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.

The third element is a constant process of study and experimentation and the fourth is a strategy of not forcing anything--of helping those employees, union officials and managers who want to experiment. If they do it, others who may be less adventurous, or less courageous, or for whatever reason, can then see something that has worked and try it out.

Q: If this type of innovation is so rational on both economic and human grounds, why do you think it hasn't spread more quickly in the United States and other industrial countries?

A: I think there are a number of reasons. First of all, in some industries it's not necessary. It's better, but not necessary from an economic point of view. And it does take time and effort away from other things.

Second, this type of innovation is not really understood very well. There are a lot of people who want something that they can just do, a blueprint. This isn't a blueprint: we're talking about developing a process, a form of governance and involvement and learning, and it takes time and developing. It's hard for people to imagine what it is, never having seen it.

Third, there is resistance from managers and union officials who are worried about losing control and losing traditional roles. They fear that to open this up is to open up something they can't control--"I don't know where it's going to lead and what expectations will be raised, what demands will be raised." A lot of people are willing to trade off efficiency for power if they're threatened by something that they don't understand and that requires new skills and creates new problems. This system demands a kind of leadership and managerial supervision which is very different from the policeman: it means that the whole nature of leadership and management changes from one of policing to one of being a resource to the group. One sees the manager as more of a teacher, more of a person who facilitates communication between departments, helps the group with material flow, all kinds of things. So it's not just a matter of changing one thing but of changing the whole system. Thus, people who are not motivated by any Machiavellian wish to maintain power are threatened by a demand for a total reorganization of their thinking and of their education.

Now, I think that these issues are going to become more central: one, because people are becoming more concerned with productivity; and, two, because there are enough idealistic managers and engineers who will come out of the woodwork when they see that this is actually profitable and economic. They're not courageous enough to fight for this on the basis of ideals, when it's a matter of having to prove a point, but they are when there are models, and they can point to GM, to Cummins Engine, to Harman International, and so on.

Q: To this point most unions, with the notable exception of the UAW, have either ignored or actively opposed participation programs. Why?

A: Unions often don't feel confident getting involved in issues which have to do with business and management. They feel their competence is in struggle, resistance, protection of rights and that these programs threaten that distinctive competence. Furthermore, that attitude might become more firmly entrenched if, as the screws tighten economically, there is more of climate of anger rather than cooperation, a climate of fear, layoffs, and defending what you have. You can't develop projects like this where people are basically defensive.

Q: Do you think management and union fears can be overcome?

A: Well, I'm not optimistic, nor am I pessimistic. I don't think this is an overall thing. I think what we're already seeing is that some of the most confident and competent managers are willing to start the process--there is growth, there is a beginning. Of course, in many cases managers do it without the union or it is done in companies which are non-union and who may want to keep the unions out. If this becomes, as it is already in some cases, a managerial strategy to increase participation and improve the quality of working life in such a way as to avoid unions, of course, the reaction of many unions is going to become even more negative. Of course, there are a few union leaders like Irving Bluestone (vice president. UAW) who see that unless the unions take an active role, unless they own these participative projects, they're going to be on the further defensive and lose out.

Q: A lot of people, when you talk about these kinds of experiments, have a feeling that they might be a fine idea for things like the assembly line and blue-collar factories where work is most clearly dehumanizing, but they have an image of white-collar work as more fulfilling. They feel that applications of these developments to white-collar setting is unnecessary because the work is already intrinsically rewarding.

A: Well, I think that there is a lot of white-collar work that is obviously dehumanizing--like clerical work or in the insurance office. A lot of factory principles pertain there: the use of standards and the structure of the organization, the use of technology and electronic data processing.

In white collar, professional work, in many cases the dehumanization has to do with the hierarchy, with a lack of respect, with not listening to people, not cooperating, not using knowledge. There are experiments in the government now, for example with auditors in the Commerce Department (which is very white collar, professional work), which show how much morale and cooperation improve in a project which allows participation in looking at travel policy, personnel policy and policies about the very nature of auditing itself.

Participation can change not only the quality of work to be more satisfying and developing. It can also improve the very quality of the service and support auditors who are more concerned with helping people so they don't commit crimes rather than catching criminals. I think there is no way other than increased participation and involvement that is going to change that. There is no way to do it by law or command--it's got to bring out the best in the civil servant, and the best in the civil servant is a desire to serve.

Q: Our educational institutions and most of our work organizations still reinforce non-participatory types of leadership. So how can we produce participatory leadership?

A: Part of the answer is who cares? I think the nature of leadership and management and government must become a political issue. These are issues of values, they're issues of culture and they should be in the political arena. And I think people will respond to that. Public discussion is crucial--it makes people rethink their old assumptions. It makes them see something that is part of their daily experience but they don't usually think about. People assume this is all a technical matter. It's not.