Walter Long The Nuclear Tube Assembly Room was a production unit of the American Radiatronics Co., a leader in the nuclear electronics industry. The company's regular line of electronic tubes was assembled, tested, and prepared for shipment in the nuclear tube assembly room. Walter Long, general foreman of the process department, described the tube room group as the most successful. Exhibit 1 is a partial organization chart. Prior to Long's assuming the leadership of the department some 24 months earlier, the workers in the room had acquired the reputation of being agitators, persistent troublemakers. Production was down, costs were out of hand, and deliveries became very unpredictable. Some thought was given to eliminating the entire operation. A report prepared by the director of industrial relations at the time, which described the existing problem, is presented in Ex. 2. Over the past 24 months the story is quite different. During the most recent three-month period the tube room's direct and allocated monthly costs averaged $60,350, while the actual sales value of the room's monthly production for the same three months averaged $175,800. Indirect costs were allocated to the department at a rate 425% of direct labor costs. A special management report presented some additional figures of interest. Between January of the previous year and March of the present year, the group had shown a 53% improvement in the dollar output of product per man-hour of work, direct labor efficiency had increased approximately 24%, and there had been about 11% to 12% improvement in the raw material utilization on tubes produced. During this same period, the group operated at 81% of its expense budget. In other words, the group used some $20,000 less on miscellaneous expenses than had been budgeted for such items. During this time period the hourly wages of the women working in the room had risen 14%. In summary, the profit position for tube manufacturing operations, as a whole, was now one of the best in the company, where previously the activity had been operating at a loss. In the most recent fiscal year the tube manufacturing operations generated profits of $457,000, while American Radiatronics Corporation's total profits were approximately $1,000,000. In commenting about the group, Long said: What is special is that our success has been accomplished by the group itself--not so much by any tangible thing that I or management did. These people, previously considered a problem group, are now performing in an efficient and profitable way. They have a very active interest in seeing, not only their group, but also the company, progress. This is quite an impressive thing for them to have accomplished by their own efforts. The casewriter also talked to Frank Halbert, President of American Radiatronics. In approving the study Halbert said, "I hope you find what you are looking for. It would be very important for the whole economy to bust through this 'least work for the most pay' idea workers in this country have." Later he said, "Do you really think there is any substitute for fear as a motivator? I doubt it. All of these fringe benefits and things won't do it; we've certainly learned that. Look at Bill Parcells; fear works." About Walter Long and operations in the tube room, Halbert commented: I don't want to downgrade Walter--I think he has been extremely successful in what he is doing--but remember that the tube room is not such a tough place to handle. We have some real trouble spots in other parts of the company. Because of the kind of work done there, it lends itself to the women seeing the connection between what they do and the final product. The work has challenge; it's interesting. There are opportunities there for satisfaction in the work itself that you couldn't begin to find in these other places. Company Background and Products The company had been founded in 1950 by two young scientists convinced of the coming industrial applications for nuclear processes and instrumentation. Following an early period of rapid growth and a later series of mergers, the company prospered and finally stabilized at a level of sales in the range of $70 million annually. In more recent years, the company began experiencing increasing competition from other young companies, which had also grown to formidable size, and from older electronics firms that had more recently decided to enter the nuclear field.

Walter Long (c:\26\walter.cas)19 June, 2010

Page 1 of 13

The Boston plant contained the main factory and home office headquarters for the company and employed approximately 600 people. The plant (new in 1980) was designed to incorporate the latest concepts in industrial architecture. Well over half the company's sales volume was derived from the Boston plant's operations. The NTAR The Nuclear Tube Assembly Room (NTAR) was one of several production units in the plant's process department. Under Long's direction, the department produced a variety of equipment parts, some of which went into larger equip ment units manufactured by the company, while others were sold directly to customers. Besides the NTAR, there were three other production units in the department, each housed in an adjacent room. Each production unit was independent. The NTAR produced all of the company's regular line of electronic tubes. These products varied considerably in size, shape, design, and materials. In appearance they ranged from delicate glass vials 3 or 4 inches in length to massive steel chambers with bolted covers. Some were of all-glass construction; still others consisted of all-metal assemblies, with numerous variations in the thickness and kind of metals employed. In all, approximately 25 different types of tubes were manufactured on a regular production basis, although not all styles were in production at the same time. A normal production month would call for 8 to 10 separate tube styles to be produced in quantities varying between 300 and 500 per style. A number of miscellaneous small jobs consisting of repair, modifications, or experimental mock-ups of regular and/or experi mental tubes were also assigned to the room each month. Out of the total number of tube types produced, 4 major tube styles accounted for approximately 80-84% of the dollar value of the room's output. Production Process The production process varied with each style of tube, depending upon the materials employed, the mechanical design of the tube, and the particular electronic properties called for by its function. The precise relationship between a given tube's design and its performance was not always clearly known. Certain tube designs were developed over the years by trial and error, while others were developed from known formulation and in accordance with standard design procedures. For this reason there was always an element of change concerning details of the manufacturing process. For each tube, a set of written standard operating procedures was developed by the company engineers to describe each assembly operation re quired. From the viewpoint of production personnel, however, the history of modification and innovation surrounding the evolution of many tube designs and production methods implied that the process of developing ultimate designs was not yet at an end. Most of the operations performed in the assembly process were of a handwork nature, in which a variety of jigs, small implements, heating torches, and special-purpose machines were employed. Customarily, the work was performed on one batch of parts at a time until a sufficient inventory of parts had been accumulated to allow a number of tubes to be assembled in one operation. The work of the tube room at that time was roughly divided into five stages: glass work, consisting of making tube shells and internal glass parts; metal work, wherein internal metal springs, wires, grids, leads, and so forth were made and prepared for use; tube assembly, at which time the entire tube was put together; vacuum testing and exhausting, where tubes were lead tested, exhausted, and filled with special gases; and electronic testing, where tubes were tested as functioning units.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

