051706

 Boulder, CO

Wednesday May 17, 2006

     10:16pm  I'm going to smoke a cigarette.

TOMORROW'S WORK REGIMEN
     The changes now transforming work are not a result of
woolly-headed altruism. They are a consequence of much heavier
loads of information and communication needed for wealth
production.
     In the past, when most businesses were still tiny, an
entrepreneur was able to know virtually all that needed to be
known. But as firms grew and technology became more
complicated, it was impossible for any one person to carry the
entire knowledge load. Soon specialists and managers were hired
and formed into the characteristic compartments and echelons of
the bureaucracy. The knowledge load had to be diffused
throughout the managerial ranks.
     Today a parallel process is at work. Just as owners became
dependent on managers for knowledge, managers are becoming
dependent on their employees for knowledge.
The old smokestack division of the firm into "heads" and
"hands" no longer works. In the words of Teruya Nagao,
professor of information and decision sciences at the University
of Tsukuba, "The separation of thinking and doing in the
traditional model . . . may well be appropriate for constant
technology but is hardly in keeping with rapid technological
progress."
     Because technologies are more complicated and turn over
more frequently than in the past, workers are expected to learn
more about adjacent and successive jobs. Thus, a General
Motors ad proudly speaks of workers' helping to choose the
lighting in their plants, selecting the sandpaper, the tools, and
even "learning how the plant runs, what things cost, how
customers respond to their work." In computer-integrated
manufacture, says consultant David Hewitt of United Research
Company, workers "need not only to know how the specific
machines work, but . . . how the factory works."
     What is happening is that the knowledge load and, more
important, the decision load are being redistributed. In a
continual cycle of learning, unlearning, and relearning, workers
need to master new techniques, adapt to new organizational
forms, and come up with new ideas.
     As a result, "submissive rule-observers, who merely follow
instructions to the letter, are not good workers," says Nagao,
quoting an earlier study of Sony. In fact, in today's fast-change
environment, he points out, rules, too, need to be changed more
frequently than in the past, and workers need to be encouraged to
propose such changes.
     This is so because the worker who helps frame new rules
will also understand why they are necessary and how they fit into
the larger picture—which means the worker can apply them
more intelligently. In fact, says Reinhard Mohn, chairman of
Bertelsmann A.G., one of the world's largest media
conglomerates, "only regulations which are endorsed by the
majority of the work force have a chance of being abided by."
But to invite workers into the rule-making process is to
share power once held exclusively by their bosses. It is a power
shift not all managers find easy to accept.
     Workplace democracy, like political democracy, does not
thrive when the population is ignorant. By contrast, the more
educated a population, the more democracy it seems to demand.
With advanced technology spreading, unskilled and poorly
educated workers are being squeezed out of their jobs in
cutting-edge companies. This leaves behind a more educated
group, which cannot be managed in the traditional authoritarian,
don't-ask-me-any-questions fashion. In fact, asking questions,
challenging assumptions are becoming part of everyone's job.
Lowell S. Bain is the plant manager of GenCorp Automo -
tive's new plant in Shelbyville, Indiana. Describing the role of
the manager, he says, "Here the pressure comes from inside the
work force—a work force that challenges management and doesn't
accept its dictates or authority. Here people question
objectives. . . . Just because you're a member of management
doesn't make your ideas holy."
     What we see, therefore, is a clear pattern. Workplace power
is shifting, not because of fuzzy-minded do-goodism, but
because the new system of wealth creation demands it

Next day..