8/6/2019 10.1177_000271626234000109

1/9

60

Automation and the Employee

By WILLIAMA. FAUNCE, EINAR HARDIN,and EUGENE H. JACOBSON

WilliamA. Faunce, Ph.D., isAssociate Professor, Department of Sociology andAn-thropology, and Research Associate, Labor and Industrial Relations Center, MichiganState University. He has been a consultant on automation to the U. S. Department ofLabor and is a member of the Bureau of Employment Security Task Force onAuto-mation.

Einar Hardin, Ph.D., isAssociate Professor, Department of Economics, andActingAssociate Director of Research and Planning, Labor and Industrial Relations Center,Michigan State University. He was ResearchAssociate in the Industrial Institute forEconomic and Social Research, Stockholm, 1950-1953, and in the Labor and IndustrialRelations Center since 1956.

Eugene H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology andAssistant Dean for Inter-

national Studies, College ofScience andArts, Michigan State University. He wasAs-sistant Program Director, Human Relations Program, Institute for Social Research, Uni-versity of Michigan, 1946-1955; Chief, Division ofApplied Social Sciences, UNESCO,1957-1959; and Research Associate, Labor and Industrial Relations Center, MichiganState University, 1956-1957 and 1959-1960.

ABSTRACT: Field research suggests that the impact of officeautomation upon job satisfaction varies depending on whetheraffected job aspects are intrinsic or contextual, whether the em-

ployees are in electronic data-processing departments which

gain work tasks or in other affected departments that lose tasks,whether the computer is of large or medium size, and on sev-eral other circumstances. Office employees think the broad

impact of office automation is to eliminate jobs and regard themethods changes as temporarily disruptive, but they often wel-come change and rarely reject mechanization as such. Atti-tudes toward change appear to depend on the ability of theindividual to deal effectively with change and on the skill withwhich the organization manages the change. Studies of fac-

tory automation suggest that automated plants are preferredas work places to less advanced plants, although they provide

important sources of dissatisfaction. The sources of satisfac-tion and dissatisfaction vary over the course of adjustment toautomation. Automation may affect the significance of workin our society by changing job content, redistributing employ-ment opportunities, or decreasing working hours. Its effectwill probably be a decrease in the importance of work and acontinuation of the trend toward a leisure-oriented society.

8/6/2019 10.1177_000271626234000109

2/9

61

THREE aspectsof the relationship

between automation and the em-

ployee are discussed in this article.

First, how does automation affect thejob satisfaction and material welfare of

employees? Second, what are the atti-tudes of employees toward automationand toward the very process of change?Third, how does automation affect therole of work in the lives of the em-

ployees ? Although automation has oc-curred in many thousands of factories

and offices, there have been few field

studies pertinent to these questions.Furthermore, the relevant studies differ

considerably in focus and method, sothat meaningful generalizations are haz-ardous to make. Our aim is to illus-

trate the diversity of effects rather thanto make a broad, over-all assessment.

EFFECTS OF OFFICEAUTOMATION

In one study dealing with automationand

job satisfaction,attitude

surveyswere conducted before and after the

installation of a small to medium-size

computer (IBM 650) in an insurance

company having about 400 employees.22

Satisfaction with variety in work, ac-

curacy requirements, importance of the

job to the company, skill requirements,responsibility involved, and several otherintrinsic characteristics of the work in-

creased for most employees. At thesame time, there was no clear trend of

change in satisfaction with such con-

textual aspects of the job as pay, pro-motion chances, the way the companyhandled changes in organization and

procedures, and the nature of the com-panys information program.The changes in job satisfaction varied

depending upon the extent to whichthe computer affected the work methods

and work load. The computer-area em-

ployees, who were initially in the key-punching and tabulating jobs, showedmore increases than decreases in satis-

faction with intrinsic jobs aspects, while

the reverse was true for contextualaspects. The employees in the under-

writing departments, who lost tasks tothe computer area and had to adjusttheir work methods to its requirements,showed a mixed pattern, with about the

same number of increases as decreases

in satisfaction for both intrinsic and

contextual aspects. The employees inthe rest of the company, accounting formore than two-thirds of total

employ-ment, had essentially unchanged workmethods and work load. They becameless satisfied with the companys wayof handling changes and with the lackof accuracy and promptness of company

information, and became more satisfiedwith virtually all other aspects of their

jobs. The differences among the three

department groups were frequently small

enough, however,to be random fluctua-

tions.