After final testing, tubes were labeled, recorded according to individual serial numbers, and packaged for shipment or inventory storage. At all stages of assembly, tubes were given visual and electrical tests to minimize defective parts or subassemblies finding their way to final assembly. All testing and quality control measures were performed by the production workers themselves, including the final test before packaging. Production Workers The major part of the production work was performed by eight women led by Sally Ivers. Each worker performed several kinds of operations, although each had, one or more operations regarded as a particular specialty. These special

jobs had emerged over time as most suitable for particular workers in view of their skills, preferences, and the needs of the department. They were the most frequently recurring operations performed, accounting for roughly 50% or more of each person's time, and they were the chief identifying characteristic of each job. In all, an almost infinite variety of combinations of worker and job were practiced in the room. It was not uncommon for several workers to perform the same operations. Not even the special jobs were necessarily exclusive, as at least two workers usually had the special skills required to do a given job, and in the case of absences or emergencies, one would take over for the other. The tube room production staff was supported by two men. Bill Yoost, maintenance man for the whole department. The other, Tom Montag, worked in the tube room part time assisting in various production operations. He did this when not busy in room A, his normal work assignment, a single person operation which did not keep him busy full time. Pay Rate and Employee Evaluation The employees of the tube room were paid on an hourly basis. Pay grades were established for each job classification, according to an evaluation of the amount of skill and knowledge required of a worker in the job. Within each pay grade there was an established range through which the hourly wage rate could move as determined by periodic merit reviews. The tube room workers were not unionized, although certain other manufacturing groups in the company had been organized some years previously by a large international trade union. Work Standard and Output Record Approximately 95% of the tube assembly operations performed by the workers had been figured into standard hours by the company's industrial engineers. These standard hours were used in costing out direct labor costs for tube manufacturing operations, and they served as a standard of efficiency against which the room's actual performance was measured. Tube production for the total group was determined weekly when an inventory was taken of all tubes. Thus, labor invested in defective or destroyed tube parts or assemblies was lost to the group in figuring its net labor efficiencies. Monthly summaries of efficiency figures were submitted to higher management. All the labor efficiency figures in Exhibit 3 were based on revised standards put into effect three months ago. The former standards, set a while ago, were now obsolete. Consequently, Long had initiated a review of all standards, "tube by tube, operation by operation," revising the allowed hours downward between 23% and 59% on individual tubes to an average 34% decrease on major tube types. Since Long took over supervision of the tube room group, the work force was reduced from 14 production workers to the present 8. The layoffs were made in two steps, with the women selected for layoff primarily on the basis of seniority with some secondary attention to the variety, quantity, and quality of their work. They understood. "One woman in the group I fired outright because of her attitude. She just couldn't and wouldn't fit in with the others. We had had a long history of trouble with her." Under Long there had been no major changes in the production facilities, manufacturing methods or basic tube types in production. Much of the equipment in use was antiquated and inefficiently designed. The improvements in performance were due primarily to improvements in labor efficiency and informal production method innovations. The work group itself had actually initiated a number of changes. But as these changes were made, their labor-saving effects were largely incorporated into revised work standards. Tube Room Operations The room itself was a large, gray, concrete-floored enclosure. Workers moved frequently throughout the room; the changing of settled work positions was likely to occur at any time during a day. Bantering, horseplay, and visiting frequently occurred; at times, periods of total inactivity, such as when a worker appeared to be daydreaming or silently contemplating the work, were observed. The pattern of activity did not appear to vary with the comings and going of Ivers, Long, or any of the other supervisory personnel. The casewriter observed that most people also participated in various nonwork activities. These activities were well established and regular. During coffee breaks, for example, the total group invariably broke up into two smaller groups--one group gathering around Sally Ivers at her workbench desk, and the other at the rear of the room at Alice Homart's work
Walter Long Case (C:\tmp\WALTER.doc)19 June, 2010 Page 3 of 13

