Learning to Live With the Computer

A rapid pace of technological advance has been accepted by many manufacturing industries for some time now, but for the office worker, who has led a sheltered existence in comparison, radical changes are a new experience. With the advent of electronic data processing techniques and, especially, computers, this situation has altered very swiftly. Office staff are suddenly finding themselves exposed to the traumatic consequences of scientific progress.

Most offices, by the very nature of their structure and function, are geared to stability or slow change. Accelerated change of the kind that a computer brings is likely to prove disrupting and disturbing. This is because people in stable organizations tend to expect a steady continuation of existing arrangements, and because departments unaccustomed to change frequently find they have become too inflexible to assimilate it without stress. Social as well as technical factors are therefore highly relevant to a successful adaptation to new techniques.

Research into the social and organizational problems of introducing computers into offices has been in progress in the social science department in Liverpool University for the past four years. My colleagues and I have shown that many firms get into difficulties with their new computers partly because of lack of technical knowledge and experience, but also because they have not been sufficiently aware of the need to understand and plan for the social as well as the technical implications of change. In the firms we have been studying, change has usually been seen simply as a technical problem to be handled by technologists. The fact that the staff might regard the introduction of a computer as a threat to their security and status has not been anticipated. Company directors have been surprised when, instead of cooperation, they encountered anxiety and hostility.

Once the firm has signed the contract to purchase a computer, its next step, one might expect, would be to 'sell' the idea to its staff, by giving reassurances about redundancy, and investigating how individual jobs will be affected so that displaced staff can be prepared for a move elsewhere. In fact, this may not happen. It is more usual for the firm to spend much time and energy investigating the technical aspects of the computer, yet largely to ignore the possibility of personnel difficulties. This neglect is due to the absence from most firms of anyone knowledgeable about human relations. The personnel manager, who might be expected to have some understanding of employee motivation, is in many cases not even involved in the changeover.

Again, because the changeover is seen only as a technical problem, little thought is given to communication and consultation with staff. Some firms go so far as to adopt a policy of complete secrecy, telling their staff nothing. One director told us: 'If we are too frank, we may create difficulties for ourselves.' This policy was applied to managers as well as clerks because, it was explained, 'our managers will worry if they find out they will lose workers and so have their empires reduced'. Several months after the arrival of the computer, the sales manager in this firm had still not been given full information on the consequences of this change.

One computer manufacturer with extensive American experience has tried to give advice to firms purchasing its computers on how and when to communicate. It suggests to customers that as soon as the contract is signed management should hold a meeting with all office staff and explain what a computer is, what the firm's plans are, how it proposes to use the computer, and how staff will be affected. Management should also explain at this meeting that there will be some redundancy, but that it will be absorbed by the normal processes of people changing jobs and retiring. This manufacturer tells us that he frequently encounters resistance to this approach. Directors often take the line: 'No, don't tell anyone.'

The real bogey of the computer is that it is likely-or even intended-to displace staff. So it constitutes a major threat to staff security, and for this reason alone is likely to be resisted. An important part of the preparations for a machine must be, therefore, the estimating of the number of redundancies, and identifying jobs which will be eliminated or reduced in scope by the machine.

Briefly, I would offer the following advice to firms embarking on computers. First, do not think your problems will be predominantly technical, because this is unlikely. Secondly, get as much information as you can on both social and technical problems before you sign the contract to purchase; other firms' experience can be a useful guide here. And thirdly, plan well in advance, communicate and consult with all your staff and do not be surprised if they take a sour view of the proposed change. No one likes to think that he can be replaced by a machine.

(From an article by Enid Mumford in The New Scientist, 18th June, 1964.)