The employees were also asked, inthe survey after the installation, howmuch the computer had changed four-teen aspects of their jobs, most of whichwere intrinsic. The computer-area em-

ployees felt the computer exerted a

large and favorable impact on the va-riety, work load, and skill requirementsof their jobs but influenced only slightlytheir job security, promotion chances,and pay. The employees of the under-writing departments felt the computerbrought a great deal of change in va-

riety, work load, and accuracy require-

1 For guides to the literature, see GloriaCheek, Economic and Social Implications of

Automation:A Bibliographic Review, Vol. 1:Literature before 1957 and Einar Hardin,William B. Eddy, and Steven E. Deutsch,Economic and Social Implications ofAutoma-tion : An Annotated Bibliography, Vol. 2:Literature 1957-1960, published in 1958 and1961, respectively, by the Labor and Indus-trial Relations Center, Michigan State Univer-sity, East Lansing.

2 Einar Hardin, "The Reactions of Em-

ployees to OfficeAutomation," Monthly La-bor Review, Vol. 83 (September 1960), pp.925-932.

8/6/2019 10.1177_000271626234000109

3/9

62

ments ; lowered their job security and

promotion chances more often than itraised them; and made for less variety

in work, less work load, and loweredwork interest in a number of instances.

Employees of unaffected departmentswere not aware of much impact uponthemselves.

While the preceding differences illus-trate the employee perceptions of therole of the computer, the actual effectof the computer upon various aspects ofthe job is better reflected by a different

set of findings. The employees wereasked in the second survey what changes,regardless of cause, there had been inthe job aspects. The computer-area em-

ployees continued to report more changethan the other employees, but the dif-ferences between the two groups were

usually smaller. The underwriting de-

partments and the unaffected depart-ments perceived much the same fre-

quency of change, although changeswere more often in the undesirable di-

rection in the former group. Neither

the computer nor other factors had ma-

terially altered the work methods andwork load of the unaffected depart-ments. This suggests that the effect ofautomation upon the fourteen job as-

pects, though real, was quite moderate,except in the computer area itself. The

indication that the computer had onlymoderate effects on work environment

and job satisfaction was corroboratedin a study of another insurance com-

pany that had also installed an IBM

650 computer.3Somewhat different findings were in-

dicated in a preliminary report on a

larger but less common computer. Mannand Williams found that the installation

of an IBM 705 computer in a largepublic utility brought changes in or-

ganization, procedures, control, and jobstructure. They described the impacton the individuals by saying:

4

For many individuals this was a periodof growth; for others a period of failureand disillusionment. The change severelytested marginal employees and supervisors,while at the same time giving the more ex-

perienced and able ones the opportunity to

develop and to demonstrate their work po-tential. The dislocation and the loss of

duties and jobs was a serious problem forsome employees.

A Bureau of Labor Statistics study ofoffice automation in twenty large busi-ness firms showed that, one year after

automation, there had been increases in

salary grade for more than four-fifthsof the computer area employees, as

compared with one third of the em-

ployees of other affected departments.5Virtually none were lowered in grade orlost their jobs. That office automation

may well lead to different long-run re-sults, however, is suggested in prelimi-nary reports by Ida Hoos on another

study of about twenty organizations.6Centralization of functions from branch

offices to main offices occurring after afew years of automation reduced branch-

office employment enough to necessitatelayoffs or transfers with lower pay or

poorer advancement opportunities and,

hence, affected many employees ad-versely. Deterioration was not onlyfound in the surviving routine, nonsu-

3 Einar Hardin, "Computer Automation,Work Environment and Employee Satisfac-

tion," Industrial and Labor Relations Review,Vol. 13 (July 1960), pp. 559-567.

4 Floyd C. Mann and Lawrence K. Williams,"Observations on the Dynamics of a Changein Electronic Data Processing Equipment,"

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 5 (Sep-tember 1960), p. 255.

5Adjustments to the Introduction of OfficeAutomation, Bureau of Labor Statistics Bul-letin No. 1276 (Washington, D. C., 1960), pp.

30-57.6Ida R. Hoos, "The Impact of OfficeAu-

tomation on Workers," International LabourReview, Vol. 82 (October 1960), pp. 363-388;id., "When the Computer Takes Over the Of-

fice," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 38 (July-August 1960), pp. 102-112.