station. The casewriter also observed that most of the women ate their lunch together at the same table in the company cafeteria. After lunch, some people met back in the tube assembly room for a 10-minute card game before returning to work. The game was always played at Alice Homart's work station. In contrast, several other women typically took a walk after lunch around the perimeter of the plant site and occasionally into the woods nearby. The "pool" and the "poor box" were two other activities in which most of the workers participated. The pool consisted of a weekly drawing for high and low stakes of a pool made up of 50-cent contributions from active members. The poor box referred to a weekly $1.00 collection used to finance special events such as going-away presents, wedding gifts, etc. Work Alignment and Supervisory Practice In performing their work, the women customarily obtained their working instructions from Sally Ivers in the morning. Sally would move from person to person checking preparations, answering questions, and discussing the day's work schedule. A typical exchange would be phrased as "OK if I go to so and so now?" and "Sure." Or if more detailed instructions were required, Sally and the other worker would discuss it together. On a number of occasions, changes in work position or kind of work being performed took place without any apparent discussion with Sally. One of the most concrete and structured features of work scheduling practices in the tube room was a monthly production schedule, which was delivered to the group by the company's production planning department. Long commented about this production schedule and how he and Sally Ivers used it in setting up work. Long: When the production sheet comes in to us, Sally and I look it over. The production planning people can make a mistake like anyone else. Sometimes the company has so many tubes of one kind in stock that I just know they couldn't have wanted as many as the schedule calls for, so I will second-guess them. I keep an eye on the main company inventory, you know; it's in the room right over there down the hall. All I have to do is walk in and look around and I can see how many of what kind of tubes are in stock. Often I happen to know how the sales are running on particular tubes. People from the sales department come down and ask questions about things--questions about tubes, how much they cost, whether we are having any particular difficulty with them. In fact, I have often spoken directly with customers. Of course, I am not supposed to do that, but they will often refer a customer to me to talk about a particular tube, and in this way I have a feeling of how the sales of different kinds of tubes are going. With this information about sales, inventory, stock situation, and the general work load, I am able to make some pretty fair guesses about the figures that production planning has set up; that is, whether we should follow their figures or adjust them slightly. Sometimes we miss, but usually our estimates of what the best schedule should be are good. In fact, it has hap pened more than once that the people from production planning have come to me and asked for my opinion on how many tubes I think they should put on the production planning sheet. One of the production workers, Betty Gilen, spoke about the production schedule in the following manner. Betty Gilen: You'll see satisfaction written all over everyone's face the last working day of the production month when we've met schedule. We all walk to the production record over there, checking that, then checking the production schedule again on Sally's desk. It's amazing the change that begins to come over people when they move into the last part of the month and see we're going to have to step it up in order to make our quota. Everyone works a little harder. This is what makes this department work together so well. Everyone, without exception, is willing to cooperate, and we all feel the same way about meeting schedule, provided no one is pushing us. We meet our own schedules and no one breathes down our backs. We do it ourselves. Martha Holtz: I like my job. Right now I'm doing mostly coating. I have done ceramic lining for Alice, and fire polishing, and toward the end of the month I even do testing. I can do a lot of jobs like anodes for these tubes. We used to make them out of stainless steel, but now we always make them out of platinum. You know, that was funny. About six months ago, while we were still making them out of stainless steel, I made a mistake and made a whole batch out of platinum. When I finished, I told Sally Ivers about it. She said, "That's all right, Martha, let's test them out this way and see how they are." They tested out perfectly, so she told Walter about it, and the next time I made anodes for that tube, Sally told me to make them out of platinum again because they had tested out so well. Always before, we had trouble testing out a whole batch of them without having some bad ones, and, you know, since we've been making them out of platinum, we have had hardly any bad ones at all. And to think, just because I'd made a mistake.

