 Reinter
viewed Technibilt Corporation 'Workers,
1957 247
LXXII. Length of Employment of 32 Reinterviewed
Technibilt Corporation ’ Workers, 1957 . . 248
LXXIII. A Comparison of the Ethnic Classification
of 132 Interviewed Technibilt Workers
and 32 'Workers Reinterviewed after One
Y e a r ..................................... 250
LXXIV. A Comparison of the Age Distribution of 132
Interviewed Technibilt Workers and 32
Workers Reinterviewed After One Year . . 251
xxii
TABLE PAGE
LXXV. A Comparison of the Marital Status of 132
Interviewed Technibilt Workers and 32
Workers Reinterviewed after One Year . . 252
LXXVI. A Comparison of the Years of Schooling of
132 Interviewed Technibilt Workers and
32 Workers Reinterviewed after One Year . 253
LXXVII. A Comparison of the Place of Birth of 132
Interviewed Technibilt Workers and 32
Workers Reinterviewed after One Year . . 254
LXXVIII. A Comparison of the Occupational Classi-
fication of 132 Interviewed Technibilt
Workers and 32 Workers Reinterviewed
after One Y e a r ............................. 255
LXXIX. A Comparison of the Number of Years
Employed at Technibilt Corporation of
132 Interviewed Workers and 32
Reinterviewed Workers One Year Later . . 256
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS
An influx of Anglo-Caucasian, Negro, Mexican, and
American Indian populations and other minority groups has
brought large numbers of workers from these groups into the
Los Angeles area in recent years. Due to this population
movement many manufacturing concerns are now faced with the
problem of employing individuals from different ethnic
groups. Has this combination of individuals from the dif
ferent ethnic groups intensified cooperative or conflict
interpersonal relations of workers in the various social
and industrial situations?
This study is concerned with the social integration
of small work groups in a factory in the Los Angeles Metro
politan Area. The friendship patterns, the indications of
cooperation and conflict, and the interpersonal relation
ships developed in this factory are the points of interest.
I. THE PROBLEM
Statement of the problem. The problem was to study
the interpersonal relations in ethnically-mixed small work
groups. The ethnic groups considered in this paper are
Anglo-Caucasians, Negroes, Mexicans, American Indians,
1
Puerto Ricans, and others in interrelated work groups.
Four research hypotheses may be stated with regard to in
terpersonal relations of workers from different ethnic
backgrounds employed together under production efficiency
procedure. It is understood by the term "production effi
ciency procedure" that the ability or skill of the indivi
dual to perform the work is the major consideration for
making the work assignment. This policy of determining
work assignments of individuals was being developed by the
factory studied.
The four research hypotheses of this study were:
1. Antagonistic conflict attitudes toward fellow
workers from different ethnic backgrounds working
together under production efficiency procedure
will tend to be lessened.
2. Not only will conflict attitudes tend to be less
ened but cooperative work attitudes of individu
als from different ethnic backgrounds working
together under production efficiency procedure
will tend to be developed.
3. Not only do cooperative attitudes develop under
these conditions but active friends tend to
develop.
4. The development of "balanced work groups" in
which no one ethnic group has a numerical advan
tage over the other groups tends to increase
3
cooperative and friendship attitudes among the
members of that work group.
The chapter that follows will present a description
of the workers of the Technibilt Corporation. It will dis
cuss the hiring, work assignment, and personnel policies of
the company and the general attitude of management toward
the workers from different ethnic backgrounds.
There were other questions to consider which dealt
with minutiae related to the hypotheses. Are tensions cre
ated among members of these work groups? If so, what ten
sions are manifest? What factors ease such tensions? Is
ethnic integration in the factory feasible? What is the
role of management in the maintenance of good relations
among these workers? Do the loyalties that these individu
als have outside their own ethnic groups interfere with shop
relations? Do the workers have opportunities to mix favor
ably in social relations with a minimum interference from
management? Does management accord preferential treatment
to members of specific ethnic groups? How much conflict is
expressed between workers of different ethnic groups in
their association in the production process? To what extent
is cooperation found among the workers of different ethnic
backgrounds? Do workers carry the interpersonal social
relations of the work situation into personal social rela
tionships away from the factory? What is the friendship
intensity found among workers from different ethnic groups
in the working situation? Does ethnically mixed leadership
exist in the work relationship, the union relationship, and
in the informal group relationship? Does the labor union
give members of these ethnic groups differential treatment?
What are the attitudes of the individuals in the work
groups toward other individuals with different ethnic back
grounds? Attempts to answer these and other questions in
areas related to the problem are in the following chapters.
Importance of the study. The widespread emphasis
placed upon integration in school, transportation, church,
recreational centers, economic occupations, and other social
relationships suggests not only the importance of integra
tion in the present problem but its significance in other
social situations. A sporadically aggressive program in
regard to these activities is being pursued in our legisla
tures, public offices, and courts. The Negro, Mexican,
American Indian, and other minority group members are being
integrated in labor unions, the armed forces, federal and
some state and local civil division employment. The demand
for workers in both industry and agriculture has compelled
labor recruiters to go to areas of the South, the Southwest,
Mexico, Japan, and other islands of the Atlantic and Paci
fic. Even the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs is
taking the American Indian from the reservation in order to
help him find a job so that he can become self-supporting.
The Negro, the Mexican, the American Indian, and the Puerto
Rican populations constitute the largest remaining reser
voir of labor in the United States today because of the
limiting of immigration from Europe and Asia.
The analysis of the work situation in which the dif
ferent ethnic groups are employed may be expected to reveal
resultant types of interpersonal relations. It may be that
facts disclosed by such a study can aid in the formulation
of employment and personnel policies and practices in in
dustrial plants employing mixed work groups, particularly
with respect to information gained by the analysis of
friendship, cooperation, conflict, and work-group balance
of these individuals in working relationships.
In Los Angeles, many industrial plants are employing
mixed work groups. These industries are recruiting workers
from Negro, Mexican, Puerto Rican, American Indian, and
other groups. .The development of interpersonal relations
in these mixed groups becomes of concern to the employing
groups, the community, the economists, the sociologists,
and the social psychologists. A primary interest of this
investigation is to discover which factors lead to favor
able social relations of amiability, friendship, and coop
eration in ethnically mixed work groups.
Several factories employing Anglo-Caucasian, Negro,
Mexican, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, and other ethnic groups
were found in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. The fac-
tory selected for this study that would permit their work
ers to be interviewed was the Technibilt Corporation of
Glendale, California. This plant assigns workers from
these different ethnic groups to operate their production
process.
II. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED
The following terms are used in this study and have
the meanings stated below:
Stratified sampling refers to the selection of sam
ples from known populations by the use of sub-populations.
The population is divided into known sub-populations or
strata. Then a sample is selected from each stratum. In
this case the work group was utilized as the stratum and a
sample was drawn from each work group that included a mem
ber of each ethnic group present.
Interpersonal relations are face-to-face social in
teractions between individuals in work group relationships.
Work groups are groups of individuals in face-to-
social interactions involved in a given work operation re
quiring the joint activities of various individuals.
Ethnic characteristics are bio-socio-cultural charac
teristics which differentiate and isolate individuals into
homogeneous groups.
Social tensions are disturbances resulting from the
interactions that arise out of social situation crises.
7
Cooperation is "that type of activity where individ
uals work together but not necessarily alike in accomplish
ing some common goal."
Conflict is that type of activity where two or more
human beings seek actively to thwart each other's purposes,
to prevent satisfaction of each other’s interests, even to
the extent of injuring or destroying the other.
Criteria of conflict or cooperation are selected
personal reactions or types of social interaction which in
dicate the presence of conflict or cooperation.
Lead man is an individual selected by management to
direct the activities of a small work group, usually under
the supervision of a foreman.
Foremen are individuals selected by management to
direct the activities of two or more work groups in a de
partment or large division of a manufacturing concern.
Superintendent or supervisor is an individual se
lected by management to direct the activities of several
foremen or a complete manufacturing plant.
Informal leader is that person of a work group to
whom other workers look for advice, counsel, guidance and
standards of behavior in their work and other situations.
Minority group is a group of people in a position of
social inferiority and usually fewer in number than another
with which it is compared and is distinguished from by dif
ferences of race, nationality, religion, socio-economic
8
situation, social status, or some combination of two or more
of these factors.
Los Angeles Metropolitan Area refers to the densely
populated community covering Los Angeles and Orange counties
in the State of California.
Dominant group is that group of individuals which
has or takes the power to make decisions and to enforce
them in an organization or social situation.
Social integration occurs when the members of any
group of individuals from different ethnic backgrounds are
accepted by the dominant group and by each other in most
types of their social interrelationships. The term inte
gration has different meanings according to the degree of
integration within the group. Some industrial plants think
they are integrating if they have one individual from a
minority group working in the plant even if that person is
isolated, working alone, and has little or no contact with
other workers. In the case of the factory studied, inte
gration is considered to be taking place in a work situa
tion if from 10 to 15 per cent of the workers are from dif
ferent ethnic group backgrounds and are accepted by each
other and by the dominant group. Different degrees of inte
gration exist in the factory and the nonfactory situation.
For this study, although the emphasis was placed on
integration in the factory, it was also considered important
to find out how the different individuals in the factory
9
accept each other outside the factory. The degrees of in
tegration extend from an official formal relationship char
acterized by little interaction to the more intimate type
of relationship characterized by family living.
III. ORGANIZATION OF REMAINDER
OF DISSERTATION
The chapters of the dissertation were developed in
the following order.
In chapter II there is a review of basic literature.
This will include a review of selected literature concerning
ethnic relations in industry and materials on primary group
relations, cohesion, communication in work groups, workers1
values in industry.
Chapter III deals with the methodology used for re
search and analysis. It includes: (1) the selection of the
factory, (2) the selection of the workers interviewed, (3)
the basic experimental design, (4) a description of methods
and materials used in the gathering and analysis of the
data, (5) the logic and development of the various ratings
and scales, and (6) some specific statements concerning the
nature of the study.
Chapter IV provides a brief historical background of
the factory and the employee situation at Technibilt Corpor
ation. This chapter will include some statements of person
nel policy and interpersonnel relations, and the character-
10
istics of the workers.
Chapter V considers the negative evaluations of one
another by the individuals in the work groups of the com
pany. A conflict rating will be defined, applied, and
evaluated.
Chapter VI deals with the cooperative evaluations of
one another of the members of the work groups studied. A
cooperation rating will be defined, evaluated, and tested.
In chapter VII a four-point friendship scale is de
veloped, applied, defined, and evaluated. This index
draws on the two previous chapters to indicate and test the
degree of personal closeness between the workers in their
work group relationships.
The concept "balanced work group" is developed, de
fined, applied, tested, and evaluated in chapter VIII.
This concept utilized the Conflict Rating, the Cooperation
Rating, the Friendship Score, and other materials gathered
in this study.
Chapter IX gives the findings and conclusions of the
study.
The instruments and other pertinent materials used
in the collection of the data are included as appendixes.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE
Certain writings from reports on ethnic relations in
industry and interpersonal relations in industry will be in
cluded in this chapter. This brief review from these two
fields may be helpful to an understanding of the interper
sonal relations in work groups between persons of differ
ent ethnic backgrounds. First, a review of selected liter
ature in ethnic relations in industry will be given. Sec
ond, the literature of industrial relations pertaining to
the study will be presented.
I. ETHNIC RELATIONS IN INDUSTRY
Ethnic relations in industry are in reality a human
relations problem made complex because of differences in
the culture and physical appearance which tend to create
suspicion and distrust. The person with a darker skin,
"slanted" eyes, or other distinctive physical characteris
tics is judged to carry personal traits that have to be
accepted along with differences in behavior and moral values.
Thus the problems of industrial integration are difficult
for they may lead into areas of emotions and sentiments
instead of keeping to the level of rational, objective
thinking.
11
12
White employers and Negro workers in the South. The
movement of wax industries and other industries to the
South has forced them to draw upon Negro labor. During
World War II this problem was particularly acute. Many
time-worn attitudes and practices of the South came into
conflict with manpower needs and government rulings. An
analysis of this situation was made in the spring of 1943
in the New Orleans area where the population was more than
half a million, 30.1 per cent of its total being reported
as colored in 1940. A special census tabulation of March,
1940, found 32.5 per cent of the 177,312 persons employed
in the city were Negroes. A study which included 175 firms
employing a total of 44,740 persons, 8,306 of whom were
Negroes, was conducted by Logan Wilson and Harlan Gilmore.^
A questionnaire was submitted to each firm by a personal
interview with the personnel manager, owner, or some other
responsible individual. Construction, manufacturing,
transportation and communications, wholesale and retail
trade, finance, insurance and real estate, professional and
related services, and government enterprises were studied.
In Mew Orleans with few exceptions Negroes were em
ployed exclusively in unskilled jobs. These exceptions
were those workers who were treated as individuals in spe-
■^Logan Wilson and Harlan Gilmore, "White Employers
and Neqro Workers," American Sociological Review, 8:698-
705, 1943.
13
cial circumstances rather than as a member of their ethnic
group.^ The general ignorance and lack of training of the
Negroes handicapped them in skilled jobs. In the employers*
evaluations of traits according to the race of the worker,
the Negro was considered superior in two of nine items— his
ability to stand heat, and his capacity for heavy manual
labor. Twenty per cent of the employers considered Negroes
better than whites as truck drivers, porters, manual labor
ers, and similar types of workers. Whites were rated defi
nitely superior to Negroes in the ability to learn new jobs,
in speed of work, in initiative, and in general dependa
bility. However, sixteen per cent of the employers listed
jobs for Negroes requiring apprenticeship, and 12.5 per
cent employed Negroes at jobs requiring specialized train
ing . ^
In New Orleans most Negroes and whites worked to
gether only as manual laborers. One-fourth of the employ
ers interviewed reported some Negroes and whites working at
the same jobs. Segregation was not practiced by 12 of the
175 employers. The most common type of segregation was the
assignment of the two races to different types of jobs
within the organization.4
As a result of the manpower shortage created by the
war, 24 per cent of the New Orleans firms had a policy of
hiring more Negro workers and women workers. Although some
^Ibid.. p. 702. 3lbid., p. 700. 4Ibid., p. 701.
14
firms stated that it was their policy to treat Negroes the
same as whites in employee capacities, most firms acknow
ledged a differential policy for the two races in the mat
ter of hiring and promotion. The majority of firms hired
Negroes for unskilled or semi-skilled jobs where little
opportunity existed for advancement in pay or promotion in
responsibility.
Few New Orleans employers mentioned labor-union in
terference or labor complaints about their policies con
cerning the employment of Negroes. This lack of friction
may have resulted because employers and unions were in
substantial agreement, or it may have indicated that few
instances had arisen in which employers tried to oppose
union policies.^
Most New Orleans employers felt that racial aspects
of labor supply and employment in New Orleans, as well as
throughout the rest of the country, present many critical
problems which must be solved. Opinions concerning what
should be done and what the solutions should be showed a
wide variation. Among preferred solutions proposed were
strict segregation in industry, the formation of a more
definite policy, the creation of conditions where the Negro
would be self-sustaining in the community.
The above-mentioned study shows the accommodation of
5Ibid., p. 702.
15
the southern employers to the war manpower shortage. Ne
groes were permitted to enter many enterprises and new
skills were opened to them. The cultural standards of race
relations were slowly giving way to the demands of indus
trial and economic exigencies. The situation even pushed
them to hire Negro workers in semi-skilled and skilled
positions. Negro and white workers were mixing on the
lower level of the labor classes. The demands of the situ
ation caused custom and tradition to relent slowly and per
mitted the Negro to improve his vocational position and
economic situation.
Southern white migrants and Negroes in northern
industries. One of many situations in race relations oc
curs when southern white migrants come to northern cities
to work in plants with Negroes. Erdmann D. Beynon, dis
cussing "hillbilly labor" in Michigan, commented that
southern whites in contact with Negroes in new situations
will tend to react in the same manner as they did in the
South:
Migration to northern industrial cities has brought
the southern whites into new situations for which they
have no cultural definition; therefore, their behavior
has been determined largely by life in rural southern
regions. For example, race prejudice towards Negroes
persists and leads to conflict when they are compelled
to work in the same gangs with Negroes.&
f \
Erdmann D. Beynon, "The Southern White Laborer Mi
grates to Michigan," American Sociological Review, 3:333-
335, June, 1938.
16
Thomas Sancton concurred with this idea in a state
ment made shortly after the Detroit race riot of 1943. He
stated that the hundreds of thousands of white southerners
who came to work in the factories during the late nine
teen-thirties and forties in the armament expansion trans
planted the old subdued, muted, murderous southern race war
into a high-speed industrial background."^
Nothing but conflict could be expected if southern
white migrants defined interracial situation in the North
only in terms of southern mores and acted accordingly. An
assumption made by Gunnar Myrdal based on "a common obser
vation'1 was that the transplanted southern white finds
little necessity for accommodation to northern patterns but
is more likely to change the situation to conform to his
"southern prejudice."®
In a study of the reactions of southern whites in
contact with Negroes in Chicago work-situations and their
influence on the policies of management, Lewis M. Killian
studied 150 southern white migrants in fourteen plants.^
These southern whites were members of many small "clusters"
^Thomas Sancton, "The Race Riots," New Republic,
CIX:9-13, 1943.
®Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma, (New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1944j, p. 79.
^Lewis M. Killian, "The Effects of Southern White
Workers on Race Relations in Northern Plants," American
Sociological Review, 17:327-331, 1952.
17
of migrants concentrated in an ethnically heterogeneous
portion of the Near West Side of Chicago. The majority of
them came from farms and small towns in the South Central
States, especially western Tennessee. Though these people
were known as "hillbillies" in Chicago, few of them came
from the mountainous areas and they regarded the name as a
misnomer. While little hostility toward them was shown,
they were generally regarded by northern whites as cultur
ally inferior. This was especially true of some employers
who consciously avoided hiring "hillbillies." It may be
said that they felt themselves to be in, but not of, Chica
go. Visits to the South were frequent, and many families
periodically returned to their old homes to live for a year
or two. This instability more than anything else, caused
the "hillbillies" to be regarded by employers as a marginal
group of laborers, conveniently available when there was a
shortage of other labor, but undesirable as members of a
cadre of permanent workers.
The hiring policies and practices in the fourteen
plants which employed the southern white workers showed
that the presence or absence of "hillbilly" workers had
only an indirect and minor effect on the policy of the man
agement. In four of these plants, Negroes were employed on
jobs with white workers, and sometimes worked side by side
with southern whites on machines or assembly lines. Three
of these plants were small, with 55, 110, and 225 workers
18
respectively, and were considered the ideal size for racial
disturbances. The fourth plant employed Negroes— about
15 per cent of the working force--southern whites, Mexicans,
and a variety of workers of foreign extraction. It was
larger, with 1,100 workers, and slightly less than 10 per
cent were southern white. The personnel manager of this
plant felt that the integration of Negroes into the plant
had been accomplished without difficulty because of the
firm stand taken by management.
The policies of the ten plants which employed "hill
billies," but had no Negroes, showed that southern migrants
who wished to enjoy self-segregation could work in these
plants without spreading "southern racist ideas." In all
of these plants, the policy of excluding Negroes existed
before management became aware of the presence of the
southern whites. In only one plant was it even suggested
that the presence of the southern whites was a deterrent
to changes in policy. Regardless of the number of southern
white workers employed, inertia and unwillingness to exper
iment with a new group of workers, rather than the diffu
sion of "southern prejudices," caused these managers to con
tinue discriminatory practices.
The presence of the southern whites, had an impor
tant indirect effect on the employment policies of the
1QIbid., pp. 328-329.
19
companies. The three larger plants with large blocs of
"hillbilly" workers--from 20 to 30 per cent of the working
force— had opened their doors to "hillbilly" labor during
a period when the supply of local white labor was curtailed.
The pool of southern white migrant laborers in the West
Side constituted an alternative to Negro workers as replace
ments and additions to the working force. Had this alter
native not been available, the pressure to hire Negroes
would have been greater,
On the basis of the policies and practices of man
agement in these fourteen plants, it was evident that the
presence of southern white workers did not increase dis
crimination against Negroes. Where management took a firm
stand against discrimination, southerners failed to incite
other white workers to voice protests, and some accepted
the policy by taking employment. In other plants, existing
policies of nonemployment of Negroes made it possible for
the migrants to enjoy the fruits of racial segregation in
employment as fully as in the South. The major signifi
cance of the presence of the southern whites was their
availability for employment, which made possible the con
tinuation of previously established discriminatory prac
tices in spite of a shortage of local white labor.^
To the majority of the southern whites, Chicago was
•^Ibid. , p. 330. -^Ibid. , p. 330.
20
a place to make a living. The South continued to be their
principal reference area and they followed its practices of
racial segregation and exclusion when it was conveniently
possible. In situations in which these practices could not
be adhered to without personal sacrifice, they tended to
make the behavioral adjustments necessary though changes in
attitudes did not occur.^
The foregoing research indicates that southern
whites in northern factories are not usually the source of
discriminatory practices against Negroes. They are, how
ever, a latent social force which might capitalize on
northern feelings of discrimination as they are expressed
and operate when the proper situation arises.
New ethnic groups introduced into a work group or a
factory. Many work groups have in-group attitudes tied to
ethnic loyalties. When such in-group characteristics are
determinants of social acceptance, the social placement of
a new worker from a different ethnic group can be success
ful only with a clear recognition of the compulsive force
of such attitudes. This problem is especially acute when
lower-status ethnic and racial groups are hired to mix with
groups who consider their own status to be higher.^
• ^Ibid. , p. 331.
^Everett C. Hughes, "The Knitting of Racial Groups
in Industry," American Sociological Review, 11:512-519,
21
A study of employers' requirements in Charlotte,
North Carolina, and in New Haven, Connecticut, made by Nolan
and Bakke found an interesting discrepancy in methods of
dealing with Negroes and other cultural and ethnic groups
on the part of employers of these two cities. New Haven
employers were less concerned with the nationality, citizen
ship, and religion of their employees than the Charlotte
employers were. This lack of concern came from the fact
that the New Haven employers hired people with these vary
ing characteristics more often than did the Charlotte em
ployers. However, more concern about the Negro problem in
employment was shown by the New Haven employers than by the
Charlotte employers because the' former had hired fewer Ne
groes. Due to this fact, the New Haven employers did not
have available a well-established pattern of occupational
or social categories for such racial minorities. Charlotte
employers with prolonged experience in hiring Negroes had
the techniques of assigning them to common labor as an es
tablished custom with a well-developed rationalization.
The situation in Charlotte was accepted as inevitable; the
methods of dealing with it were considered right and suc
cessful while this situation was explosive in New Haven.^
October, 1946; also Everett C. Hughes, "Queries Concerning
Industry and Society Growing Out of Ethnic Relations in
Industry," American Sociological Review, 14:219, April,
1949.
l^E. W. Noland and E. Wight Bakke, Workers Wanted
22
Burleigh Gardner has described the process used to
introduce Negroes into a particular department of a factory
during World War II. The first Negroes moved in as under
lings and required no special introductions. However, when
the decision was made to bring in others as operatives,
preliminary discussions were held with union leaders,
supervisors, and workers. At first, the "best type" Negro
was selected, that is the "nice-looking type" with "white
features" who was clean and knew the etiquette of race re
lations. Introduction was gradual, but as the war pro
gressed it became necessary to be "less discriminating"
with new recruits. Tensions built up as a result of high
production demands, long working hours, no vacations, and
crowded washrooms and these created frustrations, the re
sults of which were directed toward the Negro. Occasion
ally these tensions broke out in race conflict.^
Faced with silent but powerful opposition on the
part of the group, only the extraordinary individual from
an ethnic minority will acquire vertical occupational mo
bility, since by so doing he may be held suspect by his own
group. The person who yields to the pressure toward con
formity finds compensation for the lack of mobility in the
(New York: Harper & Brothers, 1949), pp. 31, 49, 139-140.
^Burleigh B. Gardner and David G. Moore, Human
Relations in Industry (revised edition; Chicago: Richard
D. Irwin, I n c . , p p . 310-313.
23
added sense of security and belongingness.
Survey of Integration in New York State. A study of
the integration of Negroes into industries and businesses
in New York State was undertaken by Jacob Seidenberg in
1948 for the New York State School of Industrial and Labor
Relations, Cornell University.17 Thirty-three firms vary
ing in size from 100 workers to 30,000 workers were in
volved in the study. Included in the study were steel
fabricating plants, retail department stores, life insur
ance companies, manufacturing plants, public utilities,
and others. This study was initiated to evaluate the re
sults of a New York State Law against Discrimination which
had been passed in 1940. The study was to discover how
closely the firms surveyed were complying with the law.
This state law was found to have given the impetus needed
to initiate integration which some employers were not will
ing or able to do volitionally.
An orientation program to stress the fact that they
employed Negroes in their establishments was used by very
few of the employers. This practice could be used more
17Jacob Seidenberg, Negroes in the Work Group, A
Study of Selected Employment 'Practices in New York Stafe
(Research Bulletin No. o; lihaca, New Vork: New York State
School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell Uni
versity, February, 1950), pp. 48.
24
extensively than was the current practice. When a company
declared its policy at the initial stage of the employer-
employee relationship it lasted for a considerable if not
an indefinite period.
No evidence from this survey was found that labor
unions had created any difficulties about the hiring, con
tinued employment, or upgrading of Negroes. Twenty of the
companies studied were organized by international unions.
The CIO unions, particularly the United Auto Workers, ap
peared to have well developed apparatus for handling fair-
employment practices. The CIO unions were predominate in
the firms studied. In six of the plants reviewed, personnel
directors said Negroes were acting as union shop officials,
but none of the personnel directors stated whether Negroes
in general were active participants in union affairs.
The National Urban League, through its Industrial
Department and its local chapters, was found to be an es
pecially good source of expert advice on the employment of
Negroes. Its activities even went to the extent of estab
lishing a charm school to teach teenage Negroes and others
the essentials of good grooming and proper social conduct.
Negro community centers and the industrial departments of
local YMCA's were also helpful in the employment of Negro
workers.
According to the study, when employers hired Negroes
for the first time, or hired additional Negroes in new
25
capacities and adopted a firm attitude and were resolute
in their intentions to enforce this policy, they were suc
cessful. Careful initial selection of Negro workers was
vital to the firm attempting an effective integration of
the Negro as a member of the work force. It was through
this type of care in selection of Negro workers that favor
able impressions were made upon management and other work
ers. Colored employees who gained acceptance easily from
their fellow workers on the basis of ability and personal
ity facilitated the employment of other Negores. The Negro
had to learn to accept much responsibility for his own
economic destiny by training himself for available job
opportunities, without asking for special favors. Good
grooming was stressed, especially for applicants for office
jobs and other white collar posts. Pleasing attributes of
personality and emotional stability were also found to be
important characteristics for the integration of Negro
workers.
For meeting and overcoming employee resistance, ac
tivities in social, cultural, and recreational areas were
established. All but two companies provided such programs.
The programs included baseball, bowling, photography clubs,
picnics, stamp clubs, and dances. Negroes mingled more
freely in the activities of some companies than in others,
but in no case was an attempt made to shun them or restrict
them in any manner from full participation. Where the
26
stellar athletic performer was a Negro, this was an impor
tant factor in winning acceptance of all Negroes in the
plant.
Only two plants reported tensions caused by white
men paying attention to colored women, or colored men to
white women. These incidents either aroused the ire of
the recipient of the unwanted attention or of the workers
in the group whose moral taboos were violated. The per
sonnel directors interviewed stated that interracial inci
dents should be handled impartially, thus avoiding any
"double standard." The white men should be disciplined
just as severely for unwanted attentions to colored women
as colored men for their attentions to white women.
The matter of common facilities, frequently believed
to be a source of conflict, was obviated by firm insistence
that all employees share the same facilities and that these
facilities be kept immaculately clean. Clean and neat wash
rooms, showers, lockers, and cafeterias eliminated the hesi
tancy of the white workers to use them.
Grievance machinery as it related to Negro employees
was found to be an effective method of resolving many of
the problems raised by their employment. To achieve the
maximum benefits from this procedure, the grievance machin
ery had to be speedy and just.
Very few Negroes were found in supervisory positions,
but some were holding skilled positions and a number worked
27
at semi-skilled tasks. Because very few industries had
granted free and easy access to Negroes until recently, it
was rather unlikely that Negroes would be in jobs of re
sponsibility and importance, for they lacked seniority and
skill. Firms that had employed Negroes in either skilled
or supervisory positions alleged that they were adequate to
the demands and responsibilities made upon them. With one
or two exceptions, personnel officials felt sanguine about
the possibility of Negroes advancing in their organizations
if they acquired skill and seniority.
Employers were unanimous in deciding there was no
value in having segregated work areas or facilites in
their establishments. This was aside from the fact that
such a course of action would be of questionable legality
under existing law. No one appeared to favor the theory
that Negroes wanted to be "with their own" or would work
better separated from white associates. The survey revealed
that it was unwarranted and unwise to attempt to create
"Jim Crow" areas because they would impede production and
create racial animosity. Separate health examinations for
Negroes were eliminated.
The above research revealed that legal action plus
the manpower shortage helped develop permissive attitudes
for the integration of the Negro into industry in the state
of New York. The study implied that Negro integration with
white workers in industry is a community problem that must
28
have the cooperation and concentration by business and
industry, labor unions, and the government.
The studies discussed in this section have illus
trated the approximate state of race relations in industry
in the United States as it has developed in recent years.
Negroes are slowly moving into more responsible and high-
paying positions. Legal restrictions and labor shortages
have compelled the introduction of minority group members
into work groups. Techniques for the introduction of mi
nority group members into work groups have been stated and
social change illustrated.
II. INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS IN INDUSTRY
Industrial relations, according to Wilbert E. Moore,
. , . has reference to the internal relations within
industrial organizations and to the external relations
of industry to society. It . . . includes not only
what is ordinarily called industrial relations in the
narrow sense--namely, the relations of management and
labor— but the whole network of organized activity that
constitutes the productive system. Since the nature of
the internal relationships is partly determined or mod
ified by the character of the position of industry with
respect to the larger society, both intensive and ex
tensive examinations are required for an adequate ap
praisal of industrial relations. °
Schneider defined industrial relations as:
. . . formal social relations production; . . . and
as social relationships at work.
■^Wilbert E. Moore, Industrial Relations and the
Social Order,(Revised Edition; New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1551), p. 7.
. . . The formal social relationships of production
result from the socially defined rights of individuals
to have access to the means of making a living, and to
share in the results of the productive process. By
social relations at work, on the other hand, is meant
those social relationships into which men enter by vir
tue of their association in a cooperative process of
production.
Industrial relations in the present study refers to
those aspects of human relationships that grow out of em
ployment. It means in essence, employment relations and
refers to the relationships of employers to employees, of
employees to employers and to each other, of employers and
employees to unions, and to all the many interrelation
ships that develop from employment. It includes such re
lationships in large firms and small firms, in industry, in
government, in agriculture— in short, wherever men hire
other men. To understand the employment situation the
workers1 values should be known.
Workers1 values. Studies have been made of workers'
values in regard to different aspects of the work situation.
Robert Hoppock20 conducted an investigation some
years ago to determine the factors related to job satis
faction. Eighty-eight per cent of the employed adults of
■^Eugene V. Schneider, Industrial Sociology, The
Social Relations of Industry and the Community (New York;
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1*5^7), pp. 29-30.
2Cfoobert Hoppock, Job Satisfaction (New York:
Harper and Brothers Publishers, 193b), 3 03 pp.
30
New Hope, Pennsylvania, were interviewed. The following is
a report gained from the 309 workers contacted:
. . . six major components, which are here discussed.
They are: the way the individual reacts to unpleasant
situations; the facility with which he adjusts himself
to other persons; his relative status in the social and
economic group with which he identifies himself; the
nature of the work in relation to the abilities, inter
ests, and preparation of the workers; security; and
loyalty.21
Walter A. Woods22 concluded that job dissatisfaction
may be caused at times by low morale. Job dissatisfaction,
however, may not be related at all to the employment situa
tion. Conceivably, workers can have high morale and yet be
dissatisfied with their jobs. Woods then concluded that
morale is a term which relates to a group attitude. The
attitude is present or is absent. Worker morale cannot be
considered to be high or low. He finally concluded that
the nature of morale is unknown and as such cannot be