8/6/2019 10.1177_000271626234000109

4/9

63

pervisory jobs, which appeared less in-

teresting and more machine-paced thanbefore automation, but also in the mid-

dle-management jobs outside the elec-tronic data-processing area, which be-came fewer and, thus, reduced the train-

ing and advancement opportunities of

supervisors seeking to rise in the or-

ganization. The highly skilled elite of

programmers and systems analysts, who,according to other studies, tends to con-sist of young and well-educated men,

was strongly prone toward empire build-

ingand

likelyto

becomeinvolved in

conflict with other departments becauseof its own autonomy, key position, stresson efficiency, and lack of social sensi-

tivity.

EFFECTS OF FACTORYAUTOMATION

Several studies of factory automationhave also been made. One of these

dealt with the attitudes of workers trans-

ferred to an automated automobile-en-

gine plant.7 Three-fourths of the work-ers preferred the new automated jobs totheir old nonautomated jobs, and the

strongest preferences for the new jobswere expressed by those whose jobs werethe most automated. The substantial

reduction in materials handling which

accompanied automation was the majorreason for preferring the new jobs.Physical working conditions seemed to

vary considerably from one departmentto the next and were, on balance, nobetter in the automated plant than inthe nonautomated plant. Changes in

earnings, except those associated with

general contract changes, appeared tobe few.

The new technology, however, in-creased the distance between work sta-

tions, the amount of machine noise, theamount of attention required by the

job, and the extent to which the work-

ers were paced by the machines. Inconsequence, the workers were less able

to talk with each other during the work,tended to confine their communications

to work-related matters, thought theymade fewer friends at work, and felt

socially isolated. Because they were re-

quired to pay closer attention to their

work, were supervised more frequentlyby the foremen, and felt a constant

pressureto avoid machine

breakdowns,they experienced greater mental fatigueand work tension. In fact, where it

existed, preference for the old jobs couldmost often be attributed to the social

isolation of the worker and the increase

in work tensions.

Mann and Hoffman studied the atti-

tudes of workers in two power plants atdifferent levels of automation.8 The op-erators in the advanced

plantliked their

current jobs more than did those in thestandard plant, when everything wasconsidered. They felt they had more

responsibility on their jobs, requiredmore training, had to spend less time

doing dirty jobs, learned more on thejob, could move around in the plant,and had more contacts with the other

workers than two years earlier, beforethe more advanced plant was completedand staffed. They felt more nervousand tense, however, which may havebeen caused by a feeling of greaterdependence on others combined withthe belief that they were inadequatelytrained and prepared for the automated

technology. Because the two plants dif-fered from each other in many respectsin addition to level of technology, it isdifficult to determine the exact role of

the changing technology in the attitude7 William A. Faunce, "Automation and the

Automobile Worker," Social Problems, Vol. 6

(Summer 1958), pp. 68-78; id., "Automationin the Automobile Industry: Some Conse-

quences for In-Plant Social Structure,"Ameri-can Sociological Review, Vol. 23 (August1958), pp. 401-407.

8 Floyd C. Mann and L. Richard Hoffman,Automation and the Worker:A Study of So-cial Change in Power Plants (New York:Henry Holt and Company, 1960), pp. 65-103.

8/6/2019 10.1177_000271626234000109

5/9

64

differences of the two groups of work-

ers. In particular, the careful selectionof the work force and the use of job ro-

tation, job enlargement, and a changedpattern of shift work in the advanced

plant may account for much of the

higher satisfaction of its workers. Inso far as this interpretation is true, itunderlines the importance of manage-ment practices to facilitate adjustmentto automation.

A study by Charles R. Walker of anautomated steel mill showed that job

satisfaction may vary during the proc-ess of adjustment to the new technol-

ogy.Automation increased the amount

of attention and responsibility required,lessened the physical demands of the

job, limited possibilities for promotion,and affected patterns of social interac-tion on the job. Response to these

changes varied during the four-year pe-riod of the study. Walker summarizes

this finding as follows:9

The majority of crew members, though notall, were able to move from semi-manual

jobs to semi-automatic ones and derive

personal satisfaction from the immediate

job content of those positions. They didnot derive this satisfaction at first but

after a period of acclimatization and ex-

perience. The same job characteristics,all stemming from the automatic or semi-automatic

operationsof the mill which

had at first been feared and hated, werelater the source of satisfaction.

