Treffer: The Computer and the Meaning of Work: Are We Creating the Factories of the Past?

A study investigated the impact of computerization on administrative support positions through a survey of 529 university-educated individuals (166 responses). Results indicate that the majority did not experience the alienating influence of the computer and were enthusiastic about its integration into their work lives. (JOW)

AN9305190540;JEB01MAR.93;1997Dec18.11:34;v2.3

THE COMPUTER AND THE MEANING OF WORK: ARE WE CREATING THE FACTORIES OF THE PAST? 

<bold> ABSTRACT. </bold> The author investigated the impact of computerization on the role of administrative support as held by university-educated individuals. Questionnaires sent to 529 individuals who graduated between 1975 and 1988 from three secretarial office administration degree programs elicited 166 usable responses. Findings indicate that though the majority spent from 2 to 4 hours a day in front of the computer, 40% spent from 6 to 8 hours a day. Responses to a Likert-type scale, devised from the work of Zuboff (1988) and Menzies (1989) on the detrimental effects of the computer, reveal that the majority of this group of respondents did not appear to have experienced the alienating influence of the computer and, in fact, were enthusiastic about its integration into their work lives.

Twenty years ago, Future Shock (Toffler, 1970) excited the imagination with its prophetic glimpse of a time to come that seemed, nonetheless, to be safely distant. Ten years later in The Third Wave, Toffler's (1980) delineation of the Technological Age still seemed to be remote from most people's lives. As we move through the 1990s, however, the outlines of the Technological Age take ever clearer shape and we cannot imagine the world of work without the micro chip. The cliche "Office of the Future" has become passe, and we glibly note that a transformation of the office is well underway.

Some assessments of the transformation are optimistic. Strassmann (1985), for example, found in his research that secretaries derived satisfaction "from their upgraded social and economic status, achieved through increased personal contact. They were favourably motivated by the acquisition of new skills that command higher compensation" (p. 33). Others express an uneasiness about the transformation taking place' (Stevenson, 1988). Still others paint a very dark picture. Garson (1988) pointed out: "The same principles that transformed craftsmen into factory hands are now being applied to make white-collar workers cheaper to train, easier to replace, less skilled, less expensive and less special" (p. 11), and she went on to illustrate her point by referring to jobs ranging from those of airline reservation clerks to executives. In a more comprehensive work, Menzies (1989) discussed the massive restructuring taking place in society through organizational and technological change. Speaking about office personnel, she saw evidence of a polarization occurring at the clerical, administrative-support level as automation strips traditional tasks of their satisfying qualities even as it adds new tasks that "filter down" from the managerial level. To her, these ambivalent trends make interpretation of the social impact of technological change all the more difficult.

Are we to assume then that computer-based technology causes a dichotomy between automation and fulfilling work? Not so, some would say. Computer-based technology differs from other technologies in its intelligent or "intellectual" nature, what Curley and Pyburn (1982) identified as its programmability leading to its use in a wide variety of ways "limited only by the vision of management" (p. 33). This capacity sharply separates computer-based technology from previous mechanical technologies. Zuboff's (1988) work added further insight. She discussed the dual nature of intelligent technology that may be applied to "automate," that is, replace human skill and effort, and to "informate," that is, generate information that makes underlying processes transparent for creative users. She went on to say:

. . . because, in a word, this technology informates as well as automates, its consequences for the office are more complex than the principles of scientific management can account for .... As an automating technology, computerization can intensify the clerk's exile from the coordinative sphere of the managerial process. As an informating technology, on the other hand, it can provide the occasion for a reintegration of the clerical role with its managerial past and for a reinvigoration of the knowledge demands associated with the middle-management function. (p. 126)

If support personnel are required to use both the automating and the informating potential of computer-based technology, then the question arises as to the skills they must have. According to Curley and Pyburn (1982), the type of learning required is crucial because "intellectual" technologies, as opposed to "industrial" technologies, require two types of learning: Type A learning, that is, "a predetermined set of skills that can be specified a priori and standardized" (p. 34) and Type B learning, that is, ongoing, adaptive learning in which feedback is required because outcomes cannot be specified in advance. Learning how to operate the computer is an example of Type A learning: It is a training process in which proficiency and outcomes are easily measured. Learning how to apply the potential of the technology to a variety of problem-solving activities is Type B learning: It is an analytic and conceptual process in which the learner, limited only by imagination and know-how, builds on experience. Type B learning appears to be comparable to the "intellective" skills Zuboff (1985) saw as necessary for effective use of information technology--the ability to think abstractly, to use inductive reasoning, and to conceptualize. In this context, Type B learners become "smart" learners capable of envisioning innovative ways to use "smart" machines in virtually unlimited applications. These are skills one generally assumes to be the product of a university education.

