Michael Maccoby '54, PhD '60, is director of the Kennedy School's Program on Technology, Public Policy and Human Development. One of this country's leading architects of programs to improve the quality of working life, Maccoby pioneered an effort to humanize working conditions at Harman International Industries in the Bolivar Project and in several programs within the federal government.

In 1953, when he was president of The Crimson, Maccoby and an accomplice engineered the theft of the famed Ibus, which sits atop the Lampoon Castle. Maccoby was, in turn, abducted by Lampoon editors. After a daring escape, Maccoby and his cohort flew to New York and presented the bird to the Russian delgation to the U.N. as "a sort of American bird of peace," on behalf of the Lampoon, requesting it be placed on the spire of the new Moscow University. The Lampoon president, John H. Updike '54, who was not amused, lodged an international protest and secured the bird from the perplexed Russians, thus foiling one of the most original attempts at super-power reconciliation of the Cold War.

Since then, Maccoby has turned his attention from the international cold war to thawing out labor-management relations.

This interview was conducted by Steven A. Hertzenberg and William A. Schwartz.

Q: What bothers you about the way work is organized traditionally?

A: Coming from psychoanalysis and the study of individuals as a clinical analyst, I became convinced of the importance of work, not only for individual development, but also for its influence on other institutions in the society--education, the family, etc.

Work seemed to me more and more central in determining what traits and abilities are considered important. If the workplace emphasizes submissiveness, conformity, lack of thinking and lack of independence, I think it's inevitable that these traits will be brought out in the socialization process in the family, and in the educational process.

I started this work sad and outraged by the way people's lives are destroyed by dehumanizing work, by the waste of human life, and the anger and bitterness that such work develops. Also, from the social scientists' point of view, unless we change work there is no point in talking about changing other institutions.

Q: Is less dehumanizing work economically practical?

A: By improving work, by giving people more of a say over the way tasks are organized, by increasing respect for them and their different needs and goals at work, by encouraging greater free speech and participation, by improving dignity and equity, productivity has increased. Not only has quality improved but there has been less absenteeism and turnover, less time wasted in grievances, less sabotage--both conscious and unconscious--less need for expensive patrol systems.

When I got involved in these projects, I saw there was a chance for humanism because it was productive. It wasn't just a matter of fighting a moral battle--which I was willing to do--but, in fact, this was rational from an economic point of view.

Q: Could you give us some details of the Bolivar experience?

A: The Bolivar project was the first attempt at join union-management determination charge. It was started by the United Auto Workers (UAW) and Harman International.

There are four elements to the Bolivar model. First, the Bolivar project was based on clear, agreed-upon principles that have to do with balancing human development with effectiveness. The principles stressed job security, equity in rewards and job assignments, participation in decisions that affect people--starting with the nature of the work itself and concern for individual development.

The second element is a structure which includes: a union management committee which controls and sanctions experimentation and change, and committees at a number of other levels--at the top, at the middle--management level, and in each department where they are made up of shop stewards, managers and other workers.