Alice [referring to some tube stem assemblies she was reworking): We've been having a lot of trouble with leaking stems lately, and we're trying to figure out where the trouble is by studying these stems from rejected tubes. I'm spending quite a bit of time right now trying to find the trouble, so that we can get the production rate back up again. Casewriter. Does anyone ever say anything to you when you get behind on production? Alice You bet they do and these leaky tubes, too. Nellie shoots them right back at us when they don't make her leak test. That's what we're here for. No one stands over our shoulder, but we know how many finished tubes we make and how many the production schedule calls for. Besides, it's always nicer when things are going along without any trouble. You know we're not supposed to do this [indicating the defective stem she was examining); this is not our job. We're just production workers. We're not supposed to know the technical parts of this kind of work. The only thing is--there's no one else at the plant here who knows much more about this kind of work than we do. There's just us here in the room, so I guess it's up to Sylvia Johns and me to figure out what goes wrong when we have trouble. Walter can help us sometimes, but he can't do everything. Besides, we're closer to the work. Sylvia Johns: I'm a glass blower. I learned the business from my husband in Philadelphia, where we operated a neon sign glass company for 25 years before he died. I had to go back to work after he died, and that's why I'm here. I like my work here. It's a good job, but it wasn't easy for me to find the kind of work I like to do after my husband died. Actually, glass blowing is all I do here, and it's what I prefer doing, too. I never work much on tube assembly, although I guess I would if I had to. Glass work is really my line. Casewriter [standing beside Betty at her customary workbench Could you tell me the name of this place here where you seem to be working most often? Betty: You could call this the heavy metal tube station. You see, I make all of the heavy tubes in here, and I guess I'm a sort of a specialist in it. But we're not making very many at the rate we're going now. Somebody goofed. These covers are made here in the machine shop, and the containers are made by a vendor, and you can see that the cover doesn't position right on the container, and that won't pass inspection. Casewriter: Does this delay affect you personally? Betty: Personally is right. It's driving me crazy. This is a big order, and we're way behind on it. We won't get them done- can't work on them at all. This means I haven't got anything to do, and I've got to hunt jobs. The day is 16 hours long for me these days. I like to keep busy. Casewriter Where else do you work? Betty Gilen: Oh, you'll find me over at the glass machine; you'll find me at the wash basin and you've probably seen me quite a bit over at the pump stand there. You see, I do all the glass welding, connecting tubes to the vacuum outlets. It's not that it takes any kind of particular genius to do it but I'm kind of familiar with that type of work. As I say, I do all kinds of things. If you want to see where I'm working, you'd better look fast because I won't be there long. Employee Attitude and Relations Alice: [in response to a question about why there were two separate coffee groups] Why, I never thought about that until you mentioned it now. We've always had the two groups, but it doesn't mean anything. We're all friendly with one an other. Casewriter: How do you decide when to start and stop? Alice: Walter says it's up to us how long we take, just so we get our work out. So we don't go by the company rule. Sometimes we take 20 minutes or so, and sometimes quite a bit less. At the end of the month, if we're rushed, we'll cut it pretty short, but no one ever says anything to us. We just gauge it by how busy we are.

Walter Long Case (C:\tmp\WALTER.doc)19 June, 2010

Page 5 of 13

A Work Incident One day, as the casewriter was observing at his desk, he heard a loud pop and the sound of breaking glass. Looking up, he saw Betty standing at the finished tubes inventory cabinet, with the door open, and a tray of finished tubes in her hand. At her feet were the remains of a broken tube (retail value, about $90.00). Sally did not look up, but continued steadily with her work. The noise was very audible and its point of origin was also quite clear. Nellie, from her pump stand, looked over to Betty, shook her head slowly from side to side and said, "Tsk, tsk, tsk," then made a comment about what had caused the tube to fall out of the cabinet. Betty's elbow and tray were resting close to the shelf from which the broken tube had obviously fallen. Betty corrected her position, and at the same time looked forlornly at the smashed tube. Nellie walked over to the other side of the room, obtained a broom and dustpan and swept up the mess. Betty proceeded to the electronic test stand with the tray of tubes. It would have been very easy for Betty to put the tray down and clean up the broken glass herself. Walter Long Long had developed relationships with the group in a way that allowed him to retain a high degree of involvement in the affairs of the room without extensive personal presence. He would make a tour of the room each morning, speaking briefly with nearly every one (although usually in different order from day to day) and taking part in various technical dis cussions. From then on, he would reappear at fairly regular intervals, two or three times during the day or when something unusual occurred. While away from the room, he visited the other rooms of his department, attended conferences and other scheduled meetings, paid informal visits to members of the departments in the company or, as was more customary for extended periods of time, retired to his desk in one corner of room B next door to the tube room. It was to this desk that members of the tube room group would come when they had a question or a problem. Anyone from the tube room was equally likely to visit Long at his desk, and unless the situations prompting the visits were unusually complicated or pressing, he would respond with a few words of explanation, approval, or a promise to "do something about it." During a two-day period in which Long once happened to spend nearly all his time at this desk, these visits averaged about six or seven per day. He appeared serious with occasional smiles. Seldom effusive, he nevertheless usually managed to convey by his serious bearing and conversation an impression of friendliness, personal interest, and confidence in addressing problems. Employee Comments on Long Sally: If anything does go wrong around here we first of all try to find out what the trouble is ourselves and if that doesn't work we go to get Walter. Walter always helps us out. He knows the answers. Betty Gilen: Walter is fair, and he knows what he is doing. Martha: (in connection with a rumor that Walter was being considered for promotion to a bigger job) Walter, he's the best. I don't know what we would do without him. He's always fair, treats us all alike. We're very proud of him. We would miss him terribly if he left. Nellie: If Walter were promoted, we all would be very pleased for him. He deserves it, and it's time he went on to bigger things. But for me, it would mean I'd lost my purpose for working. That guy made our work something it had never been before. I would never be able to feel the same way about George. [George Cortoza, foreman in production room C, was ru mored to be Walter's replacement.] George is all right. He's pleasant, and he's a nice guy, but I have a respect for Walter I'd never be able to develop for George. And it's not only respect I feel for Walter. Walter is my friend. I look forward to work every morning. We're a zany bunch--real screwballs-- you couldn't find a bunch of people anywhere with more different personalities than we have. You've seen the way we horse around, and we don't feel the least bit embarrassed about it. We can get away with anything, but when it comes to our work, there's no one better than we are, either. Now this is just a small department here, and I'm not over anyone, but I feel important. I feel there's a purpose in my life. I'm responsible for the pump stand and it's a critical part of the operation in there. It's a part of me and I'm part of it. I worry about how it's going. I'm checking it over all the time, and I'm turning out a lot of work on it. But you see, it's not only the pump stand. It's how Walter and people like him can make you feel about it. I know I'm not very bright and it doesn't take much for anyone to make me feel really stupid, but Walter has never done that. He's always made me feel that I've got ideas that are useful.