The authors quoted in the preceding discussion intimated that how computer technology is exploited is a matter of management choice. So far, the evidence seems to indicate that increased productivity has been the choice at the cost of lost jobs or greatly deskilled jobs. Zuboff (1988) notes, however, that certain clerical jobs, notably that of the secretary, do not lend themselves easily to rationalization and computerization. Thus, as office automation matures and the integration of computer-based technology steadily advances, there is a need to know not only the extent of use of computer-based technology by office personnel, specifically at the administrative support level, but also the way in which the computer influences their jobs.

The population included 1975-1988 graduates from three secretarial/ office administration degree programs that were designed to prepare individuals for high-level administrative support roles. Presumably, these graduates bring intellective skills to their positions. The longitudinal nature of the study affords the opportunity to draw upon the perceptions of those who have experienced the transformation taking place in offices.

Purpose and Objectives

My overall purpose in this study was to determine if the role of administrative support as held by a university-educated person is changing as a result of the impact of computerbased technology. The primary purpose of this article is to discuss that part of the investigation designed to determine (a) the time spent on the computer by administrative support personnel; (b) the impact of computer-based technology on their jobs, and (c) the attitude of administrative support personnel to the increasing prominence of the computer in their work life.

Methods and Procedures

The survey, cover letter, and stamped return envelope were sent in January, 1991, to 529 graduates for whom there were addresses. The survey and a follow-up letter were sent out approximately 3 weeks later. Sixty questionnaires could not be delivered; of the remaining 469, 243 responded for a 51.8% return rate. Of this number, 166, or 35.4%, classified themselves as administrative support using computers; the remaining 77 did not use computers, checked "other," or simply returned the questionnaire unanswered.

Results and Analysis

Approximately 45% of the respondents were between 20 and 29 years of age, 48% were between 30 and 39, and 5.4% were 40 or over. The majority (51.2%) had 1 to 5 years of experience with computers, 34.9% had 6 to 10 years, and 3.0% had 11 to 15 years.

Approximately 60% spent from 2 to 4 hours a day using the computer, with 39.7% spending from 6 to 10 hours, the better part of a day (see Table 1).

Influence of Computer on Position

A scale was devised to determine how the respondents assessed the impact of the computer on their jobs. The items were gleaned from Zuboff's (1988) and Menzies' (1989) findings about the alienating characteristics of computerization. Twenty characteristics were drawn up that broadly describe the influence of the computer (see Table 2).

Over 50% of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the enabling qualities of the computer in Items 1-5. Zuboff (1988) noted that one of the results of automation is "to isolate individuals at their workstation" (p. 139). This did not appear to be the case for at least half the respondents because they strongly agreed or agreed that the computer enabled them to "work with others" (Item 1, 52.8%) and "work as a team member" (Item 4, 54.9%).

Menzies' (1989) supposition that automation "drained" creativity and autonomy out of a job was not supported; in Items 6-10, at least 55% of the respondents strongly disagreed or disagreed that computer use restricted their autonomy. Zuboff speculated that computer use might reduce "the need for task-related knowledge and judgment" (p. 138). This was not corroborated, in that 64.5% strongly disagreed or disagreed that the computer prevented them from "making task-related judgments" (Item 10).

Zuboff further noted that knowledge about accomplishing a transaction "entailed a sense of control, responsibility and seriousness. " This responsibility serves "to increase the intensity of concentration and the continuity of attention . . . a continual, conscious engagement" (p. 132). The respondents seemed to corroborate her finding in that 66.9% strongly agreed or agreed that a "sense of responsibility for outcomes" (Item 11) is increased and strongly disagreed or disagreed that the computer decreases "need to concentrate" (Item 19, 81.3%) and "need to recall" (Item 20, 74.1%). However, Zuboff linked the increased sense of responsibility and need for attention with diminished knowledge demands. The respondents, on the other hand, indicated a high "need for special knowledge" (Item 12, 85%) and "need for mental effort" (Item 18, 80.2%). Abstract thinking that requires inferential and procedural reasoning appeared to be present for at least the 51.9% of the respondents who checked off "need for abstract thinking" (Item 14).