measured.
In the ranking of ten factors of job characteristics
by 325 factory workers, J. C. Worthy2^ found "steady work,"
"working conditions," "working companions," "good boss,"
and "opportunity for advancement," rated above "high pay"
21Ibid., p. 276.
22Walter a . Woods, "Employee Attitudes and Their
Relations to Morale," Journal of Applied Psychology, 28:
285-301, 1944.
2^J. C. Worthy, "Factors Influencing Employee
Morale," Harvard Business Review, 28:26, January, 1950.
31
in importance to the worker. This shows that the condi-
tions of work and the social relationships were considered
more important than pay. "Use your ideas," "learn a job,"
"good hours," and "easy work" followed in seventh, eighth,
ninth, and tenth position. These workers tended to point
up the importance of interpersonal relationships in the
work situation.
In another study, Worthy24 attempted to cast light
on the problem of factors related to employee morale by a
report of a series of surveys that Sears, Roebuck had con
ducted covering 100,000 employees for over twenty years.
The factors which influenced employee morale were found in
face-to-face, uninstitutionalized, simple, and informal
situations. High employee morale was related to democratic
work situations. The essence of employee morale was found
in sound organization and capable leadership. Another im
portant factor was the opportunity for advancement for
those with ability and ambition. Low morale was associated
with the largeness of the size of the working plant. The
size of the company was not important but rather the size
of the plant in which the employee works.
Brayfield and Roth2^ developed a questionnaire which
24James C. Worthy, "Organized Structure and Employee
Morale," American Sociological Review, 15:169-179, 1950.
^Arthur H. Brayfield and Harold F. Roth, "Construc
tion of a Quantitative Index for Employee Job Satisfaction
and Morale," Journal of Applied Psychology, 35:307-311,1951.
32
was termed a quantitative index for the determination of
employee morale and job satisfaction. They inferred that
job satisfaction and morale were developed from individuals1
attitudes toward their work situation.
Whether it is called ’ 'morale" or "job satisfaction,"
something exists which helps workers adjust to their work
and creates a pleasant work situation for them.
As can be seen from the above, the adjustment of the
individual to various situations and his identification
with groups was closely tied to his job satisfaction. This
was related to the interpersonal relationships found in the
work group.
Primary group relationships in industry. Another
important factor in the work situation is the primary group
relationship. In 1933, Mayo^6 presented the first of a
series of reports on an extended study of the productive
motivations of workers in the Hawthorne Works of the West
ern Electric Company. Originally these studies were initi
ated as experiments in remuneration and in the physical
factors in relation to individual productivity, but they
soon developed into a study of social factors. Working
without explicit theory or theoretical objective, Mayo and
his associates were led to conduct a number of experiments
^Elton Mayo, The Human Problems of an Industrial
Civilization (New YorTT: Macmillan, 1935), 194 pp.
33
with actual work groups in the factory, and to make exten
sive and careful observations of events and conditions as
sociated with productivity and with the personal adjustment
of individual workers.
The principal generalizations of Mayo's research
are: (1) that primary group formation takes place despite
the lack of any formal encouragement or direction, appar
ently in response to a need for such association not satis
fied in the formal company provisions for organized rela
tionships; (2) that the formation of primary group associa
tions may conflict with, rather than coincide with, the
formal organization plan, and may be accompanied by hostil
ities between the primary group and the larger organization;
(3) that primary group formation seems to be facilitated by
interactions required by interdependent work processes and
by perception of group formation as an instrument of control
over the environment of the group; (4) that productivity
standards as well as other behavioral standards may be de
termined by informal group-consensus and enforced by in
formal group-practices; and (5) that individual personality
equilibrium is dependent in part upon primary group member
ship and upon the structure of the primary group.
In a different study, Reinhard Bendix made the fol
lowing point by quoting Karl Marx.
. . . Marx did not believe that it was possible to
incorporate the worker's initiative, his pride, and
whole-hearted co-operation in a common task of produc-
34
tion as long as he was subject to the necessities of an
organization whose operation and purpose were planned
and conducted without his participation.27
Comrey, Pfiffner, and Beem^ conducted a study to
determine the factors related to the effective functioning
of organizations. It was determined that allowing employ
ees to participate in the planning and conducting of a pro
ductive technique seemed worthwhile in the furthering of
organizational effectiveness. This tends to support Bendix
in his contentions that to secure the initiative of the
worker there must be provision for him to participate in
the selection of purposes, the planning and the conducting
of activities for workers. In large-scale manufacturing
plants, worker participation of this nature is, of neces
sity, small.
Fred Blurn*^ in his study of the Horme1-Packinghouse
workers found that the guaranteed annual wage with an in
centive program still left the workers with little chance
to find self-realization in the repetitive hand-operations
and the relative isolation from interpersonal relations.
^Reinhard Bendix, "Bureaucracy: The Problem and
Its Settinq," American Socioloqical Review, 12:501-502,
1947.
L. Comrey, J. M. Pfiffner, H. P. Beem, "Factors
Influencing Organizational Effectiveness," Personnel Psych
ology, 5:307-328, 1952.
^Fred H. Blum, Toward a Democratic Work Process,
The Hormel-Packinqhouse Workers1 Experiment (New York:
Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1953), 229 pp.
35
This built up interpersonal tensions and conflicts within
the individual. Blum prescribed a cure which consisted of
increased interpersonal relationships by worker participa
tion in the decision-making on the production line, in
problem-solving groups and in other activities. Workers
were not happy with their guaranteed income and high pay,
but wanted to participate in interpersonal relations where
they could help make decisions concerning production ac
tivities. This placed them in a primary group relationship
where they could interact with other workers. Blum’s cure
further supports the Bendix contention.
The importance of this primary group relationship
on
was noted in small military groups by Stuart Adamsow who
investigated the relationship between social groups. His
findings shed light upon the existence of the same varia
bles in both high-producing and low-producing departments.
The findings of Adams indicated that equalitarian social
climates are favorable to productivity in small groups,
even in the traditionally authoritarian environment of the
United States Air Force. But Adams pointed out an impor
tant qualification to this conclusion:
. . . While equalitarianism may be generally favor
able to group productivity, extreme degrees of equali
tarianism appear to be associated with declining
3^Stuart Adams, "Social Climate and Productivity in
Small Military Groups," American Sociological Review. 19:
421-425, 1954.
36
levels of performance
In a reassessment of the Hawthorne studies, Henry A.
Landsberger3^- found two important aspects were stressed for
the first time in this research: (1) talking with workers
about their problems in the work situation tended to reduce
the conflict felt by them towards management, and (2) the
importance of the first-line supervisor in his interper
sonal relations with the workers. Other important rela
tionships were discovered relating to the attitudes in the
work situation; viz., (1) the importance of the effect of
the situation on the individual's attitudes and thus upon
the worker's interpersonal relationships; and (2) the ef
fect of attitudes on subsequent individual behavior in
interaction with others, rather than on the structure of
the situation itself. The fact that restriction-of-output
was tied to small-group interpersonal relations was a
shock to the academic world at this time. For this re
search, the important aspect was that this phenomenon was
related not only to the small-group structure, but to the
values of different ethnic groups, to organizational vari
ables, and to the nature of the job and the satisfaction
obtained from it, all of which are tied to the interper-
31Ibid., p. 425.
3^Henry A. Landsberger, Hawthorne Revisited, Man
agement and the Worker, Its CriTics, and Developments in
Industry (Ithaca,' New York: Cornell' University, T$5'S), 119
pp.
37
sonal relations between members of the groups and to their
interpretations of the social environment.
Thus, the importance of the primary-group relation
ship can be seen in the work groups and elsewhere in the
working relationships. However, some control must be exer
cised over primary-group relationships or they may nullify
the purpose of the production process.
OO
Cohesion in work groups. The findings of Elton Mayo J
were that high rates of production depended upon cohesive
work groups. He described a small group of welders in an
aircraft who possessed group-cohesion as persons and "worked
like beavers" with an efficiency (output per man hour) of
100 per cent to 105 per cent, whereas the average for the
plant was about 80 per cent. The group was thought by
others to be clannish. The members of the group thought of
themselves as a team and as in some degree different from
other workers in the plant.34 The cohesiveness of this
work group was stimulated by a leadman and by an assistant
foreman who gave him support. The leadman helped individ
ual workers, worked to avoid shortages of materials, and
33Elton Mayo and George F. F. Lombard, Teamwork and
Labor Turnover in the Aircraft Industry of Southern Cali
fornia (Business Research Studies, No. 32; Boston; Publi
cation of the Graduate School of Business Administration,
George F. Baker Foundation, Harvard University, Bureau of
Business Research, 1944), 32 pp.
34Ibid., p. 19.
38
buffered the work-group against inspectors, efficiency ex
perts, and the plant foreman. The high production rate of
the work team was induced by the personality of the lead
man rather than by any direction of higher management.3~*
Work groups achieve their integration spontaneously
and not by the direct action of management. Management
offers the technical and operational location of "climate"
in which the groups can grow. Therefore, to achieve pro
duction and worker-output, management must skillfully at
tempt to foster the integrity of small work groups.3^
Another study by Reinhard Bendix stated:
It is found, for example, that workers tend to set
social standards for output of their group through in
formal understandings. Does this mean that they lack
the spirit of co-operation, or that their spirit of
co-operation differs from that desired by the employer?
Roethlisberger has stated that such behavior is evi
dence of the "lack of social function" in the job of
the worker. But can improved personnel policies re
store to the worker that feeling of personal impor
tance and integrity which the production process denies
him? Is such a personnel policy even compatible with
the organizational requirements of the production
process?3'
Wilson, Beem, and Comrey undertook a study to deter
mine social factors associated with efficient organiza
tions.33 This research dealt with non-skilled workers and
35Ibid., pp. 19-20. 36Ibid., pp. 23-24.
3^Reinhard Bendix, "Bureaucracy: The Problem and Its
Setting," American Sociological Review, 12:502, 1947.
38R. C. Wilson, H. P. Beem, and A. L. Comrey, "Fac
tors Influencing Organizational Effectives, III," Personnel
Psychology, 6:313-325, 1953.
39
supervisors in thirty-three basic production departments of
a Naval Air Base in San Diego, California. The only factor
related to the criterion of production was the lack of
arbitrariness on the part of the supervisor. The research
ers considered such factors as group cohesion, lack of
supervisor arbitrariness, good downward communication,
safety information, and social nearness. Many of these
researchers related high production to group-cohesion, yet
R. C. Wilson ^t al. did not find it to be a factor at all
significantly related to production rates.
In a study concerned with group cohesion involving
approximately 20,000 workers in the Midwest Machine Com
pany, Seashore^ found that the formal units of organiza
tion in the factory functioned as effective primary groups,
and that the individual was dependent upon this group feel
ing of security and for the reduction of his anxieties.
These groups were the source of potent influences which may
or may not be marshalled in support of the goals of the
larger organization. He also developed a conception of
group cohesiveness— the attraction of the group for the
members and as a facilitating factor which determines the
amount of influence a group has, but not necessarily the
^Stanley e. Seashore, Group Cohesiveness in the
Industrial Work Group, Survey Research Ctenter, Institute
for Social Research, Publication No. 14 (Ann Arbor, Michi
gan: University of Michigan, 1954), 107 pp.
40
direction ox the goal toward which the group-influences
operate. Some of the factors determining the degree to
which group cohesiveness developed are external to and prior
to group formation. The work group was more likely to
become cohesive if administrative actions were directed to
the following ends: (1) lending prestige to the group mem
bers, (2) structuring the organization so that there was
provision for groups of relatively small size, and (3)
maintaining a continuity in group membership over a period
of time. Group cohesiveness was positively related to the
degree of prestige attributed by the group members to their
own jobs. Under conditions of low cohesiveness, perception
of a high degree of support from the company was coincident
with low productivity standards while low support was coin
cident with high production. High cohesive groups exhib
ited less anxiety than members of low cohesive groups.
This study showed the importance of group cohesiveness in
supporting the individual worker and in giving meaning to
his work-experience as well as in "stabilizing" him.
As can be seen from the above, there was much dis
agreement about group-cohesion and what it does and does
not do. However, it is an important aspect of any factory
work-group and should be studied further.
Communication in work groups. F. J. Roethlisberger
has indicated the importance of inter-group communication
41
and mutual understanding of interpersonal relations between
employer and workers:
. . . Maintaining internal equilibrium within the
social organization of the plant involves keeping the
channels of communication free and clear so that orders
are transmitted downward without distortion and so rel
evant information regarding situations at the work
level is transmitted upward without distortion to those
levels at which it can be best made use of. This in
volves getting the bottom of the organization to under
stand the economic objectives of the top; it also means
getting the top of the organization to understand the
feelings and sentiments of the bottom.
Efficient upward-and-downward communication is dif
ficult to maintain in a hierarchical structure unless
interpersonal relations are maintained on a satisfactory
level. Supervisors attempt to conceal from higher line
authorities dissensions in their departments. The informal
relations existing in a formal organization, cliques (ran
dom, vertical, and horizontal) often hinder the communica
tion process. Supervisors often hide efforts to reward
friends, secure advantages, avoid threats, and conduct
veiled reprisals. Most undercover activity of this nature
can be eliminated with good interpersonal relations.
Close co-operation and communication between manage
ment and union serves to reduce internal conflict and build
better interpersonal relations in the social organization
of the plant. Bertrand Gottlieb and Willard Kerr4^ deter-
40f . J. Roethlisberger, Management and Morale (Cam
bridge: Harvard University Pres” 3.944), pp. 192-193.
41]3ertrand Gottlieb and Willard Kerr, "Union and
42
mined that where management accepts the union completely,
strong attitudes of rivalry between workers with respect to
pro-management and pro-union sentiments tend to be reduced.
It was discovered that employees who were anti-management
were also anti-union. To account for this, the authors
postulated a cultural pattern of rejection of authority.
Comrey, Pfiffner, and Beem undertook a study to de
termine the factors related to the effective functioning of
organizations.42 Forest supervisors in highly rated for
ests were found to be more democratic with their top assist
ants. They were more sympathetic, more willing to interact
with their top assistants, more willing to share informa
tion with their assistants, and to be more helpful to top
subordinates in their work. This tended to be associated
with less dissension among employees in the high-rated for
ests. These conclusions point up the importance of good
communication, interpersonal relations, and democratic
leadership for organizational efficiency and morale.
In another study on organizational effectiveness,
Comrey, Pfiffner, and Beem42 investigated thirty offices of
Management Cooperation," Personnel Psychology, 3:445-453,
1950.
4 2
A. L. Comrey, J. M. Pfiffner, and H. P. Beem,
"Factors Influencing Organizational Effectiveness,1 1 Per
sonnel Psychology, 5:307-327, 1952.
43
A. L. Comrey, J. M. Pfiffner, and H. P. Beem,
"Factors Influencing Organizational Effectiveness, II,"
43
the California State Department of Employment. The offices
were rated by assistant area managers, assistant office
managers and non-supervisory personnel. Questions covered
areas of methods of supervision, and interpersonal rela
tions. The managers of the highly rated offices were more
v 1
democratic, more willing to share information, more sympa
thetic, and less critical with their subordinates. The
employees of the highly-rated offices showed less dissen
sion and greater pride in their work. Pride shown in work
by employees was an important factor related to the highly
rated offices. Again the quality of the communication and
interpersonal relations was associated with a better output
of work.
Another study by Wilson, Beem, and Comrey44 involved
thirty-three basic production shops of a Naval Air Station
in San Diego. The questionnaire used covered super-ordin
ate and subordinate relations, attitudes toward jobs, and
supervisory relations with employees. The supervision of
of both high-producing and low-producing shops was des
cribed by their workers as more helpful, more sympathetic,
less hypocritical, had better judgment, were more consist-
Personnel Psychology, 5:65-79, 1953.
44R. C. Wilson, H. P. Beem, and A. L..Comrey, "Fac
tors Influencing Organization Effectiveness, III," Person
nel Psychology, 6:313-325, 1953.
44
ent, and were more self-reliant than the supervisors in the
medium producing shops. Such attitudes of the workers were
not enough to insure high production.
To account for the same variables present in the
low producing shops, the authors suggested a group attitude
in operation which held production down. This study, in
which skilled workers were tested, indicated that skill
and technical knowledge tended to be secondary and that the
situation-variables or group-attitudes were primary in the
determination of production levels.
In the many pieces of research reported upon in this
section, the importance of interpersonal relations has con
sistently come to the fore. Sometimes the interpersonal
relations were expressed in an attitude unaccounted for in
the minds of the workers, and sometimes it was found in
the communications between different levels of hierarchy,
but it was always present.
In the Human Group, by George C. Homans, five groups
were evaluated, a team of workmen engaged in the manufac
ture of an industrial product, a metropolitan street-corner
gang, a tribe of Pacific-islanders, a small New England
town, and a company that manufactured electrical equipment.
The first three groups were studied as static societies
^George C. Homans, The Human Group (New York:
Harcourt, Brace and Company, 19bU), pp. xxxviii, 484.
45
and the second two groups were studied as dynamic societies.
The small New England town was studied as a society that
was disintegrating and the company that manufactured elec
trical equipment was studied as a society in conflict. In
all five groups, Homans selected the same types of data
for analysis, though with a somewhat different emphasis and
elaboration each time. He found that as different as these
groups were, their behavior showed fundamental similari
ties. They revealed social uniformities.
The core of Homans' findings was that in all five
groups, the forces which affected behavior were in a con
stant state of mutual dependence. "Interaction" and "sen
timent" depend on each other. The oftener A and B do
things together, the more they will tend to do things to
gether; both tendencies affected the individual's behavior
and that of the group. But each element was also dependent
on all the other elements, processes, and relationships
that had been considered. If the liking of A for B, or
the way they did things together, produced a considerable
departure from what the group considered proper behavior,
a reaction was set up to bring A and B into line, and this
also affected the other relationships and group behavior as
a whole.
From the above statements, a conclusion may be made
that interpersonal relations are important in any situation
in which people are working together. Interpersonal rela-
46
tionships build sentiments which carry beyond the work
relationships between individuals.
III. SUMMARY
The literature presented in this chapter has covered
studies and other materials relating to ethnic and inter
personal relations in industry. The participation of
ethnic groups in industry was found to have spread consid
erably during the past years due to the pressure of war and
labor shortages. Legal requirements of fair employment
practices have furthered the acceptance of different racial
groups in business and industrial enterprises. The Negro
was found to be slowly moving up the industrial hierarchy
when his abilities were recognized and accepted. Better
techniques for developing good interpersonal relations be
tween individuals from different ethnic groups were indi
cated .
The nature of cohesion, communication, workers'
values, and primary group relationships in industrial work
groups was reported. The definite relationships between
workers involving conflict, cooperation, and interpersonal
relationships in the work process have received inadequate
attention by researchers. In some cases the authors sug
gested that cooperative relationships should be increased
among workers in order to make them happier and more ef
fective in the work process. The tendency seemed to be to
concentrate on production output, relations between manage
ment representatives and the workers, and the physical
conditions of employment, and not to be concerned with the
relationships between workers. The worker in industry,
though recognized as being human, has not been studied
adequately in his interpersonal relationships.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS
This chapter deals with the methodology employed,
the basic experimental design, the selection of the fac
tory, the selection of ..workers for interview, the inter
view procedure, a description of materials used in the
gathering and analysis of the data, and elaboration about
the components of the ratings and scores utilized.
I. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
In sociological research, the concept "experimental
design" refers to the systematic study of human relations
by making observations under conditions of control."'*’
Control of social conditions is obtained by selecting for
observation two or more groups of individuals who are simi
lar in some ways and are different in other ways. The like
characteristics are treated as constants and the unlike
characteristics are discovered or described.
Three types of experimental design have been used
in social research projects of this kind: (1) cross-section
al design, (2) projected design, and (3) ex post facto
^F. Stuart Chapin, Experimental Designs in Socio
logical Research (revised edition; New York: Harper &"
Brothers Publishers, 195b), p. 29.
48
49
design. The projected design of "before” and “after" study
attempts to measure the effects of a social force at some
future date by using a control group and an experimental
group and by following through the flow of events from a
present to a future date. The experimental group is sub
jected to a social force and the control group is not.
After a period of time elapsed, they are compared. The
projected design can discover if a cause-and-effect rela
tionship exists. The concept "cause-and-effeet relation
ship" as used here does not imply rigid determinism, but
represents a "kind of association between factors in time
sequence which has a determinable probability of occur
rence. The study of the Technibilt Corporation was a
modified projected design without a control group. The
same groups of workers were interviewed in 1955 and 1956,
and one sample group of 32 workers was re-interviewed in
1957.
The first phase of the Technibilt study involved the
interviewing of 132, or 92 per cent, of the 144 Technibilt
workers. The second phase was carried out one year after
the completion of the first. A stratified purposive sample
of 32 workers were selected and reinterviewed. The second
interview was to discover any changes that might have oc
curred in the attitudes of the workers. During the inter-
^Ibid., pp. 32-33, 53.
50
vening period, the United Auto Workers of the C.I.O. had
organized the workers, becoming their bargaining agent, and
had negotiated a contract. The first phase was accomplished
between June, 1955, and February, 1956. The second phase
was completed between February and June of 1957.
II. SELECTING THE SAMPLE
The problem required the use of two groups of
respondents. Each group must come from a factory popula
tion with persons from different ethnic backgrounds mixed
in work groups. The first step in selecting the samples
was the identification of the population from which they
were to be selected.
Choosing the factory. After investigating the pos
sibility of this type of study, a decision was made to
limit it to a factory in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area.
In the interest of securing fairly homogeneous subgroups,
only those workers who had been working for the company six
or more months were interviewed.
The study was interested primarily in interpersonal
relations. Since most interaction in factories takes place
on the work group level, this type of interaction was
selected as the logical focus of the study. John B. Knox
in discussing the size of group to study in the industrial
system suggested the "smallest work group" with a full-time
51
supervisor would be most logical and rewarding for study.^
This includes a "lead" man and his work group in most in
dustrial operations.
After consultation with the California State Employ
ment personnel, several University of Southern California
professors, the members of the United States Naval Reserve
Industrial Relations Company 11-3, and the heads of sever
al manufacturing companies, the Technibilt Corporation was
selected for study because they were willing to cooperate
and be studied.
First interview of Technibilt workers. All employ
ees in the factory and business office of the Technibilt
Corporation took part in the first phase of the study. This
included approximately 144 individuals in 16 work groups.
The foremen were considered as a separate work group
for they met once or twice a week under the direction of
the personnel manager and the plant superintendent to dis
cuss problems pertaining to their supervisory work, to plan
work schedules, and to review decisions of company policy.
This placed them in an interacting group relationship. The
janitors were considered a separate work group, but since
they worked independently and were two in number they were
not included in the study.
3John B. Knox, The Sociology of Industrial Relations,
An Introduction to Industrial Socioloqy (New York: Ranciom
H o u s e T I 9 5 5 J“ T 1 3 5 . ---------------------------------
52
Twelve of the 144 workers were not interviewed, be
cause some preferred not to be interviewed, while others
did not speak English and were not capable therefore of
being interviewed. These persons, however, were evaluated
on many points by their fellow workers.
Mr. Hoedinghaus, Mr. Sanders, and Mr. Ross, presi
dent, vice president, and personnel manager respectively
of the company, helped organize the study and gave back
ground and supplemental information throughout the study.
Second interview of Technibilt workers. Thirty-two
workers were interviewed again one year after the first
interviews were completed. This group served two func
tions: first, to check the reliability of the instruments
used in the study (to be discussed later); second, to dis
cover any changes in the attitudes of the workers. During
that year the United Auto Workers of the C.I.O. had organ
ized the workers and had negotiated a contract with the
company. The reinterviewed workers were asked the same
questions in the same manner as in the first interview.
The group of workers interviewed the second time
were selected on a stratified purposive sample basis. They
were chosen to represent each ethnic group present in the
work group. When more than one member of the ethnic group
was in the work group, the interviewees were selected on
the basis of the one which would give freely the most
53
information in the interview situation.
Interview procedure. After the worker to be inter
viewed was selected, he was introduced to the interviewer
and taken to a place outside the factory where the inter
view was conducted. The purpose of the study was explained
and the respondent was assured that his responses would be
held in strict confidence. The informant’s name was
written by a number on the list of persons interviewed and
that number was recorded on the interview schedule. In
this way the individual's name was kept confidential and
separate from the completed schedule. This was explained
to the worker and he was then given an opportunity to ask
questions to clarify the purposes of the study or to ground
any suspicions regarding the relationship of this study to
management or union objectives. Following this, the ques
tions of the schedule were asked and recorded in the
presence of the informant.
The interview usually required 30 to 40 minutes to
complete. Sometimes an individual would talk at length
about some particular interpersonal relationship in the
work situation that bothered him. He was encouraged to
relieve himself of this anxiety for the cathartic effect.
This was a good way to discover the problems bothering the
worker in his interpersonal relationships with the various
supervisors and fellow workers.
54
,Most workers were somewhat skeptical concerning the
purposes of the study at the beginning of the interview.
As the conversation progressed, the individuals usually
became interested in the study and were made to feel that
they were making a positive contribution to the science of
interpersonal relations between workers and management and
between workers from different ethnic backgrounds.
At the conclusion of the interview, the worker was
thanked and again given the opportunity to ask questions
concerning the study. All workers were encouraged to con
tact the interviewer about any additional information they
might remember later, or ask any question about the study
that might bother them after the completion of the inter
view.
Ratings of the study. Two ratings and one scale
were developed for use in this study: a friendship scale,
a conflict rating, and a cooperation rating. The friend
ship scale was based on a social distance scale in which
the individual indicated the amount of personal regard he
held for the different members of his work group. The
categories were: stranger, speaking acquaintance, regular
friend, and close friend.^
P A
The conflict rating was made up of six relationships^
^See Appendix D, pp. 1 and 2.
^See Appendix D, pp. 2 and 3.
55
which tend to show relationships of egocentric and malad
justed persons who are difficult to interact with in the
work situation. Each person was asked to indicate the num
ber of persons within the work group who had these charac
teristics by their ethnic background. Names were neither
asked nor recorded.
The cooperation rating was built in the same manner
as the conflict rating and involved seven personal rela
tionships^* which would indicate cooperation between indivi
duals in a work group. The worker was asked to indicate
the number of persons in his work group who had these char
acteristics. The number of persons was recorded for each
of these seven bases by their ethnic classification.
Cooperation and conflict ratings were computed and
scored in the same manner. This was accomplished by com
puting the total number of possible conflict or coopera
tive relationships between the individual and the members
of the work group. The proportion of the actual judgments
to the potential judgments became the cooperation rating or
the conflict rating for that work group or ethnic group.
The friendship scale was used to compute a score by
arbitrarily assigning a value of 1 for each person judged
a stranger, a value of 2 for each speaking acquaintance, a
value of 3 for each regular friend, and a value of 4 for
^See Appendix D, pp. 1 and 2.
56
each close friend. In this way a friendship score could be
computed and recorded for each ethnic group as assigned by
each worker. That total could then be totaled for the work
group and an average score figured for each ethnic group
present in a work group. A total score could also be com
puted for the work group.
Methods and materials utilized. This was basically
a personal interview method of study. Individuals were
interviewed with a personal interview schedule as a guide
and the information was recorded on it.7 Personal observa
tions of the work situations and the conditions were also
made and recorded for the study. The majority of the in
formation was obtained by the use of the individual inter
view schedules. This material was analyzed for content;
statistical methods of analysis were utilized as appropri
ate .
As a preliminary phase of the study, several inter
views were conducted with top management and personnel
officers to obtain basic information concerning policy,
history, attitudes and general background.
7See Appendix D.
CHAPTER IV
CHARACTERISTICS OF TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
Many factories in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area
employ workers from white, Mexican, Negro, Indian, Puerto
Rican, Japanese, and other ethnic groups. The recent em
phasis of many labor unions, the political parties, pres
sure groups, and other groups interested in integration has
made many of these factories feel their workers should not
be disturbed by interview and study of their interpersonal
relations in work groups during the production process.
However, the management of the Technibilt Corporation was
interested in this problem and consented to permit such a
study during the years 1955, 1956, and 1957.
I. THE TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
Historical background. The Technibilt Corporation
was incorporated in 1946 when it was purchased by George E.
Hoedinghaus and Ralph Sanders. These men had recently been
released from active duty in the United States Naval Reserve
in World War II and were interested in acquiring a manufac
turing plant. The company was tooled and had workers ex
perienced in the manufacture of grocery carts used in
supermarkets to collect and present the merchandise of the
57
58
customer to the checkers. There were approximately 40 em
ployees and the whole plant was housed in a small metal
structure in the 900 block of Air Way, Glendale, Califor
nia. Today the company occupies four large buildings and
employs approximately 150 persons in the production proc
ess.
Mr. Hoedinghaus became the President and General
Manager of the company and Mr. Sanders became the Vice
President and Plant Manager in charge of production and
personnel. The workers were approximately 80 per cent
Mexican and 20 per cent white. The two owners early set
the policy of mixing Mexican and white workers in work
groups in the production process. The loyalty, concern,
and sacrifice of the Mexican workers for the success of
the company during the early years established them as a
major source of labor. During this early period, Mr.
Hoedinghaus ("George") and Mr. Sanders ("Sandy") were con
stantly mixing with the workers, talking to them about the
problems of the company, listening and helping the workers
with their personal problems, and at times making personal
loans to employees in financial difficulties.
It was the policy of the company to have two picnics
a year for the workers, their sweethearts, wives, and
children. A Christmas party was given for the workers and
a special bonus check was given to the workers.
The company prospered and grew in size as the years
passed. A plant production manager, a sales manager, a
service manager, a purchasing agent, a personnel manager, a
comptroller and accountant, and an advertising and public
relations man were hired. The production process was im
proved by the development of production and assembly lines,
and several new departments were formed. The production
control department planned and sent orders to the various
departments regarding the quantity and quality of parts re
quired for the manufacturing process. The machine shop,
the wire department, the fabrication and welding depart
ment, the shipping and receiving department, and the assem
bly department received their production orders from the
plant supervisor and production manager who scheduled pro
duction. All orders were filled by manufacture upon demand
therefore the plant supervisor received his orders from the
sales and order department located in the company office.
The personnel manager was a combination office mana
ger, personnel man, and industrial engineer. He received
orders from Mr. Hoedinghaus and Mr. Sanders on matters per
taining to personnel acquisition and reduction. At one
time he interviewed all potential employees. At present
his assistant does the interviewing.
The parts of the grocery carts were cut, shaped,
welded, and trucked to a nickle plating company. After
the plating was completed they were returned to the plant,
placed in stock, and assembled into the finished product.
60
The shipping and receiving department had the problem of
counting and loading parts for trucking to the plating com
pany and the receiving and checking of the plated parts as
they returned. This department also packed and loaded the
finished carts.
With the addition of the personnel manager to the
staff, the policy of hiring American Indians, Negroes, and
Mexican National workers was expanded. The official policy
of the company remained the mixing of workers from differ
ent ethnic backgrounds in work groups of the production
process. Workers from different ethnic groups were inte
grated in ail work groups as they became capable and pro
ficient in the work.
The company followed a production efficiency pro
cedure. Individuals usually started as workers in the
assembly line or as utility men in the wire department. As
they gained skill and training, they were permitted to work
on such machines as wire cutters, spot welders, press weld
ers, hydraulic presses, punch presses, and hydraulic bend
ers. When an opening for an operator of one of these
machines occurred, individuals were permitted to apply for
the position. They were required to demonstrate their
ability to operate the given piece of equipment. An indi
vidual when selected for a position was given a probation
period of 60 days to meet the production schedule. Nearly
all "lead" men and foremen were selected from company
61 ‘
workers.
At the time of the study, five "lead" men were Mexi
can, six were white, one was Negro, and one was Indian.
There were eight foremen in the plant, seven of whom were
white and one was Mexican. There were approximately 144
workers in the plant during the first phase of the study,
exclusive of the sales department and the service depart
ment which were not involved in the production processes,
and therefore were not studied.^ Approximately 92 per cent
or 132 of these production workers were interviewed.
Characteristics of employees. Of the Technibilt
workers, 90 per cent were male and 10 per cent were female.
One female employee and 13 males were not interviewed. For
this study, 93 per cent of the females and 92 per cent of
the males gave information.
Fifty-nine workers, or 41 per cent, of the Technibilt
workers, were white and 57 workers, or 40 per cent, were