Now, I know my knowledge about the pump stand is very limited, and I lean a great deal on Walter to help me out of scrapes, but you know, every time I talk over a problem with him I feel as though I'm learning something. And I am learning! Right now we've run into a problem on the pump stand. There's something wrong in the exhaust manifold system. We're not getting the tubes clean enough. Sally and I have gone over and over the system and we don't know what it is. We will wait for Walter until he has time, and we know eventually he will help us out. Sure, we've got an engineer assigned to the department who is supposed to take care of these problems for us. We're not supposed to; we're just production workers, not supposed to know anything. And, brother, is the engineer convinced of that! I'd walk out of the plant before I'd turn to him for help. We don't need him in here and don't want him. Walter, on the other hand, has a way of using his knowledge to help a person build up her own knowledge. He gives knowledege to you--he doesn't use it on you. That's how I feel about Walter as a friend and as the best boss I've ever had. Walter: The casewriter talked to Walter on a number of occasions about his self-perceptions as an administrator and his job. The following comments are excerpts from some of these conversations. Excerpt No. 1: On his relations with the tube room production workers Walter [speaking about what had been responsible for the marked improvement in the group's performance] I would say it was mostly a matter of treating the women in there the way they wanted to be treated and needed to be treated in order to feel as though they were part of this company. When I started, one of the first things I told them was to forget about standards, to figuratively throw the standards out, pretend they didn't even exist--to just do the best job they knew how. I told them I felt they were working for Am. Radiatronics and not for me, that my job was to help them and not tell them what to do, and that they were strictly on their own as far as getting out production, scheduling their work, pacing themselves, watching their own waste, and so on. If they got into trouble, they could ask me for help and I would give it to them. Above all, I told them, we were going to be interested in making a better tube and learning how to do our job better at all times. They didn't believe me at first. Some of them gave me a really rough time, but gradually they learned I meant what I said and things began to improve. I have no supervisor in the room. Sally is group leader for the others, but each person in the room is responsible for her own operation. I'm always careful and insistent that they're given credit for everything they do. If she gets into trouble, or if she has a question, she's free to come to me directly. I then work out her problems with her personally. When I'm presented with a problem, such as an order for extra work from one of the other departments, I'm able to just turn it over to one of the women and it gets done. I go in to them every now and then, just now and then, to keep an eye on things and to stay in touch. I check the production record to see how things are going, and I always speak to the women. I try to be careful, whenever I come into the room, to see that I always talk to a different person first each time. This way each one feels she is getting her fair share of attention. I talk with them about whatever is of interest to them. If it is about their families, fine--if it is about work, fine. Sometimes when I see that things are not going so well, and they don't always go just right, I'm careful to avoid any distressing or threatening discussion. These women are not all the same. Some of them are pretty tough customers. Nellie in particular has given me quite a lot of trouble in the past. So I'm extra careful in working with her. I keep no secrets. They know as much about this operation and about what is going on in the top offices as I do. I'm honest with them and I ask that they be honest with me. This has paid off, too, because none of my workers is afraid to admit her mistakes and they're always anxious to learn how to do something better. I have noticed here lately that there is almost a tinge of neuroticism in the way several of the group have become so concerned about production and quality. It causes a little stir now and then. Excerpt No. 2: On motivation A person spends the majority of his waking hours on the job. It seems to me that the job should be important, that the job should represent the source of greatest satisfaction that a person experiences. To feel that satisfaction should be obtained only off the job is not realistic. People get drunk, or go to shows, but that doesn't always lead to the kinds of satisfaction that they really need. People need to feel important, to feel as though life is worthwhile,and to feel as though they're accomplishing something. These needs can be satisfied on the job, but it doesn't just happen by accident. You have to work at it.
Walter Long Case (C:\tmp\WALTER.doc)19 June, 2010 Page 7 of 13