RESPONSE To CHANGE

In addition to knowing how employeesrespond to work situations at differentlevels of technological development, it is

important to understand employee re-

sponse to the fact and prospect of

change in the work situation. From the

point of view of the employee, the worksituation probably involves continuous

change, more apparent and dramaticwhen new technologies are introduced

rapidly, but always present in complex

organizations.10 The normal pattern ofchange, like many constant influences,may not receive regular attention. Butwhen one of the aspects of change is ac-

celerated, as in the introduction of new

technologies into relatively stable, well-established work procedures, change be-comes the focus of attention. As an

example, when even relatively smallelectronic data-processing devices are

installed in established business offices,the consequences become a matter ofconcern to a large part of the work

force, even though many employees maynot be affected by the change. Employeeresponse to innovation and change ofthis sort, as determined through ques-tionnaire and interview studies con-

ducted by the authors and their col-

leagues, will be examined in the follow-

ing paragraphs.Prominent among the initial effects ofthe installation of a computer is con-cern with the possibility that the new

equipment will throw some people outof work. The employees we questionedwere very much aware of the potentialof the computer for replacing workers.&dquo;

About three-quarters of them reportedthat machines were replacing workers in

insurance companies. But, when ques-tioned about their own job prospects,about four-fifths felt that it was very

unlikely that they, themselves, would be

replaced by machines. This reflectedthe actual work situation, in which no

9 Charles R. Walker, Toward the Auto-matic Factory (New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 1957), p. 192.

10 Eugene H. Jacobson, "The Effect ofChanging Industrial Methods andAutomationon Personnel," Proceedings of the April 1957Symposium on Preventive and Social Psychi-

atry (Washington, D. C.: Walter ReedArmyMedical Center, 1959), pp. 235-252.11 Eugene Jacobson, Don Trumbo, Gloria

Cheek, and John Nangle, "EmployeeAttitudestoward Change in a Medium Sized Insurance

Company," Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 43 (December 1959), pp. 349-354.

8/6/2019 10.1177_000271626234000109

6/9

65

employees had lost jobs because of the

computer installation.More than half of the employees felt

that their jobs had changed because ofthe new equipment. They saw them-selves as having been promoted or trans-ferred or as having the content of their

jobs altered. The company officials and

the research team, on the other hand,estimated that less than one third of

the work force was affected in any sig-nificant way by the change. Appar-ently employees were associating many

aspectsof their own

jobswith this

very visible new influence in their lives.

Changes that would have occurred if

the computer had not been installedcould be interpreted as related to it.

Changes of a small magnitude or of akind not noted by management mightloom large in the eyes of the employee.An additional facet of technologicalchange to which the employee respondsis the readjustment that occurs nomatter how effectively the change-overmay be managed. While two-thirds ofthe employees we questioned felt thatthe change-over significantly interruptedtheir normal work procedures, most ofthem thought they had adjusted to the

change relatively quickly, within a fewweeks. About one quarter of the em-

ployees felt that developments in ma-chines and methods for doing work in

industry as a whole were taking placemore rapidly than is desirable, and onlya small proportion felt they were tak-

ing place too slowly. But, when askedabout the kind of job that they them-selves liked, 70 per cent expressed a

preference for a situation in which thework process changed from time to time.

Apparently, with too little change, the

job would be routine and monotonous,and with too much change, change itselfwould be threatening.The major characteristic of the office

automation we studied was the shift

from human to machine processing of

data. The employees anticipated thatthis shift would continue and would di-

rectly affect the jobs they were doing.

Most of them likedto

workwith

officemachinery, would like to make moreuse of office machinery, and would be

pleased to attend a training school tolearn how to work with the new equip-ment, if job changes required this.

In general, then, employees perceivedthat the broad industry impact of auto-mation and technological change was toeliminate some jobs. And many feltthat these

changes,at the

industryand

society level, were occurring too rapidly.But they distinguished these effects fromthe consequences of a particular adjust-ment in their own work situation which

they judged on the basis of actual ex-

perience. When an abrupt introduc-tion of a new technology was experi-enced, a larger proportion of the em-

ployees would see themselves as affectedthan might be anticipated by manage-ment on an objective basis. Usually,they saw the methods changes as beingtemporarily disruptive but quickly inte-

grated into the system. They often wel-comed change in their own work situa-tions and expressed a preference for

having some part of their work mecha-nized. We found no rejection of mecha-nization as such.

VARIABLESAFFECTING RESPONSETO CHANGE

These generalizations about employeeattitudes toward change should be un-derstood in terms of some factors that

are related to them and that are likelyto vary considerably from organizationto organization and within large or-ganizations. These include the differ-ences among employees in readiness for

change and the history of the manage-ment of change in a given organization.