Mexican. Of the remainder, 10 workers or 15 per cent were
Negro, and five workers or 3 per cent were Puerto Rican
(see Table I). Of the persons interviewed, 53 workers or
■^Most growing manufacturing companies constantly
change in regard to the number of employees. During the
period of interview, workers were laid off and were called
back to work. Some workers quit or were fired and some
were hired. Therefore the number of workers varied from
time to time.
62
TABLE I
ETHNIC CLASSIFICATION OF WORKERS
AT TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Ethnic Classification
WORKERS
Number Percentage
1. White Male 51
Female _a 59 41
2. Mexican Male 53
Female __4 57 40
3. Negro Male 15
Female 15 10
4. Indian Male 6
Female 2 8 6
5. Puerto Rican Male 5
Female 5 3
Total Male 130
Female 14 144 100
63
40 per cent were white, 51 workers or 39 per cent were
Mexican, 15 individuals or 11 per cent were Negro, 8 work
ers or 6 per cent were Indian, and 5 persons or 4 per cent
were Puerto Rican.^ (See Table II.)
The age distribution of workers interviewed at
Technibilt was as follows:
Age Number Percentage
3
A
• —i
27 20
25-34 48 37
35-44 28 21
45- 54 22 16
55 or Older __7 __6
T otal 132 100
The median age of the workers was 26.4 years, while
the mean age was 34.5 years. The workers were concentrated
in the age groups under 40 years of age. Many workers were
just starting their work experience and this gave Techni
bilt a relatively young work group.
The marital status of interviewed workers at Techni
bilt Corporation, 1955-1956, was as follows:
^Six white workers, one female and five male, and
two male Mexican workers did not wish to be interviewed.
Six male Mexican workers could not speak English.
64
TABLE II
ETHNIC CLASSIFICATION OF WORKERS INTERVIEWED
AT TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Ethnic Classification
Number
WORKERS
Percentage
1. White Male
Female
46
_7 53 40
2. Mexican Male
Female
48
.4 52 40
3. Negro Male
Female
15
15 11
4. Indian Male
Female
6
_2 8 6
5. Puerto Rican Male
Female
4
4 3
Total Male
Female
119
13 132 100
65
Marital Status Number Percentage
Single 38 29
Married 89 67
Separated & Divorced 4 3
Widowed ___1 __1
Total 132 100
It is important to notice that slightly more than
two-thirds of the workers were married. This gave sta
bility to the working force.
Table III shows the years of schooling of inter
viewed workers at Technibilt Corporation. Two-thirds, or
66 per cent, of the workers attended or graduated from high
school, while 22 per cent attended college and approximately
12 per cent only had a grade school education. The median
years of schooling was 10 years. Most individuals had some
high school education.
Table IV indicates that the West contributed 45
workers, or 34.1 per cent, of those individuals inter
viewed. Of this group, 25 persons came from California,
the largest group from any one state, and ten workers were
born in Los Angeles. Thirty-six workers, or 26.1 per cent,
were born in the South. Approximately 78 per cent, or
105 workers were from the United States. However, workers
came from all over the world.
The occupation classification of the Technibilt
66
TABLE III
YEARS OF SCHOOLING OF WORKERS INTERVIEWED
AT TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1965-1956
Years of Schooling3
WORKERS
Number Percentage
Less than six 10 7
Six 7 5
Seven through nine 39 30
Ten through eleven 26 20
High School Graduate 21 16
Attended College 26 20
College Graduate __3 __2
Total 132 100
3The median years of
was ten years.
school for interviewed workers
67
TABLE IV
PLACE OF BIRTH OF WORKERS INTERVIEWED
AT TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Place of Birth Number Percentage
1. United States:
a. Northeast 3 2.3
b. Middle West 21 15.9
c. South 36 26.1
d. West3 45 34.1
Total.................... 105 78.4
2. Other American Countries:
a. Canada 2 1.5
b. Mexico 11 8.3
c. Puerto Rico and Cuba 6 4.6
Total.................... 19 14.4
3. Europe................. 6 4.6
4. Africa................. 1 .8
5. Far E a s t ............... 1 .8
Grand Total............. 132 100.0
aCalifornia contributed 25 workers to the Technibilt
Corporation which constitutes 19 per cent of all employed
at the factory.
68
Corporation interviewed workers is:
Occupational Class Number Percentage
Professional 2 1
Supervisory 8 6
Clerical 11 8
Skilled 19
14
Semi-Skilled 59
45
Unskilled
33 25
T otal 132 100
Fifty-nine workers, or 45 per cent, were in the semi
skilled group. These individuals operate machines. Only
33 individuals, or 25 per cent, were in the unskilled
classification. Nineteen individuals, or 14 per cent, of
the workers were in the skilled worker class, the third
largest group. This follows the usual distribution that
might be expected from an industrial plant, namely, a
large concentration of workers in the semi-skilled and un
skilled categories.
An important factor in any industrial concern is the
worker turnover rate. Some idea concerning this matter is
given in Table V, the number of years employed at Techni
bilt Corporation.
The largest number of workers, 51 persons or 38 per
cent, had been at the plant for 1 year, 34 workers or 26
per cent had been at the factory for less than 1 year,
69
TABLE V
LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT AT TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
OF WORKERS INTERVIEWED
1955-1956
Number of Years Employed3 Number Percentage
Less than 1 year 34 26
One year 51 38
Two years 14 11
Three years 8 6
Four years 5 4
Five years 7 5
Six years or more 13 10
Total 132 100
aThe median time workers
Corporation was one year.
were employed at Technibilt
70
making a total of 85 individuals, or 64 per cent, who had
been at the factory one year or less. Fourteen workers,
or 11 per cent, of the group had been at Technibilt for 6
years or more. Three individuals in the latter group had
been employed for ten years, one person nine years, and
three workers for eight years. The median time for length
of employment was one year.
The largest departments, as given in Table VI, were
the wire department with 26 workers on the day shift and
26 workers on the night shift, the machine shop with 13
skilled workers and the office force with 11 clerks and
supervisors. The first department was dominated by white
workers on day shift and on night shift. The machine shop
and the office force were dominated by white workers. Each
shift of the wire department was divided into two work
groups. Group I consisted of 16 spot-welders and Group II
included operators of hydraulic benders, punch presses,
welding press, hydraulic press, and several inspectors.
Mexican workers dominated seven work groups includ
ing the four largest work groups and the two smallest work
groups, white workers dominated in six work groups, while
the Negro worker dominated one work group. Mexican and
white workers were found in nearly all work groups with
small numbers of Negro, Indian, and Puerto Rican workers.
In work groups where skill and training were important,
white workers usually dominated, while in the other work
71
TABLE VI
NUMBER OF WORKERS INTERVIEWED
AND TOTAL NUMBER OF WORKERS
AT TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
CLASSIFIED BY WORK GROUP
1955-1956
Number of Workers
Work Group
White
Mexi
can
Negro
„ Puerto
Indian Rj_Can
Inter
viewed
T otal
Wire Dept.
Gr. II Day 3 10 1 1 1 16 16
Gr. II Night 1 12
(9)a
3 — — 12 16
Machine Shop 13
(10)a
— — — — 10 13
Office Force
Wire Dept.
10
(7)a
1 8 11
Gr. I Day 1 7 — 2 10 10
Gr. I Night
Fabrication
1 5
(3)a
2 2 8 10
Dept. Day 4 2 4 - - 10 10
Welding Dept.
Day 5 4 — 1
—
10 10
Night 5 3 - - 1 9 9
Assembly Dept. 3 3 - - 2 8 8
Foremen 7 1 - - - 8 8
Fabrication
Dept. Night - 3 2 1 - 6 6
Shipping & Re
ceiving 3 1 1 1 — 6 6
Assembly— Inspec.2 3 - - - 5 5
Prod. Control 1 3 - - - 4 4
Janitorial 2 2 2
■ — 1 " ■ ■ ■ ' ■ ■ — ■"■in
Total 59 58 15 8 4 132 144
aIndicates number of workers that were interviewed.
72
groups the Mexican worker usually was the largest ethnic
group present.
The average months employed at Technibilt Corpora
tion by work group are shown in Table VII, varied from 7.7
months in the welding department (night shift) to a maximum
of 72.5 months for the foremen. Production control ranked
second in point of duration of employment, with an average
of 43.5 months. The over-all average was 25.8 months or
just over two years.
Work groups with the smaller average months of em
ployment were those working nights, doing hard manual work.
The cleaner tasks requiring skill had workers with longer
average months at the factory. The welders on night shift
were the exception, for they were skilled workers on a pro
duction line under trying conditions.
Workers with the greatest number of months of em
ployment at the plant were concentrated in the shipping and
receiving department, fabrication (day shift), and produc
tion control. These jobs required knowledge, work experi
ence, and understanding of the operation of the plant.
Interviewed male employees of Technibilt Corporation
compared with the males 14 years old and older of the Los
Angeles Metropolitan Area. A comparison of the two men
tioned groups was advisable to give an idea of the varia
tion of their characteristics. The Los Angeles Standard
73
TABLE VII
NUMBER OF MONTHS EMPLOYED AT TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
OF WORKERS INTERVIEWED BY WORK GROUPS
JANUARY, 1956
Work Groups
No. of
Workers
Months of Employment
T otal Average
Rank
Foremen 8 580.0 72.5 1
Production Control 4 174.0 43.5 2
Fabrication Dept. Day3 10 416.0 41.6 3
Shipping & Receiving 6 246.0 41.0 4
Machine Shop 10 270.0 33.8 5
Janitorial 2 66.0 33.0 6
Office Force 8 208.0 28.0 7
Wire Dept. Gr. II Day 16 417.0 26.1 8
Welders Day 10 240.5 24.0 9
Assembly Dept. Inspec. 5 116.0 23.2 10
Wire Dept. Gr. I Day 10 172.5 17.2 11
Wire Dept. Gr. II Nlghtb 8 125.0 15.6 12
Fabrication Dept. Night 6 88.5 14.8 13
Assembly Dept. Assembly 8 93.0 11.6 14
Wire Dept. Gr. II Night 12 126.5 10.5 15
Welders Night 9 71.0 7.7 16
T otal 132 3410.0
Average 25.8
aRefers to day shift: 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
^Refers to night shift: 3:30 p.m. to midnight.
Metropolitan Area had 91 males per 100 females, compared
to 930 males per 100 at Technibilt. The workers at Techni
bilt were predominantly male, so comparisons were made with
employed males from the Los Angeles Standard Metropolitan
Area.^
In this comparison, the Technibilt Corporation in
terviewed male workers were: (1) younger; (2) a larger per
cent single, a smaller per cent widowed and divorced; (3)
less educated; (4) more concentrated in the unskilled and
semi-skilled occupational groups; and (5) a larger percent
age Negro and foreign-born white members, than the Los
Angeles Standard Metropolitan Area male population 14 years
old and older. While the Technibilt workers cannot be con
sidered a representative sample of the total male popula
tion, they may be viewed as having a definite relationship
to them.
Characteristics of the workers reinterviewed. For
purposes of comparison (see pages 49 and 50) and analysis,
32 workers were reinterviewed. Twenty-seven of these work
ers were male and five were female, a sex ratio of 540
males to 100 females. These workers were primarily white
and Mexican between 25 and 44 years of age. Most of them
were married with seven through eleven years of schooling.
The majority came from California or the West, primarily
^See Appendix A, Tables LX-I-LXV.
75
Los Angeles, and were semi-skilled or skilled workers who
had been employed from two to four years at Technibilt
Corporation.4
Comparison of the characteristics of the workers of
the first interview (132) and the second interview (32).
At this point, a brief comparison of the characteristics of
workers of the first interview and of the second interview
was deemed desirable. The workers interviewed first were
more male by 6 per cent, 90 per cent compared to 84 per
cent for the reinterviewed workers. The first group had 2
per cent more white workers, while the reinterviewed group
had 8 per cent more Mexican workers, 47 per cent compared
to 39 per cent; these differences were not large.
The comparison of age characteristics indicated that
75 per cent of the reinterviewed workers were in the 25-to-
34 and 35-to-44 year age groups, compared to 58 per cent of
the first group interviewed, a difference of 17 per cent.
The latter group, on the other hand, had 7 per cent more
married than the former group, 67 per cent compared to 60
per cent. The largest number of both groups were married.
The reinterviewed group had 5 per cent more single workers
with 34 per cent single compared to 29 per cent for the
4For further information about these reinterviewed
workers, see Appendix B, Tables LXVI through LXXII.
5See Appendix C, Table LXXIII.
76
first group interviewed.8
The two groups had approximately the same amount of
education. Those interviewed first had a slightly larger
percentage in the less than six years of schooling cate
gory, 7 per cent compared to 3 per cent for the reinter
viewed workers, and the college group had 2 per cent com
pared to none. The reinterviewed group had 5 per cent more
in the ten through eleven years of schooling that the first
group, 2b per cent compared to 20 percent. These differ
ences were small and cancelled each other.^
In regard to place of birth, the majority, or 50 per
cent of those reinterviewed, came from the West, with 22
per cent from Los Angeles. The first interviewed group
had 34 per cent from the West, with 10 workers, or 7.6 per
cent, from Los Angeles. The latter group had 26 per cent
from the South compared to 16 per cent from the former
group. The first interviewed group had 5 per cent more
from other American countries than did the reinterviewed
group, 14.4 per cent compared to 9 per cent, but both
groups had approximately 6 per cent from other areas of the
world.8 Since the greater concentration of individuals
from the South were found in the first group, their atti
tudes of segregation and conflict towards other racial
8See Appendix C, Tables LXXIII and LXXIV.
^See Appendix C, Table LXXV.
8See Appencix C, Table LXXVII.
77
groups might be stronger than in the second group.
The reinterviewed group had 5 per cent more skilled,
50 per cent compared to 45 per cent, and 8 per cent more
semi-skilled workers, 22 per cent compared to 14 per cent,
than the first interviewed group which had more unskilled
workers, 25 per cent compared to 13 per cent. The second
group had more training and skill than the first group and
therefore would be more stable in social relationships.^
The largest percentage, 63 per cent, of the reinter
viewed workers had been employed at Technibilt between two
and four years, while the largest percentage, 64 per cent,
of the first interviewed workers had been at the plant for
one year or less,-^ indicating again that the second group
were better established in the work patterns and relation
ships than the first group because of their longer work ex
perience at the Technibilt Corporation.
The above discussion showed the first interviewed
group and the second interviewed group had approximately
the same characteristics with small variations. The former
group was more heterogeneous while the reinterviewed group
was more homogeneous. The latter group had the character
istics of a group of young adults, married, semi-skilled,
with a tenth grade education. Most of them had been at the
^See Appendix C, Table LXXVIII.
-^See Appendix C, Table LXXIX.
plant for approximately two and a half years. They were
predominantly Mexican and white workers.
The above discussion shows that the reinterviewed
workers represent the total group of workers in most char
acteristics and therefore should reflect any change of at
titudes made in the group of workers from which they were
selected.
CHAPTER V
A CONFLICT RATING SCALE
An analysis of the interpersonal relations of any
group may reveal many things. The amount of conflict pres-
sent is one important aspect of human interpersonal rela
tions in groups. This chapter develops and applies a con
flict rating scale which involves six criteria designated
as: (1) Quarrels readily, (2) Resents suggestions, (3)
Wants center of attention, (4) Wants own way most of time,
(5) Takes offense readily, and (6) Loses temper easily.
Ratings by a worker of each of his fellow workers in the
work group on each of these six points is the basis of the
conflict rating score.
The conflict evaluations on each of the six points
of conflict were indicated by each worker with reference to
all other workers in his work group. The valuations thus
derived were grouped according to the ethnic classifica
tions of the fellow workers evaluated, also according to
the ethnic classification of the evaluator. The sums thus
derived were divided by the total possible conflict evalua
tions to find the conflict rating score. An example is
given of the computation of the conflict rating score in
the following paragraphs.
79
80
A work group with eight workers had four Negro work
ers and four white workers. One white worker evaluating
the four Negro workers gave six (6) conflict evaluations
out of a possible twenty-four (24)conflict evaluations.
The six conflict evaluations divided by the twenty-four
(24) possible conflict evaluations give a conflict score of
.250. Two other white workers gave three (3) conflict
evaluations to the four Negroes giving a conflict score of
.125. A fourth white worker did not give a conflict evalu
ation to these four Negro workers so his conflict score for
them was .000. To find the Negro conflict score given by
white workers, the conflict evaluations, 6, 3, 3, and 0,
would be summed, giving a total of 12. This number divided
by 96 possible conflict evaluations, 24 from each white
worker, would give a conflict score of .012 for the Negro
workers given by white workers in the work group.
Negro workers judging their fellow Negro workers
gave 3, 5, 2, and 4 conflict evaluations. Each of these
numbers was divided by 18 possible conflict evaluations and
would give conflict scores of .167, .278, .111, and .222
respectively. A worker did not evaluate himself. These
conflict evaluations summed give a total of 14. This sum
divided by 72 (18 possible evaluations from each worker
evaluating) gives a conflict score of .019 for Negro work
ers given by fellow Negro workers.
The total conflict score for Negro workers in the
81
work group would be the total conflict evaluations given
by white workers, 12, added to 14, the total conflict
evaluations given by Negro workers, or 26. This sum divi
ded by 168 (96 plus 72) possible conflict evaluations,
gives a conflict score for Negroes of .015.
The ethnic group scores were computed for each
work group and for all the workers. They were also com
puted for evaluators according to their ethnic classifi
cation. The smallest possible score on the conflict rat
ing scale would be .000, while the maximum score would be
1.000.
The percentage of possible adverse evaluations on
each criterion of conflict by ethnic group, work group,
and total workers was also computed. A comparison of the
ratings of the Technibilt workers of 1956 will be made with
the reinterviewed workers of 1957, in order to note any
changes.
I. THE CONFLICT RATING SCORE
According to the results obtained by the rating
scale, the amount of conflict as given by the interviewed
workers for each other was .040 for the Technibilt Corpora
tion in 1956.
Table VIII gives the conflict scores by ethnic group.
The two groups with the largest percentage of workers,
namely, the white workers and the Mexican workers, had
82
TABLE VIII
AVERAGE CONFLICT SCORE'
BY ETHNIC GROUP
1956
Ethnic Group
Evaluated
Number of
Evaluations
Average
Conflict
Score
Rank
Indian 71 .160 1
Negro 128 .041 2
White 532 .034 3
Mexican 591 .032 4
Puerto Rican 41 .029 5
Total 1366
Average 040
aThe possible conflict rating scores could range
from .000 to 1.000. The average conflict score for the
144 workers was .040.
83
closely related conflict scores of .034 and .032, which
were definitely smaller than the Negro with a conflict score
of .041 and the Indian with a score of .160. The latter
two groups had only 11 and 6 per cent, cespectively, of
the total worker-population. The latter groups had more
conflict tendencies toward other members of the work groups
than the former two groups.
A contradiction may be found in the low conflict
score of .029 for the Puerto Rican workers with 4 per cent
of the total worker-population. The average conflict score
for all 144 workers of .040 was higher than the individual
scores for the white, Mexican, and Puerto Rican workers,
but approximately the same as for the Negro workers. Rat
ing scores run strongly against the Indian and the Negro
workers. Interview data indicated that this might be due
to their recent addition to the work group and also to cul
tural determined prejudices of workers generally towards
members of society from these groups.
Average conflict score by ethnic group as reported
by the members of the individual ethnic groups. The con
flict scores of the members of each ethnic group as report
ed by each c?f the members of the other ethnic groups of
workers are given in Table IX. White workers rated them
selves twice as high as the Puerto Rican workers, while the
latter rated the former highest of all ethnic groups.
84
TABLE IX
AVERAGE CONFLICT RATING SCORE3 OF EACH ETHNIC GROUP
AS REPORTED BY THE WORKERS OF EACH ETHNIC GROUP
AS FELLOW WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION13
1955-1956
Workers
Ethnic Group , — — ................
® ^ P u e rt
Evaluators Indian Negro White Mexican R^can
Indian .028 .031 .045 .052 .000°
(Rank) (4) (3) (2)
(1)
(5)
Negro .156 .038 .025 .022 .167°
(Rank) (2) (3) (4) (5)
(1)
White .092 .030 .021 .043 .009
(Rank)
(1)
(3) (4) (2) (5)
Mexican .204 .054 . 066 .025 .044
(Rank)
(1)
(3) (2) (5) (4)
Puerto Rican .500° .000c .064 .036 .000°
(Rank)
(1)
(4) (2) (3) (4)
aThe possible conflict rating scores could range
from .000 to 1.000.
^The average conflict rating score for the 144 work
ers was .040.
cOne person from the evaluating group judging one
person from the ethnic group indicated.
85
White worker evaluators gave the largest conflict
score to the Indian workers with a score of .092, while the
smallest rating was given to the Puerto Rican workers. The
Mexican workers gave the Indian workers the highest con
flict score of .204 and gave themselves the smallest con
flict score of .025, and a rating of .044 to the Puerto
Rican workers. This indicates that the Mexican workers may
be closer to the Puerto Rican workers than to any of the
other ethnic groups.
The conflict rating score given the Mexican workers
by the Negroes was .022 or the smallest rating they gave to
any co-working group. They appeared to identify themselves
more closely with the Mexican and white workers (rating
scores .022 and .025) than with their own group, for they
placed themselves in the third lowest position with a score
of .038. They concurred with the white and Mexican workers
by giving the Indian workers the highest conflict score of
.156.
The evaluations of Table IX indicate that the Indian
workers and the Negro workers consistently had high con
flict scores. Indian workers were given the highest con
flict ratings by three ethnic groups out of five. Negro
workers ranked in third position in four ratings out of
five, placing them in an intermediate situation where they
were being accepted socially but their position was ques
tioned by other workers. They were also judged as showing
86
some conflict behavior toward the members of the different
ethnic groups, for this conflict rating indicated some
feelings of social distance. The white and Mexican workers
ranked high in two conflict rating scores out of five. The
Puerto Rican workers were consistently low with the excep
tion of the Negro rating. They were not known too well by
other workers, for they were few in number and had not
worked long at the factory.
Conflict .ratings by work group. Sixteen work groups
at Technibilt Corporation were involved in the first phase
of the study. Table X presents the conflict ratings by
work group of 144 workers. These ratings vary from the
largest conflict score of .194 for the shipping and receiv
ing department to the smallest score of .009 for the ma
chine shop.
The work groups may be arranged according to the
size of the conflict ratings to indicate four clusters:
(1) .194 to .094, with high conflict scores; (2) .065 to
.059, with moderately high conflict scores; (3) .029 to
.021, with low conflict scores; and (4) .016 to .009, with
very low conflict scores.
Work groups in cluster (1), with the highest con
flict scores, were the small work groups with representa
tives of two or three ethnic groups. These work groups
were in critical operations and were subject to much pres
sure at different times to "produce."
87
TABLE X
AVERAGE CONFLICT RATINGS BY WORK GROUP
OF 144 WORKERS AT
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Name of Work Group
Number
of
Evaluations
Average
Conflict
Score
Rank
Shipping & Receiving 30 .194 1
Production Control 12 .189 2
Assembly— Inspection 20 .122 3
Fabrication Dept. Night 31 .094 4
Assembly— Assembly 56 . 065 5
Wire Dept. Gr. II Day 245 .065 5
Wire Dept. Gr. I Night 69 .059 7
Wire Dept. Gr. I Day 90 .029 8
Welding Dept. Day 90 .028 9
Welding Dept. Night 72 .027 10
Fabrication Dept. Day 90 .026 11
Wire Dept. Gr. II Night 180 .021 12
Foremen Eval. Workers 125 .016 13
Foremen Eval. Foremen 56 .015 14
Office Force 80 .013 15
Machine Shop 120 .009 16
Total 1366
Average .040
88
Work groups in cluster (4) had the lowest conflict
scores and were two or three times the size of the work
groups in clustec (1). One exception would be the foreman
evaluation of workers which would include some small work
groups as well as the larger ones. These work groups had
a minimum of different ethnic groups present. The small
work groups with two or more ethnic groups required to
"produce" under pressure had high conflict scores, and
the larger work group with one, or a maximum of two, eth
nic groups present had low conflict scores.
Conflict rating scores in work groups by ethnic
classification. The conflict ratings of the workers by
ethnic classification in the work groups are given in
Table XI.
From the analysis of Table XI, four facts stand out.
First, high conflict rating scores are not consistently
given any one ethnic group, but rather are given to all.
The white workers were given eight very high conflict rat
ings out of fifteen, the Mexican six out of fifteen, the
Negro four out of seven, the Indian three out of seven, and
the Puerto Rican one out of two, where more than one indiv
idual was evaluating more than one person.
Second, work groups with a greater mixture of work
ers from different groups tended to have larger conflict
scores, while work groups with little mixing of ethnic
89
TABLE XI
CONFLICT RATING SCORES
BY WORK GROUP AND BY ETHNIC GROUP
OF 144 WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Work Group
Conflict Rating Scores for:
Indian Negro White Mexican
Puerto
Rican
Shipping & Receiving . 033 .536 .096 .304 -
Production Control - - .444 .794 -
Assembly— Inspection - - .168 .092 -
Fabrication Night .230 .058 - .067 -
Assembly— Assembly - - .082 .082 .119
Wire Dept. Gr. II Day .450 .122 .064 .213 .067
Wire Dept. Gr. I Night .136 .036 .079 .024 -
Wire Dept. Gr. I Day .037 - .111 .163
-
Welding Day .019
-
.029 .029 -
Welding Night - - .176 .051 .000a
Fabrication Day - .002 .021 .084 -
Wire Dept. Gr. II Night - .272 .107 .012 -
Foremen Eval. Workers .048 .111 .150 .142 .000b
Foremen Eval. Foremen - - .163 .000c -
Office Force - - .096 .048 -
Machine Shop - - .009 - -
aEight evaluations of one* Puerto Rican Worker.
bFour evaluations of Four Puerto Rican Workers.
cSeven evaluations of one Mexican foreman.
90
groups tended to have small conflict ratings. The office
force and the foremen with one Mexican worker and the re
mainder white workers and the machine shop with all white
workers had small conflict scores, while shipping and re
ceiving and the wire department Group II day shift, with
considerable mixing of ethnic groups, had large conflict
rating scores.
Third, the extremely high conflict scores, those
over .200, were concentrated among the Mexican, Negro, and
Indian workers. The Mexican workers received conflict
rating scores of .034, .794 and .213. The Negro workers
received conflict scores of .036 and .272, while the Indian
workers received conflict scores of .450 and .230. The
white workers received one conflict score of .444. Accor
ding to these facts, the Mexican, Negro, and Indian work
ers were involved in more conflict situations. The situa
tional conflicts as interpreted by interview materials
were for the increased security of higher wages gained
through advancement and for social status increases.
Fourth, the size of the work group had little influ
ence on the conflict situation. Large, medium, and small
work groups had high and low conflict rating scores regard
less of the mixing of workers from different ethnic groups.
The production control work group, a small group of five
workers, received a conflict score of .444 for white work
ers and .794 for Mexican workers. The shipping and receiv
91
ing group with nine workers received conflict rating scores
of .096 for white, .304 for Mexican, .536 for Negro, and
.033 for Indian workers. The wire department group II day
shift work group with 18 workers received conflict ratings
of .064 for white, .213 for Mexican, .122 for Negro, .450
for Indian, and .067 for Puerto Rican workers.
These results indicated that the aggressive-status-
seeking individuals with conflict-producing-personalities
in work situations accumulated large conflict ratings re
gardless of ethnic classification, size of work group, or
number of ethnic groups present. These status-seeking in
dividuals were Mexican, Indian, and Negro workers attempt
ing to gain economic security through more skilled posi
tions in work groups.
II. ADVERSE EVALUATIONS
Worker evaluations indicating conflict were accumu
lated from the "conflict judgments" of each worker of his
fellow workers in the work group. The number of evalua
tions was limited by the criteria of conflict and by the
number of workers in the work group; therefore, the poten
tial maximum adverse evaluations could be computed. This
was accomplished by accumulating the number of adverse
evaluations by ethnic group and by criteria of conflict,
from which a percentage of possible adverse evaluations
was computed. This information is revealed by the tables
92
of this section.
Adverse evaluations by ethnic group. The percent
ages of conflict evaluations given by fellow workers to
members of an ethnic group in their work group are shown in
Table XII. Indians ranked first with the highest conflict
score of .160 and the highest percentage of adverse evalua
tions of any ethnic group, namely 16.4 per cent, or 81 out
of a total possible 492. Mexican workers ranked second
with 586 adverse evaluations, approximately 15 per cent, of
a possible 3888. They ranked higher in this than their
conflict score of .032, which ranked them fourth. More
indications of conflict attitudes and behavior were found
in the behavior of Indian workers and Mexican workers than
in the behavior of the others; therefore, more social dis
tance existed between them and other workers.
Average adverse evaluations by criteria of conflict.
The amount of conflict reflected in the adverse ratings for
each of the six criteria of conflict indicated that workers
"lose temper easily" more than any other evidence of con
flict, as shown in fable XIII. The conflict category en
titled "Wants own way most of time" received the smallest
percentage, namely 8.6 per cent, or 131 out of a possible
1533 adverse evaluations. For the six criteria of con
flict, an average of 12.7 per cent of 1169 adverse evalua
tions were given out of a possible 9198. This percentage
93
TABLE XII
PERCENTAGE OF ADVERSE EVALUATIONS
BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS IN WORK GROUPS
BY ETHNIC CLASSIFICATION
AS INDICATED BY FELLOW WORKERS3
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1905-1956
Ethnic Group
Evaluated
Possible
Conflict
Evaluations
Number of Percentage
Conflict of
Evaluations Conflict
Rank
Indian 492 81 16.4 1
Me x i ca n 3888 586 15,1 2
White 3702 441 11.9 3
Negro 846 53 6.3 4
Puerto Rican 270 __8 3.0 5
T otal 9198 1169
Average 12.7
aBy the
duals belonging
term "fellow
to the same
workers" is
work group.
meant the indivi-
94
TABLE XIII
AVERAGE ADVERSE EVALUATIONS
BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS IN WORK GROUPS
BY CRITERIA OF CONFLICT
AS INDICATED BY FELLOW WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Criteria
of Conflict
Possible
Conflict
Evaluations
Number of
Conflict
Evaluations
Percentage
of
Conflict
Rank
Loses temper
easily 1533 254 16.6 1
Wants center of
attention 1533 229 14.9 2
Quarrels readily 1533 192 12.5 3
Resents
suggestions 1533 184 12.0 4
Takes offense
readily
1533 179 11.7 5
Wants own way most
of time 1533 131 8.6 6
Total 9198 1169
Average 12.7
aThe term
belonging to the
"fellow workers" refers to
same work group.
individuals
95
indicates a moderate amount of conflict present between
workers. Table XIII points out the amount of conflict
present between the various workers on each of the six
criteria of conflict which can be used as a basis of com
parison in the body of the study.
Adverse evaluations by ethnic group and criteria of
conflict. Table XIV gives each criterion of conflict in
rank order by percentage of adverse evaluations for each
ethnic group. White workers, Mexican workers, and Indian
workers all appear to lose tempers, while the Negro workers
and Puerto Rican workers appear to control their tempers
more. Indian workers have a reputation for losing their
tempers in their interpersonal relations in the work
groups. Indian workers, Mexican workers, and white workers
have greater ego needs of attention that other workers ac
cording to their companions in work groups. A trend has
developed with Indian workers, Mexican workers, and white
workers ranking first, second, and third in receiving the
largest percentage of conflict evaluations for most evi
dences of conflict. Indian workers rank first for three
out of six criteria of conflict; Mexicans rank first
twice and second four times; while white workers rank
first once, third five times out of the six criteria of
conflict. Indian workers and Mexican workers are more ego
centered and less pliable than all other workers according
96
TABLE XIV
ADVERSE EVALUATIONS BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS
IN WORK GROUPS BY ETHNIC GROUP
and criteria of conflict
as indicated by fellow workers3
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Criteria Possible
r \ - F
Percentage of
Conflict Evaluations
b
Conflict T ..
Indian Mexican White Negro
Puerto
Rican
Rank
Loses temper
easily 14.7
(Rank) (3)
16.8
(2)
18.3
(1)
12.8
(4)
4.4
(5)
1
Wants center of
attention 24.4
(Rank) (1)
16.4
(2)
16.0
(3)
2. S
(4)
0. 0
(5)
2
Quarrels readily 20.8
(Rank) (1)
15.3
(2)
10.4
(3)
6 .4
(4)
4.4
(5)
3
Resents suggestions 12.2
(Rank) (2)
15.8
(1)
10.2
(3)
5.7
(4)
2.2
(5)
4
Takes offense
readily 18.3
(Rank) (1)
15.3
(2)
9.1
(3)
5. 0
(4)
4.4
(5)
5
5
Wants own way most
of time 8.5
(Rank) (2)
11. 0
(1)
7.3
(3)
5.0
(4)
2.2
(5)
6
a"Fellow Workers" r
the same work group.
e f e r s to individuals; belonging to
97
to their working companions while white workers, Negro
workers, and Puerto Rican workers accept positions of in
ferior relationships with little fuss. According to the
table, Indian and Mexican workers are more difficult to
work with than other workers. This is probably due to
stronger ego strivings.
Adverse evaluations by work group and criteria of
conflict. An evaluation of Table XV suggests four find
ings: First, three criteria of conflict stand out above
the others with high percentages, namely "Loses temper
easily," "Wants center of attention," and "Quarrels read
ily." Among these categories, percentages of 63 per cent
and 60 per cent were given to "Wants center of attention,"
and "Loses temper easily." These ratings indicate charac
teristics given frustrated people. "Taking offense easily,"
"Wants own way most of time," and "Resents suggestions" are
the criteria of conflict with the smaller percentages and
indicate characteristics of the maturing adolescent. The
percentages of adverse evaluations indicate well-adjusted
work groups because in 12 out of 16 work groups, the aver
age percentages were below 20 per cent, while the highest
averages were not larger than 24 per cent.
Second, work groups ranking first, second, third,
and fourth, as well as the work groups ranking thirteenth,
fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth were small, medium,
98
TABLE XV
PERCENTAGE OF ADVERSE EVALUATIONS
OF FELLOW 'WORKERS
BY WORK GROUP, CRITERIA OF CONFLICT, AND RANK
FROM THE EVALUATIONS OF INTERVIEWED WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Percentage of Possible .
Work Group Adverse Evaluations ver- Rank
_______________________________ age
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f>
Production Control 50.0 63.0
Wire Dept. Gr. II
Day 19.2 23.2
Assembly—
Inspection 32.0 32.0
Shipping & Rec’g. 30.6 33.4
As sembly— As sembly 23.4 25.0
Fabrication Night 30.5 16.7
Wire Dept. Gr. II
Night 19.8 11.4
Wire Dept. Gr. I
Day 22.0 13.0
Welding Dept. Day 15.0 13.0
Machine Shop 16.9 16.9
Foremen Eval. of
Foremen 18.8 14.0
Office Force 8.0 18.2
Welding Dept.
Night 11.1 9.9
Foremen Eval. of
Workers 5.6 8.0
’ Wire Dept. Gr. I
Night 11.1 4.0
Fabrication Day 8.0 6.0
Average 16.6 15.0
6.3 0.0 6.3 18.8 24.0 1
30,.4 23.2 26,.4 18,.3 23,. 6 2
16,.0 24.0 20,.0 16 .0 23,.3 3
19,.4 13.9 19,.4 22,.2 23,.1 4
14,.1 14.1 12,.5 11,.0 16,. 6 5
8,.3 8.3 6, .0 22,.2 15,.3 6
4..7 20.8 9.,4 6. .3 12.,0 7
20..0 6.0 5.,0 5..0 11.,8 8
6..0 13.0 10., 0 10..0 11.,2 9
6.,9 11.5 9.,3 3.,1 10.,8 10
7.,8 4.7 6.3 10..9 10.,5 11
20.,2 6.8 4.,5 1.,1 9.,9 12
6.2 9.9 9.0 5.0 8.6 13
8.8 4.8 19.2 3.2 8.0 14
5.9 4.6 4.6 5.9 6.1 15
8.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 16
12.5 12.0 11.7 8.1 12.0
(a) - Wants Cen r of Attention
(b) - Takes Offense Readily
(cl - Loses Temper Easily
(d) - Resents Suggestions
(e) - Quarrels Readily
(f) - Wants Own Way Most of time
99
and large in size. They were equally mixed with regard to
ethnic composition. Neither size of work group nor the
mixture of ethnic groups in the work groups were related to
the high percentage of adverse evaluations the work group
received.
Third, pressure of work may be a factor involved in
the percentage of adverse evaluations. Production control,
assembly department inspection, and shipping and receiving
are work groups which are frequently under pressure as they
are in critical positions in regard to the production proc
ess. They have high average percentages of adverse evalua
tions ranking first, second, and fourth. On the other
hand, machine shop, foremen evaluations of workers, office
force, foremen evaluations of foremen, and fabrication de
partment day shift were not in critical positions with re
gard to production; consequently they had low average per
centages of adverse evaluations and ranked tenth through
sixteenth. The pressure of the work situation appeared to
have been related to the size of the adverse evaluations.
Fourth, the above points agreed with the conflict
ratings of a similar table, so the pressure of the work
situation must have been an important factor.
III. THIRTY-TWO REINTERVIEWED WORKERS
FROM TECHNIBILT
After approximately one year had elapsed, thirty-two
100
Technibilt workers were reinterviewed. The interpersonal
relations after one year under the labor union were inves
tigated for purposes of comparison.
The conflict rating score. The conflict rating
score for Technibilt workers was .031 after one year under
labor union conditions, which indicated a drop of .009 from
the conflict score of .040 given one year earlier.^
A comparison of the workers by ethnic groups showed
the Indians ranking highest in average conflict scores in
both 1957 and in 1956, with rating scores of .149 and .160.
The 1957 conflict ratings are given in Table XVI.2 The
Negro workers remained in second rank with .040 as an aver
age conflict score, compared to .041 for the earlier rating.
White workers dropped from third to fourth rank in 1957,
with a conflict rating score of .024, compared to the ear
lier score of .034, larger by .010. Mexican workers ranked
fifth in 1957 with a score of .020, .012 less than the ear
lier score of .032. In every case, the conflict rating
score decreased over the year.
During the year 1956, the union was organized and
became the bargaining agent for the production workers,
•^See page 81. The earlier rating was based on 1408
evaluations and the latter rating score on 460 evaluations.
2See Table VIII, page 82. The former rating score
was based on 26 evaluations and the latter score upon 74
evaluations.
101
TABLE XVI
AVERAGE CONFLICT RATING SCORE3 BY ETHNIC GROUP
AS REPORTED BY 32 REINTERVIEWED FELLOW WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION13
1957
Ethnic Group
Evaluated
Number of
Evaluations
Average
Conflict
Score
Rank
Indian 26 . 149 1
Negro 42 .040 2
Puerto Rican 6 .028 3
White 179 . 024 4
Mexican 207 .020 5
Total 460
Average .031
aThe possible conflict rating scores could range
from .000 to 1.000.
^"Fellow Workers" refers to individuals belonging
to the same work group.
102
signaling the end of organization conflicts. There fol
lowed a period of relatively peaceful working conditions
among the workers in the factory. This may have accounted
for part of the decreased conflict ratings.