One of my firmest beliefs is that the trouble with most managers is the way they think about their people. They see the company as the center of everything--and they're really thinking about themselves when they think about the company. They then see workers as something clustering around this central company or management--that is, they're only there to serve management's interests, to work for management. But these people, these workers, are the same as you and I, and they are the same as management. The boss that uses his workers to build his own ego, to satisfy his sense of power and prestige, is not doing right by his workers. They'll act just the way he treats them. As long as the worker is seen as something to be used by the company, he will resent it and give no more than he has to. But if he can be motivated, I'm convinced that any worker has a potential of productivity that's greatly in excess of anything that he usually gives. Excerpt No. 3: On controlling subordinates' choice of task There is the kind of work you get out of people when they are doing what is prescribed for them to do and then there is the bonus you get when they are doing what they want to do. I want Bill and Tom to figure out for themselves what they want to do, what they are happiest at, and let them do it as much as I can. That is my way of thinking. Take Tom for instance. Prior to Tom's going into room A, which was about a year ago, 65-70 units a month of the work in there was considered to be a good production record. The man in there before Tom did manage to get it up to about 100 units a month. When Tom took over he managed to get up to 110 units per month quite quickly without trying too hard. So I just left him alone, raised the standard up to that, and he kept pushing it ahead. Now we are doing more work than ever in there--he has hit as much as 160 to 180 units a month, and yet frequently he is able to come in here and put in the equivalent of a full day's work in the tube room. That is what I mean by the bonus you get for letting people do the kind of work they want to do. Tom is doing more than what was a full day's work in room A previously, and at the same time he is doing a lot in here besides. He wanted to do this so he just figured out how he could get things done in there quicker in order to spend more time in here. I want him to find out what he likes to do best. Right now I am kind of pushing him to take on the pump stand work, which he is doing besides picking up a lot of various maintenance work. No one knows at this time what he will end up liking best, but he is free to go in either direction without my telling him which one to take on. If it develops that he prefers the maintenance equipment kind of work, I'll ease off on the pump stand encouragement, and let Nellie MacDonald take on more of that. It's up to Tom. One thing, and this is important, I'm not trying to handle Tom. Tom isn't trying to work harder, and I don't think I could make his work harder. The reason he is doing as well as he is is because he hasn't been thinking in terms of getting more work done; he has been thinking about learning and about getting ahead. I know he would think I was taking advantage of him if all he heard from me was getting more work out. For instance, if instead of feeling the way I do, I felt that Tom wasn't getting enough work done out there in room A, I wouldn't push him. I would leave him alone to find his way. As it is now, he moves in, he learns more, he takes on more and more responsibility. This is the way you grow. I changed his grade when I opened the door for him to go into the tube room. I jumped him up two grades. When I see he can take on more work yet, I'll jump him again. Excerpt No. 4: On the use of Work standards and budgets I believe in work standards as a yardstick of measurement that has no inherent validity of its own but does have a practical value. To me, the function of the standards is to serve as a guidepost on the side of the road to tell us where we are today in relation to where we were yesterday and where we think we can go tomorrow. They provide management a means of determining in advance what they can sell their product for while being competitive and profitable. It isn't the standard that should determine how people work or pace themselves; instead the energy, drive, and interest they put in their work should be determined by how they feel about their work. I've indoctrinated my people to use standards just as a guide. I tell my people, "You should be taking your incentive from yourselves." But I also emphasize to them that it is of vital interest to the company and therefore to themselves that they make the operation as profitable as possible because they, the