These qualities appear to be the intellective skills Zuboff described as depending upon "thinking about and responding to an electronically presented symbolic medium [rather] than upon acting out know-how derived from sentient experience" (p. 95). According to Zuboff, these skills are required if the computer is to be used as an informating rather than a mere automating tool. Zuboff further attested that "a return to feelings of certainty, competence, and control will depend more and more upon the quality of intellective skill and the invention of creative methods to tighten the connection between symbol and reality" (p. 89). The respondents strongly agreed or agreed that the computer increases "certainty of results" (Item 15, 80.6%) and strongly disagreed or disagreed that it decreases "skill requirements" (Item 16, 81.3%) and prevents "controlling the pace of work" (Item 6, 69.9%).

Thus, it would seem for the majority of these graduates that the computer is not experienced as a de-skilling medium. It should be noted, however, that, on average, 20% did not respond (10.2% checked "not applicable" and 10.2% did not respond). One cannot be certain what this means. The items demanded a level of awareness of the impact of the computer that the respondents may not have had. Indeed, a weakness of this type of question is the difficulty in concretizing qualities that tend to be ambiguous or illusive in nature and then ascribing meaning to the results.

Attitudes to the Computer

To assess their attitude to the impact of the computer, I asked the respondents to indicate their feelings about a number of statements often heard or read about the computer (Table 3).

Over 80% strongly agreed or agreed that they "have a more interesting job" (83.1%), "have more career options" (83.7%), and "want to use them more extensively" (83.5%). Approximately 80% strongly agreed or agreed that they "feel that I must learn new skills," and 77.7% strongly agreed or agreed that "[1] find my job more intellectually challenging."

Over 80% strongly disagreed or disagreed that their "work is monitored" (80.7%), that they are not "prepared for the future" (85.0%), and that they "do not like my job anymore" (83.7%); a resounding 93.6% did not "think my job is threatened." Over 70% strongly disagreed or disagreed that they "feel tied to a machine" (72.3%), that "jobs will be eliminated" (74.1%), or "regret my choice of undergraduate degree" (74.7%). Responses to "have had my job upgraded" (43.3%) and "have better pay" (42.2%) were ambiguous in that 31.9% respectively checked "not applicable."

Many tantalizing questions remain. Several important issues appear to be at stake in this period of computer evolution. The first has to do with how management chooses to exploit the computer. A polarization between professional "haves" who are able to use the analytic and decisionmaking potential of the computer and vast clerical "have nots" doomed to perform unskilled, computer-specific functions does not bode well for the future. Second, if Curley and Pyburn's (1982) assertion that intellectual technologies require Type B learning is correct, then educators and employers alike need to have a better understanding of the intellective skills involved. A final issue is the very meaning of work for office personnel in a technological age.

Overall, the respondents appeared to have a very positive attitude toward the computer.

Conclusions and Implications

The preliminary results of this study indicate several conclusions that have important implications.

First, 40% spend as much as 6 to 8 hours a day using the computer. There is every reason to believe that this percentage will increase as the integration of the computer continues.

Second, the alienating effect of computerization does not appear to be felt to any great extent by the majority of this group of administrative support personnel. They appear to be positive about the impact of the computer on their job and enthusiastic about their career prospects because of the computer. One may speculate that the positions occupied by this particular group of graduates have not been eroded by computerization, may even have been enriched and upgraded, and thus do not lead to feelings of displacement, depersonalization, or de-skilling. Or perhaps, as Zuboff suggested, the work of administrative support does not lend itself to the kind of rationalization and computerization that reduces contact with people and makes the individual an appendage of the computer system. A third possibility also exists as suggested by Sullivan and Young (1990), namely, that university-educated office personnel have the "intellectual power, breadth of knowledge, and mental flexibility to work in partnership with other professionals and managers to realize the productive potential of the new computer-based technologies in the office" (p. 6).