Average conflict score by ethnic group as reported
by the members of the individual ethnic groups. The aver
age conflict rating score for 1957 by ethnic group is given
in Table XVII. The second group of interviews at Techni-
bilt Corporation showed a general decline in conflict rat
ing scores with a few exceptions in each ethnic group.
One outstanding exception was the increased conflict rating
scores given by the Puerto Rican workers.
White workers as evaluators gave smaller conflict
rating scores in 1957 than in 1956 in all cases except for
3
the Indians. The Indians received an increased conflict
rating score of .297 in 1957 compared to .092 in 1956.
Mexican workers as evaluators followed the same general
pattern with all conflict rating scores declining, except
those for Negro and Puerto Rican workers. Negro conflict
ratings increased from .054 to .056, while the Puerto Rican
conflict score grew from .044 to .083, an increase of .039.
Negro workers became more suspicious of other Negroes in
the plant, for their conflict rating score increased from
3See Table IX, p. 84.
103
TABLE XVII
AVERAGE CONFLICT RATING SCORE3
OF EACH ETHNIC GROUP
AS REPORTED BY REINTERVIEWED FELLOW WORKERS
FROM DIFFERENT ETHNIC GROUPS
TECHMIBILT CORPORATION*3
1957
Average Conflict Rating Score
Ethnic Group For Workers;C
Evaluators
White Mexican Negro Indian
Puerto
Rican
White .011 .025 .019 .297 .000
(Rank) (4) (2) (3) (1) (5)
Mexican .042 .023 .056 .130 .083
(Rank) (4) (5) (3) (X)
(2)
Negro .009 .008 .084 .083
(Rank) (3) (4)
(1)
(2)
Indian .033 .004 .019
.045 mm
(Rank) (2) (4) (3) (1)
Puerto Rican .334 .084 .005 .000d
(Rank)
(1)
(2) (3)
aThe possible conflict rating scores could range from
.000 to 1.000.
kOne person from the evaluating group judging one
person from the ethnic group indicated.
cThe average conflict rating for all workers as
evaluated by the 32 reinterviewed workers was .034.
dOne person evaluating only one person.
.104
.038 to .084. Conflict scores by Negro for all other eth
nic groups declined. Indian workers also indicated inten
sified conflict feelings among themselves for the conflict
score changed from .028 to .045, an increase of .017 per
cent. Puerto Rican workers augmented their conflict rat
ings of all ethnic groups but their own. The changes were
from .064 to .334 for white workers, from .036 to .084 for
Mexican workers, and from .000 to .005 for Negro workers.
They did not evaluate Indian workers.
The above shows a general decline in conflict rat
ing scores and hence in social distance. The chief reason
for such a decline could be a better understanding between
fellow workers, regardless of ethnic classification. In
the case of the Indian workers and the Puerto Rican work
ers, competition between them for increased worker status
brought about the indicated changes in conflict ratings.
Average conflict ratings by work group. The con
flict rating scores by work group are given in Table
XVIII. Twelve groups at Technibilt Corporation were in-
4
volved in both the first and second phase of this study.
Seven work groups had increased conflict ratings between
1956 and 1957. The total increase for these groups was
^Workers in the wire department Groups I and II,
night shift, and the fabrication department day shift were
not interviewed in the second phase of the study because of
their busy work schedule. The welding department eliminated
the night shift, increasing the workers on day shift.
105
TABLE XVIII
AVERAGE CONFLICT RATING SCORE BY WORK GROUP AND RANK
BASED ON THE EVALUATIONS OF 32 REINTERVIEWED WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1957
Number of /ivexdge
Name of Work Group Evaluations Conflict Rank
Score
Production Control 3 .530 1
Fabrication— Night 13 .197 2
Inspection— Assembly 6 .138 3
Assembly— Assembly 7 .072 4
Shipping & Receiving 21 .072 4
Wire Dept. Gr. I Day 113 .034 6
Welding Dept. 61 .024 7
Foremen F.val. of Foremen 6 .024 7
Foremen Eval. of Workers 46 .018 9
Wire Dept. Gr. II Day 110 .014 10
Machine Shop 42 .007 11
Office Force 28 .006 12
T otal 456
Average .034
106
.474.^ These work groups were designated as production con
trol, fabrication— night, inspection— assembly, assembly—
assembly, wire department group I day, foremen evaluation
of workers, and foremen evaluation of foremen. The conflict
rating score rise for production control was largest with
.341, while fabrication— night was next with an increase of
. 103.
Five groups with smaller conflict scores were: ship
ping and receiving, welding department, wire department
group II day, machine shop, and the office force. The larg
est declines were .132 for the shipping and receiving de
partment and .051 in the wire department group II day. The
overall trend was a decline in the average conflict rating
scores. The second interview of workers found them to be
less suspicious and belligerent toward their fellow workers
than the first interview. The protection accorded by a la
bor union may have decreased the need to regard other work
ers as unduly threatening, especially the aggressive-status-
seekers.
Conflict rating scores of Technibilt workers by
ethnic classification in work groups. The conflict rating
scores of the workers by ethnic group in the different
work groups are given in Table XIX. There were thirteen
increased conflict scores in the different ethnic groups
^See Table X, p. 87, to make comparisons of conflict
rating scores.
TABLE XIX
AVERAGE CONFLICT RATING SCORE
BY WORK GROUP AND ETHNIC CLASSIFICATION
BASED ON THE EVALUATIONS OF 32 REINTERVIEWED WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1957
Conflict Rating , .Scores for:
Work Group
Indian Negro
Workers
Puerto white
Rican
Mexican
Production Control - - .430 .720
Fabrication— Night .490 - .033 . 266
As sembly--Inspectors
_ -
- .166 .110
Assembly— As sembly .005 .000 .334 .167
Shipping & Receiving .056 - .024 .330
Wire Dept. Gr. I Day .202 .037 .000 .028 .055
Welding Department
_
.035 .012 .071
Foremen Eval. Foremen - - .028 . 000
Foremen Eval. Workers .067 .024 - .030 . 006
Wire Department Gr. II
Day .051 .005 — .035 .048
Machine Shop
— — —
.007
—
108
and twenty-five decreased scores.
The increases in these work group ethnic classifi
cations totaled .862, while the decreases of conflict
scores totaled 2.441. The figures represented an over-all
decrease in conflict rating scores within the work groups.
The increases and decreases in conflict scores were scat
tered, indicating that they represent chance situations
where competition and conflict developed between individu
als because of incidental emotional and personal upsets.
They also represent an over-all decrease in social
distance between the workers from different ethnic groups
represented in the work groups, due to a better understand
ing of individuals from different ethnic groups, which in
turn seemed to be based on satisfactory personal experi
ences in work groups and factory activities.
Adverse evaluations by ethnic group. The percent
age of total possible conflict evaluations by ethnic
group are given in Table XX. Following the same general
trend indicated by the conflict ratings in 1957, percent
ages for Mexican and white workers decreased, while the
adverse evaluations for the Negro and Puerto Rican and
Indian workers increased. The latter, with 20 per cent
or 45 out of 222 possible adverse evaluations, had the
highest percentage for all ethnic groups but gained 1 per
cent compared to the 1956 figure. Mexican workers ranked
TABLE XX
POSSIBLE CONFLICT EVALUATIONS
BY ETHNIC GROUP
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1957
Ethnic Group Possible Number of Percentage
Evaluated E&!&t£SnE Conflict Ra"k
Indian 222 45 20 1
Mexican 1248 139 11 2
White 1146 116 10 3
Negro 258 24 9 4
Puerto Rican 30 1 3a 5
Total 2904 325
Average 11
aOne conflict evaluation for "Takes offense readily."
110
second with 11 per cent of the 1248 possible adverse evalu
ations, a decrease of 4 per cent since 1956. Following
closely, the white workers with 11 per cent of the 1146
possible adverse evaluations, had a 1.0 per cent decline,
but still ranked third. The Negro workers with 9 per
cent of the 250 possible adverse evaluations indicated a
2.7 per cent increase over 1956. Puerto Rican workers had
3 per cent of the possible adverse evaluations in 1956 and
also in 1957. The total overall percentage of adverse
evaluations dropped from 12.7 per cent in 1956 to 11 per
cent in 1957.
The general decline in percentage of adverse evalu
ations agrees with the decline in conflict ratings and sup
ports this finding. The percentage increase of adverse
evaluations for the Negro and Indian workers in 1957 indi
cates a situation of increasing conflict between these
workers and their fellow workers.
Average adverse evaluations by six criteria of con
flict . "Wants center of attention" category received 19
per cent of a possible 485 adverse evaluations, which placed
it first among the criteria of conflict in 1957, according
to Table XXI. In the first phase of the study, it ranked
second with 14.9 per cent. This reveals a 5.1 per cent in
crease in conflict evaluations. "Takes offense readily"
ranked second, with 11 per cent in 1957 but fifth in 1956
Ill
TABLE XXI
AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF ADVERSE EVALUATIONS
BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS IN WORK GROUPS
BY THE SIX CRITERIA OF CONFLICT
AS INDICATED BY 32 REINTERVIEWED WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1957
Crite cia
of Conflict
Possible Number of Percentage
Conflict Conflict of Rank
Evaluations Evaluations Conflict
Wants center of
attention 484
Takes offense
readily 484
Loses temper easily 484
Quarrels readily 484
Resents
suggestions 484
Wants own way most
of time 484
Total 2904
Average
92
56
51
45
44
37
325
19
11
11
9
9
_8
11
1
2
2
4
4
6
112
with 11 per cent, a decline of 3.2 per cent over the 1956
second rank position of 14.4 per cent. "Quarrels readily"
was fourth highest in 1957, with 9 per cent of the 484
possible conflict evaluations, compared to third rank and
12.5 per cent in the earlier period. "Resents suggestions"
also ranked fourth highest in 1957 with 9 per cent and in
the 1956 phase, this category also ranked fourth with 12.0
per cent, 3.0 per cent higher than the 1957 percentage.
"Wants own way most of the time" ranked sixth or lowest
in 1957 with 8 per cent and also ranked lowest with 8.6
per cent in 1956.
The above changes represented over-all decreases
in percentage of conflict evaluations and a decrease in
rank position in three out of six instances with only two
increases in rank and two criteria remained in the same
rank position. ?uch indications show subtle changes in
the goals of workers. Prior to the induction of the work
ers into the union, they were concerned primarily with
wages, advancement, and management. The union brought new
roles of union leadership for the workers in the factory
with benefits of increased status among the workers.
Adverse evaluations by ethnic group and criterion of
conflict. The criteria of conflict are broken down by
ethnic group in Table XXII. In 1957, the criteria of con
flict shifted rank position and only "Wants own way most of
113
TABLE XXII
PERCENTAGE OF ADVERSE EVALUATIONS BY ETHNIC GROUPS
AND CRITERIA OF CONFLICT AS GIVEN
BY THE EVALUATIONS OF 32 REINTERVIEWED WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1957
Crite cia
Percentage of
Possible Conflict Evaluations
U1
Conflict
Indian Mexican White Neg ro
Puerto
Rican
Rank
Wants center of
attention 38 24 i2 16
_
i
(Rank)
(1)
(2) (4) (3)
(5)
Takes offense
readily 24 10 12 6 20 2
(Rank)
(1)
(4) (3) (5) (2)
Loses temper
easily 16 10 9 16
—
3
(Rank)
(1)
(3) (4)
(1)
(5)
Quarrels readily 19 6 11 9 4
(Rank)
(1)
(4) (2) (3)
(5)
Resents suggestions 19 9 10 00
mm
5
(Rank)
(1)
(3) (2) (4) (5)
Wants own way most
of time 5 9 7 6
_
6
(Rank) (4)
(1)
(2) (3)
(5)
114
time" remained in the same rank, sixth position, as in
1956. "Loses temper easily" dropped from first rank to
third rank; "Wants center of attention" rose from second
to first rank; "Takes offense readily" moved from fifth to
second rank; and 'Quarrels readily" moved from third to
fourth rank. This shuffling of rank position revealed a
shifting of attitudes and feelings about the work situation.
Changes in attitudes had been brought about by the new
worker-union-management relationships which made the work
ers feel important and capable of compelling management to
accomplish certain objectives due to union representation.
The workers felt a new power with regard to management and
this was a fact that was shifting the criteria of conflict.
In most instances, 17 out of 25, the percentages of
adverse evaluations decreased and in only 13 cases did
they increase. These decreases were concentrated in the
Mexican workers and Puerto Rican workers where five cate
gories out of six declined. Mexican workers had gained in
status among their fellow workers from promotions to posi
tions of leadership as stewards and union committeemen in
the factory. Indian workers showed two trends. One trend
revealed them in first position in all but one of the cri
teria of conflict and the other was a decline in percent
age of adverse evaluations for "Quarrels readily" and
"Wants own way." This indicated that the Indians were be
ing accepted more by their fellow 'workers. Indians were
115
promoted and one Indian had worked longer at the factory
than any other factory worker. Again, two male Indians who
were erratic workers and difficult to associate with left
the employment of the factory. They were replaced by other
Indians more amenable to suggestions and more stable in
their work habits.
White workers also had percentage decreases in
"Loses temper easily," "Resents suggestions," and "Wants
own way most of time." Two hot-headed white workers left
the employment of the company and were no longer present at
the time of the second interview. A third was shifted to
another department and was compelled to control his explo
sive temper; a doctor had warned him that it was producing
a nervous condition and damaging his heart. These changes
in personnel may have had some influence upon the evalua
tions of the fellow workers of white, Indian, and Mexican
workers.
Adverse evaluations by work group and criterion of
conflict. Table XXIII gives the percentage of adverse
evaluations of fellow workers by work group and criteria of
conflict. Production control, a small mixed work group,
ranked first of all work groups with a high average of 50
per cent of all possible adverse evaluations. The office
force, a large group with little ethnic mixture, ranked
lowest with the wire department group I day shift, a large
116
TABLE XXIII
PERCENTAGES OF ADVERSE EVALUATIONS OF
FELLOW WORKERS BY WORK GROUP
FROM THE EVALUATIONS OF 32 REINTERVIEWED WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1957
Evidences of Conflict
Work Group
(a) (b)
Pe
(c) (d)
rcentage
(e)
(f)
Aver
age
Rank
Production Control 50 50 100 100 50 1
Assembly Dept.--Inspec
tion 67 17 17 17 50 28 2
Fabrication Dept. Night 27 13 27 13 13 33 21 3
Foremen Eval. Foremen 33 33 17
—
33
—
19 4
Foremen Eval. Workers 100
—
4 2 4 2 19 4
Shipping & Receiving 14 19 14 10 24 14 16 6
Assembly— Assembly
—
29 14
— 14 29 14 7
Welding Dept. 0 29 12 7 6 10 12 8
Machine Shop 14 10 10 12 12 10 11 9
Wire Dept. Gr. II Day 9 9 10 11 7 4 9 10
Wire Dept. Gr. I Day 7 9 10 10 9 5 8 11
Office Force 4
~ .
12 8 8 __8 __8 11
Ave rage 19 12 11 9 9 8 10
(a) - Wants Center of Attention
(b) - Takes Offense Readily
(c) - Loses Temper Easily
(d) - Flesents Suggestions
(e) - Quarrels Readily
(f) - Wants Own Way Most of Time
117
highly ethnic mixed work group. Each had an average of 8
per cent of the possible adverse evaluations. This re
flects two extremes. A small highly ethnic mixed work
group appears to have more adverse evaluations, while a
large work group mixed ethnically or unmixed has a minimum
of adverse evaluations.
The over-all view of this table reveals that four
work groups moved down in rank, namely: shipping and re
ceiving from fourth to sixth rank, assembly department as
sembly line from fifth to seventh position, wire department
group II day shift from second to tenth position, and wire
department group I day shift from eighth to eleventh rank.
This represents a considerable shift in relationships.
Only one work group maintained the same rank, production
control ranked first in 1956 and in 1957. Seven other
groups moved up in rank: fabrication department night shift
from sixth to third rank, foremen evaluations of workers
from fourteenth to fourth rank, foremen evaluations of
foremen from eleventh rank to fourth, assembly department
inspection section from third rank to second, welding de
partment from ninth to eighth rank, machine shop from tenth
to ninth rank, and office force from twelfth to eleventh
position. There were increases in average percentage of
adverse evaluations for seven out of the twelve work groups
and decreases in five work groups.
There were 40 decreases and 26 increases in percent-
118
ages of adverse evaluations. Increases in percentage were
nearly twice the size in the over-all per cent scores of
decreases in percentages. The greatest shifts were made in
the "Wants center of attention," "Resents suggestions," and
"Quarrels readily" categories. In the first instance,
there was an over-all increase and in the second and third
instances, there were decreases in adverse evaluations.
The changes represent in general a tendency toward a
shift in the workers’ concern with personal relationships.
Worker-management relationships changed during the year to
a worker-union-management relationship. Union representa
tives increased the possible points of adverse relation
ships as well as introduced competition between workers for
positions of leadership roles with increased status in the
union and a carry-over to the work group.
An increase in the "Wants center of attention" cate
gory and decreases in the "Quarrels readily," and "Resents
suggestions" categories gave evidence of the above changes.
The wire department day shift and shipping and receiving de
partment had decreases of adverse evaluations and rank
position which revealed less conflict and better personal
and work relationships during the period studied. Wire
department day shift workers had the longest tenure in the
plant and had union membership. The office force, with a
slight decrease in adverse evaluations, was not unionized.
III. CONCLUSIONS
119
From the analysis and testing of the conflict rating
scale, the following conclusions may be made:
1. The conflict rating scale as applied to the
Technibilt Corporation workers in this chapter showed a
decrease in the conflict rating score from .040 in 1956 to
.031 in 1957. This change was further verified by an anal
ysis of the possible adverse evaluations. This change was
due to a decrease in conflict attitudes indicated by the
evidences of conflict.
2. The decline in conflict ratings was made in a
period soon after the Technibilt Corporation was unionized.
Introduction of the union into the factory brought a change
in the interpersonal relationships between the workers.
Workers were given the security of a given wage and period
ic wage increases as well as a security in their position.
They also had a greater voice in determining working condi
tions in the factory through their union representatives.
The ending of the union organizational drive and the new
security felt by the worker tended to reduce conflict in
the work situation.
3. The introduction of the union into the factory
brought new roles of leadership into the factory, such as
union stewards for each department and union committeemen
to represent the workers in bargaining and grievance ses-
120
sions with management. Mexican workers, white workers, and
Indian workers were selected for these roles of leadership.
This gave status to these workers and also to their ethnic
groups. It also made the individual workers evaluate
themselves and their fellow workers for positions of this
nature in campaigning and electioneering for the selection
of these leaders. The result of this union activity was
an increased status for the Mexican and Indian workers re
flected by a shift in the rank order of these ethnic
groups.
4. Foremen of departments and the personnel mana
ger of the company changed their routines concerning griev
ances and complaints as well as promotions. They required
union stewards and committeemen to assume responsibility
in the handling of complaints of the workers. Grievances
had to be initiated through the stewards in a discussion
with the foremen. Workers were required to follow this
routine and were often referred to the steward by the fore
man for this specific responsibility. The attitude of the
foremen was, "since you voted the union into power, it will
have to filter out the complaints and grievances and dis
cipline the workers into living up to the union contract."
If the matter was of a general policy, it was referred by
the steward to the foreman and then to the committeemen
and representatives of management for settlement. This may
have frustrated the workers in many instances and may have
121
created a desire to receive immediate and direct attention
to their suggestions and problems.
5. During this period, several hot-tempered white,
Mexican, and Indian workers terminated their employment at
Technibilt Corporation which helped lower the conflict rat
ing, for their influence was absent from the work groups.
A practice of shifting an individual to another department
when he was maladjusted in his work situation caused a
worker to be moved from the welding department. This policy
instigated further realignment of interpersonal relation
ships, resulting in decreased conflict.
CHAPTER VI
A COOPERATION RATING SCALE
To survive and be effective a group must have coop
eration between its members. Cooperation is doubly impor
tant in work groups, for the quantity and quality of the
output depends upon it. As discussed in this chapter,
there axe seven criteria or categories of cooperation:
(1) Doing share of work, (2) Following instructions easily,
(3) Learning work quickly, (4) Helping others readily, (5)
Working well w’ ith others, (6) Admitting mistakes readily,
and (7) Out-group interests. Each of these criteria is a
component of cooperation essential for a person to work
effectively with others in an industrial work group.
The ratings of each of his fellow workers by an
individual on each of these points were totaled by ethnic
classification of the individuals evaluated, and by the
ethnic classification of the evaluator. The resultant sum
divided by the total possible cooperation evaluations by
work group gives a cooperation rating score. An example is
given of the computation of a cooperation rating score in
the following paragraphs.
A work group of eight workers had four Mexican work
ers and four white workers. One white worker gave 20
122
123
cooperation evaluations out of a possible 28 cooperation
evaluations to the four Mexican workers, seven (7) for each
worker evaluated. The twenty (20) cooperation evaluations
divided by the twenty-eight (28) possible cooperation eval
uations gives a cooperation score of .715. Two other white
workers gave twenty-six (26) cooperation evaluations to the
four Mexican workers making a cooperation score of .930. A
fourth white worker gave twenty-eight (28) cooperation
evaluations to the four Mexican workers which gives a score
of 1.000. To find the Mexican cooperation score given by
white workers, the cooperation evaluations 20, 26, 26, and
28 would be summed giving a total of 100. This number,
divided by the 112 possible cooperation evaluations, 28
from each white workers, gives a cooperation score of .980
for Mexican workers.
Mexican workers evaluating their fellow Mexican
workers gave 18, 17, 16, and 19 cooperation evaluations.
Each of these numbers divided by 21 (7 possible cooperation
evaluations for each worker evaluated) gives cooperation
scores of .856, .810, .763, and .905 respectively. A
worker did not evaluate himself. These cooperation evalu
ations summed give a total of 70 divided by 84 (total pos
sible cooperation evaluations) gives a cooperation score of
.834 for Mexican workers given by Mexican workers in the
work group.
The total cooperation rating score for Mexican
124
workers in the work group would be the total cooperation
evaluations given by the white workers, 100, added to 70,
the total cooperation evaluations given by Mexican workers,
or 170. This number divided by 196 (112 plus 84), total
possible cooperation evaluations, gives a cooperation score
of .867 for Mexicans in the work group.
Cooperation scores were obtained by ethnic group for
each work group and for the total workers. They were also
obtained for the evaluators by ethnic classification. The
smallest possible score on the cooperation rating scale
would be .000 while the maximum score would be 1.000.
The percentage of possible cooperative evaluations
on each criterion of cooperation by ethnic group, work
group, and total workers was also computed. A comparison
of the cooperation scores of the Technibilt workers of 1955
and 1956 will be made with the reinterviewed workers of
1957 to note any changes.
I. THE COOPERATION RATING SCORE
The average cooperation rating for the entire 144
workers at Technibilt for 1956 was .919. This includes the
judgment of 53 white workers, 53 Mexican workers, 15 Negro
workers, 8 Indian workers, and 4 Puerto Rican workers.
The cooperation rating scale by ethnic classifica
tion. Table XXIV gives the cooperation rating scores of
125
TABLE XXIV
COOPERATION RATING SCORE OF FELLOW WORKERS3
BY ETHNIC GROUP
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Ethnic Group
Evaluated
Number of
Evaluations
Average
Coope ration
Score
Rank
Mexican 599 .941 1
White 526 .937 2
Negro 153 .873 3
Indian 77 .803 4
Puerto Rican 42 .746 5
Total 1397
Average .919
aThere were 144 workers evaluated for cooperation,
The possible cooperation rating scores could range from
.000 to a maximum score of 1.000.
126
the different ethnic groups. Mexican workers and white
workers had closely related cooperation scores of .941 and
.937. These two groups were rated highest in cooperation
by their fellow workers while the Indian and Puerto Rican
workers were rated lowest with rating scores of .803 and
.746, respectively. Negro workers were in a middle posi
tion with a cooperation rating of .873.
Mexican and white workers have been the main source
of labor at Technibilt Corporation since it was organized.
Negro, Indian, and Puerto Rican workers were the most re
cent ethnic groups added as employees of the factory. Well
established roles of interpersonal relations have been de
veloped for the white and Mexican workers over the years
while the Negro workers, Indian workers, and Puerto Rican
workers only recently have been accepted by their fellow
workers in larger numbers in the plant and are developing
roles and patterns of accepted interpersonal relations in
work groups. Interview data indicated suspicious and skep
tical attitudes or neutrality toward Indian and Puerto
Rican workers. Mexican and white workers were not accus
tomed to having them in the factory work groups in large
numbers.
Cooperation ratings by ethnic group as reported by
fellow workers of each ethnic group. All ethnic groups
ranked their own workers highest in cooperation in Table XXV
TABLE XXV
AVERAGE COOPERATION RATING SCORES3 BY ETHNIC GROUP
AS INDICATED BY FELLOW WORKERS
BY ETHNIC CLASSIFICATION
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Ethnic Group
of
Evaluators
b
Average Cooperation Rating Score for:
Puerto
Mexican White Negro Indian Rican
Workers Workers Workers Workers Workers
Mexican .958 .898 .848 .808 .779
(Rank)
(l)
(2) (3) (4)
(5)
White .901 .954 .846 .779 .676
(Rank) (2)
(1)
(3) (4) (5)
Negro .971 .962 .919 .821 .857
(Rank)
(1)
(2) (3) (5) (4)
Indian .953 .883 .839 .794 .714
(Rank)
(1)
(2) (3) (4) (5)
Puerto Rican .924 .936 .857 .857 .936
(Rank) (3)
(1)
(4) (4)
(1)
aThe highest, possible score on the Cooperation Rat-
ing Scale is 1.000 and the lowest score is .000.
^There were 53 white
8 Indian, and 4 Puerto Rican
evaluators, 53
evaluators.
Mexican, 15 Negro
128 '
with the exception of the Negro and Indian workers, who
ranked themselves third and fourth respectively, indicating
an awareness of this lack of cooperation among Negro and
Indian workers. Workers from these two ethnic groups felt
closer to Mexican workers and white workers in the work
situation than to each other. The learning situation with-
in work groups made the Negro workers and Indian workers
dependent upon white and Mexican workers for instruction
in work skills in order to gain status and advancement as
workers.
Mexican workers were given the highest cooperation
score of .971 by the Negro workers. White workers gave
Puerto Rican workers the lowest rating, .676, of all ethnic
groups in the table. Mexican workers were ranked first in
three out of five ethnic groups with the smallest rating
score of .901 from white workers. In every instance, their
rating was above .900. White workers were ranked second
by three ethnic groups, but first by themselves and Puerto
Rican workers. A high rating of .962 from Negro workers
and a low rating of .883 from Indian workers were accorded
the white workers. Negro workers were ranked third by all
ethnic groups except the Puerto Ricans who ranked them
fourth. The Indians were ranked fourth by all ethnic
groups except the Negroes who ranked them fifth. Puerto
Rican workers were ranked fifth three times, fourth by the
Negroes, and first by fellow Puerto Rican workers.
129
The cooperation ratings and rank positions reveal
that Mexican workers and white workers ranked first and
second by all workers. Their skill, experience, and status
in the work situation were important to all workers in the
factory. Workers from these two groups hold nearly all
the important positions of leadership and skill; therefore,
all individuals are dependent upon them for training in
work skills and for approval before advancement in work ac
tivities and worker status. Puerto Ricans identified them
selves most closely with the white workers and Indians
identified themselves most closely with Mexican workers,
according to the cooperation rating. Negro workers iden
tified themselves closely with both Mexican and white work
ers.
Average cooperation rating scores by work group.
The cooperation rating scores by work group given in Table
XXVI show that the wire department group II day shift had
the high rating score of .976, a large sixteen-member work
group. Production control, a small four-member work group,
had the smallest rating score of .762. The former group
was mixed with white, Mexican, Negro, Indian, and Puerto
Rican workers, while the latter had one white and three
Mexican workers. The cooperation scores showed large
groups had higher ratings and small groups had the smaller
ratings. The point of whether the group is mixed or not
130
TABLE XXVI
AVERAGE COOPERATION RATING SGORESa BY WORK GROUP
BASED ON SEVEN PERSONAL FACTORS
INDICATING COOPERATIVE RELATIONS FOR
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION WORKERS
1955-1956
Name of Work Group
Number of
Evaluations
Average
Cooperation
Score
Rank
Wire Dept. Gr. II Day 258 .976 1
Machine Shop 140 .963 2
Wire Dept. Gr. II Night 181 .956 3
Fabrication— Day 90 .940 4
Foremen Eval. of Foremen 49
.936 5
Wire Dept. Gr. I Night 73 .934 6
Office Force 81 .930 7
Foremen Eval. of Workers 125 .922 8
Welding Dept. Day 91 .921 9
Wire Dept. Gr. I Day 82 .920 10
Welding Dept. Night 73 .895 11
Assembly— Assembly 56 .867 12
Fabrication Dept. Night 32 .852 13
Shipping & Receiving 33 .824 14
Assembly--Inspection 20 .796 15
Production Control 13 .762 16
T otal 1397
Average . 919
aMaximum cooperating rating1 scale score is 1.000 and
the minimum score is .000.
^There were a total of 144 Technibilt Corporation
workers during the study.
131
does not have much influence on the cooperation score for
three groups with a minimum of mixed workers from differ
ent ethnic backgrounds, the machine shop, the office force,
and the foremen, all had high cooperation ratings of .963,
.930, and .936. Larger work groups have a greater possibil
ity of varied interpersonal relations between the workers
but may not have the intense relationships found in the
small group relations with the smaller number of interper
sonal relations limited by the fewer members of the group.
The intensity of interpersonal relations will be explored
in the following chapter and was an important factor in
determining the cooperation rating scores.
Cooperation rating scores of Technibilt workers by
ethnic classification in the work group. The cooperation
rating scores by ethnic classification in work groups as
given in Table XXVII show the Mexican workers received
seven ratings above .900, whereas the white workers re
ceived eight ratings above .900. Negro workers received
three scores above .900, the Indian workers one, while the
highest cooperation rating score received by the Puerto
Rican workers was .801. Mexican and white workers had
better work attitudes and were considered most cooperative
by their fellow workers according to these rating scores.
Mexican workers and white workers were each in fifteen out
of sixteen work groups, which gave them a wide distribution
132
TABLE XXVII
COOPERATION RATING SCORES
BY WORK GROUP AND BY ETHNIC GROUP
FOR 144 WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Cooperation Rating Score for:
Name of
Work Group
Puerto
Mexican White Negro Indian Rj_can
Workers Workers Workers Workers Workers
Wire Dept. Gr. II
Day .976 .890 .696 .690 .738
(Rank)
(1)
(2) (4) (5) (3)
Machine Shop
—
.978
— _ m m
(Rank)
(1)
Wire Dept. Gr. II
Night .979 .786 .921
(Rank)
(1)
(3) (2)
Fabrication Dept.
Night .884 .954 .955
(Rank) (3) (2)
(1)
Foremen Eval. of
Foremen .760 .966
(Rank) (2)
(1)
Wire Dept. Gr. I
Night .964 .857 .908 .923
—
(Rank)
(1)
(4) (3) (2)
Foremen Eval. of
Workers .952 .956 .842 .745 .642
(Rank) (2)
(1)
(3) (4) (5)
Welding Dept. Day .925 .949
- .786 —
(Rank) (2)
(1)
(3)
.Wire Dept. Gr. I
Day .960 .724 — .884
—
(Rank)
(1)
(3) (2)
Office Force .588 .968
- _
(Rank) (2)
(1)
Welding Dept. Night .895 .949 - -
.698
(Rank) (2)
(1)
(3)
Assembly— Assembly .882 .892
— — ■
.801
(Rank) (2)
(1)
(3)
Fabrication Night .918 —
.821 .755 —
(Rank)
(1)
(2) (3)
Shipping & Receiv
ing
.784 .908 .690 .785
—
(Rank) (3)
(1) (4) (2)
TABLE XXVII (continued)
133
Name of
Work Group
Cooperation Rating Score for:
Mexican
Workers
White Negro Indian pj[can°
Workers Workers Workers Workers
Assembly—
Inspection .809 .776 - - -
(Rank)
(1)
(2)
Production Control .862 .537 -
(Rank)
(1)
(2)
throughout the work groups.
The Mexican workers received the highest cooperation
rating score of .979, the highest of all work groups in the
wire department group II night shift, while the white work
ers received the second highest rating of .978 in the mach
ine shop. White workers received the lowest rating of .537
given by the production control work group. The Mexican
workers received the second lowest rating score of .588 by
the office force. The high rating scores and low rating
scores were expressions of ethnocentrism, for in each in
stance the ethnic group with the largest proportion of
workers had the high score and the group with the smallest
number of workers received the low scores.
Another aspect of the high cooperation scores for
Mexican and white workers was the fact that they held the
high paying, skilled, and leadership positions in the work
groups. The white workers held the largest number of these
positions but the Mexican workers were slowly moving into
more of these status positions. The high cooperation
scores of the Mexican workers gave evidence of their status
strivings for they were building cooperative relationships
to improve their status position in the work groups and to
increase their economic security.
The proportion of the workers in the work group,
their feelings of ethnocentrism, the skill of the workers,
their attitudes toward cooperation in the work group, the
135
number of workers holding positions of leadership in work
groups, the attitudes of workers toward their cooperation
in work groups contributes to the cooperation rating score
of each ethnic group present.
Average cooperation rating scores given fellow work
ers by persons from different ethnic groups in Table XXVIII
show that Negro workers gave the highest cooperation rating
score of .949 to all workers, while Indian workers gave the
lowest cooperation score of .906. White and Mexican work
ers each evaluated fellow workers with the average score
of .916 while the Puerto Rican workers gave the average
score of .926. Negro and Puerto Rican workers were fewer in
number than the white and Mexican workers. They were striv
ing for friends and for status in work groups according to
interview materials and gave higher average cooperation rat
ing scores than other ethnic groups. Indian workers did
not mix with their fellow workers as much as did other work
ers, isolating themselves at breaks and lunch periods during
the work day. They were more independent of their fellow
workers, also, in their social activities after hours of
work, according to interview materials. They gave the
lowest average cooperation ratings to fellow workers.
II. COOPERATIVE EVALUATIONS
Worker evaluations indicating cooperation were ac
cumulated from the cooperative judgments of each worker of
TABLE XXVIII
COOPERATION RATING SCORES OF FELLOW WORKERS3
BY ETHNIC GROUP OF EVALUATORS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Ethnic Group
Evaluating
Number of
Evaluations
Average ,
Cooperation Rank
Score
Negro 146 .949 1
Puerto Rican 30 .926 2
Mexican 526 .916 3
White 621 .916 3
Indian 74 .906 5
Total 1397
Average .919
aThere were 144 workers evaluated for cooperation.
This includes 59 white workers, 58 Mexican, 15 Negro, 8
Indian, and 4 Puerto Rican workers •
^The highest possible cooperation rating score on
the scale is 1.000, and the lowest rating is .000.
137
his fellow workers in the work group. Since the number of
evaluations were limited by the seven criteria of coopera
tion and by the number of workers in the work group, the
potential cooperative evaluations could be computed. By
accumulating the number of cooperative evaluations by eth
nic group, by work group, and by criteria of cooperation,
a percentage of possible cooperative evaluations was com
puted. Information concerning the cooperative evaluations
will be given in the following section.
Cooperative evaluations by ethnic group. Indian
workers with an average cooperative rating score of .906
had the largest percentage of cooperative evaluations,
79.7 per cent or 467 of a possible 624 evaluations as given
in Table XXIX. Negro workers and Mexican workers ranked
second and third with 77.6 and 76.8 per cent of the possible
cooperative judgments while the white workers and the Puerto
Rican workers ranked fourth and fifth. All percentage val
ues were within 9 per cent, indicating they were closely
grouped and were evaluated as having approximately the same
cooperative behavior in frequency occurrence. All workers
received high percentages of cooperative evaluations with
slightly larger percentages given to Indian workers as com-
par^ with other ethnic groups
Average cooperative evaluations by the seven criteria
of cooperation. The smallest percentage of cooperative
138
TABLE XXIX
PERCENTAGE OF COOPERATIVE EVALUATIONS
BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS IN WORK GROUPS
BY ETHNIC CLASSIFICATION
AS INDICATED BY FELLOW WORKERS3
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Ethnic Group
Evaluated
Possible
Cooperative
Evaluations
Number of
Cooperative
Evaluations
Percentage
of
Cooperation
Rank
Indian 574 457 79.7 1
Negro 987 764 77.5 2
Mexican 4536 3432 75.8 3
White 4319 3241 -j
(ji
o
o
4
Puerto Rican 315 224 71.0 5
Total 10731 8118
Average 76.0
aThe term
belonging to the
"fellow workers" refers
same work group.
to the individuals
139
evaluations was given to "out-group interest," 12.3 per
cent of the 1533 possible evaluations shown in Table XXX.
Apparently most members of the ethnic groups working at
Technibilt were strongly oriented towards members of their
own ethnic group at the time of the interviews. The high
est percentage was given "Working well with others," with
89.0 per cent of the 1533 possible cooperative evaluations.
All the characteristics of cooperation as given in this
study fell between 80.2 per cent and 89.0 per cent of the
possible evaluations, but the one "out-group interest,"
which had 12.3 per cent. The responses to the various
criteria of cooperation in the work groups failed to verify
the importance of this phase of cooperation in the inter
personal relations of workers in work groups.
Cooperative evaluations by ethnic group and criteria
of cooperation. Table XXXI gives each criterion of cooper
ation in rank order by percentage of cooperative evalua
tions for each ethnic group. With the exception of three
percentages, 73 per cent for Puerto Rican workers under
"Learning work quickly," 64 per cent and 77 per cent, re
spectively, for Puerto Rican 'workers and white workers
under "Admitting Mistakes readily," all percentages for the
first six criteria of cooperation varied from 82 to 92 per
cent. "Out-group interest" varied from 4 per cent for
Puerto Rican workers to 20 per cent for Indian workers.
140
TABLE A;iA
AVERAGE COOPERATIVE EVALUATION.0
BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS IN WORK GROUPS
BY CRITERIA OF COOPERATION
AS INDICATED BY FELLOW WORKERS3
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Criteria
of Conflict
Possible Number of Percentage
Conflict Conflict of Rank
Evaluations Evaluations Conflict