workers, are just as meaningfully the company as management or the stockholders are, and in many ways even more so. I drive into them that one of the important satisfactions available to them is being engaged in a successful, profitable activity. "After all," I tell them, "work is a way of life," and we've got to be getting something out of it as people. One of these things that can be important is the knowledge that we are connected with a successful operation that we helped make that way. I have a budget, but I don't use my budget to control my people. Rather, I use it as something which they themselves can get satisfaction out of. For instance, we have cut our operating expenses way down since I took over, but I didn't do it, my people did it. Our department maintenance man, Bill Yoost, administers our supplies expense budget himself. He does all his own ordering and he does it in accordance with the amount of money that he has available in his budget. These are supplies that are not used only by him but by the women in the department as well. Since they all know that it's up to them to control their expenses, they do it. If someone from another department comes and tries to borrow something which they know has been charged against their budget, they simply won't allow it. They'll say, "No, you'll run our expense budget over. You'll have to get it somewhere else." I go over the budget with Bill once a month, whenever it comes out. We talk about it. From then on it's up to him. I keep an eye on it every now and then just to see that he isn't running too far out on a limb, and if I see something wrong, I'll ask him about it. But if he tells me that he's making out all right, I let him go. Excerpt No. 5: On required features of his department's organization There are three things I'm very firm on in the department. One of them is the production schedule. That's sacred! That is a must. Under all circumstances we must produce the schedule. Casewriter: Is this because your superiors have imposed the schedule on you that same way, too? Walter: No, it's because I want it that way. This is what we're in business for. We want to get goods out the door. The way we go about doing that will, of course, make a difference in how successfully we accomplish the things not directly connected with production that are also real and important. But we want to keep the record straight. There is no wavering or compro mise on the schedule. That will not be tolerated and everyone knows it. Second are the employee evaluation sheets. These sheets are absolutely required by management and I can't get around them. I don't like them; I think they can do more harm than good at times, but they are there and I have to go along with them. The third thing is that I expect my people in this department to get along with one another. I say to them, "You must adjust to and with the group and become a part of it. At the least, you must have a willingness to try to do this." I think they all know this, I've told them so directly and I've talked about and around it repeatedly on every occasion I could. This doesn't mean I forbid people to have personal differences. That would be stupid. But I do require that they overcome whatever personal differences they might have to the extent of being able to function cooperatively with one another. Two years ago, I had to get rid of a woman who just had to fight with everyone she worked with. I tried my best to help her, but it did no good. I fired her, and everyone knew why, too. Excerpt No. 6: On relations among groups at American Radiatronics Walter Ryerson from the research department wants to use Sally on some special work he needs to have done in the electronics lab. He likes to have her do it because it's very delicate work and no one can do it as well as she can. I told him I'd speak to Sally and that he should check back later to talk to her himself. You know, we do this sort of thing back and forth all the time. We help them out and they help us out and there's a good relationship all around, but good relations have to be built. They don't just happen. I started out in just small ways doing things for them, and as we began to build mutual trust and confidence, they started doing little things for us. Gradually, these exchanges got bigger. I once spent close to four weeks almost full time helping
Walter Long Case (C:\tmp\WALTER.doc)19 June, 2010 Page 9 of 13

them out on some equipment setup they were working on. There were four of us, three of them and myself. We formed a team, made our own designs, then put it together. It worked out very well. Their glass blower comes up here and does all our glass system repair work for us. If we ever need any stopcocks or other parts in a hurry, we just ask for them and get them without any questions. Now if any other department should try to do this, they would be out of them. There has never been a piece of paper passed between us. They've never asked us to sign for anything or keep records. We don't distinguish between ourselves as far as things we can do together or for one another are concerned. It's a good feeling. This is an important problem at American Radiatronics--how to build relationships between different groups. Right now relations are generally pretty poor- Foremen fighting with one another, saying this man is holding me up because he isn't getting the right parts to me or that man is holding me up for any one of a dozen reasons they will have. They say they're overloaded. They just can't get the work out with the manpower and equipment they've got. The schedule is too tight, parts are too slow. I just don't think this is true. I think there is plenty of manpower here and the productive capacity of each department is at least twice what they're getting out of them now. I think these problems are in the men themselves and in their relations with one another. They don't trust one another. They're fighting instead of cooperating; protecting themselves rather than working freely and confidently. It's around this problem, in little ways, that I'd like to do more. I'd like to begin to turn the tide if I could some way. Another View of the Tube Room The casewriter interviewed Harold Singer, an engineer from the company's process engineering department who was familiar with the nuclear tube room. Singer and his colleagues served as central staff specialists for various operating departments; they also worked on product development, production process planning, and technical aspects of long-range business planning. Harold Singer I really can't understand how this operation makes money. The products are primitive in design, no changes have been made in years, and there's no engineering control of any kind. Everything is run on a casual hit-or-miss basis. It shouldn't make money, but somehow it does. Dollarwise, they're doing a pretty good job in here, as far as it goes, but they've got one overriding weakness in the way they are presently set up. Do you realize the women do all their own testing in here? The same women that make the tubes test them. It just isn't logical. It's against human nature. You can't trust the same people who make something to also test it. It's not healthy. They'll always try to protect themselves. This group of test equipment over here should be operated by a distinctly separate group of people completely removed from the production and under different supervision. We've got plans in the works for taking on this place and really making it over. And when we do we'll see to it that the testing operations are carried on in a separate department. We'll really whip this operation into shape. There's a tremendous potential in this kind of activity, but it's never been exploited. We've got designs on the board right now that would revolutionize the way of doing things around here if we could get them going. I'd like to make this a model show place for the company. Right now it's the worst in the company. Look at all this dirt around and the disorganization. This place has never been under engineering control. That's the trouble with it. The products and processes here now are what they've traditionally been from almost the start. Most of the product design changes that have been made have been developed and put into practice by the production people themselves. That's not good. Too much can creep into an organization that way that isn't good for it. They design their own products, they alter and maintain their own production equipment and processes, and they are free to go off in all different directions at once. The first thing we would do if we could get hold of this room would be to put every operation under close engineering surveillance. The whole setup needs to be revamped and overhauled from one end to the other. We'll do it too. You won't recognize it two years from now. Some of the new products we have in mind will call for a level of sophistication in production methods, equipment design, and cleanliness that'll make this look sick. You've seen pictures of how some of these production departments look in other companies. The cleanliness precautions that make them look like operating rooms, temperature and humidity controls, all white painted walls and equipment. That's what we'll have here. Personnel is right now looking into available sources of production workers for us, and when we start getting them in here and training them properly and installing modern production methods with the true mass production setup, then you'll see what this department can do.

