Dear John, I agree with the aspect of efficiency and making it easier for
organisations to communicate via technology, however in the Higher
Education area - and in particular where position descriptions are locked
into levels within the hierarchy of wages, the labeling of the skill has
been levelled to such an extent that there appears to be little
acknolwedgement of the depth of skill required for some computing packages
to others. For example the use of internet, building web pages is viewed
as being equivalent to basic word processing skills. There appears to be
little incentive therefore for staff to increase their skill level, except
for their own job satisfaction. Whilst I recognise that job satisfaction
is a major factor in people's worklife, the disatisfaction that occurs from
non-recognition of skills can have the effect of staff pulling back from
increasing , or to some extent even using, their skills. I am constantly
working with staff who undergo training in computer programs and am finding
that they are being less accommodating to taking on new skills when they
believe they are not recognised for the current skills they have. It is
not a simple case of the manager recognising the skill and rewarding
accordingly - as their viewpoint may not be in line with "organisational
policy" and, as we know, once a skill is labelled it is extremely difficult
to change - especially in the administration area. This is of course
part of growth and development of the organisation and the shifting of
roles. However, my concern is that in the shifting of roles, there is
still the tendency to view skills of secretaries/executive assistants as
having 'basic' computing skills and not to recognise the higher level of
skill that now is required to perform their jobs. If we look at the
hierarchy, in particular in regard to wage rates, when a secretary adds
another computing skill to their existing base it is very rarely recognised
financially as it is perceived as being the same skill to undertake as
previous programs. On the other hand when an administrative officer adds
another skill, say budget administration to their current administration
skill level, they are usually recognised for it financially. So what I
am saying is that computing skills tend to be 'lumped' together as
organisations have streamlined their computer applications across the
board. There appears to have been no delineation of skill levels within
this area into competency based type skills. Until this is done I believe
that management will continue to lump the skills together and hence the
introduction and cloning has led to a decrease in social status within the
hierarchy of secretarial/executive assistant and administrative staff which
in turn leads to disatisfaction and loss of motivation.
At 09:54 AM 1/6/00 -0600, you wrote:
>Dear Cathy,
>
>I find interesting your remarks on the ramifications of "cloning the
>office PC so that all staff are using the same packages."
>
>I have endured software standardization efforts as both a user and an
>implementer. And, while these efforts might be coupled with
>Catbert-style "deskilling" tactics, I find that most often
>certain other things emerge.
>----------------------------
> (Catbert is the evil, human-hating HR manager from "Dilbert.")
>----------------------------
>
>My experience involves both the military and academia.
>During the 1990s, the military services began picking standard
>software packages (Microsoft Office for Army, Lotus Smartsuite for
>Marines). Their reasons emulate those of corporate America: namely,
>pursuit of economies of scale (efficiencies) in the areas of:
>
> * Purchasing and procurement
> * Training and tech support
> * Interoperability (ability to merge documents/projects
> containing input from other organizational divisions)
>
> Before these efforts, military word processing was done on whatever
>software happened to be on the computer; sending document files from
>command A to command B often entailed B having to do extensive
>reformatting of documents from one software to another. Strike a
>blow for process lost!
>
> In academia, this same problem arises when students work on group
>project reports. Although you warn the students to all use the same
>word processing package within their group, one or two groups will
>always try to intermingle Word and WordPerfect in the same document.
>Bill Gates says the two will translate back and forth, but this only
>succeeds with significant reformatting of the documents.
>
> As for the sociological implications, I find that the secretaries/
>exec assistants do have a change in role, but not to one that
>Catbert would like.
>
> Wordprocessing and building of graphics shows does become a more
>basic skill, because time marches on. But, the professors are now
>required (and have been in most places since the early 1990s) to do
>their own basic wordprocessing.
>
> The clerical staff, on the other hand, takes on a role which the
>reasonable office manager realizes is valuable. ( NOTE that I said
>reasonable, not necessarily enlightened.) The clerical staff now
>demonstrates key value-added computer skills such as:
> * Project managers for compilation of complex documents.
> * Specialty skills such as merge-mailing and test compiling
> * Coaches to teach the professors how to use some of the
> more arcane features of the software packages.
>
> In summary, I would say that most organizations pursue the software
>standardization to achieve economies of scale. The administative
>assistants have a shift in role, but I see it as being as least as
>important/prestigeous as their old one, and maybe more so.
>
> In some organizations, human-relations-style manipulators might
>push the deskilling agenda. I would tend to view such activity,
>however, as outlier behavior.
>
> This is an interesting topic! Maybe others will comment.