Working well
with othe rs 1533
Helping others
readily 1533
Learning wotk
quickly 1533
Following instruc
tions easily 1533
Doing share of work 1533
Admitting mistakes
readily 1533
Out-group interest 1533
Total 10731
Ave rage
1366
1556
1329
1327
1321
1230
1S9
o 116
89.0
So. 5
86.5
86.3
C 'T
GO . < £ .
80. 2
12.3
76. 0
1
2
3
6
7
aThe term "fellow workers" refers to the individuals
belonging to the same work group.
TABLE XXXI
PERCENTAGE OF COOPERATIVE EVALUATIONS BETWEEN
INDIVIDUALS IN WORK GROUPS BY
ETHNIC GROUP AND CRITERION OF COOPERATION
INDICATED BY FELLOW WORKERS3
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Percentage of Possible Evaluations for:
Criteria of
Cooperation
Indian
Workers
Negro
Workers
Mexican
Workers
White
Workers
Puerto
Rican
Workers
Working well with
others 84 92 91 87 87
(Rank) (5)
(1)
(2) (3) (3)
Helping others
readily 87 91 89 88 91
(Rank) (5) (1)
(3) (4)
(1)
Learning work
quickly 92 87 85 89 73
(Rank)
(1)
(3) (4) (2) (5)
Following in
structions easily 94 85 86 87 91
(Rank)
(1) (5)
(4) (3) (2)
Doing share of
work 90 92 85 85 87
(Rank) (2)
(1)
(4) (4) (3)
Admitting mistakes
readily 92 84 82 77 64
(Rank)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Out-group
intere st 20 13 12 12 4
(Rank)
(1)
(2) (3) (3) (5)
a,,Fellow Workers" refers to individuals belonging to
the same work group.
142
Analysis shows the higher percentages usually were given to
the Indian, Negro, or Mexican workers, while the lower per
centages were given to white and Puerto Rican workers. All
ethnic groups had almost similar percentages, for most
criteria of cooperation showed small variations in percen
tages.
Cooperative evaluations by work group and criterion
of cooperation. An examination of Table XXXII shows four
facts of importance. First, percentages of cooperation are
high, varying from 69 per cent to 91 per cent with the ex
ception of the two small work groups. Second, the small
work groups, production control and assembly line inspec
tion section, had the lowest percentages, 63 per cent and
69 per cent, respectively, of the possible cooperative
evaluations. These work groups had four and five workers
in their work operations and ranked fifteenth and sixteenth.
Third, medium sized groups of 10 workers had the highest
percentages, namely 92 and 83 per cent, also 77 and 76 per
cent, ranking first, second, fifth, and seventh in possible
cooperative evaluations. These work groups included wire
department group I night, fabrication department day, wire
department group I day, and welding department day. Fourth,
work groups handling critical operations, where pressure
was applied periodically to encourage them to meet produc
tion quotas, had low percentages of cooperation, i.e.,
143
TABLE XXXII
PERCENTAGE OF COOPERATIVE EVALUATIONS BY WORK GROUP
FROM THE EVALUATIONS OF 132 INTERVIEWED WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Name of
Work Group
T otal
Possible
Cooperative
Evaluations
Number of
Cooperative
Evaluations
Percentage
of
Cooperation
Rank
Wire Dept. Gr. I
Night 1064 979 92 1
Fabrication Dept.
Day 700 580 83 2
Fabrication Dept.
Night 252 205 82 3
Foremen Eval. of
Foremen 448 365 82 3
Shipping & Re
ceiving 252 193 77 5
Wire Dept. Gr. I
Day 700 535 77 5
Assembly—
Assembly 448 319 76 7
Welding Dept. Day 700 529 76 7
Wire Dept. Gr. II
Night 1344 1027 76 7
Machine Shop 910 670 74 10
Welding Dept.
Night 567 406 72 11
Foremen Eval. of
Workers 875 621 71 12
Office Force 616 432 70 13
Wire Dept. Gr. II
Day 1568 1082 69 14
Production Control 112 71 63 15
Assembly Dept.
Inspection 175 104 59 16
Total
Average
10731 8118
76
144
production control, assembly department inspection section,
and shipping and receiving. Other work groups, involved in
skilled operations, were the wire department group I, fore
men, and fabrication department which had larger percent
ages of cooperative evaluations. In the latter work groups
the workers had more opportunity to converse together while
working, increasing cooperative behavior. Activity of this
nature was found in the assembly department assembly line
where they had frequent breaks and could converse. In
these work groups pleasant, friendly, interpersonal rela
tions were found by observation and interview. These ac
tivities made a difference in the cooperative evaluations
of fellow workers.
Cooperative evaluations by work group and criteria
of cooperation. Examination of the criteria of cooperation
and the work groups' cooperative evaluations in Table
XXXIII yields three major facts. First, the percentages of
cooperative evaluations were high. The over-all averages
for the criteria of cooperation vary between 8G and 89 per
cent, with the exception of "Out-group interests." These
averages demonstrated a high degree of cooperation in most
work groups. When "Admitting mistakes readily1 1 is removed,
the percentages vary but 3 per cent from 90 to 87 per cent,
indicating more cooperation among workers.
Second, "Out-group interest" was a criterion of
145
TABLE XXXIII
PERCENTAGE OF COOPERATIVE EVALUATIONS OF FELLOW WORKERS
BY WORK GROUP AND CRITERIA OF COOPERATION
FROM THE EVALUATIONS OF INTERVIEWED WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Percentage of Possible
Name of Cooperative Evaluations
Work Group
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Rank
Wire Dept. Gr. I Night 100 99 98 99 99 99 51 1
Fabrication Dept. Day 97 100 95 89 99 75 25 2
Fabrication Dept. Night 92 92 92 81 81 75 58 3
Foremen Eval. of Foremen 86 89 88 89 92 80 47 3
Shipping & Receiving 86 86 95 92 86 86 6 5
Wire Dept. Gr. I Day 95 77 92 94 92 85 0 5
Assembly Dept. Assembly 95 78 77 92 86 70 0 7
Welding Dept. Day 95 100 89 69 100 87 8 7
Wire Dept. Gr. II Night 97 81 91 87 84 94 2 7
Machine Shop 93 89 87 88 86 68 4 10
Welding Dept. Night 90 94 79 89 78 70 5 11
Foremen Eval. of Workers 86 92 85 90 73 63 9 12
Office Force 80 83 83 82 82 81 1 13
Wire Dept. Gr. II Day 67 84 78 84 89 81 0 14
Production Control 94 100 81 69 69 25 6 15
Assembly Dept. Inspection 88 68 _68 _64 56 .68 _ __0 16
Average 89 89 87 87 86 80 12
(Average percentage of cooperative evaluations for all
workers = 76.)
(1) - Working Well with Others
(2) - Helping Others Readily
(3) - Learning Work Quickly
(4) - Following Instructions Easily
(5) - Doing Share of Work
(6j - Admitting Mistakes Readily
(7J - Out-group Interests
cooperation with a low average of 12 per cent. From the
indications gathered in the interview materials it was not
considered important by workers in work group relation
ships. Many individuals worked hard, got along well with
fellow workers in production activities, but had their
social activities separate from their fellow workers from
different ethnic backgrounds. In many instances workers
lacked the understanding necessary for socializing with
fellow workers away from the factory, particularly when
they had different ethnic classifications. However, as
these individuals worked together building friendships they
were invited and they invited their fellow workers into
their homes for private parties and social events and be
came closer friends.
Third, two practices were followed at the factory
which might help explain the high percentage of cooperative
evaluations in the medium sized work groups. One practice
deals with the shifting of workers from one work group to
another in times of excessive amounts of work. From time
to time, the foreman of one work group asked for and re
ceived workers from another foreman's work group to com
plete an assignment which he had received. The other prac
tice was that of shifting a worker from one work group to
another when he was upset or maladjusted. Adjustments made
in this manner kept skilled, experienced, and efficient
workers in the company who had developed problems in
147
personal relations within a given work group. Many times
shifting a worker to a different work group after a discus
sion of his problems and indicating that he had been put
on trial succeeded in the worker effecting a better adjust
ment. This practice aided in building morale in the work
groups by eliminating the problem personalities.
IV. THIRTY-TWO REINTERVIEWED WORKERS
FROM TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
After approximately one year had elapsed, thirty-
two workers from Technibilt Corporation were reinter
viewed concerning cooperation. This was to study the ef
fects of one year under the labor union on cooperation
among workers in work groups for purposes of comparison
with the information from the first round of interviews.
The cooperation rating score. The cooperation rat
ing score for the Technibilt workers after one year under
labor union conditions was .95 3, an increase of .034. This
increase was in the exact amount of the conflict rating for
1957.1
A comparison of the cooperation rating scores given
workers by ethnic group in Table XXXIV placed each ethnic
group in the same rank position as one year earlier. One
^The conflict rating was .034 for 1957, see page 100.
148:
TABLE XXXIV
AVERAGE COOPERATION RATING SCORE3 BY ETHNIC GROUP
AS REPORTED BY 32 REINTERVIEWED FELLOW WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1907
Ethnic Group
Evaluated
Number of
Evaluations
Average
Cooperation
Score
Rank
Mexican 204 .976 1
White 173 .963 2
Negro 45 .921
Indian 36 .855 4
Puerto Rican __5 .629 5
T otal 463
Average .953
aThe smallest possible cooperation rating score on
the scale is .000 and the largest score is 1.000.
149
thing evident was a general increase in most cooperation
rating scores. The increases varied from .026 for the
white workers (.937 to .963) to .048 for Negro workers
(.873 to .921). One decrease in cooperation score of .117
(.746 to .629) for Puerto Rican workers was noted. This
decline will be discussed in the next section.
The effectiveness of the personnel policies and the
reestablishment of industrial peace in the factory may have
been due to the final acceptance of the union in the plant.
The effects of the personnel policies were such that work
ers from different ethnic groups were mixed wherever pos
sible, were trained and placed in the work group where they
were most capable of working and would be well adjusted.
The union was made responsible for a certain amount of dis
ciplining of the workers as well as aiding in the settling
of complaints. The company was expanding and moving into
a new addition, which gave the workers new experiences to
anticipate.
Average cooperation rating scores by ethnic group.
The rating scores for 1967 shown in Table XXXV show a
general increase in cooperation with few exceptions. Six
teen increases of cooperation scores and five decreases
were made in the year between interviews. The largest in
crease, .111, was given by the Indian workers to themselves
and by the Puerto Rican workers to Negro workers. The
150
TABLE XXXV
AVERAGE COOPERATION RATING SCORE3
OF EACH ETHNIC GROUP
AS REPORTED BY EACH ETHNIC GROUP
AS INDICATED BY 32 REINTERVIEWED
FELLOW WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION13
1957
Average0 Cooperation Rating Score for:
Ethnic Group
of
Evaluators
Mexican
Workers
White
Workers
Negro
Workers
Indian
Workers
Puerto
Rican
Workers
Mexican .980 .958 .907 .865 .785
(Rank)
(1)
(2) (3) (4) (5)
White .960 .976 .956 .839 .524
(Rank) (2)
(1)
(3) (4) (5)
Neqro .989 .939 .810 .840
mm
I Rank)
(1)
(2) (4) (3)
Indian .987 .911 .935 .905
(Rank)
(1) (3) (2) (4)
Puerto Rican .893 .570 .968
mm
(Rank) (2) (3)
(1)
aThe smallest possible cooperation rating score on
the scale is .000 and the largest score is 1.000.
kOne person from the evaluating group judging one
person from the ethnic group indicated in his work group.
cThe average cooperation rating score for all work
ers as evaluated by the 32 reinterviewed workers was .954.
151
Puerto Rican workers were given the smallest score increase
of .006 by Mexican workers. Decreases in cooperation rat
ings were usually large, i. e., .366, .152, .109, .031, and
.023 for evaluations of white workers by Puerto Rican work
ers, Puerto Rican workers by white workers, Negro workers
by themselves, Mexican workers by Puerto Piican workers, and
white workers by Negro workers. Puerto Rican workers and
white workers gave to the other smaller cooperation scores
in 1957 than in 1956. Negroes gave themselves smaller co
operation rating scores. Puerto Rican workers and Negro
workers gave white workers decreased cooperation ratings
while the Puerto Rican workers also gave the Mexican workers
a smaller cooperation rating.
The above analysis notes four facts. First, the
general over-all increase of most cooperation rating scores.
Second, white workers and Mexican workers had a decline in
some cooperation ratings. Because workers from other eth
nic groups increased skills and effectiveness in occupa
tional tasks the white and Mexican workers suffered a loss
of status, prestige, and leadership. This was demonstrated
by the increased cooperation rating scores Indians gave
themselves and Puerto Rican workers gave Negro workers.
Third, Negro workers did not have complete confidence in
each other as evidenced by the decreased cooperation rating
scores they gave each other. They attempted to dissociate
from each other in the work setting. Fourth, Puerto Rican
152
workers and white workers were not cooperating with each
other in work groups. There were in conflict over the
status of the Puerto Rican workers who had gained skill
and leadership in work groups and labor union activities
which the white workers did not always recognize.
Average cooperation rating scores by work group and
rank. Cooperation rating scores by work group given in
Table XXXVI revealed four facts. First, a general rise in
cooperation ratings in all but one work group, wire depart
ment group II day shift. Increases varied from .088 for
the shipping and receiving department (.824 to .916) to
.009 for the assembly department inspectors (.796 to .805).
Further emphasis of this increase was shown by the shift in
rank position of all work groups. All work groups moved up
in rank but the wire department group II day shift, from
1956 to 1957. The latter group dropped from first position
to fourth position. These shifts in rank position resulted
from increased cooperation rating scores. They show more
cooperation existed between workers in work groups in 1957
than in 1956.
Second, the largest increases in cooperation rating
scores were usually in the work groups with more skilled
and highly trained workers and in the larger work groups.
The labor union set higher wages for skilled workers and
established a wage scale increase pattern so that they
153
TABLE XXXVI
AVERAGE COOPERATION RATING SCORE3
BY WORK GROUP AND BY RANK
BASED ON THE EVALUATIONS OF
32 REINTERVIEWED WORKERS
TEGHNIBILT CORPORATION
1957
Average
Name of work Group Number of Cooperation, Rank
Evaluations Rating Scoreb
Machine Shop
Foremen Eval. of Foremen
Office Force
Wire Dept. Gr. II Day
Foremen Eval. of Workers
Welding Department
Wire Dept. Gr. I Day
Shipping & Receiving
Production Control
Assembly-Assembly
Assembly— Inspection
Fabrication Dept. Night
Total
39 .988 1
7 .976 2
26 .974 3
108 .970 4
46 .969 5
70 .952 6
120 .950 7
21 .916 8
2 .893 9
6 .877 10
6 .805 11
12 n798 12
463
Average .953
aThe smallest possible cooperation rating score on
the scale is .000 the largest score is 1.000.
bBased on the evaluations made by individuals of
their fellow workers in their work group.
154
reached the highest maximum wage sooner. Increased money
for the skilled workers and higher status brought by a more
rapid advancement had a favorable influence upon the work
ers in the work groups receiving these benefits. The larger
work groups had average rating scores varying from .950 to
.988, the highest scores.
Third, the small work groups had average cooperation
rating scores varying from .798 to .893. These smaller
rating scores were all under .900. In each of these work
groups changes in personnel had occurred during the year
which had influenced their cooperation score. Production
control lost all but one Mexican worker. The assembly
department had a new foreman appointed and three Negro
workers were replacements for the workers on the assembly
line. The fabrication department night shift was assigned
a new foreman and the work group was reduced in size.
These changes may have had a direct influence on the work
ers' cooperation scores and increased the scores in these
work groups.
Fourth, the wire department group II was increased
in size from 16 to 26 workers, due to new machinery, with
the majority of the increase in workers among the spot weld
ers and helpers. These positions had hard, tiring, and
dirty work activities. Workers placed in these positions
were usually men hired since the first interviews were made
and were relatively new in the factory.
155
Average cooperation rating scores by work group and
ethnic group. Cooperation rating scpres of workers by
ethnic classification in the various work groups are given
in Table XXXVII. A general increase in cooperation rating
scores was discovered in nearly all ethnic classifications
in the work groups, twenty-two increases in proportion to
five decreases between 1956 and 1957. Only one rating re
mained the same for both years and that one was for the
white workers in the assembly— inspection work group with
a cooperation score of .776. Large numbers of cooperation
score increases indicate an increase in the cooperation
between workers in their interpersonal relations in work
groups. Workers in general in 1957 were more satisfied
with working conditions, wages, and with their personal
relations throughout the factory according to the inter
view materials. Part of the satisfaction was due to the
activities of the labor union, part due to the expanding
business which gave promise of continued work for a long
period, and part was due to improved personnel policies.
All these factors helped stabilize and improve interpersonal
relations among workers.
Mexican workers had the largest number of coopera
tion score increases, nine work groups out of ten, and
ranked first in six out of ten work groups. This placed
them first of all the ethnic groups of workers in regard to
cooperation, followed closely by the white workers. The
156
TABLE XXXVII
AVERAGE COOPERATION RATING SCORE
BY WORK GROUP AND ETHNIC GROUP
BASED ON THE EVALUATIONS OF
32 REINTERVIEWED WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1957
Average Cooperation Rating Score for:
Name of
Work Group Mexican
Workers
White
Workers
Negro
Workers
Indian
Workers
Puerto
Rican
Workers
Machine Shop .988
Foremen Eval. of
Foremen 1.000 .976
— — —
Office Force .714 .994
— — —
Wire Dept. Gr. II
Day .991 .947 .951 .922
-
Foremen Eval. of
Workers .989 .948 .953 .909
—
Welding Dept. .961 .984 — - .625
Wire Dept. Gr. I
Day .984 .932 .867 .863 —
Shipping & Receiv
ing .968 —
.809 .762 —
Production Control
— .893 — — —
Assembly— Assembly .893 .670 .968 - -
Assembly— Inspec
tion .833 .776
— — —
Fabrication Dept.
Night .743 .939 .572
157
Negro workers ranked first in the assembly department as
sembly line, the only other ethnic group ranking first with
the exception of the Mexican and white workers. White and
Mexican workers were placed higher in cooperation than all
other ethnic groups.
Indian workers* cooperation scores declined in three
out of the five work groups in which they were present,
while Puerto Rican workers shifted from one work group and
were placed in another. Negro workers were introduced to
the assembly line and to the wire department group I day
shift.
Cooperation rating scores given by members of the
different ethnic groups. As shown in Table XXXVIII, Indian
workers gave the highest average cooperation rating score
to fellow workers of .960. This average was .021 higher
than the highest average rating of .949 given fellow work
ers in 1946 by Negro workers. The average rating in 1956
given was .054 smaller than the 1957 average, 906 compared
to 960. All average rating scores were raised between 1956
and 1957, but the average score given by the Puerto Ricans.
In the latter case the average rating score declined from
.926 in 1956 to .877 in 1957. All average rating scores
given by ethnic groups changed in rank position. In most
cases their rank position was reversed. Inspection of the
average scores shows they were a series of high average
TABLE XXXVIII
AVERAGE COOPERATION RATING SCORES GIVEN
FELLOW WORKERS BY ETHNIC GROUP OF
THE 32 REINTERVIEWED EVALUATORS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1957
Evaluating
Ethnic Group
Number of
Evaluations
Average
Cooperation
Score
Rank
Indian 45 .960 1
'White 175 .955 2
Negro 34 .952 3
Mexican 203 .952 3
Puerto Rican __6 .877 5
Total 463
Average .953
159
cooperation rating scores varying from .952 to .960, with
the exception of the Puerto Rican average score of .877.
Indian workers and white workers by giving high aver
age cooperation rating scores of .960 and .955 show that
they consider fellow workers very cooperative. Indian work
ers were attempting to move out of their isolation of the
past year and were becoming accepted by their fellow work
ers. Their desire to mix with fellow workers and gain
friends and approval was responsible for this change. White
workers, in a different situation, had positions of skill
and status being challenged during that year, and had to
assert themselves to maintain skill and status in the work
group. The changes in cooperation ratings given fellow
workers represent attempts to change social distance and
social status.
Cooperative evaluations by ethnic group. The per
centages of total possible cooperative evaluations by eth
nic group are given in Table XXXIX. Maintaining the same
rank position of first in cooperation rating, .976, in
1957, the Mexican workers also received the largest percen
tage of cooperative evaluations, 81 per cent, and ranked
first among the ethnic groups. Negro workers followed in
second position with 79 per cent. This was a 4.5 per cent
increase for Mexican workers and a 1.2 per cent increase
for Negro workers, indicating a reversal of position. In
160
TABLE XXXIX
PERCENTAGE OF COOPERATIVE EVALUATIONS
BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS IN WORK GROUPS
BY ETHNIC CLASSIFICATION
BY 32 REINTERVIEWED EVALUATORS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1957
Ethnic Group
Evaluated
Possible
Cooperative
Evaluations
Number of
Cooperative
Evaluations
Percentage
of
Cooperation
Rank
I
Mexican 1463 1188 81 1
Negro 301 237 79 2
White 1337 985 74 3
Indian 259 176 69 4
Puerto Rican 35 22 63 5
Total 3395 2608
Average 77
161
1966 the Mexican workers .ranked third with 75.8 per cent
and the Negro workers ranked second with 77.5 per cent.
White, Puerto Rican, and Indian workers lost 1, 8,
and 10.7 per cent of their possible cooperative evaluations
between 1956 and 1957, dropping from 75.0 to 74 per cent,
71.0 to 63 per cent, and from 79.7 to 69 per cent respec
tively. These figures reveal a change in cooperative
evaluations for these workers that may be explained by a
striving for increased status in work groups and labor
union leadership positions. This change in attitudes was
affirmed by observation and interview materials.
Average cooperative evaluations by seven criteria of
cooperation. "Helping others readily" ranked first as
shown in Table XL and had the highest percentage of cooper
ative evaluations, 92 per cent, of the seven criteria of
cooperation. "Following instructions easily" and "Doing
share of work" ranked second with 87 per cent of the pos
sible cooperative evaluations. All three mentioned criteria
of cooperation increased percentagewise between 1956 and
1957, but "'Working well with others," "Admitting mistakes
readily," and "Learning work quickly" declined by 8.0, 3.2,
and 10.5 per cent between interview periods. However,
"Out-group interest" increased from 12.3 per cent to 37
per cent of the possible cooperative evaluations during the
period of one year under union rule.
TABLE XL
AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF COOPERATION EVALUATIONS
BETWEEN FELLOW WORKERS
BY CRITERIA OF COOPERATION
AS INDICATED BY 32 REINTERVIEWED WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1.957
Criteria of
Cooperation
Possible
Cooperative
Evaluations
Number of
Cooperative
Evaluations
Percentage
of
Cooperation
Ran]
Helping others
readily 485 444 92 1
Following instruc
tions easily 485 423 87 2
Doing share of
work 485 420 87 2
Working well with
others 485 393 81 4
Admitting mis
takes readily 485 376 77 5
Learning work
quickly 485 371 76 6
Out-group
interest 485 181 37 7
Total
Average
3395 2608
77
163
Analysis of these changes .revealed a change in ori
entation from a self-centered personal position to an out
ward interest in other individuals and their problems. The
percentage of increases in "Helping others readily," "Doing
share of work," and "Out-group interest" showed the workers
were more interested in their fellow workers.
Cooperative evaluations by ethnic group and criteria
of cooperation. Cooperative evaluations by ethnic groups
and by criteria of cooperation as given in Table XLI re
veals a general shifting of attitudes toward fellow work
ers. First, a general decrease was found in most categor
ies of cooperation but "Out-group interest" which increased
in every ethnic group. Second, all ethnic groups had de
creased percentages of cooperative evaluations. There were
2b decreases and only lO increases in the percentage of
total possible cooperative evaluations for criteria of co
operation. Increase s were scattered among the .Mexican and
Negro workers for "Helping others readily,1 1 among Mexican
workers for "Following instructions easily" and for "Doing
share of work," and among the Puerto Kican workers for "Ad
mitting mistakes readily."
Third, a revision of worker attitudes toward these
criteria of cooperation was indicated. The category "Fol
lowing instructions easily" ranked third in 1956 and second
in 1957, whereas "Out-group interest" ranked seventh both
164
TABLE XLI
PERCENTAGE OF COOPERATIVE EVALUATIONS
BY ETHNIC GROUP
AND CRITERIA OF COOPERATION
AS INDICATED BY THE EVALUATIONS OF
32 REINTERVIEWED WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1957
Criteria of
Cooperation
Percentage of Cooperative Evaluations:
Mexican
Workers
Negro
Workers
White
Workers
Indian
Workers
Puerto
Rican
Workers
Helping others
readily 96 100 87 86 60
(Rank) (2)
(1)
(3) (4) (5)
Following in
structions easily 90 82 86 86 60
(Rank)
(1)
(4) (2) (2)
(5)
Doing share of
work 90 91 83 81 80
(Rank) (2)
(1)
(3) (4) (5)
'Working well with
others 87 86 75 67 80
(Rank)
(1)
(2) (4)
(o) (3)
Admitting mistakes
readily 81 77 75 65 100
(Rank) (2) (3) (4) (5)
(1)
Learning work
quickly 77 76 83 59 20
(Rank) (2) (3)
(1)
(4) (5)
Out-group
interest 43 49 26 27 40
(Rank) (2)
(1)
(5) (4) (3)
165
years. All other criteria of cooperation changed ranks and
percentages revealing a definite realignment of workers'
attitudes in their interpersonal relations with fellow
workers.
Fourth, the greatest changes were made with regard
to white, Indian, and Puerto Rican workers. They each had
percentage declines in nearly all categories of cooperation
as well as shifting rank positions.
Fifth, one of the influences in the above changes
may have been the union. It split the loyalty of the work
ers between factory and the union. Another important fac
tor was the stability and security given workers under the
union contract which lessened strivings for security in
work positions.
Average cooperative evaluations by work groups. An
analysis of Table XLII reveals five facts of importance
concerning cooperative evaluations by work group and cri
teria of cooperation. First, the percentages of coopera
tion were high and varied from 73 per cent to 97 per cent,
excluding the 67 per cent for foremen evaluations of work
ers.
Second, the large work groups had the high percen
tages of cooperation, i.e., the machine shop, welding
department, and wire department group II day shift with 97,
82, and 82 per cent, respectively, thus clearly indicating
166
TABLE XLII
PERCENTAGE OF COOPERATIVE EVALUATIONS BY WORK GROUP
FROM THE EVALUATIONS OF 32 RE I ITT ERVIEWED WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1957
Name of
Work Group
Possible
Cooperative
Evaluations
Number of
Cooperative
Evaluations
Percentage
of
Cooperation
Rank
Machine Shop 249 241 91 1
Welding Dept. 483 3 98 82 2
Wire Dept. Gr. II
Day 756 620 82 2
Office Force 182 145 80 4
Assembly Dept.—
Assembly 49 39 80 4
Foremen Eval. of
Foremen 42 33 79 6
Production Control 14 11 78 7
Wire Dept. Gr. I
Day 859 664 78 7
Fabrication Dept.
Night 105 79 75 9
Assembly Dept.—
Inspection 42 31 74 10
Shipping L Re
ceiving 147 108 73 11
Foremen Eval. of
Workers 336 225 67 12
Total 3395 2608
Average 77
167
that larger work groups have more cooperative relation
ships between their workers.
Third, the smaller work groups had the smaller per
centages of cooperation. The fabrication department night,
assembly— inspection, shipping and receiving, and foremen
evaluations of workers had 75, 74, 73, and 67 per cent.
Interpersonal relations between workers in small work groups
had less favorable cooperative relations, for differences
tended to be emphasized, due to the close intense relation
ships.
Fourth, all work groups changed in rank positions.
The work groups in the lower positions moved to the top and
the others moved down. The machine shop, welding depart
ment, wire department group II day, and the office force
moved into first, second, third, and fourth positions from
tenth, eighth, fourteenth, and thirteenth positions. This
shift in rank revealed a general change in attitudes and
in social distance of workers in these work groups toward
a more cooperative work relationship.
Fifth, skilled workers in large work groups received
the highest percentage of cooperative evaluations. The
interview materials and observation revealed that these
workers were the most satisfied with their work situation,
because of an increase in wages and increased job security.
Besides they were giving instructions to other workers who
hoped to gain skilled status, increased job security, and
168
more money. They were thus given more status than they
ever had in their work groups.
Cooperative evaluations by work group and criteria
of cooperation. Cooperative evaluations by work groups
which confirm cooperation ratings are given in Table XLIII.
Four main facts were evident from the analysis of this
table. First, percentages of possible cooperative evalua
tions were high. Over-all averages for criteria of coop
eration varied from 77 per cent and 91 per cent, with the
exception of "out-group interest." The over-all average
percentage of possible cooperative evaluations increased
in 1966 from 76 to 77 per cent in 1967.
Second, "Out-group interest" average percentage of
possible cooperative evaluations increased from 22 per
cent in 1956 to 37 per cent in 1957, revealing a greater
concern among workers for their association with fellow
workers. The idea of working for production and high wages
alone was being tempered by an awakening of their interest
in interpersonal relations with fellow workers. Increases
in the percentages of "Helping others readily," "Following
instructions easily," and "Out-group interest" emphasized
an interest in interpersonal relations.
Third, continuing an earlier mentioned trend, the
larger work groups with highly skilled workers showed an
increased percentage for most criteria of cooperation.
169
TABLE XLIII
PERCENTAGE OF COOPERATIVE EVALUATIONS
OF FELLOW WORKERS BY WORK GROUP
AND CRITERIA OF COOPERATION
GIVEN BY 32 REINTERVIEWED WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1957
Name of Work Group
(1)
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Machine Shop 90 95 90 90 88 100 19
Welding Department 96 97 97 94 90 94 15
Wire Dept. Group II Day 95 84 87 70 70 95 71
Office Force 92 85 100 85 85 92 19
Assembly Dept. Assembly 86 86 100 100 71 71 29
Foremen Evaluations of Foremen 100 83 67 67 50 83 100
Production Control 100 100 100 100 50 100 100
Wire Dept. Group I Day 92 88 85 90 82 72 35
Fabrication Dept. Night 93 80 73 80 67 93 40
Assembly Dept. Inspection 100 100 50 83 50 100 33
Shipping and Receiving
Foremen Evaluations of
90 100 86 95 71 90 41
Workers 96 98 100 91 89 91 15
Average 91 87 87 81 78 77 37
(1) - Helping Others Readily
(2) - Following Instructions Easily
(3) - Doing Share of Work
(4) - Working Well with Others
(5) - Admitting Mistakes Readily
(6) - Learning Work Quickly
(7) - Out-group Interests
170
Credence was given to the idea that wages and work security,
secured by workers from union activities in the factory,
caused them concern about union leadership roles. This
might be a possible explanation for the increased interest
in their interpersonal relations.
Fourth, the general pattern of percentages of pos
sible cooperative evaluation? was rearranged in 1957 as
compared to 1956, both by the criteria of cooperation and
by ethnic group. This was brought about by the introduction
of the union into the work situation to divide the loyalties
of the workers. It was also influenced by improved person
nel policies where attempts were made to resolve problems
of adjustment by shifting the workers to more congenial work
groups.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The analyses of cooperation rating scores and of
possible cooperative evaluations has brought forth four
major conclusions for this chapter.
First, the seven criteria of cooperation, i.e., (1)
Doing share of work, (2) Following instructions easily, (3)
Learning work quickly, (4) Helping others readily, (5) Work
ing well with others, (6) Admitting mistakes readily, and
(7) Out-group interests, suggest a measurement for deter
mining the cooperation between workers in work groups and
for noting changes in cooperation as indicated by coopera-
171
tion rating scores.
Second, worker relations in work groups yielded high
cooperation rating scores. Between 1956, when the union
was carrying on its organizational drive, and 1957, after
industrial peace had been at Technibilt for a year, the
cooperation scores increased. A change was also noticed
in the workers' attitudes from almost exclusive concern
with wages and security to a growing concern with interper
sonal relations as revealed by cooperation ratings, obser
vation, and interview materials.
Third, the working conditions as improved by higher
wages and increased job security were brought to light by
higher cooperation ratings and cooperative evaluations in
work groups having a large number of skilled workers.
Workers in these groups showed an increased interest in
their fellow workers, as evidenced by a shifting in rank
position of the cooperation rating scores and the percent
age of possible cooperative evaluations.
Fourth, the cooperation ratings and the rank posi
tion given criteria of cooperation by Indians and Negroes
working at Technibilt Corporation revealed increased coop
erative activities with Mexican and white workers. The
latter trained and helped the former groups develop in
creased skill and worker status as well as job security in
work groups.
CHAPTER VII
A FRIENDSHIP SCALE
Feelings of friendship between workers are important
to every work group. Attitudes of friendship among workers
in a work group make for more effectiveness as a productive
unit, particularly if the workers need to cooperate in the
work process. Combining of workers from different ethnic
backgrounds in a work group creates a critical group with
regard to friendship attitudes. Since this happened at
Technibilt Corporation, it becomes a critical point in this
study. Conflict rating scores and cooperation rating scores
have been computed for each ethnic group and each work
group. A friendship scale was developed and administered
to measure the feelings of friendship of workers toward each
other. At the time of the interview each person was re
quested to place each fellow worker of his work group in
one of the categories of the friendship scale.
The friendship scale was divided into the following
four categories: (1) Stranger, (2) Speaking Acquaintance,
(3) Regular Friend, (4) Close Friend. The evaluations each
worker made of his fellow workers on the friendship scale
were accumulated and an average friendship score was devel
oped by work group, by ethnic group, and for the total
172
173
workers. This was made possible by assigning the stranger
category a score of 1, the speaking acquaintance category
2, the regular friend category 3, and the close friend a
score of 4. Friendship evaluations were quantified in this
manner and an average friendship score was computed for
each work group and for each ethnic group.
I. THE FRIENDSHIP SG4LE
The smallest possible score on the friendship scale
would be 1.0 for an individual considered a "stranger"
while the maximum score would be 4.0 for a person considered
a "close friend." A "stranger" was regarded as a person
with whom one would seldom speak and would be ignored when
passing or meeting. A "close friend" was a person with whom
one would discuss all matters including personal relations
with others, seek advice and approval. One would invite
him regularly into his home and would constantly associate
with him in recreational and other social activities. One
would discuss his problems, aspirations, and share his hap
piness, success, and failures with a "close friend." A
"regular friend" was regarded as an individual with whom
one would have discussions of a general nature on topics of
general interest using polite generalities in a courteous
manner. A "speaking acquaintance" was a person with 'whom
one would exchange greetings and pleasantries upon meeting
but a person would not go out of his way to meet and talk
174
to him.
The over-all friendship rating for workers at Tech
nibilt Corporation was 2.48. This is approximately half
way between the category "speaking acquaintance" and "regu
lar friend." The workers were approaching a "regular
friendship" attitude toward each other. They had not
reached the stage where they were more interested in the
other person than their own affairs but they were showing
an interest in their well-being and wanted to become bet
ter acquainted. This attitude was stimulated by meeting
often and working together.
The friendship scale by ethnic group. The average
friendship score by ethnic group as given in Table XLIV
showed the Mexican workers and the Negro workers with a
score of 2.54, ranking first among all workers. By this
scale, they would be at the point where they were approach
ing the "regular friend" category. White workers ranked
third with a friendship score of 2.45, Puerto Rican workers
ranked fourth with a score of 2.34, and the Indians ranked
fifth with a score of 2.05. The above means that the Mexi
can and Negro workers were liked better as friends, were
more friendly, and more readily accepted than either white,
Indian, or Puerto Rican workers. This was due in part to
the fact that the majority of positions of leadership and
skilled workers were held by white workers and thus they
175
TABLE XLIV
AVERAGE FRIENDSHIP SCOREa BY ETHNIC GROUP
AS GIVEN BY FELLOW WORKERS
T ECHNIBILT CORPORATION^
1955-1956
Ethnic Group
Evaluated
Number of
Evaluations
Average
Friendship
Score
Rank
Mexican 572 2.54 1
Negro 152 2.54 1
White 571 2.45 3
Puerto Rican 41 2.34 4
Indian 62 2.05 5
Total 13 98
Average 2.48
aThe friendship scale is given below:
Speaking Regular Close
Stranger Acquaintance Friend Friend
• * » «
• • • •
I-------------2-----------3------------ 2 T
^The scores were computed for 144 workers at Techni
bilt Corporation.
were not as readily accepted as were the Mexican and Negro
workers who were trying to gain status in leadership posi
tions and skilled work activities. The Indians and Puerto
Ricans, few in number, had a tendency to withdraw from ac
tive, interpersonal relationships. They were not skilled,
usually held the lowest paying positions and did the menial
work.
The friendship scale scores by each ethnic group.
Friendship scores given fellow workers by ethnic group as
evaluated by the workers from different ethnic classifica
tions are given in Table XLV and show the highest friend
ship score of 3.12 in the "regular friend" category given
Negro workers by Negro workers. The lowest score of 2.09,
"speaking acquaintance," was given white workers by Puerto
Rican workers. Each ethnic group gave fellow woekers of
their own ethnic classification the highest friendship
scores, usually approaching the "regular friend" category.
Following this score Mexican, Negro, or white workers came
in second or third rank. The meanings of the friendship
scores were: (1) the workers were just beginning to talk
and become acquainted with fellow workers from different
ethnic groups, and (2) Mexican and Negro workers were ex
tending themselves to foster friendships more than other
groups were among their fellow workers.
Friendship score by work group. The average friend-
177
TABLE XLV
AVERAGE FRIENDSHIP SCORE3 BY ETHNIC GROUP OF WORKERS
AND BY ETHNIC GROUP OF EVALUATORS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION0
1955-1956
Average Friendship Score for:
Ethnic Group .............. ■ ■ ■ ■ —-- - - -..
of Puerto
Evaluators Mexican Negro White Rican Indian
Workers Workers Workers Workers Workers
Mexican
(Rank)
2.74
(U
2.47
(3)
2.31
(4)
2.50
(2)
2.12
(5)
Neg co
(Rank)
2.28
(3)
3.12
(1)
2.51
(2)
- 2.14
(4)
White
(Rank)
2.32
(3)
2.36
(2)
2.51
(1)
2.21
(4)
2.16
(5)
Puerto Rican
(Rank)
2.40
(2)
- 2.09
(3)
3.00
(1)
-
Indian
(Rank)
2.74
(2)
2.63
(3)
2.50
(4)
- 3.00
(1)
aThe friendship scale is given below
•
•
Stranger
•
•
Speaking
Acquaintance
•
Regula e
F riend
•
•
Close
Friend
•
•
1 2 3 4
^By the term "evaluators" is meant individuals be
longing to the same work group placing fellow workers in
friendship categories.