In Trumbos analysis of readiness for

change, employees that had better edu-cation, obtained better scores on person-

8/6/2019 10.1177_000271626234000109

7/9

66

nel tests, were freer from job anxieties,and had benefited from past changeswere more likely to indicate a readiness

for change .12 These variations in indi-vidual attitudes toward change seemedto reflect differences in ability to deal

effectively with the demands of a chang-ing situation and beliefs that the stressinvolved in change would be compen-sated by the opportunities that changeoffered.

It appeared that where change in the

job implied change in the work group,

those who attached higher value to so-cial satisfactions in work had less fa-vorable attitudes toward change. An-other element of the social context, the

supervisor-employee relations, also ap-peared to have a bearing upon attitudestoward change. The attitudes of themembers of work groups were similar to

those of their supervisors. Supervisorswho were relatively authoritarian were

less often in charge of employees whofavored change. Perhaps authoritarian

supervisors were usually put in chargeof persons least likely to benefit from

change.The way in which the change is man-

aged by the organization is a centralconcern of the employee. Mann andWilliams used a case study of the in-troduction of a computer into an ac-

counting division ofa

public utility toshow that management skill in handlingchange has an important influence on

employee response to the change 1$ Ifthe organization has a record of concernfor the employee and manages changeso that the employee is protected, and,

if possible, his situation is enhanced,employees are more likely to welcome

change.

It is interesting to find, however, thatemployees who were better informedabout the anticipated impact of techno-

logical change, as reported by Nangle,were not more favorable toward the

change. 14A more important factor wasthe employees attitudes toward the com-

pany and its policies.Office employees with relatively high

social status, from urban rather than

rural backgrounds, and in high statuspositions in the organization, were foundmore likely to welcome change.15 This

suggests, among other things, that a

positive attitude toward change is likelyto be associated with greater possibilityof being involved in decision-makingabout the change.

AUTOMATIONAND THE MEANING

OF JOB SATISFACTION

Another important variable affectingboth job satisfaction and attitudes to-ward job change is the significance ofwork to the individual. Satisfaction

with an activity which is of major im-portance clearly differs in meaning andin behavioral consequences from satis-

faction with an activity which is oflittle concern. Attitudes toward change

in any activity can also be expected tobe conditioned by the significance of theactivity to the individual.There is considerable evidence of varia-

tion in the function and meaning ofwork. Morse and Weiss found that a

sense of accomplishment on the job, in-terest in a particular task area, and, ingeneral, the assigning of importance to

12Don Trumbo, "Individual and GroupCorrelates ofAttitudes Toward Work-Related

Change," Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol.

45 (October 1961), pp. 338-344.13 Floyd C. Mann and Lawrence K. Wil-

liams, "Organizational Impact of White Col-larAutomation," Proceedings of the 11thAn-nual Meeting, Industrial Relations Research

Association (Madison, Wis.: IRRA Publica-tion 22, 1959).

14 John E. Nangle, The Effectiveness of

Communications in Preparation for Change inan Insurance Company (Doctoral dissertation,Michigan State University, 1961).

15 William A. Faunce, "Social StratificationandAttitude toward Change in Job Content,"Social Forces, Vol. 39 (December 1960), pp.140-148.

8/6/2019 10.1177_000271626234000109

8/9

67

a specific work role were more charac-teristic of professional and managerialthan of clerical and blue-collar work-

erse Dubin found that work and thework place were not &dquo;central life in-terests&dquo; for almost three-fourths of the

industrial workers he studied, 17 and

Orzack, in a replication of the Dubin

study, found that four-fifths of a groupof professional nurses did regard workand the work place as &dquo;central life in-terests.&dquo; 18 In a study conducted by the

authors, it was found that the impor-tance

of workto

theindividual varied

considerably with the job level.19This evidence suggests that the level

of responsibility and skill required bythe job has an important bearing uponthe degree of significance of work to theindividual. To the extent that automa-

tion changes these aspects of job con-

tent, it may affect the meaning of jobsatisfaction and job change.Automation does

appearto increase

the proportion of the total operation forwhich the worker is responsible. The

integration of separate operations intoa continuous-flow production processmeans that a single worker observinglights or gauges on an automatic con-trol panel may have responsibility for a

large number and wide variety of pro-duction processes. The clerical worker

who feeds stacks of cards into an elec-

tronic computer is also likely to be re-

sponsible for a larger share of informa-tion processing in the office. There is

evidence that some workers regard theirjobs as more important as a result ofincreased responsibility in this sense.2o

It is obvious, however, that techno-

logical integration of separate operationsis not the same thing as job enlarge-ment. Many jobs in automated plantsand offices involve less personal respon-sibility in the sense that neither qualityof product nor work pace are controlled

by the worker.Automatic

inspection,control, and information-processing sys-tems are designed to supplant human

judgment in the production process.The elimination of direct participationin the work process can be expected tohave an effect upon the function and

meaning of work. The following quota-tion from interviews with workers in an

automated plant seems to illustrate the

feelingof

estrangementfrom work

[I dont like] the lack of feeling responsi-ble for your work. The feeling that youreturning out more work but knowing its notyours really and not as good as you couldmake it if you had control of the machine

like before.