TABLE 1. Hours per Day of Respondents' Computer Use

<ct id="AN9305190540-7"> Respondents Approximate hours per day No. % >/-8 16 9.6 6 50 30.1 4 53 31.9 </-2 46 27.7 No response 1 0.5</ct>

TABLE 2. Respondents' Perceptions on Computer's Impact on Job

<ct id="AN9305190540-9"> Respondent perceptions(%) Characteristics SA A NA D SD NR Using the computer enables me to 1-Work with others 15.1 37.7 13.3 15.7 8.4 10.8 2-Have the information I need 57.2 33.7 1.2 1.8 0.6 5.4 3-Imagine alternative outcomes 21.1 36.1 25.9 3.6 2.4 10.8 4-Work as a team member 15.7 39.2 21.7 10.2 3.0 10.2 5-Solve problems 24.7 40.4 19.9 6.0 1.2 7.8 Using the computer prevents me from 6-Controlling the pace of work 3.0 8.4 7.8 48.8 21.1 10.8 7-Choosing the procedures 3.0 15.7 12.7 40.4 16.3 12.0 8-Setting priorities 2.4 5.4 11.4 43.4 25.3 12.0 9-Experimenting with outcomes 4.2 7.8 15.1 39.8 23.5 9.6 10-Making task-related judgments 4.2 6.0 15.1 46.4 18.1 18.2 Using the computer increases my 11-Sense of responsibility for outcomes 24.7 42.2 13.3 9.6 0.0 10.2 12-Need for special knowledge 41.6 42.4 4.8 1.2 0.0 9.0 13-Productivity 60.8 28.9 1.2 3.0 0.0 6.0 14-Need for abstract thinking 13.9 38.0 18.1 15.7 1.2 13.3 15-Certainty of results 33.1 47.5 6.6 4.8 0.6 7.2 Using the computer decreases my 16-Skill requirements 4.8 3.6 1.8 35.5 45.8 8.4 17-Collaboration with others 1.2 16.9 9.6 39.8 21.1 11.4 18-Need for mental effort 2.4 6.6 1.8 39.8 40.4 9.0 19-Need to concentrate 1.2 6.0 1.2 36.7 44.6 10.2 20-Need to recall 1.8 11.4 2.4 41.6 32.5 10.2 Note. SA = strongly agree, A = agree, NA = not applicable, D = disagree, SD = strongly disagree, and NR = no response.</ct>

TABLE 3. Respondents' Perceptions on the Impact of the Computer

<ct id="AN9305190540-11"> Respondent perceptions (%) Statements SA A NA D SD NR Feel tied to the machine 2.4 15.1 6.6 53.0 19.3 3.6 Have a more interesting job 24.7 58.4 4.8 7.8 1.8 2.4 Think my job is threatened 0.0 0.6 3.6 52.4 39.2 4.2 Believe my work is monitored 0.0 7.2 6.0 50.0 50.7 6.0 Think jobs will be eliminated 3.0 15.1 3.6 51.2 22.9 4.2 Have had my job upgraded 12.0 31.3 31.9 18.7 1.8 4.2 Have more career options 30.7 53.0 4.8 6.6 0.6 4.2 Do not feel prepared for the future 1.2 3.6 4.8 46.4 38.6 5.4 Have better pay 13.3 28.9 19.9 25.3 7.2 5.4 Feel that I must learn new skills 20.5 60.2 6.0 9.0 1.2 3.0 Regret my choice of undergraduate degree 1.8 8.4 7.8 47.6 27.1 7.2 Plan to change my career 5.4 7.8 14.5 45.2 18.1 9.0 Want to use them more extensively 27.5 55.4 4.8 8.4 0.0 4.2 Do not like my job anymore 1.2 1.8 7.2 49.4 34.3 6.0 Find my job more intellectually challenging 18.1 59.6 4.8 11.4 1.8 4.2 Note. SA = strongly agree, A = agree, NA = not applicable, D = disagree, SD = strongly disagree, and NR = no response.</ct>

REFERENCES

Curley, K. F., & Pyburn, P. J. (1982). "Intellectual" technologies: The key to improving white-collar productivity. Sloan Management Review, 24, 31-39.

Garson, B. (1988). The electronic sweatshop: How computers are transforming the office of the future into the factory of the past. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Menzies, H. (1989). Fastforward and out of control: How technology is changing your life. Toronto, ON: Macmillan of Canada.

Stevenson, J. H. (1988). "Office technology: Boon or burden? Canadian Secretary, December, pp. 8-10.

Strassmann, P. A. (1985). Information payoff: The transformation of work in the electronic age. New York: The Free Press.

Sullivan, V., & Young, K. (1990). An argument for having office-support studies in the university system. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 20(3), 1-7.

Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. New York: Random House.

Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: William Morrow.

Zuboff, S. (1985). Automate/informate: The two faces of intelligent technology. Organizational Dynamics, Autumn, 5-18.

Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York: Basic Books.

By VIRGINIA SULLIVAN University of New Brunswick Fredericton, New Brunswick