cThe average friendship score for all Technibilt
Corporation workers was 2.48.
178
ship score for each work group is given in Table XLVI.
These scores show the foremen with the highest friendship
score of 2.7b, which approaches the "regular friend" cate
gory. The lowest friendship score, 2.30, was given the
machine shop and the office force, both primarily white
workers. This score was slightly above the "speaking ac
quaintance" category. The higher friendship scores tend
to go to the work groups with eight to ten workers, who
are highly skilled, and who have the opportunity to con
verse while performing their work.
The highest friendship scores for work groups were
2.7b, 2.73, and 2.70 for the foremen, fabrication depart
ment day shift, and the assembly line assembly department,
while the lowest friendship scores of 2.30, 2.30, and 2.34
were given the office force, machine shop, and the welding
department night shift. The first two work groups had indi
viduals who were very unhappy in their work situation and
were contemplating a change at the time of the interview.
The third work group included individuals skilled in weld
ing who were working on a welding assembly line operation
which was rather difficult. In addition, most of them were
recent employees of the company.
t
This table indicates that the medium sized work
group with 8 to 10 workers, who were ethnically mixed, and
highly skilled workers with time to converse while working
had the highest friendship scores. The work group should
179
TABLE XLVI
AVERAGE FRIENDSHIP SCORES3 BY WORK GROUP
AS EVALUATED BY FELLOW WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Name of Work Group Number of
Evaluations
Average
Friendship
Score
Rank
Foremen Eval. of Foremen 56 2.75 1
Fabrication Dept. Day 90 2.73 2
Assembly— Assembly 56 2.70 3
Shipping & Receiving 30 2.60 4
Welding Dept. Day 81 2.55 5
Wire Dept. Gr. I Night 72 2.52 6
Assembly— Inspection 20 2.50 7
Production Control 21 2.50 7
Wire Dept. Gr. II Day 239 2.50 7
Wire Dept. Gr. II Night 180 2.50 7
Wire Dept. Gr. I Day 90 2.48 11
Foremen Eval. Workers 125 2.46 12
Fabrication Dept. Night 30 2.46 12
Welding Dept. Night 72 2.34 14
Machine Shop 120 2.30 15
Office Force 80 2.30 15
T otal 1362
Average 2.51
aThe friendship scale is given below:
Speaking Regular Close
Stranger Acquaintance
• •
• •
Friend
•
Friend
•
•
j --------g-------3 -------£
180
not be under pressure to produce, for that tends to create
hostilities and low friendship scores. The workers should
also be more or less satisfied with their work position and
hope for more pay or advancement. Whether the work group
has persons of different ethnic groups does not appear to
influence the friendship score. The median friendship
score was 2.b0, while the mean score was 2.51.
Friendship scores by work group and ethnic classifi
cation. The average friendship score by work group and by
ethnic classification given in Table XLVII reveals that the
majority of workers had scores between "speaking acquaint
ance" and "regular friend," 2.00 and 3.00, while only two
were below the "speaking acquaintance" category, and one
was above the "regular friend" category. The Mexican and
Negro workers had the largest number of friendship scores
above 2.50, approaching the "regular friend" category,
while the white workers followed closely. The Puerto Rican
workers had the highest score of 3.12 slightly above "regu
lar friend" category and the Indian workers had the lowest
score of 1.80, approaching "speaking acquaintance."
The above analysis reveals four facts. First, the
majority of workers were approaching the "regular friend"
category and were becoming better acquainted with each
other regardless of ethnic background. Second, the Mexican
and Puerto Rican workers were extending themselves to most
181
TABLE XLVII
AVERAGE FRIENDSHIP SCORESa
BY WORK GROUP AND BY ETHNIC GROUP
AS EVALUATED BY FELLOW WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1905-1956
Average Friendship Score for:
Name of
Work Group
Mexican
Wo rice cs
Negro
Workers
White
Wo skers
Puerto
Rican
Workers
Indian
Workers
Foremen Eval, of
F oremen 2.43
—
2.85
— —
Fabrication Deot.
Day 2.83 2.75 2.64 — —
Assembly— As sembly 2.86 - 2.24 3.14 —
Shipping & Receiv
ing 2.60 3.00 2.54
—
2.40
Welding Dept. Day 2.47
— 2.68 — 2.13
Wire Dept. Gr. I
Night 2.79 2.57 2.43 . 1.80
Assembly— Inspec
tors 2.67
—
2.25
— —
Production Control 2.56 — 2.33
_ —
Wire Dept. Gr. II
Day 2.76 2.20 2.25 1.87 2.60
’ Wire Deot. Gr. II
Night 2.47 2.76 2.00
— —
Wire Deot. Gr. I
Day 2.61
-
2.33 — 2.22
Foremen Eval. of
Workers 2.40 2.26 2.62 2.25 2.50
Fabrication Dept.
Night 2.4 2.80 — —
2.00
Welding Dept. Night 2.21 - 2.45 - 2.25
Machine Shop
— — 2.30 -
Office Force 2.14 2.32
aThe friendship scale is given on following page:
182
TABLE XLVII (Continued)
- Speaking Regular Close
Stranger Acquaintance Friend Friend
183
workers in their work groups to become "regular friends" in
order to gain status as workers and respect as individuals.
Third, regardless of ethnic classification, nearly all
workers were building friendships with their fellow work
ers and a great number were carrying these friendships into
activities outside the work situation as verified by inter
view information. Fourth, the permissive and friendly at
mosphere created by management with the workers by mixing
members of different ethnic backgrounds was aiding the de
velopment of friendship attitudes among workers that carry
beyond the work group activities.
Average friendship scores by ethnic group of evalu
ators. The following findings may be summarized from Table
XLVIII. First, the Mexican workers gave higher friendship
scores to fellow workers with an average of 2.71, followed
by the Indian workers with an average score of 2.66, verg
ing toward the "regular friend" category, which means that
they evaluated their fellow workers as being more friendly
than other ethnic groups. Second, Puerto Rican workers
were most conservative in evaluating the friendship atti
tudes of fellow workers with an average of 2.36, slightly
above "speaking acquaintance." This means they felt.rela
tively strange and unwanted as friends by fellow workers
according to the interview materials. They were the recent
additions to the work groups. Third, white workers and
184
TABLE XLVIII
AVERAGE FRIENDSHIP3 SCORES GIVEN FELLOW WORKERS
BY FELLOW WORKERS
FROM DIFFERENT ETHNIC CLASSIFICATIONS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Ethnic Group Number of
Evaluating Evaluations
Average
Friendship
Score
Rank
Mexican 529 2.71 1
Indian 62 2.66 2
Negro 155 2.48 3
White 611 2.46 4
Puerto Rican 31 2.36 5
T otal 1388
Average 2.51
aThe friendship scale is given below:
Stranger
•
•
Speaking
Acquaintance
*
•
Regular
Friend
•
•
Close
Friend
•
•
1 2 3 4
185
Negro workers evaluated fellow workers about midway between
the "speaking acquaintance" and "regular friend" categories
finding stronger friendship attitudes in fellow workers
than the Puerto Ricans but not as friendly as the Mexicans
and Indians found. The latter two groups desired status
among their fellow workers as well as acceptance as friends
in and outside their work groups.
II. THIRTY-TWO REINTERVIEWED WORKERS
FROM TECHNIBILT
After one year had elapsed from the completion of
the first interviews, thirty-two workers were selected from
the various work groups and were reinterviewed concerning
friendship scores. This was to study the effects of one
year under a union upon friendship attitudes of workers
between the two periods.
The friendship attitudes between workers as indicat
ed from the average friendship scale showed a slight de
cline, from an average score of 2.51 in 1956 to an average
score of 2.50 in 1957. Undoubtedly this was due to the
ill-will developed by workers toward each other during the
union-organizing campaign, that had not yet subsided.
Average friendship scores by ethnic group. The av
erage friendship scores by ethnic groups given in Table
XLIX show the white workers had the highest average score of
186
TABLE XLIX
AVERAGE FRIENDSHIP3 SCORES BY ETHNIC GROUP
AS GIVEN BY 32 REINTERVIEWED FELLOW WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1957
Ethnic Group
Evaluated
Number of
Evaluations
Average
Friendship
Score
Rank
White 154 2.60 1
Puerto Rican 5 2.60 1
Mexican 220 2.50 3
Indian 36 2.40 4
Neg ro 47 2.30 5
T otal 462
Average 2.50
aThe friendship scale is given below:
„ Speaking
Stranger Acquaintance
• •
• *
Regular
F eiend
«
•
Close
Friend
•
•
187
2.60 shared with the score of 2.60 with the Puerto Rican
workers in 1967, compared to 2.45 and 2.34 for 1956. The
largest increase in friendship score was from 2.05 to 2.40
for the Indian workers between 1956 and 1957. Two ethnic
groups had scores that declined between 1956 and 1957, the
Mexican workers from 2.54 to 2.50 and the Negro workers
from 2.54 to 2.30.
The above information shows that the 'white and
Puerto Rican workers were more concerned and successful in
gaining status in the work group and friendship with fellow
workers. This was due to new leadership roles achieved by
them in the union where they were striving for and gained
them successfully. Mexican and Negro workers showed de
creases in friendship scores due to unsuccessful attempts
to attain approval in labor union activities by gaining top
leadership positions as factory committeemen. Mexicans
were department stewards but not committeemen and Negroes
were unsuccessful in attaining any leadership role in the
union as indicated by the interview materials.
Average friendship score by ethnic group as given by
members of other ethnic groups. Average friendship scores
by ethnic group as given by the ethnic group of the evalua
tors in Table L show an extensive change in scores and rank
positions between 1956 and 1957. The major changes were
increases in the friendship scores for white, Mexican, and
188
TABLE L
AVERAGE FRIENDSHIP9 SCORE BY ETHNIC GROUP
OF FELLOW WORKERS
AND THE ETHNIC BACKGROUND OF 32 EVALUATORS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1957
Ethnic Group
of
Evaluators
Friendship Score for:
White
Puerto
Mexican Indian
Rican — — " — — - Negro
Workers 'Workers Workers Workers 'Workers
White 2.5 3.0 2.4 2.4 2.0
(Rank) (2) (1) (3) (3)
(5)
Puerto Rican 3.0
mm
3.0 3.0
(Rank)
(1) (1) (1)
Mexican 2.9 2.0 2.7 2.5 2.4
(Rank)
(1)
(5) (2) (3) (4)
Indian 2.4 2.2 2.0 2. 0
(Rank)
U)
(2) (3) (3)
Negro 2.3 2.1 2.0 3.0
(Rank) (2) (3) (4)
(1)
aThe fr,iendship scale is given below •
Speaking Regular Close
Stranger
•
•
Acquaintance
•
•
Friend
•
•
Friend
•
•
Puerto Rican workers. The other ethnic groups had de
creases in scores. This shifting of friendship values by
the workers from all ethnic groups may have resulted from
the introduction of the union, job security, wage increases,
split loyalty between company and union, and the new union
leadership roles. These new relationships would tend to
cause the workers to question and test the friendships of
fellow workers. White, Mexican, and Puerto Rican workers
through leadership positions in union activities had devel
oped increases in their friendship scores.
Average friendship scores by work groups. The
friendship scores by work group in Table LI show a rather
extensive change between 1956 and 1957. The .rank positions
of all but one work group changed while four work groups
increased in average friendship scores, four work groups
remained the same, and four work groups decreased in
friendship scores. The work groups that increased were
mainly skilled workers and workers with more rest periods
than the others or who had their work organized so that they
could converse while working. They were also small or med
ium sized work groups with from six to ten workers, involv
ing two or three ethnic groups. The medium sized work group
not working under pressure, with an opportunity to become
acquainted with fellow workers from different ethnic back
grounds, appeared to have the higher friendship scores.
190
TABLE LI
AVERAGE FRIENDSHIP3 SCORE BY WORK GROUP
AS EVALUATED BY 32 REINTERVIEWED WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1907
Name of Work Group Evaluations
Average
Friendship
Score
Rank
Production Control 3 3.3 1
Fabrication Dept. Night 15 3.1 2
Assembly— Assembly 6 3.0 3
Welding Dept. 70 2.8 4
Shipping & Receiving 21 2.6 5
Assembly— Inspection 6 2.5 6
Machine Shop 28 2.5 6
Wire Dept. Gr. II Day 108 2.5 6
Foremen Eval. of Foremen 6 2.3 9
Wire Dept. Gr. I Day 136 2.2 10
Office Force 26 2.1 • 11
Foremen Eval. of ’ Workers 47 2.0 12
Total 472
Average 2.45
aThe friendship scale is given below;
Speaking Regular Clo se
Stranger Acquaintance
• •
• •
Friend Friend
191
Average friendship scores by work group and ethnic
classification. Average friendship scores by ethnic classi
fication in work groups as shown in Table LII revealed four
major facts. First, there was an over-all shifting of
friendship scores with changes found in all ethnic groups.
Second, major increases were found in small work groups and
in medium sized work groups with six to ten skilled work
ers. Third, increased friendship scores were found in work
groups with workers from different ethnic backgrounds.
Fourth, the largest concentration of increased scores was
for Mexican and white workers.
The mixed work group was a challenge for workers to
develop new friendship patterns and to explore the ideas
and attitudes of individuals from different ethnic back
grounds, This experience gave each worker a chance to
learn about a new culture, new attitudes, and a different
approach to life which proved stimulating to him.
III. CONCLUSIONS
The analysis of friendship scores of work groups
and of the different ethnic groups produced five major
facts.
First, workers enjoy working with individuals from
different ethnic backgrounds. This proves stimulating and
interesting to the workers and helps break the monotony of
the work pattern.
192
TABLE LII
AVERAGE FRIENDSHIP3 SCORES BY WORK GROUP
AND ETHNIC CLASSIFICATION
AS EVALUATED BY 32 REINTERVIEWED
FELLOW WORKERS
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1957
Average Friendship Score for:
Name of
Work Group
, , r l . . . Puerto
White p>ican
Workers Workers
Mexican
Workers
Indian
Workers
Negro
Workers
Production Control 3.5 3.0
mm
Fabrication Dept.
Night 2.4 3.2 3.0 -
Assembly— Assembly 3.0 2.0 - 3.0
Welding Dept. 2.8 2.8 2.8
— —
Shipping & Receiv
ing 2.5 3.0
-
3.0
Assembly— Inspec
tion 3.0 2.0
— —
Machine Shop 2.5 — — -
Wire Dept. Gr. II
Day 2.2 2.7 2.5 2.3
Foremen Eval. of
Foremen 2.0 4.0 — —
Wire Dept. Gr. I
Day 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1
Office Force 2.1 2.0
—
Foremen Eval. of
Workers 2.0 - 2.0 2.2 2.0
Ave rage 2.5 2.8 2.4 2.3 2.3
aThe friendship scale is given below:
Speaking Regular Close
Stranger Acquaintance Friend Friend
• • • •
• • • •
t-------------------------- 3---------*
193
Second, the friendship scale did measure the atti
tudes of workers toward each other, indicating changes in
favorable and unfavorable attitudes toward fellow workers.
Third, workers in small and medium sized work
groups, i.e., groups with six to ten workers, had a better
chance to become acquainted and build closer friendships
than workers in larger work groups.
Fourth, the Mexican workers and the white workers
through their leadership roles in the work groups and in
the labor union activities were able to build and increase
friendship scores.
Fifth, the job security, increased wages, and new
leadership roles developed in the labor union caused the
workers to become more interested in the interpersonal
relations with fellow workers.
CHAPTER VIII
AN ETHNIC IMBALANCE INDEX
One of many problems mentioned by personnel managers
of factories was to keep present in the work groups an
equal proportion of the members of the different ethnic
groups. The tendency in the past was for the majority
group members to take advantage of the minority group mem
bers by exploiting them in various ways. In many cases
they attacked the minority group members physically. Usu
ally these activities took place without the knowledge of
the forman or a representative of management.
To explore this situation an ethnic imbalance index
was developed. The number of workers in a work group was
divided by the number of ethnic groups represented. The
-''difference between the dividend and the actual number of
each ethnic group present was summed. This total was then
divided by the number of ethnic groups present and the quo
tient was the imbalance index.^
^This might be expressed by the following formula:
N = size of work group
K = number of ethnic groups See Appendix E.
N^ = frequency in each ethnic group
194
195
This chapter explores the relationships between the
imbalance index, the average conflict rating score, the
average friendship scale score by work group. The index
and the aforementioned scores will be compared in the 1955-
1956 interview period and the 1957 interview period.
I. THE ETHNIC IMBALANCE INDEX
Table LIII gives the average ethnic imbalance index
by work group for the Technibilt Corporation for the 1955-
1956 interview period. Four facts were found in the analy
sis of this table. First, the number of ethnic groups
represented in the work groups had little effect upon the
size of the imbalance index. Some of the work groups with
four or five ethnic groups represented had large imbalance
indices while others had small indices.
Second, the size of the index had a positive corre
lation of .67 with the size of the work group, the larger
the work group the larger the ethnic imbalance index while
the smaller work group had the smaller ethnic imbalance
o
index.
Third, the work groups where the sexes were mixed
tended to have the larger ethnic imbalance indices, but
^This is the oroduct-mornent Pearsonian r. J'. ?.
Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Educa-
tion (second edition; New~York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
TS50), P. 162.
196
TABLE LIII
THE AVERAGE ETHNIC IMBALANCE INDEX3
BY WORK GROUP FOR
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Name of Work Group
Number Number
of Of Ethnic
Workers Groups
Average
Imbalance
Index
Rank
Office Force 11 2 4.50 1
Wire Dept. Gr. II Night 16 3 4.43 2
Foremen 8 2 3.00 3
Wire Dept. Gr. II Day 16 5 2.72 4
Wire^Dept. Gr. I Day 10 3 2.43 5
Welding Dept. Day 10 3 1.57 6
Welding Dept. Night 9 3 1.33 7
Wire Dept. Gr. I Night 10 4 1.25 8
Production Control 4 2 1.00 9
Fabrication Dept. Day 10 3 .90 10
Shipping & Receiving 6 4 .75 11
Fabrication Dept. Night 6 3 .67 12
Assembly— Inspection 5 2 .50 13
Assembly— Assembly 8 3 .40 14
Machine Shop 13 __1 .00 15
Total 142
Average 2.8 1,78
x » -. 67, (5^ ■ .15
aThe greater the difference in numbers from the
different ethnic groups the larger the imbalance index •
197
where all workers belong to the same sex in a work group a
smaller index was found.
Fourth, the work groups that tended to work under
pressure had larger ethnic imbalance indices than the work
groups where the pressure was less.
From the above findings, it appears that the number
of ethnic groups in a work group was not important whereas
the mixing of sexes, the size of work group, and the pres
sure of the work appeared to be positively associated with
the higher imbalance indices.
A comparison of the conflict rating scores and the
ethnic imbalance index by work group. The comparison of
the conflict rating scores with the ethnic imbalance in
dices by work group is shown in Table LIV. Analysis of
this table indicates a finding and its corrollary. There
was a -.40 correlation between high imbalance indices and
low conflict rating scores. The work groups with the high
imbalance indices had low conflict rating scores, while
the work groups with the high conflict ratings tend to
have low imbalance indices.
From the interview materials it appeared that if the
ethnic imbalance index was high and the number of persons
from the different ethnic groups represented in the work
group was small, they were not a threat to the dominant
group, for they did not assert their rights and create or
198
TABLE LIV
A COMPARISON OF THE CONFLICT RATING SCORE
AND THE ETHNIC IMBALANCE INDEX3
BY WORK GROUP FOR
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Name of Work Group
Number
of
Workers
Conflict
Rating
Score
Average
Imbalance
Index
Rank
Office Force 11 .013 4.50 1
Wire Dept. Gr. II Night 16 .021 4.43 2
Foremen 8 .015 3.00 3
Wire Dept. Gr. II Day 16 .065 2.72 4
Wire Deot. Gr. I Day 10 .029 2.43 5
Welding Dept. Day 10 .028 1.57 6
Welding Dept. Night 9 .027 1.33 7
Wire Dept. Gr. I Night 10 .059 1.25 8
Production Control 4 .189 1.00 9
Fabrication Deot. Day 10 .026 .90 10
Shipping 6> Receiving 6 .194 .75 11
Fabrication Dept. Night 6 .094 .67 12
Assembly— Inspection 5 .122 .50 13
Assembly— Assembly 8 .065 .40 14
Machine Shop 13 .009 .00 15
Total 142
Average .040 1.78
r a -.40, 6 - r - .23
aThe greater the difference in numbers from the
different ethnic groups the larger the imbalance index.
199
develop conflict relations. Low ethnic imbalance indices
and high conflict ratings were found where there was an
approximate balance of the people from the different ethnic
groups in the work group, because they were closer to a
state of numerical equality, they tend to challenge the
inequalities of their position and develop conflict rela
tionships. Management’s attitude was also important in
these relations because when they would not tolerate con
flict between workers from different ethnic groups, it was
kept at a minimum.
A comparison of the cooperation rating scores and
the ethnic imbalance index by work group. Table LV gives
a comparison of the cooperation rating scores by work group
with the ethnic imbalance indices. This table shows wide
dissimilarities in the comparisons of cooperation scores
and ethnic imbalance indices. Moreover, three other obser
vations stand out from an examination of this table. First,
a correlation of .44 exists between cooperation rating
scores and ethnic imbalance indices showing that high
cooperation rating scores tend to be concentrated in work
groups with the high ethnic imbalance indices while the low
cooperation rating scores tend to be concentrated in the
work groups with the low ethnic imbalance indices.
Second, the high cooperation rating scores in work
groups with the high ethnic imbalance indices show that
200
TABLE LV
A COMPARISON OF THE COOPERATION RATING SCORE
AND THE ETHNIC IMBALANCE INDEX3
BY WORK GROUP FOR
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Name of Work Group
Number
of
Workers
Cooperation
Rating
Score
Average
Imbalance
Index
Rank
Office Force 11 .930 4.50 1
Wire Dept. Gr. II Night 16 .956 4.43 2
Foremen
8 .936 3.00 3
Wire Dept. Gr. II Day 16 .976 2.72 4
'Wire Dept. Gr. I Day 10 .920 2.43 5
Welding Dept. Day 10 .921 1.57 6
Welding Dept. Night 9 .895 1.33 7
Wire Dept. Gr. I Night 10 .934 1.25 8
Production Control 4 .762 1.00 9
Fabrication Deot. Day 10 .940 .90 10
Shipping and Receiving 6 .824 .75 11
Fabrication Dept. Night 6 .852 .67 12
Assembly— Inspection 5 .796 .50 13
Assembly— Assembly 8 .867 .40 14
Machine Shop 13 .963 .00 15
Total 142
Average .920 1.78
r = . 44, Cr a .22
aThe greater the difference in numbers from the
different ethnic groups the larger the ethnic imbalance
index.
201
majority-group workers tend to have more cooperative atti
tudes towards individuals from different ethnic groups when
they are few in numbers. Third, interview materials show
that when the minority-group is composed of few persons
they are usually less demanding and do not threaten the
majority-group in their work position. The low cooperation
scores and the low ethnic imbalance indices show that when
cooperation was demanded and required by a different ethnic
group with almost the same number of workers present,
they often withheld it. In this situation the status posi
tion of the majority-group workers may be threatened by the
minority-group workers.
A comparison of the average friendship scores and
the ethnic imbalance indices by work group. In Table LVI
the friendship scores and the ethnic imbalance indices are
given by work group, and show a small negative correlation
of -.13. The work group with the lowest ethnic imbalance
index (machine shop) of .00 also had an average friendship
score of 2.30. The numerous variations in the relationship
of friendship scores to the imbalance indices in the table
may mean that there is little relationship between the
number of persons in the work group from different ethnic
groups and the friendship feelings between individuals.
The information in this table reveals that the
development of friendship attitudes does not tend to be
202
TABLE LVI
A COMPARISON OF THE AVERAGE FRIENDSHIP SCORE
AND THE ETHNIC IMBALANCE INDEX3 ,
BY WORK GROUP FOR
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1955-1956
Number Average Average
Name of Work Group of Friendship Imbalance Rank
Workers Score Index
Office Force 11 2.30 4.50 1
Wire Dept. Gr. II Night 16 2.50 4.43 2
Foremen 8 2.75 3.00 3
Wire Dept. Gr. II Day 16 2.50 2.72 4
'Wire Dept. Gr. I Day 10 2.48 2.43 5
Welding Dept. Day 10 2.55 1.57 6
Welding Dept. Night 9 2.34 1.33 7
Wire Deot. Gr. I Night 10 2.52 1.25 8
Production Control 4 2.50 1.00 9
Fabrication Dept. Day 10 2.73 .90 10
Shipping and Receiving 6 2.60 .75 11
Fabrication Dept. Night 6 2.46 .67 12
As sembly— Inspection 5 2.50 .50 13
Assembly— Assembly 8 2.70 .40 14
Machine Shop 13 2.30 .00 15
Total 142
Average 2.48 1.78
r : -.13, - .27
aThe greater the difference in numbers from the
different ethnic groups the larger the ethnic imbalance
index.
203
related to the ethnic imbalance index. The type of per
sonal contacts in the work groups, the attitudes of the
various work group members would facilitate or prevent the
development of friendship attitudes respectively. Pleasant,
productive, satisfying work relationships where workers are
bound together to reach certain common goals tend to build
close friendships between individual workers.
II. THIRTY-TWO REINTERVIEWED WORKERS
FROM TEGHNIBILT
The thirty-two workers who were reinterviewed at
Technibilt after one year under the impact of unionism
reported different imbalance indices in nearly every case
in 1907 when compared to 1956 as shown in Table LVII.
Six work groups had increased imbalance indices: wire de
partment group I day, shipping and receiving, fabrication
department night, and assembly department assembly line.
In nearly every case the number of workers had been in
creased and an additional ethnic group had been added.
Three work groups kept the same imbalance index: foremen,
production control, and machine shop. Only the assembly
department inspection section had a smaller imbalance
index, .00 compared to .40. Analysis of this table indi
cated two points.
First, the average imbalance indices for the work
groups increased in most work groups and the average index
204
TABLE LVII
ETHNIC IMBALANCE INDEX3 BY WORK GROUP FOR
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1907
Name of Work Group
Number
of
Worker
Number of
Ethnic
s Groups
Average
Imbalance
Index
Rank
Wire Deot. Gr. II Day 28 4 4.50 1
Welding Department 14 3 3.23 2
Wire Dept. Gr. I Day 18 4 3.00 3
Foremen 8 2 3.00 3
Shipping and Receiving 8 3 2.25 5
Production Control 4 2 1.00 6
Fabrication Dept. Night 5 3 .89 7
Assembly— Assembly 7 4 .75 8
Assembly— Inspection 4 2 .00 9
Machine Shop 15 ___1 . .00 9
Total 111
Average 2.8 2.49
aThe greater the difference in numbers from the dif-
ferent ethnic groups the■ large the imbalance index.
205'
for the total group increased from 1.78 to 2.49.
Second, the rank positions of all work groups
changed. The number of workers in five work groups in
creased. In other words, there was an over-all change in
the size and composition of work groups with a correspond
ing change in the imbalance index in most cases.
A comparison of the 1957 conflict rating score and
the 1957 ethnic imbalance index by work group. The average
conflict score in 1956 was a negative relationship. This
was verified in 1957 as given in Table LVIII. When the
conflict score was low, the ethnic imbalance index was
high, and vice versa. This finding showed the workers
tended to have fewer conflict attitudes when the ethnic
imbalance index was high.
A comparison of the 1957 cooperation rating score
and the 1957 ethnic imbalance index by work group. The
1957 cooperation rating scores and the 1957 ethnic imbal
ance indices are given in Table LIX. The relationship be
tween the 1955-1956 and 1957 cooperation scores and the
ethnic imbalance indices for these years remained the same.
When the cooperation socre was high, the ethnic imbalance
index was also high, and when the cooperation score was
low, the ethnic imbalance index was low. The cooperation
scores increased in most work groups between 1956 and 1957
and the ethnic imbalance index likewise increased in most
206
TABLE LVIII
A COMPARISON OF THE CONFLICT RATING SCORE
AND THE ETHNIC IMBALANCE INDEXa
BY WORK GROUP FOR
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1957
Name of Work Group
Number
of
Workers
Average
Conflict
Score
Average
Imbalance
Index
Rank
Office Force 14 .013 6.00 1
Wire Dept. Gr. II Day 28 . 014 4.50 2
Welding Department 14 .024 3.23 3
Wire Dept. Gr. I Day 18 . 034 3.00 4
Foremen 8 . 024 3.00 4
Shipping and Receiving 8 .072 2.25 6
Production Control 4 .530 1.00 7
Fabrication Dept. Night 5 .197 .89 8
Assembly— Assembly 7 .072 .75 9
Assembly— Inspection 4 .138 .00 10
Machine Shop 15 .007 .00 11
Total 125
Average .034 2.49
. aThe greater the difference in numbers from the
different ethnic groups the larger the ethnic imbalance
index.
207
TABLE LIX
A COMPARISON OF THE COOPERATION RATING SCORE
AND THE ETHNIC IMBALANCE INDEX3
BY WORK GROUP FOR
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1957
Name of Work Group
Number
of
Workers
Average
Cooperation
Rating Score
Average
Imbalance
Index
Rani
Office Force 14 .980 6.00 1
Wire Dept. Gr. II Day 28 .970 4.50 2
Welding Department 14 .952 3.23 3
Wire Dept. Gr. I Day 18 .950 3.00 4
Foremen 8 .976 3.00 4
Shipping and Receiving 8 .916 2.25 6
Production Control 4 .893 1.00 7
Fabrication Dept. Night 5 .815 .89 8
Assembly— Assembly 7 .877 .75 9
As sembly— Inspection 4 .805 .00 10
Machine Shop 15 .988 .00 11
Total 125
Average . 954 2.49
aThe greater the difference in numbers from the
different ethnic groups the larger the ethnic imbalance
index.
208
work groups.
A comparison of the 1957 average friendship score
and the ethnic imbalance index for 1907 by work group. In
Table LX the average friendship score of the work groups
is compared with the average ethnic imbalance index for
19b7. This table reveals four points. First, the average
friendship scores were low when the average ethnic imbal
ance index 'was high. Second, the average ethnic imbalance
index was usually low when the average friendship score was
high. Third, the over-all average friendship score and the
over-all average ethnic imbalance index were practically
the same, 2.48 and 2.49, respectively. Fourth, a friend
ship tended to be built when there was a slightly unbalanced
ethnic representation in a work group. The under-repre
sented ethnic groups tended to be more friendly and to seek
aid from rnaj ority-group members which resulted in an in
creased friendship score.
III. CONCLUSIONS
The examination and analysis of the average ethnic
imbalance index brought forth four major conclusions.
First, the average conflict rating score was nega
tively related to the average ethnic imbalance index. When
the former increased, the latter decreased, and the oppo
site situation also held.
209
TABLE LX
A COMPARISON OF THE AVERAGE FRIENDSHIP SCORE
AND THE ETHNIC IMBALANCE INDEX3
BY WORK GROUP FOR
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
1957
Number Average Average
Name of Work Group of Friendship Imbalance Rank
Workers Score Index
Office Force 14 2.10 6.00 1
Wire Dept. Gr. II Day 28 2.50 4.50 2
Welding Department 14 2.80 3.23 3
Wire Dept. Gr. I Day 18 2.20 3.00 4
Foremen 8 2.30 3.00 4
Shipping and Receiving 8 2.60 2.25 6
Production Control 4 3.30 1.00 7
Fabrication Dept. Night 5 3.10 .89 8
Assembly— Assembly 7 3.00 .75 9
Assembly— Inspection 4 2.50 .00 10
Machine Shop 15 2.50 .00 11
Total 125
Average 2.48 2.49
aThe greater the difference in numbers from the
different ethnic groups the larger the ethnic imbalance
index.
210
Second, when the cooperation rating score was high,
the ethnic imbalance index was also high. A high ethnic
imbalance index tended to increase with cooperative atti
tudes and a low ethnic imbalance index tended to decrease
with cooperative attitudes.
Third, the friendship scale score- varied negatively
with the ethnic imbalance index. When the friendship score
was high, the average ethnic imbalance index was low and
when this index was high, the friendship index was low.
Fourth, the friendship scores, the cooperation
rating scores, and the conflict rating scores seem to oper
ate independently when compared with the ethnic imbalance
index. In other words, the interpersonal relationships
between workers tend to operate independently of the number
of ethnic groups represented in the work group.
CHAPTER IX
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSIONS
I. SUMMARY
The primary purpose of this study was to determine
types of interpersonal relations and their effects in
ethnically-mixed work groups. The ethnic groups involved
in the study were Anglo-Caucasians, Negroes, Mexicans,
American Indians, and Puerto Ricans. The individuals from
different ethnic backgrounds were employed in fifteen dif
ferent work groups.
To achieve the above-mentioned objective, a conflict
rating, a cooperation rating, a friendship scale, and an
imbalance index were developed and administered to each
work group, and the results were analyzed.
The study was conducted at the Technibilt Corpora
tion of Glendale, California, where the subjects were em
ployed. It was carried on in two parts. The first part
involved interviewing of 132 workers in 15 work groups in
1955-1956; and the second part, the reinterviewing of 32
workers in 11 work groups in 1957.
II. THE FINDINGS
1. The conflict rating scores varied from .040 in
211
212
1955-1956 when the factory was without union affiliation to
.031 in 1957 during a period when it was unionized. This
represents a small but important difference in scores.
2. The introduction of the union into the factory
brought new leadership roles into the factory, giving new
statuses to selected workers and ethnic groups. When a
Mexican or Indian worker obtains a leadership role, new
statuses were gained by all Mexican or all Indian workers.
A complete re-evaluation was made by the workers of them
selves and a higher status was received by them.
3. The personnel manager and the foremen of the
company modified their attitudes and routines concerning
grievances between 1956 and 1957. Responsibility was
placed upon the union stewards and committeemen in the dis
cipline workers because of the union contract. As a re
sult, the conflict score was increased in some instances.
The attitudes of workers showed an increased concern with
their interpersonal relationships.
4. The general average cooperation rating score for
Technibilt workers increased from .919 in 1955-1956 to .953
in 1957, indicating a general increase in cooperative atti
tudes. The increase in the cooperation score may have been
due in part to the re-establishment of industrial peace in
the factory and the acceptance of unionism by management.
5. Large work groups with several ethnic groups
represented tend to have more cooperative evaluations and
213
cooperative relationships among workers than small work
groups with little ethnic mixture, contrary to expectation.
Differences in attitudes and cultural background tended to
be emphasized in the smaller work groups because of the
intense primary group relationships.
6. The large work groups with several ethnic
groups present, comprised of skilled workers, not under
pressure to produce, with opportunity to converse occa
sionally, had high cooperation scores.
7. The average friendship score between 1955-1956
and 1957 was practically the same among workers in work
groups, 2.48 compared to 2.45. This score, according to
the friendship scale, places the workers between "speaking
acquaintance" and "regular friend" categories.
8. Employees enjoy working with individuals from
different ethnic backgrounds when they can interact to
gether and not be continuously under pressure to produce.
Under the aforementioned situation they develop friendship
attitudes which tend to be carried outside the factory.
9. A general re-evaluation of friendships was made
among workers between 1956 and 1957 because of the split
loyalty of workers to the union officials and to management
and the company. This was revealed by the friendship
scores and from interview materials.
10. Mexican workers and white workers through their
leadership roles in the work groups and in the labor union
214
activities tended to increase their friendship scores.
11. The average conflict rating score was negatively
related to the ethnic imbalance index because of an in
creased dependence of the minority-group worker upon the
rnajority-group worker in the work group. The minority-
group worker, in order to advance in skill and status in
the work group, is dependent upon the majority-group work
er. Therefore the former must reduce conflict attitudes
between himself and the ma jority-group worker if he is to
receive more money and gain higher skill.
12. The average cooperation rating was positively
related to the ethnic imbalance index. In other words,
when only one or two members of one ethnic group are pres
ent, with a large number of members of another ethnic group
in a work group, the majority-group worker tends to offer
cooperation readily. The minority-group worker seeks the
cooperation and accepts it more gracefully when he is few
in numbers in the work group.
13. The development of friendship attitudes tends
to have little relationship to the imbalance index, for a
friendship tends to develop when the work group has a
slight imbalance of ethnic groups present.
14. The interpersonal relationships between workers
tend to operate more or less independently of the number of
ethnic groups represented in a work group.
III. CONCLUSIONS
215
From the findings stated, the following conclusions
may be drawn.
1. The assignment of workers to productive activi
ties without regard to ethnic backgrounds but on the basis
of skill and ability to produce or perform the work, sup
ported by favorable management attitudes reduces conflict
attitudes among workers. This is especially true when the
workers are assigned to a large work group of relatively
skilled workers not under a constant pressure to produce.
When workers from different ethnic backgrounds are in such
favorable work situations they feel stimulated, develop new
interests, and look for opportunities to develop friend
ships.
2. Cooperative attitudes between workers of dif
ferent ethnic backgrounds in work groups are increased when
the workers do not have to be concerned with wage rate in
creases, job security, and are not competing for leadership
roles in work groups or union activities.
3. Friendships between workers of different ethnic
backgrounds develop when they are ethnically mixed in a
slightly ethnic imbalanced work group and when employed in
productive, satisfying work relationships.
4. The cooperation scores, the conflict scores, and
the friendship scores are useful in measuring interpersonal
relations between employees in work groups.
5» The "balanced work group" concept as developed
in this study proved to be a useful tool in studying the
conflict, cooperative, and friendship relationships between
workers.
General conclusion. Work groups composed of mem
bers with different ethnic backgrounds and working under a
benevolently inclined management tend to reveal attitudes
that are less shadowed by conflict. Attitudes showing
marked degrees of cooperativeness are increased, while
friendships that carry beyond work groups are developed.
This is evident when the members of the different work
groups are placed in a productive and satisfying work rela
tionship and are not in situations where they are compelled
to compete unfavorably for status.
BIB LIO G RA P HY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. BOOKS
Bakke, E. W. , Bonds of Organization, An Appraisal of Cor
porate Human Relations. New" York": Harper and Brothers
Publishers, i9b0. 539 pp.
Organization and the Individual. New Haven: Yale
Universiby~Press, Labor and Management Center, 1952.
55 pp.
, and Clark Kerr. Unions. Management, and the
Public. New York: Harcourb Brace and Company, 1948.
■W6"pp.
, and E. W. Noland. Workers Wanted, A Study of Em
ployers Hiring Policies, Preferences, and Practices in
New Haven and Chariot be. New York": Harper and Brothers
Publ'is'Hers,' 1949 . 233 pp.
Blum, Fred H. Toward a Democratic Work Process. The Hor-
mel Packinghouse 'Wbrker'sT‘ Experiment. New York: Har-
"per"s~'and Brobhers Publishers, 1953. 229 pp.
Blum, N. L. Industrial Psychology and Its Social Founda-
bions. New York: Haroers ana Brothers Publishers,
I W , 518 pp.
________. Readings In Experimental Industrial Psychology.
New York: Prentice-Hail, 1*152. 4b5 pp.
Canton, Nathaniel. Employee Counseling, A New Viewpoint in
Industrial Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Book- Com
pany, Inc-., l94b>. lb3 pp.
Caplow, Theodore. The Sociology of Work. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, T95T7 330 pp.
Cartwright, Dorwin, and Alvin Zander. Group Dynamics.
Research and Theory. White Plains," New York: Row,
"Peberson and Company, 1953. 642 pp.
Carr, Lowell J., and James E. Stermer. Willow Run, A Study
of Industrialization and Cultural Inadequacy. New Vorlc
ifarper and Brobhers Publishers, 1952. 40b pp.
218
219