>
> JPO
>=============
>
> Cathy Wallace wrote on Jan. 6:
>
>> I am extremely interested in this area and in particular the leveling of
>> positions due to technological change. I would agree that in the support
>> staff area where performance appraisal is linked to financial reward there
>> appears to be a move towards cloning the pc so that all the staff are using
>> the same packages, which is then translated by management to the same skill
>> level. This is then applied to performance levels when undertaking reviews
>> of positions. Although there is little evidence to support this there is
>> now an opportunity for management to lump all secretarial/executive
>> assistant level staff into one band. The skills applied then come
>> demeaned in the process and are seen in the same context as the pencil and
>> notepad and learning shorthand. It seems that the social structure in
>> organisations is still hierarchical, but in a different form, with the
>> computer replacing the notepad and pencil and the secretary remaining at,
>> and recognised as a lower level in the organisation. The glass ceiling
>> (if I may use the phrase) is still there in regard to secretarial and
>> executive assistants, and although it looked like progress was being made
>> with the introduction of wordprocessing and then desktop publishing with a
>> recognition of these skills, it appears that now they may well be lumped
>> together as "basic" computing skills but in different packages. I look
>> forward to other views on this
>>
>>
>> At 04:59 PM 1/5/00 -0500, you wrote:
>> >Not to take anything away from John Naman's list (below) because it is a
>> >dandy, but to clarify something...
>> >
>> >Give a little thought to the examples John provides below and you will
>> >quickly see that they certainly illustrate Robert Bacal's earlier point
>> >about tools (and innovations in general) not being neutral, that is, they
>> >have positive and negative consequences, some foreseen and some
unforeseen.
>> >
>> >That aside, my question had more to do with examples where a specific
>> >technological change was used to induce a specific sociological change. I
>> >doubt that Gutenberg, for example, had it mind to free the average person
>> >from the tyranny of clerics and professors (although I certainly support
>> >freeing all people from any form of tyranny). Then again, my grasp of
>> >Johnny G and his fabulous printing press is quite limited so maybe he was
>> >indeed a socio-technical engineer of the first water.
>> >
>> >One example of the kind I am seeking was posed to me off-line; namely, the
>> >technology of large-scale, nationally-normed or standardized tests. That
>> >technology was consciously and deliberately deployed as a way of
>> >identifying talent, regardless of socioeconomic status, and then educating
>> >these talented people with an eye toward having them take special roles in
>> >the running of our society. (See Nicholas Lemann's book, "The Big Test.")
>> >
>> >As another in a similar vein, consider the large, land grant colleges and
>> >universities. It could be argued that they represent a deployment of the
>> >technology of teaching/educating in the service of some sociological goal
>> >as well. These are, however, quite broad and sweeping examples. Does
>> >anyone have any of a slightly more focused nature?
>> >
>> >I'm stretching here but allow me to fabricate or at least inquire about a
>> >hypothetical example: Does anyone know of companies where PCs with an
>> >office suite such as Microsoft Office has been deployed as a deliberate
>> >attempt to alter the relationship between so-called "staff support"
>> >personnel (e.g., secretaries, executive assistants, etc.)?
>> >
>> >Less far-fetched is the phenomenon of the Edmunds web site, where a
>> >prospective automobile purchaser can obtain information previously
>> >available only to the dealers. The availability of this information has
>> >altered dramatically the interaction between an informed car buyer and the
>> >much maligned car salesman. Indeed, one of the reasons the car
>> >manufacturers are buying dealerships is that the profit margins have moved
>> >out of the sale of the automobile and into its post-sale servicing.
>> >
>> >Anyway, I'm looking for instances and examples of the conscious,
deliberate
>> >use of technological change to induce sociological change.
>> >
>> >At 06:07 AM 01/05/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>> >>Intended or unintended?
>> >>
>> >>1. Printing press - freed average person from tyranny of clerics and
>> >>professors (woops!)
>> >>2. Mechanical warfare - required women to replace men in factories,
proving
>> >>that they could do the job.
>> >>3. Mass communications, radio and TV
>> >>4. Farm mechanization - caused transformation from agrarian to
cosmopolitan
>> >>society.
>> >>5. Rifle and revolvers - enabled average person to pioneer American
West and
>> >>live to tell about it.
>> >>--
>> >>Prof. John Naman Katz Graduate School of Business, University of
Pittsburgh
>> >
>> >Fred Nickols
>> >The Distance Consulting Company
>> >"Assistance at A Distance"
>> >http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
>> >
nickols@worldnet.att.net
>> >(609) 490-0095
>> >
>> >
>> Regards Catherina
>>
>>
c.wallace@bendigo.latrobe.edu.au
>> Catherina Wallace, MEd(T&D)
>> Office of Enterprise and Promotion.
>> La Trobe Uni. Bendigo.
>> PO Box 199,
>> Bendigo 3552.
>> Phone 03 54447932
>> Fax 03 54447555
>>
>>
>--------------------------
>John P. Orr, Ph.D. (Management)
>Dept. of Business, Rm. 314
>Cameron University
>2800 W. Gore Blvd.
>Lawton, OK 73505
>Phone: 580-581-2367
>
>
Regards Catherina
c.wallace@bendigo.latrobe.edu.au
Catherina Wallace, MEd(T&D)
Office of Enterprise and Promotion.
La Trobe Uni. Bendigo.
PO Box 199,
Bendigo 3552.
Phone 03 54447932
Fax 03 54447555