I'd like to think time zero for this department's operations in this company's history will start three months from now. We've got all the preliminary design work and process system concepts worked out already, and in about three months we'll begin to pick up some real speed. Two years from now you won't know the place. In contrast, everything that will have gone on before will be nothing. Take a good look around at what you see in here right now; you'll never see it again. Before long, it will be like looking back at the covered wagon era. Exhibit 1: Partial Organization Chart Halbert, Pres

VP Engineering

VP Sales

VP Manuf. Neil Goodrich Mgr. of Ind. Engineering Factory Manager

Process Eing Dr. Virginia Daniels

Harold Singer Genl. Foreman Walter Long

Other General Foremen Production Room B 2 Full Time Eemploiyees Prod. Room C Foreman: G. Cordova

Production Room A Tom Montag

NTAR Group Leader Sally Ivers

Walter Long Case (C:\tmp\WALTER.doc)19 June, 2010

Page 11 of 13

Exhibit 2: Memo
RE: Process Department TO: T. Bishop, R. Long Date: July 10 FROM: S. K. Lowe

I. Summary A brief summary of history, data from supervisors (various levels), employees and exit interviews would indicate the following: A. this section has had a reputation for being a problem department; it is less well organized than other sections (work flow, safety, basic processes, equipment, housekeeping, etc) Group behavior gives evidence of intense frustration, personal differences, rumor mongering, and concern over operations. Misunderstandings regarding wages have been reflected by new employees; discouragement about "getting ahead" is reflected by them after a few short weeks of work, after talking with the older people in the department. B. Productionwise, the section has had a history of not meeting delivery dates or production quotas-with a high rate of product rejects. II. Analysis _ Operations-basic product difficulty: the products (fairly diverse and delicate) have not been "beaten down." Quality is dependent on process, thus requiring a different kind of standarizing. Certain tube reactions are still technically unexplained. it a problem of basic design? _ Instability of product: product results, therefore have been unstable and/or unpredictable _ Work Flow: organization of the work flow, methods used and work steps do not appear as well defined as other operations, largely due, it would seem to basic unresolved technical problems. _ Work standards and Conditions: standards of cleanliness, observing eating, restrictions have not been rigidly observed. _ Equipment: equipment failure and repair have, until recently, been a subject of complaint _ Coordination: there is evidence of need for better liaison with sale,s scheduling, planning and meeting promised dates III. Attitudes A. Top Management With a myriad of pressure (merger, new plant, move, etc.), perhaps this small department did not have adequate recognition of its fundamental technical dilemmas, or it did not know how to deal with the basic technical problems-- thus unraveling the other tangled department threads. Perhaps in the pressure of bigger problems, it received a stepchild treatment. B. Supervisors To most management personnel concerned with its operation, the nuclear tube section was not only a headache, but a bewilderment. Had they been able to solve the basic technical difficulties, it would not have operated on a crisis basis, nor reflected the high degree of frustration which characterized their attitudes. For the supervision level nearest the employees the same pattern has existed over a period of time--inability to organize due to basic technical product difficulties--poor equipment--little attention, or inadequate understanding and solution of basic technical problems. C. Employees Employees reflect a high degree of frustration and worry--for several reasons. They tend naturally to reflect the attitudes of their supervision. As a work group, they are older than average, tending to seek satisfaction from a well ordered operation. This by reason of product process has not existed. Employees are distinctly upset by variations in tube results--not knowing "reasons why," feeling they should be getting more consistent results. The high number of rejects on items produced is hardly a source of job satisfaction unless recognized and understood as part of the stage of product development. Employees may be confused by the variety and types of things on which they work--upset by poor scheduling, crisis upon crisis, coupled with hazy work steps or unanalyzed processes. Note: This report was prepared prior to Walter Long's taking charge of the nuclear tube assembly room on June 15. T. Bishop was factory manager, and S.K. Lowe was director of industrial relations.

Exhibit 3: Labor Efficiency-three months moving average

Name Walter Long Bill Yoost Sally Ivers Alice Homart Nellie MacDonald Hilda Farley Martha Holtz Betty Gilen Sylvia Johns Tom Montag Dolores Condotti

Title Foreman Maint Mechanic Group Leader Team A A A A A A B B

Exhibit 4: Job and Personal Information Pay Level Age Seniority in company NA 41 3 15 39 3 13 43 12 11 53 3 10 46 5 10 46 11 9 56 6 9 42 4 8 42 1 7 26 0.5 7 31 3

Seniority in Room 2 2 12 3 5 1 4 4 1 0.5 3

Walter Long Case (C:\tmp\WALTER.doc)19 June, 2010

Page 13 of 13