Cole, Stewart G., and Mildred Wiese Cole. Minorities and
the American Promise. New York: Harper and Brothers
Publishers, 1964. "519 pp.
Cook, Lloyd A. (ed. ). Toward Better Human Relations. De
troit: Michigan University Press, "1952.' 121 pp.
Douglas, Paul H., Curtice N. Hitchcock, and Willard E.
Atkins. The Worker in Modern Economic Society. Chica
go: The University of Chicago Press,' 1923. 929 pp.
Dubin, Robert. Human Relations in Administration. The
Sociology of” Organization. New-York': Prentice Hail,
Tnc., 19b1. 673 pp.
Ellsworth, John S. Factory Folkways. New Haven: Yale
University Press‘ d 1953. 284 ppT
Gardner, Burleigh B., and David G. Moore. Human Relations
in Industry, Revised Edition. Chicago: Richard D.
Irwin, Inc., 1950. 431 pp.
Gemmill, Paul F. Present-Day Labor Relations. New York:
John Wiley and-Sons, 1929’ . 312 pp .
Golden, C. S., and H. J. Ruttenburg. Dynamics of Indus-
trial Democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1942.
5 5sr pp. -------
Gouldner, Alvin W. Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy.
Glencoe, Illinois': lE'e iree Press7 1954. 282 pp.
Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and
Education. Second edition. llew York: McGraw-llili Itook
Company, Inc., 1950. 633 pp.
Gross, Edward. Work and Society. New York: Thomas Y.
Crowell Company, 1958. 652 pp.
Harbinson, Frederich H. , and R.obert Dubin. Patterns of
Union-Management Relations. Chicago: Social Research
Associates, 1947. 229 pp.
Hare, A. Paul, Edgar F. Borgatta, and R.obert F. Bales
(eds.). Small Groups. Studies in Social Interaction.
Mew York: Alfred A. Knopf, 19bb. 665 pp.
Heider, Fritz. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations.
New York: John Wiley and Sons”, " 1955. 322 pp
220
Henderer, F. Rhodes. A Comparative Study of the Public
Relations Practice's in Six Industrial CorporationsT
Pittsburgh: University "of1 hitTsburgh Press', 1956.
232 pp.
Hepner, H. W. Psychology Applied to Life and Work. New
York: Prentice-Hail, l9o0. '724 pp.
Homans, George C. The Human Group. Mew York: Harcourt,
Brace and Company, 19b0. 484 pp.
Hoppack, Robert. Job Satisfaction. New York: Harper and
Brothers Publishers, 1935. '303 pp.
Jaques, Elliott. The Changing Culture of a Factory. New
York: The Dryden Press, 1952. 341 p’ p.
Knox, John B. The Sociology of Industrial Relations. New
York: Random House, 19o5. 348 pp.
Kornhauser, Arthur, Robert Dubin, and Arthur M. Ross
(eds. ). Industrial Conflict. New York:. McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1954. 5bl ppT
Lafitte, Paul. Social Structure and Personalityin the
Factory. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1953. *228
pp.
Landsberger, Henry A. Hawthorne Revisted. Ithaca, New
York: Cornell University, 1958. JT9 pp.
Leighton, A. H. Human Relations in a Changing World. New
York: E. P. Dutton and Company,^l948. 3154 pp.
Lesieur, Frederick G. The Scanlon Plan, A Frontier in
Labor-Management CooperationT New York: John Wiley
and Sons and the Technology Press of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 1958. 173 pp.
Marden, Charles F. Minorities in American Society. New
York: American Book Company, 1952. 493 pp.
Mayo, E. The Human Problems of Industrial Civilization.
New York: The Macmillan Company, 1933". 194 pp”.
. The Social Problems of an Industrial Civiliza-
~ tion. Boston: Harvard University” Andover Press, 1945.
TFT" pp.
Meadow, Paul. The Culture of Industrial Man. Lincoln:
University "of Nebraska Press, 1950. 216 pp.
221
Miller, D. C., and W. H. Form. Industrial Sociology, An
Introduction to the Sociology of Work Relations. New
York; Harper Brothers", l9bi. pph
Mills, C. Wright, and Helen Schneider. New Men of Power;
America’s Labor Leaders. New York: Harcourt Brace and -
Company^ 1948. 323 p ' p " .
. White Collar, The American Middle Class. New
York: Oxf ord 'IfnTversity Pre ss , IPbl. 378 pp".
Moore, Wilbert E. Industrial Relations and the Social
Order. Revised edition. New York: The Macmillan Com
pany, 1951. 660 pp.
Myrdal, Gunnar. An American Dilemma. New York: Harper and
Brothers Publishers, 1§£>5. 1483 pp.
Noland, E. W., and E. Wight Bakke. Workers Wanted. New
York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1935. pp.
Paterson, T. T. Morale in Work and 'War. London: Max
Parrish and Company, Ltd., l^bb. 256 pp.
Purcell, Theodore V. The 'Worker Speaks His Mind on Company
and Union. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 19o3.
*844 pp."-'
Roethlisberger, F. J. Management and Morale. Cambridge:
Harvard University "Press, 1941. 194 pp.
________, and W. J. Dickson. Management and the Worker.
Cambridge: Harvard UniverTit’ y Press, 1949. 615 pp.
Rogers, Carl R. Counseling and Psychotherapy: New Concepts
in Practice. Boston: Houqhton Mihflin Company, 1942.
TO-pp"----
Sayles, Leonard R. Behavior of Industrial Work Groups.
Prediction and Control.”" New York: John 'Wi'ley and Sons,
T m ' . — w “ . ----------
Schneider, Eugene V. Industrial Sociology. The Social
Relations of IndusTry aind~ the Community! New York':
McGraw-Hill" Book Company, T957. 5b9 pp.
Selekman, Benjamin M. Labor Relations and Human Relations.
New York: McGraw-HiliBook Company, i94?. 2b5 pp.
, et. al. Problems in Labor Relations. New York:
McGraw- liiTI Book 8'ompany, Inc. , l950. 887 pp.
222
Selekman, Benjamin M. , L. M. Hacker, et. aJL. The New In-
dustrial Relations. Ithaca: CorneTl University Press,
m — k t ) ~ —
Sheriff, Muzafer, and Carolyn W. Sherif. Groups in Harmony
and Tension. New York: Harper and Brothers JPublishers, '
I9b3. sib pp.
, and M. O. Wilson. Group Relations at the Cross-
roads. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1~953.
379 pp.
Smith, Henry Clay. Psychology of Industrial Behavior. New
York: MeGray-IIi11 Book Company, 19bb. 477 pp.
Thelen, Herbert A. Dynamics of Groups at Work. Chicago:
University of Chicag"o Press, 1954. 379_pp.
Urwick, Lyndall F. The Pattern of Management. Minneapo
lis: University of Minnesota Press, 19b6. 100 pp.
Viteles, Morris S. Motivation and Morale in Industry. New
York: W. W. Norton and Company, 19b 3’. blU pp.
Warner, W. Lloyd. American Life: Dream and Reality.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, I9b3. 268 pp.
Whitehead, T. H. The Industrial Worker. Cambridge: Har
vard University Press, 1938. 265' pp.
Whyte, William F. (ed. ). Industry and Society. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1946. 2*07 pp.
. Pattern for Industrial Peace. New York: Harper
and Brothers, 1951. 245 pp.
Whyte, William H., Jr. Is Anybody Listening? New York:
Simon and Schuster, T9b2. 239 pp.
Wicks, Rollo E. Man and Modern Society. New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company,""I n c 1958. 4Z~2 pp.
Young, Pauline V. Scientific Social Surveys and Research.
Second edition.- New York: 2rent lce-Ha 11, 1W9". 62l
pp.
B. BOOKS: PARTS OF SERIES
223
Dale, Exnest. Greater Productivity Through Labox Manage
ment Co~ operation. Research Report No. 14. New York:
American Management Association. 197 pp.
Gardner, Burleigh B. Man in an Industrial Society. Human
Events Pamphlet, No"! 16. Chicago: Human Events Associ
ate, 1947. 21 pp.
Katz, Daniel, ej:. al. Productivity, Supervision and Morale
in an Office ^TtuatTon. A Publication or the Surviy
Re sear c hCenter, Institute for Social Research, Univer
sity of Michigan, Part I. Ann Arbor: The Darel Press,
1950. 84 pp.
Mayo, Elton, and George F. Lombard. Teamwork and Labor
Turnover in the Aircraft Industry of Southern CaTTTor-
nia. Business Research Studies,No. 32. Publication' of
the Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard
University. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Octo
ber, 1944. 32 pp.
Seidenberg, Jacob. Negroes in the Work Group. A Study of
Selected Employment Practices" In New York Stated New~
York State School oT Industrial and Labor Relations,
Research Bulletin No. 6. New York: Cornell University,
February, 1950. 67 pp.
Vincent, Melvin J. The Accommodation Process in Industry.
Social Science Series, No. 2l Semi-centennial Publica-
tions of the University of Southern California. Los
Angeles: University of Southern California Press, 1930.
112 pp.
Warner, W. L., and P. S. Lunt. The Social Life of a Modern
Community, Vol. I. Yankee City-Series. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1941. 460 pp.
Whitehead, T. N. The Industrial Worker, Vol. I. Cam
bridge: Harvard University Press, 1938. 265 pp.
. The Industrial Worker, Vol. II. Cambridge: Har
vard University Press, T335 . 94 pp.
224
C. PUBLICATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT, LEARNED SOCIETIES,
AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
Balcke, E. Wight. Mutual Survival: The Goal of Union and
Management. New Haven: Labor and ManagementCenter,
laie University, 1946 . 82 pp.
Bogardus, Emory S. The Relation of Fatigue to Industrial
Accidents. (Repiintedfrorn the American Journal of
S'oc'iblbqry, XVII, 1911-1912. ) Chic a go: Univer s ity of
Chicago, 1912. 69 pp.
Festinger, Leon, and Harold H. Kelley. Changing Attitudes
Through Social Contact. An Experimedal Study of a
Housing Iroject. Ann Arbor: Research Center for Group
Dynamics, Institute for Social Research, University of
Michigan, 1951. 83 pp.
Homans, George C. "Fatigue of Workers," National Research
Council,Committee on Work in Industry. Report of the
Committee by George C. Homans. New York: Reinhold
Publishing Corporation, 1941. 28 pp.
Human Relations Program of the Survey Research Center,
f Three Years of Development, institute Tor~ Social
TTe's'esTrcK. Ann Arbor: University ot Michigan, 'September.
"1 9b0. 3 0 pp.
Libo, Lester M. Measuring Group Cohesiveness. Ann Arbor:
Research Center for Group Cynamlcs, Institute for Social
Research, University of Michigan, 1953. Ill pp.
Mills, C. Wight. "The Contributions of Sociology to Studies
of Industrial Relations." Proceedings of the Industrial
.Relations P.esearch AssociatTori, December, 1948. ~"pp.
199-225.
Myers, Charles A., and John G. Turnbull. Research on Labor-
Manaqement Relations: Report of a Conference Held on
February 24-5b, l949,~~at the Tnduslria'l Relations' Sec
tion, 5rinceton University. New York: Social Science
Research Council, 1949. 34 pp.
A Program of Research on the Fundamental Problems of Organ
izing Human Behavior. Human Relations, Preliminary
Outline, Survey’ " Research Center. Ann Arbor: University
Roethlisberger, F. J., and others. Training for Human
Relations. An Interim Report. Bolton: Harvard Univer-
225
sity, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business
Administration, 1954. 198 pp.
Scott, Ellis L. Leadership and Perceptions of Organization.
Research Monograph No. 22. Columbus, Ohio: The Bureau
of Business Research, College of Commerce and Adminis
tration, The Ohio State University, 1956. 122 pp.
Seashore, Stanley E. Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial
Work Group. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Survey Research Cen
ter /Publication 14, Institute for Social Research,
University of Michigan, 1954. 105 pp.
United States Department of Labor. The American Workers*
Fact Book, 1956. Washington 25,~D. C.: U. S. Govern
ment Printing Office, 1956. 433 pp.
United States Bureau of the Census. Seventeenth Census of
the United States: 1950. Population VolY~iiT Charac
teristics of Population, Part 5, California". Washing
ton, Dl C.": T T I S’ l GoveTnment Printing Office, 1952.
488 pp.
Zaleznik, A. Worker Satisfaction and Development. A Case
Study of ’ Work and Social Behavior in a Factory Group.
Boston: Harvard University, Division of' Research,
Graduate School of Business Administration, 1956. 148
pp.
, C. R. Christensen, and F. J. Roethlisberger. The
iMotivation, Productivity, and Satisfaction of Workers.
Boston: Harvard University,~ Division "of he search,
Graduate School of Business Administration, 1958. 442
PP •
D. PERIODICAL ARTICLES
Adams, Stuart. "Social Climate and Productivity in Small
Military Groups," American Sociological Review, 19:421-
425, 1954. ^ “
Alers, J. Osca, and Warren Brown. "Attitudes of Whites and
Non-Whites Toward Each Other," Sociology and Social
Research, 40:312-319, May-June, 1956.
Arensberg, Conrad M., "Industry and the Community," American
Journal of Sociology, 47:1-12, July, 1942.
226
Babchuk, N. and W. J. Goode. "Work Incentives in a Self-
Determined Group," American Sociological Review, 16:
679-687, 1951. _
Bain, R. K. "The Researcher’s Role: A Case Study," Human
Organization, 9:23-28, Spring, 1950.
Bendix, Reinhard. "Bureaucracy: The Problem and Its Set
ting," American Sociological Review, 12:501-502, 1947.
Benyon, Erdmann D. "The Southern 'White Laborer Migrates
to Michigan," American Sociological Review, 3:333-335,
June, 1938.
Blau, Peter M. "Social Mobility and Interpersonal Rela
tions," American Sociological Review, 21:290-295, June,
1.956. ----------
Blum, M., and J. Russ. "A Study of Employee Attitudes
Toward Various Incentives," Personnel, 19:438-444, 1942.
Blumer, H. "Sociological Theory in Industrial Relations,"
American Sociological Review, 12:271-278, June, 1947.
Bogardus, Emory S. "Integration as a Current Concept,"
Sociology and Social Research, 42:207-212, January-
F ebrua ry, 1958.
. "Racial Distance Change in the United States,"
'Sociology and Social Research, 43:127-135, November-
December, 19b8.
. "Racial Reactions by Regions," Sociology and
Social Research, 43:286-290, March-Aprx1,1959.
Borgatta, Marie L. "The Concept of the Group," Sociology
and Social Research, 43:83-89, November-December, 19o8.
Brayfield, Arthur H. and Harold F. Roth. "Construction of
a Quantitative Index for Employee Job Satisfaction and
Morale, Journal of Applied Psychology, 35:307-311,
Brown, Morgan C. "Status of Jobs and Occupations as Evalua
ted by an Urban Negro Sample," American Sociological
Review, 20:561-566, October, 19b b.
Center, Richard. "Occupational Mobility of Urban Occupa
tional Strata," American Sociological Review, 13:197-
210, April, 1948“
227
Collins, Orvis. "Ethnic Behavior in Industry: Sponsorship
and Rejection in a New England Factory," American
Journal of Sociology, 51:293-298, January, 1^46.
Comrey, A. L., J. M. Pfiffner, and H. P. Beem. "Factors
Influencing Organizational Effectiveness," Personnel
Psychology, 5*,307-328, 1952.
, , and . "Factors Influencing Organ
izational Effectiveness, II," Personnel Psychology,
5:65-67, 1953.
________, , and W. S. High. "Factors Influencing
Organiza'tTona 1 Effectiveness, IV," Personnel Psychology,
7:543-547, 1954.
Cottrell, W. R. "Of Time and the Railroader," American
Sociological Review, 4:190-198, April, 1939.
Dalton, Melville. "Conflicts Between Staff and Line Man
agerial Officers," American Sociological Review, 15:
342-354, June, i950.
Davis, A. K. "Bureaucratic Patterns in the Navy Officers
Corps," Social Forces, 27:143-153, December, 1948.
Davis, Kingsley, "A Conceptual Analysis of Stratification,"
American Sociological Review, 7:309-326, June, 1942.
, and W. E. Moore, "Some Principles of Stratifica
tion, " American Sociological Review, 10:242-249, Aoril,
1945.
Firey, Walter. "Informal Organization and the Theory of
Schism," American Sociological Review, 13:15-24,
February, 1948.
Form, W. H., and D. C. Miller. "The Career Pattern as a
Sociological Instrument," American Journal of Sociology,
54:317-329, June, 1949.
Gardner, Burleigh B."The Industrial Structures and the
Adjustment of the Individual," American Journal of
Ortho-psychiatry, 15:350-351, April, 1945.
. "What Makes Successful and Unsuccessful Execu-
tives," Advanced Management, 13:116-125, September,
1948. ;
and W. F. Whyte. "The Man in the Middle: Position
and Problems on the Foreman," Special Issue: Committee
228
on Human Relations in Industry, Applied Anthropology,
4:I*** 28, 1945 •
and "Methods for the Study of Human Rela-
tions in-Industry," American Sociological Review, 11:
506-512, October, 19?6'.
_ and "Methods for the Study of Human Rela
tions in~industry," American Sociological Review, 11:
506-512, 1946. ;
Goode, W. J., and I. Fowler. "Incentive Factors in a Low
Morale Plant," American Sociological Review, 14:618-
624, April, 194^
Gordon, C. Wayne, and Nicholas Babchuk. "A Typology of
Voluntary Associations," American Sociological Review,
24:22-29, February, 1959.
Gottlieb, B. , and W/. A. Kerr. "An Experiment in Industrial
Harmony," Personnel Psychology, 3:445-453, 1950.
Guttman, Louis. "A Structural Theory for Intergroup Be
liefs and Action," American Sociological Review, 24:
318-328, June, 1959.
Hart, C. W. M. "Industrial Relations Research and Social
Theory," Canadian Journal of Economics and Political
Science , 15: i b ' 3 - ' ’ /3 , February, 1949. J
Hersey, R. B. "Psychology of Workers," Personnel Journal,
14:291-296, 1936.
Homans, George C. "The Strategy of Industrial Sociology,"
American Journal of Sociology, 54:330-337, January,
t w t . --------------
. "A Conceptual Scheme for the Study of Organiza
tion, " American Sociological Review, 12:13-26, February,
1947.
, and J. F. Scott. "Reflections on the Wildcat
Strike," American Sociological Review, 12:278-287,
June, 1947"!
Hughes, Everett C. "The Knitting of Racial Groups in In
dustry, " American Sociological Review, 11:512-519,
October, T946.
. "Queries Concerning Industry and Society Growing
Out of a Study of Ethnic Relations in Industry,"
229
American Sociological Review, 14:211-220, April, 1949.,
Ireland, Ralph R. "Economic Motivation in Ethnic Rela
tions," Sociology and Social Research, 43:119-126,
N o v e mb er-December” i'9!o8.
Jacobs, H. J. "The Application of Sociometry to Industry,"
Sociometry, 8:181-198, May, 1945.
James, John. "An Experimental Study of Tensions in Work
Behavior," University of California Publications in
Culture and"Society, 2: 2U3-i24~£, 19bl.
Keedy, Thomas C., Jr. "Factors in the Cohesiveness of
Small Groups," Sociology and Social Research, 40:329-
332, May-June, T956~ ' —
Kerr, W. A. "Labor Turnover and Its Correlates," Journal of
Applied Psychology, 31:366-371, 1947.
Killian, Lewis M. "The Effects of Southern White Workers
on Race Relations in Northern Plants," American Socio
logical Review, 17:327-331, 1952.
Koenig, S. "Ethnic Groups in Connecticut Industry," Social
Forces, 20:96-105, October, 1941.
Kohn, Melvin L., and Robin M. Williams, Jr. "Situational
Patterning in Intergroup Relations," American Sociolog
ical Review, 21:164-174, April, 1956.
Kornhauser, A., and A. Sharp. "Employee Attitudes: Sug
gestions from a Study in a Factory " Personnel Journal,
10:393-404, 1932.
McDonagh, E. C. "Attitudes Toward Ethnic Farm Workers,"
Sociology and Social Research, 40:10-18, Seotember-
SctoSer? T 955 ^ ' -------------
Merton, R. K. "The Machine, the Worker, and the Engineer,"
Science, 105:79-84, January, 1947.
________. "The Bearing of Empirical Research upon the
Development of Social Theory," American Sociological
Review, 13:505-515, October, 19X8.
Miller, D. C. "The Social Factors of the Work Situation,"
American Sociological Review. 11:3 00-314, 1946.
________, and W. H. Form. "Measuring Pattern of Occupational
Security," Sociometry, 10:362-375, November, 1947.
230
Mills, C. Wright. “The Middle Classes in Middle Sized
Cities; The Stratification and Political Position of
Small Business and White Collar Strata," American
Sociological Review, 11:520-529, October, 1946.
Moore, W. E. "Current Issues in Industrial Sociology,"
American Sociological Review, 12:647-655, December,
m ----------
. "Industrial Sociology: Status and Prospects,"
American Sociological Review, 13:382-400, August, 1948.
Morse, N. C., and R. S. Weiss. "The Function and Meaning
of Work and the Job," American Sociological Review,
20:191-198, 1955. ------------
Myers, R. R. "Interpersonal Relations in the Building
Industry," Applied Anthropology, 5:1-7, Spring, 1946.
. "Myths and Status Systems in Industry," Social
Forces, 26:331-337, March, 1948.
Page, C. H. "Bureaucracy’s Other Face," Social Forces,
25:88-95, October, 1946.
Parsons, T. "An Analytical Approach to the Theory of Social
Stratification," American Journal of Sociology, 45:841-
862, May, 194 0.
. "The Motivation of Economic Activities," Canadian
Journal of Economic and Political Science, 6:187-209,
May", 1940
Roethlisberger, F. J. "Barriers to Communication Between
Men," ETC.; A Review of General Semantics, 9:89-93,
Winter" 19152.
_________. "The Foreman Mater and Victim of Double Talk,"
Harvard Business Review, 23:283-298, 1945.
Rogers, Carl R. "Communication: Its Blocking and Its Con-
trol," ETC.: A Review of General Semantics, 9:83-88,
Winter, 19o2.
Rogers, Maria, "Problems of Human Relations Within Indus
try," Sociometry, 9:350-371, November, 1946.
Rosen, Bernard C. "Race, Ethnicity, and the Achievement
Syndrome," American Sociological Review, 24:47-60,
February, l9b9. ~ ~
231
Hoy, D. F. "Worker Satisfaction and Social Reward in Quota
Achievement: An Analysis of Piecework Incentive,"
American Sociological Review, 18:507-514, 1953.
Sanction, Thomas. "The Race Riots," New Republic, CIX:
9-13, 1943.
Shepard, H. A. "Democratic Control in a Labor Union,"
American Journal of Sociology, 32:311-316, 1949.
Sheppard, H. L. "The Treatment of Unionism in 'Managerial
Sociology,'" American Sociological Review, 14:310-313,
April, 1949.
Stockford, L. O., and K. R. Kunze. "Psychology and the
Paycheck," Personnel, 27:129-143, 1950.
Stone, R. C. "Factory Organization and Vertical Mobility,"
American Sociological Review, 18:28-35, 1953.
Strong, E. B. "Individual Adjustment in Industrial Soci
ety," American Sociological Review, 14:335-346, June,
1949.
Suttermeister, R. A. "How to Improve Morale and Increase
Production,1 1 Personnel, 20:279-287, 1944.
Tumin, Melvin M. "Rewards and Task Orientation," American
Sociological Review, 20:419-423, 1955.
Van Kleeck, M. "Towards an Industrial Sociology." American
Sociological Review, 11:501-505, September, 19&T.
Vincent, M. J., and T. C. Keedy, Jr. "Employee Training
and Morale," Sociology and Social Research, 42:192-195,
January-February1^58.
Westie, Frank R. "Social Distance Scales," Sociology and
Social Research, 43:251-258, iMarch-April, 1959.
Whyte, W. F. "Incentives for Productivity: The Bundy-Tub-
ing Case," Applied Anthropology, 7:1-16, Spring, 1948.
. "Semantics and Industrial Relations," Human
Organization, 4:4-11, Spring, 1949.
. "The Social Structure of the Restaurant," Ameri-
can Journal of Sociology, 54:302-310, March, 194^>
, and Burleigh B. Gardner. "From Conflict to Coop
eration," Applied Anthropology, 5:13, Fall, 1946.
232
White, W. F., and Burleigh B. Gardner. "Human Elements in
Supervision," Applied Anthropology, 4:3-17, Spring,
194 5.
, and . "Patterns of Interaction in Union
Manaqement Relations," Human Organization, 8:13-19,
Fall, 1949.
Whyte, William H., Jr. "Groupthink,» Fortune, 45:114-117,
March, 1952.
"Social Engineers," Fortune, 45:88-91, January,
'• v ' - . v
Wickert, F. R. "Turnover and Employee Feelings of Ego-
Involvement in the Day-to-Day Operations of a Company,"
Personnel Psychology, 4:185-197, 1951.
Wilson, Logan, and Harlan Gilmore. "White Employers and
Negro Workers," American Sociological Review, 8:698-
705, 1943.
Wilson, R. C., H. F. Beem, and A. L. Comrey. "Factors In
fluencing Organizational Effectiveness, III," Personnel
Psychology, 6:313-325, 1953.
Woods, Walter A. "Employee Attitudes and Their Relations
to Morale," Journal of Applied Psychology, 28:285-301,
Worthy, J. C. "Factors Influencing Employee Morale,"
Harvard Business Review, 28:61-73, 1950.
. "Organizational Structure and Employee Morale,"
American Sociological Review, 15:169-179, April, 1950.
E. UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL
Keedy, Thomas C., Jr. "Sociological Aspects of Training
Programs in Selected Industrial Organizations in the
Los Angeles Metropolitan Area." Unpublished Disserta
tion, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
1956. 187 pp.
Pringle, Bruce M. "An Analysis of Recent Research Findings
Which Have Made Contributions Toward a Theory of In
formal Organization." Unpublished Masters’ Thesis,
University of Southern California, 1949. 91 pp.
233
Shaw, John W. "The Social Phases of Industrial Recreation
as They Affect Employee-Employer Relations in the Los
Angeles Metropolitan Area." Unpublished Dissertation,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1948.
477 pp.
Vincent, Melvin J. "Industrial Sociology." University of
Southern California Syllabus for Sociology 458, Fifth
Edition, 1955. 45 pp.
Weschler, Irvin R., and Robert Tannenbaum. "Industrial
Human Relations: A Selected Bibliography." Los Ange
les: University of Southern California, Fourth Revi
sion, 1956. 34 pp.
A P P E N D I X E S
APPENDIX A
TABLES LXILXV
A COMPARISON OF SIX POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
OF TECHNIBILT CORPORATION INTERVIEWED MALE
EMPLOYEES AND THE LOS ANGELES STANDARD
METROPOLITAN AREA MALES
14 YEARS OLD AND OVER
236
TABLE LXI
COMPARISON OF THE AGE DISTRIBUTION
OF TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
INTERVIEWED MALE WORKERS, 1955-1956,
WITH THE EMPLOYED MALES
14 YEARS OLD AND OVER IN THE
LOS ANGELES STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREA, 1950
r , Percentage of Los Angeles
Pontage of Male Standard Metropolitan
Techmbilt Workers Male Popuiationa
15 to 24 22 17
25 to 34 38 24
35 to 44 . 19 23
45 to 54 15 18
55 to 64 4 13
65 to 69 ■ 2 __5
Total 100 100
aUnited States Bureau of the Census, Seventeenth
Census of the United States: 1950. Population, Vol. II,
Characteristics of' Population, Part 5, CalTfornia.
('Washington, D. C. : Government Printing Office, T952),
Table 53, p. 5-203.
)
237
TABLE LXII
COMPARISON OF THE MARITAL STATUS
OF TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
INTERVIEWED MALE WORKERS, 1955-1956,
WITH THE EMPLOYED MALES
14 YEARS OLD AND OVER IN THE
LOS ANGELES STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREA, 1950
. r ,, • . Percentage of Los Angeles
i.er=e,?ia9J ,°f “ale Standard Metropolitan
Status Technrbilt Workers Area Male Popu$;ationa
Single 29 22
Married 69 71
Widowed
and
Divorced 2 7
Total 100 100
aUnited States Bureau of the Census, Seventeenth
Census of the United States: 1950. Population, Vol. TT,
^h'aracterisfic's of Population, Part 5, California (Washing
ton,' D. C»: Governmenx Printing-Office, 1952J, Table 34,
p. 5-96.
238
TABLE LXIII
COMPARISON OF THE YEARS OF SCHOOLING COMPLETED
OF TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
INTERVIEWED MALE WORKERS, 1955-1956,
WITH MALES 25 YEARS OLD AND OVER FROM THE
LOS ANGELES STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREA, 1950
Years of
Schooling
Completed
Percentage of
Male
Technibilt
Workers
Percentage of
Los Angeles
Standard
Metropolitan
Area Population3
No schooling
Elementary
a. 1 - 4 years
b. 5 & 6 years
c. 7 years
d. 8 years
High School
a. 1 - 3 years
b. 4 years
College
a. 1 - 3 years
b. 4 years
Total
5
8
6
16
26
17
19
_2
100
(35)
(43)
(21)
1
5
6
4
15 15 (30)
18
27 (45)
13
11 (24)
100
aUnited States Bureau of the Census, Seventeenth
Census of the United States: 1950. Population1 , Vol. II?
Characterlstics"~ofr Population, Part b, California (Washing'
"ton,~'dT (i. : Government Printing Office, I9B2 ), Table 34,
p. 5-96.
239
TABLE LXIV
COMPARISON OF THE OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION
OF TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
INTERVIEWED MALE WORKERS, 1955-1956,
WITH THE EMPLOYED MALES
14 YEARS OLD AND OVER IN THE
LOS ANGELES STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREA, 1950
Occupational
Classif ication
Percentage of
Male
Technibilt
Workers
Percentage of
Los Angeles
Standard
Metropolitan
Area Male
Population3
Profe s sional 8 28
Skilled 22 39
Semi-skilled 45 29
Unskilled 25 __6
Total 100 100
aUnited States Bureau of the Census, Seventeenth
Census of the United States: 1950. Population,"Vol. 'llt
Characteristics of Population,' i^art 5, California (Washing
ton, D. C. : Government 'PrTntTng 6±'f'icc , 1952 J,Table 35,
p. 5-108.
TABLE LXV
COMPARISON OF THE RACE, NATIVITY, AND CITIZENSHIP
OF THE TECHNIBILT CORPORATION
INTERVIEWED MALE WORKERS, 1955-1956,
WITH THE LOS ANGELES STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREA
MALE POPULATION 21 YEARS OLD AND OVER, 1950
Race,
Nativity,
and
Citizenship
Percentage of
Technibilt
Male
Worker s
Percentage of
Los Angeles
Standard
Metropolitan
Area Male
Population3
Native white 65 83
Foreign born white 22 10
Negro 13 5
Other races __2
Total 100 100
aUnited States Bureau of the Census, Seventeenth
Census of the United States; 1950. Population, Vol. II,
Charactleri'siics of Population, Part b, California (Wasninq-
TTon'j D. C. : Government Printing Office, 1^52J, Table 34,
p. 9-96.
APPENDIX B
TABLES LXVI - LXXII
CHARACTERISTICS OF 32 REINTERVIEWED WORKERS
OF TECHNIBILT CORPORATION, 1957
TABLE LXVI
ETHNIC CLASSIFICATION OF 32 REINTERVIEWED
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION WORKERS, 1957
Ethnic Classification
Workers
Number Percentage
White
Male
Female
10
_2 12 38
Mexican
Male
Female
12
3 15 47
Negro
Male
Female
2
__0 2 6
Indian
Male
Female
1
_1 2 6
Puerto Rican
Male
Female
1
-2
_1 __3
Total 32 100
TABLE LXVII
AGE DISTRIBUTION OF 32 REINTERVIEWED
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION WORKERS, ±957
______ W ox leers
Age
Number Percentage
15 to 24 5 16
25 to 34 17 53
35 to 44 7 22
45 to 54 3 9
55 and older __0 0
Total 32 100
244
TABLE LXVIII
MARITAL STATUS OF 32. RE INTERVIEWED
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION WORKERS, 1957
Marital Status
'Workers
Number Percentage
Single
Male 9
Female 2 11 34
Married
Ma 1 e 17
Female J2. 19 60
Divorced
Male 0
Female J L 1 3
'Widowed
Male 0
Female J. 1 3
Separated
Male 0
Female _0 '_______0
Total 32 100
245
TABLE LXIX
YEARS OF SCHOOLING OF 32 REINTERVIEWED
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION WORKERS, '1957
Workers
Years of Schooling ‘ — ■ — ■ -—
Number Percentage
Less than six la 3
Six 2 6
Seven through nine 9 28
Ten through eleven 8 25
High School Graduate 5 16
Attended College 7 22
College Graduates
-2
___0
Total 32 100
Median - 10 years
Mean - 8.5 years
aThree years of schooling was accomplished by this
person.
246
TABLE LXX
PLACE OF BIRTH OF 32 REINTERVIEWED
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION WORKERS, 1957
Workers
Place of Birth
Number Percentage
United States
a. Northeast 2 6
b. Middle West 4 13
c. South 5 16
d. West3 16
27
50
85
Other American Countries
a. Canada 0 0
b. Mexico 1 3
c. Puerto Rico 2
3 9
Europe 2b 6
Africa 0 0
Far East 0
-
2 6
Total
aCalifornia contributed
32
11 workers.
100
bThese two workers were from Germany •
TABLE LXXI
OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF 32 REINTERVIEWED
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION WORKERS, 1957
Workers
Occupational Class -* ' ' -
Number Percentage
Professional 1 3
Supervisory- 1 3
Clerical 3 9
Skilled 7 22
Semi-skilled 16 50
Unskilled 4 13
T otal 32 100
248
TABLE LXXII
LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT OF 32 REINTERVIEWED
TECHNIBILT CORPORATION WORKERS, 1957
Years Employed
Workers
Number Percentage
Less than 1 year 0 0
1 year 4 12.5
2 years 11 34.5
3 years 9 28.0
4 years 4 12.5
5 years 0 0
6 years or more __4 12.5a
T otal 32 100.0
aThis includes one person who had been employed
seven years, one person nine years, and two persons eleven
years.
APPENDIX C
TABLES LXXIII - LXXIX
COMPARISON OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF
132 INTERVIEWED TECHNIBILT WORKERS
AND 32 WORKERS REINTERVIEWED
AFTER ONE YEAR
250
TABLE LXXIII
A COMPARISON OF T^E ETHNIC CLASSIFICATION OF
132 INTERVIEWED TECHNIBILT WORKERS
AND 32 WORKERS REINTERVIEWED
AFTER ONE YEAR
Percentage of
Ethnic Classification —--- -.... — — -.
132 Workers 32. Workers
White 40 38
Mexican 39 47
Negro 11 6
Indian 6 6
Puerto Rican __4 __3
T otal 100 100
251
TABLE LXXIV
A COMPARISON OF THE AGE DISTRIBUTION OF
132 INTERVIEWED TECHNIBILT WORKERS
AND 32 WORKERS REINTERVIEWED
AFTER ONE YEAR
Percentage of
Age ‘
132 Workers 32 Workers
15 to 24 20 16
25 to 34 37 53
35 to 44 21 22
45 to 54 6 0
55 or Older __6 ___0
Total 100 100
252
TABLE LXXV
A COMPARISON OF THE MARITAL STATUS OF
132 INTERVIEWED TECHNIBILT WORKERS
AND 32 WORKERS REINTERVIEWED
AFTER ONE YEAR
Percentage of
Marital Status — ------- -.....
132 Workers 32 Workers
Single 29 34
Married 67 60
Separated 1 0
Divorced 2 3
Widowed ___1 __3
T otal 100 100
253
TABLE LXXVI
A COMPARISON OF THE YEARS OF SCHOOLING OF
132 INTERVIEWED TECHNIBILT WORKERS
AND 32 WORKERS REINTERVIEWED
AFTER ONE YEAR
Percentage of
Years of Schooling
132 Workers 32 Workers
Less than six 7 3
Six 5 6
Seven through nine 30 28
Ten through eleven 20 25
High School Graduate 16 16
Attended college 20 22
College Graduate __2 ___0
Total 100 100
TABLE LXXVII
A COMPARISON OF THE PLACE OF BIRTH OF
132 INTERVIEWED TECHNIBILT WORKERS
AND 32 WORKERS REINTERVIEWED
AFTER ONE YEAR
Percentage of
Place of Birth ~
132 Workers 32 Workers
United States 78.4 85.0
a. Northeast 2.3 6.0
b. Middle West 15.9 13.0
c. South 26.1 16.0
d. West3 34.1 50.0
Other American Countries 14.4 9.0
a. Canada 1.5 0.0
b. Mexico 8.3 3.0
c. Puerto Rico & Cuba 4.6 6.0
Europe 4.6 6.0
Africa 0.8 0.0
Far East 0.8 0.0
Total N a 132 100.0 N ■ 32 100.0
aForty-two per cent of the 132 workers and 22 per
cent of the 32 workers were born in California.
255
TABLE LXXVIII
A COMPARISON OF THE OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF
132 INTERVIEWED TECHNIBILT WORKERS
AND 32 WORKERS REINTERVIEWED
AFTER ONE YEAR
Percentage of
Occupational Class
132 Workers 32 Workers
Professional 1 3
Supervisory- 6 3
Clerical 8 9
Skilled 14 22
Semi-Skilled 45 50
Unskilled 25 13
Total 100 100
256
TABLE LXXIX
A COMPARISON OF THE NUMBER OF YEARS EMPLOYED
AT TECHNIBILT CORPORATION OF
132 INTERVIEWED WORKERS AND
32 REINTERVIEWED WORKERS
ONE YEAR LATER
Number of Years Employed
Less than 1 year
One year
Two years
Three years
Four years
Five years
Six o.r more years
Total
Percentage of
132 Workers 32 Workers
26.0 0. 0
38.0 12.5
11.0 34.5
6.0 28.0
4.0 12.5
5.0 0.0
10.0 12.5
100.0 100.0
APPENDIX D
PERSONAL INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
(INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS IN ETHNICALLY MIXED SMALL WORK GROUPS)
PERSONAL INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
(To be asked of each individual worker in the work group.)
Background Information of Worker:
, 2. Sex: M E 3. Marital Status ______,
A. Ethnic group , 5. No. years in school .
6. Place of birth , ,
7. Work classification _______________, 8. Years worked in present company
, 9. Position in work group ______________ .
Social Psychological Aspects:
1. Personal regard for other members of the work group:
a. How many persons in your work group do you consider to be:
1. Strangers ; 2.
Cauc. ____, Negro , Mex, , Other ______ .
2. Speaking acquaintances ______:
Cauc. ____, Negro______, Mex. , Other ______ .
3. Regular friends ______:
Cauc. ____, Negro______, Mex. _____, Other ______ .
A. Close friends ______:
Cauc. ____, Negro______, Mex. _____, Other _______.
b. Total number in work group___________..
2, Personal factors affecting cooperative relations in work group:
a. How many persons in your work group:
1. Do their share of work readily? ______ .
Cauc. ____, Negro______, Mex. , Other ______.
2, Follow instructions with little difficulty (easily)?
Cauc. . Negro . Mex. , Other .
- 2 -
3. Learn new ways of doing things with little difficulty (easily)? __
Cauc. ____, Negro _____, Mex. , Other ______•
4-. Help others when needed? ______.
Cauc. ____, Negro _____ , Mex, , Other .
5. Work well with other individuals?
Cauc. , Negro _____ , Mex. , Other.
6. Admits his own mistakes and accepts responsibility for
them with little fuss? ________ .
Cauc. ____, Negro _____, Mex. , Other .
7. Are interested chiefly in the problems and relations
of his own ethnic group?
Cauc. ____. Negro , Mex. , Other .
b. Do you like your work group? ___________ _______
c. Other comments about members of the work group.
d. If you could select the type of work group you wanted, what kind of
work group would you select in regard to ethnic characteristics?
3. Personal factors affecting group conflict:
a. How many persons in your work group;
1. Quarrel easily with others? _______
Cauc, ____, Negro , Mex. , Other _
2. Resent suggestions from others? _______
Cauc. ____, Negro , Mex. , Other __
3. Want the center of attention most of the time?
Cauc. ____, Negro , Mex. , Other __
- 3 -
4. Want their own way most of the time? _______,
Cauc. ____, Negro______, Mex. ______, Other
5. Take offense easily? _______.
Cauc. . Negro - Mex. , Other
6. Lose their temper easily? .
Cauc. ___ t Negro . Mex. . Other
b. Other comments about members of the work group,
4. Worker^ attitudes toward management,
a. How do you as a worker feel?
1. Toward management? _______
2. Toward labor unions?
3. Toward your lead man (Mr. ______________)?
4. Toward your shop foreman (Mr. ______________)?
5. Toward your night shop foreman (Mr. ______________)?
6. Toward your plant Superintendent (Mr
7. Toward your assistant plant superintendent (Mr. )?
8. Toward your plant night foreman (Mr. )?
9. Toward your personnel manager (Mr, __________ )?
10. Toward your plant manager (Mr. )?
11. Toward your general manager (Mr, ______________ )?
b. How many of the above would you like:
1. To invite into your home for an evening?
2. To share a vacation with you? ______
3. To have as your next-door neighbor?
c. Other comments about the management group. __
d. What things could management do to make conditions better for the
workers? ___________________________________________
Workers* friendship preference.
a. With what persons do you ride to and from work? ________________
Cauc. ____, Negro ____, Mex. , Indian , Other
b. With whom do you work usually? ________ ______________
Cauc. , Negro ____, Mex. Indian____ , Other
- 5 -
c. With whom do you spend your lunch period?
Cauc. , Negro % Mex. , Indian . Other _________
d. With what members of the work group do you spend time when
(after working hours?)
away from the factory? _____
Cauc. , Negro , Mex. , Indian . Other__________
e. With what persons in your work group do you prefer working on the
job? _________________________ . _______________________________
Cauc. , Negro , Mex. . Indian , Other__________
f. How many members of your work group would you likes
1. To invite into your home for an evening? ___________________
Cauc. ____, Negro , Mex. , Indian , Other_____
2. To share a vacation with you? ________ ______________________
Cauc. ____, Negro , Mex. , Indian , Other_____
3. To have as your next-door neighbor? _________________________
Cauc. ____, Negro , Mex._____, Indian ____ , Other_____
g. How many members of the work group do you dislike? ______________
< - ' auc* » Negro , Mex. , Indian , Other_________
Why?____________________________________________________________
G. Company Policy:
1. What types of work are Anglo-Caucasians doing in the plant?
2. What types of work are Negroes doing in the plant?
- 6 -
3. What types of work are Mexicans doing in the plant?
What types of work are Indians doing in the plant?
5. What types of work are other groups (Name them)
doing in the plant? __________________________
6. What individuals have been promoted in your work group?
a. What ethnic groups do they represent?
7. What is the length of the lunch period? ___________________________
8, What type of activities are carried on during the lunch periods?
9. What company sponsored events are held during the year?
10. Who is encouraged to attend these events?
11. Does the company make you feel that you are a part of it?
How?
12. If the foreman wanted you to do something as a port of your work which
your group did not want you to do, would you do it? ___________________
Why? _______________ __________________________________________________
13. Has the worker thought and spoken of the company as "my company"? _____
How has the worker referred to the company? ______
- 7 -
Labor Union
1. What union or unions represent the workers of the factory? _________
2. Where are union meetings held? _______________________________
3. How often are union meetings held? ________________________________
U. What is the average number of workers present at each union meeting?
5. Which racial or ethnic groups are usually present? Cauc. ___, Negro _
Mex. ___, Indian ___, Other ____________________ ____________________
6. What social activities or sporting events does the union sponsor? __
a. Which racial or ethnic groups usually attend these union activities?
Cauc. ___, Negro , Mex. , Indian , Other_________________
7. Do you attend your union meeting regularly? Yes _____, No , How
many have you attended this year? _____ _______________________________
8. Union Leadership
a. Who are your labor union plant committeemen? _____________
1) Cauc. , Negro , Mex, ___, Indian , Other _________
b. Who are your local labor union stewards?__________________________
1) Cauc. , Negro , Mex. ___, Indian , Other ____________
c. Which labor leaders would you:
1) Invite into your home for an evening meal and entertainment? _
Cauc, ___, Negro , Mex.____, Indian ___, Other ___________
2) Like to share your vacation with you? ________________________
Cauc. ___, Negro , Mex.____, Indian ___, Other __________
3) Like to have as your neighbor? _______________________________
Cauc. ___, Negro , Mex.____, Indian , Other ___________
9. What do you think your union has done for you? ________________________
10. What more could the union do to make conditions better for the workers
here?
APPENDIX E
STATISTICAL FORMULA
260
ETHNIC IMBALANCE INDEX FORMULA
Formula used to derive the imbalance index of the
work groups is:
b • i ZLA - 7
N s Size of work group
K s Number of ethnic groups in work group
N^= Frequency of workers in each ethnic group
I = (^N-Ni) + (^N-N2) + (^N-N3) .... f (^N-NK)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Social Class Membership And Ethnic Prejudice In Cedar City