Irrespective of its effect upon the con-tent of jobs, automation might result inan increase in the significance of workin our

societyif it increased the

pro-portion of the labor force employed inmore skilled, responsible, and prestige-ful jobs. Studies of effects of auto-mation suggest that there is a higherproportion of skilled workers in plantswhere automated equipment is used.This does not result from the creation

of many new skilled jobs, however, butfrom a reduction in the employment ofsemiskilled and unskilled workers. Such

changes mean that the work force inthe automatic factory may be com-

16Nancy C. Morse and Robert S. Weiss,"The Function and Meaning of Work,"Ameri-can Sociological Review, Vol. 20 (April 1955),pp. 191-198.

17 Robert Dubin, "Industrial WorkersWorlds:A Study of the Central Life Inter-ests of Industrial Workers," Social Problems,Vol. 3 (January 1956), pp. 131-142.

18 Louis H. Orzack, "Work as a CentralLife Interest of Professionals," Social Prob-

lems, Vol. 7 (Fall 1959), pp. 125-132.19 Readiness to accept change in job con-

tent also varies with job level. Importanceof work may be one of the variables affect-

ing this relationship. See WilliamA. Faunce,"Social Stratification and Attitudes Toward

Change in Job Content," op. cit.

20 WilliamA. Faunce, "Automation and theAutomobile Worker," op. cit.

21 Ibid.

8/6/2019 10.1177_000271626234000109

9/9

68

posed primarily of skilled workers forwhom work is intrinsically importantand to whom job satisfaction means

pride in workmanship, but this workforce may be small. Automation maycontribute somewhat to the increased

demand in certain professional and tech-nical fields. These fields, however, in

spite of their current rate of growth,still employ a relatively small propor-tion of the total labor force. The pri-mary effect of automation upon occupa-tional distribution will undoubtedly be

to decrease the proportion of semiskilledand unskilled factory operatives.A ma-

jority of new workers who might other-wise have been employed as operativeswill probably be absorbed into expand-ing clerical, sales, and service occupa-tions.

There is little empirical evidence re-

garding the function and meaning ofwork for people in these occupations.

The existing evidence, however, alongwith an assessment of the nature of thetasks and social structural conditions of

work in lower level white-collar occupa-

tions, would lead us to expect that workwould not be regarded as a central lifeinterest by people in these occupations.C. Wright Mills, in White Collar, con-cludes that for the &dquo;white collar masses,&dquo;as for wage workers generally, the job

is not intrinsically meaningful, and suc-cess, in the sense of technical craftsman-

ship, is not regarded as an end in it-self.22 The substitution of what Daniel

Bell has called the new &dquo;salariat&dquo; for

the proletariat as comprising the bulkof the labor force in industrial societies

could not be expected to reverse the ap-parent tendency in these societies to-ward de-emphasis of work and an in-

creasing leisure orientation.23In the long run, a reduction of work-

ing hours made possible by automation

may have a greater impact upon the im-

portance of work than will any of theother factors we have considered. Pro-

ductivity increases in the past have al-

ways resulted in a decrease in the aver-age number of hours worked per week.

There is little reason to suppose that

increases in productivity attributable toautomation will not sooner or later have

the same effect. Where work requiresa diminishing proportion of time and

energy, activities unrelated to work will

probably assume increasing importance.So long as professional, technical, and

upper-level managerial positions employless than a majority of our labor force,most people can be expected to use theirincreased leisure to seek meaningful ac-tivities which provide some relief fromthe functionally specialized nature oftheir work. The net effect of automa-

tion would appear to be a continuation

of the already existing trend toward aleisure-oriented society in which work

is viewed asan

exclusively economic ac-tivity and in which activities other thanwork serve to provide meaningful ex-

periences for the individual and to re-late him to his community.22 C. Wright Mills, White Collar (New

York: Oxford University Press, 1956), pp.215-238.

23 Daniel Bell, Work and Its Discontents

(Boston: Beacon Press, 1956), p. 50.