PDF

Reference Group Theory, Selection, And The Images Of Professions

PDF

Some Social Factors Affecting The Power Structure And Status Of A Professional Association In Reference To Social Work

PDF

The Career Business Executive As A Definitive Occupational Type

PDF

Normative values of selected law enforcement officers and adult male offenders

PDF

Consensus Of Role Perceptions In A Welfare Planning Council

PDF

Social Factors Related To Dentistry As A Career

PDF

Perception Of The Power Structure By Social Class In A California Community

PDF

Class Consciousness And Social Mobility In A Mexican-American Community

PDF

Group Factors And Individual Internalization Of A Value

PDF

Social factors involved in the success or failure of consumer cooperatives in the United States

PDF

The Major League Professional Baseball Player: A Sociological Study

PDF

An Empirical Examination Of The Relationship Of Vertical Occupational Mobility And Horizontal Residential Mobility

PDF

Social Changes In Selected Institutions Of The Ussr With Special Reference To The Family

PDF

The Construction And Empirical Test Of A Theory Based On Selected Variables In Small-Group Interaction

PDF

An analytical study of attorneys' occupational values and satisfaction

PDF

Middle-Class Marital Roles - Ideal And Perceived In Relation To Adjustment In Marriage

PDF

Selected Social Psychological Factors Related To Viewers Of Television Programs

PDF

A Critique Of The Concept Ethnocentrism As Set Forth In Selected Social Science Literature

PDF

Complementarity, Homogeneity, Heterogeneity And Marital Stability

Asset Metadata

Creator Scott, Woodrow Wilson (author)

Core Title Interpersonal Relations In Ethnically Mixed Small Work Groups

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Sociology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Sociology, general

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Vincent, Melvin J. (committee chair), McDonagh, Edward C. (committee member), Nordskog, John E. (committee member), Pollard, Spencer D. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-50789

Unique identifier UC11357632

Identifier 5906400.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-50789 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 5906400.pdf

Dmrecord 50789

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Scott, Woodrow Wilson

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA