October 2019 | ISE Magazine 41
Industrial engineers and others have always had a ba-
sic need to understand what the forces and contributing
factors are that determine how well a piece of work gets
accomplished. The purpose here is to examine in some
detail what those factors are and some hints for utiliz-
ing this information to maximize the performance of a
task, job or any other structure that is deemed work. Most of
this information is based on my experience as a mechanical
engineer and industrial engineer covering the last 60 years.
Because it is based on empirical experience, there is no claim
to representing scientific basis for this information.
Per the CBS Sunday Morning show of April 9, 2017, trends
in automation outside the factory floor (driverless cars,
drones, etc.) will slowly decrease the number of workers in
many occupations. However, the basic need to understand
and deal with the factors that affect job performance will
still be necessary unless the need for all managers is done
away with. Underlying all of this are some new ideas on how
to not only assess and measure performance but be better
equipped to make the more important decision: getting the
“right” person to perform the work. As important, if not
more critical, is having that individual “happy” in that work.
There is nothing more miserable than going to work every
day to do something totally demoralizing.
Since the beginning of time, there has always been work
to do. Picking the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden is
probably the earliest task you could imagine as being a job
or piece of work that was performed with several influencing
factors. A Google search reveals the following partial list for
definitions of work:
• To exert oneself by doing mental or physical work for a
purpose or out of necessity. “I will work hard to improve
my grades.” “She worked hard for ...”
• Be employed. “Is your husband working again?” “My
wife never worked.” “Do you want to work after the age
of 60?” “She never did any work because she inherited
a lot of money.” “She works as a waitress to put herself
through college.”
• Have an effect or outcome, often the one desired or ex-
pected. “This method doesn’t work.” “The medicine
works only if you take it with a lot of water.”
• Function; perform as expected when applied. “The wash-
ing machine won’t work unless it is plugged in.” “Does
this old car still run well?” “This old radio doesn’t work
anymore.”
• Exercise; give a workout to. “My personal trainer works
me very hard.” “This puzzle will exercise your mind.”
• Gratify and charm. “The political candidate worked the
crowds.”
• Cultivate; prepare for crops. “Work the soil.” “Cultivate
the land.”
For purposes here the following is the definition of work:
Any paid or unpaid set of activities or tasks performed to
reach a goal, within profit or nonprofit environments.
Activities may be primarily physical or mental. A set of
activities performed by someone on an automobile assembly
line is primarily physical, while the activity performed by
the engineer designing those tasks is mostly mental. In addi-
tion to this distinction, other considerations come into play
when trying to understand the variables that drive perfor-
mance levels. An attempt will be made to sort out the factors
in such a way that will give the reader some hints and ideas
for helping to improve performance and avoid things that are
disastrous.
Few individuals relish the idea of having their job per-
formance measured. It can be a demeaning and resentful
experience, especially when the person doing the measur-
ing always seems to have to come up with suggestions for
improvement. I can never recall being measured and evalu-
ated wherein I was told there is nothing I can do to improve
my performance. Behaviorists have many theories and ideas
that touch on this subject; however, there will be little or no
further discussion here. Some of the experiences I cite, in
fact, may fly in the face of some popular behavioral schools
of thought. This empirically based approach allows me this
freedom.
One can trace the beginnings of scientific measurement
of work to the efforts of early pioneers of the industrial en-
gineering profession. Early on, IEs were known variously as
time study analysts, methods men, et al. The following two
experiments are classic in the annals of IE history.
I
Frederick Taylor (1856-1915) set standards for work production
in use of a shovel and layout of a steel yard to maximize
efficiency at Bethlehem Steel Corp., saving the company time
and money.
42 ISE Magazine | www.iise.org/ISEmagazine
Factors that affect the performance of work
The shoveling experiment
Shortly after Frederick Taylor (1856-1915), who is often
called the father of scientific management, went to work at
the Bethlehem Steel Corp. in 1898, he began studying the
science of one of the oldest jobs in the world: shoveling. His
intention was to substitute scientific knowledge for individu-
al judgment or opinion. Taylor stated that both management
and labor would need a mental revolution if industry was to
adopt scientific analysis. Applied science can be revolution-
ary, as was the case with the shoveling experiment.
The key step was to determine the appropriate weight of
material that an average man should be able to handle, hour
after hour, without undue fatigue, a measure never before
determined. Taylor found that 21.4 pounds of material on a
shovel would result in a maximum amount handled per day.
Apparently, this figure was never verified, because there is
no record that Taylor’s experiment was ever repeated. Inter-
estingly, the results of this experiment meant that workers
would need a different size of shovel for each task depend-
ing upon the density of the material they were shoveling,
whether it was coal, scrap iron or wood shavings.
Taylor also studied the shoveling methods to find those
that would use the fewest motions and involve the least
amount of fatigue. In effect, he set a standard for the amount
of material to be lifted per shovel for the method used.
It clearly became important to properly select the men to
carry out and to train them in the use of these methods. Tay-
lor further found that workers in the Bethlehem Steel Works
were wasting a great deal of time moving from one job to
another because the storage yard was one-half to 2 miles long
and almost a half-mile wide. To control the wasted time,
Taylor made a map of the steel yard for planning jobs in ad-
vance. Instruction cards were given to workers with notes
indicating the types of tools needed and a central tool house
was set up to maintain and check them.
These improvements made because of this one experiment
had the following revolutionary effects on the organization
of manufacturing:
• Manufacturing developed the need for industrial engi-
neering departments to develop techniques of time and
motion study to set standards for output, methods, tools
and machines.
• Tool and storage rooms became service departments
which led to the development of what we know as inven-
tory control systems.
• Human resources departments had their beginnings to
write job descriptions and systematically select workers for
each job.
• Training departments were required to instruct new
workers in the standard methods.
• The layout of manufacturing facilities became important
for ensuring that the movement of materials and men were
minimized and the new departments were properly lo-
cated.
• Production control departments were needed to manage
day-to-day operations.
• Payroll systems had to be reworked to allow for incentive
payments to workers that exceeded standard outputs.
The payoff of this experiment garnered excitement not
only at Bethlehem but across the fledgling industrial engi-
neering profession. The crew of 400 to 600 men who had
worked in the steelyard was reduced to 140 men able to han-
dle the same amount of work, several million tons of material
per year. The old system, or rather lack of system, had cost 7
to 8 cents per ton. After paying for all clerical work, the time
study instruction and the building and operation of the labor
office and tool room, the cost of handling a ton of material
was brought down to 3 to 4 cents per ton, an estimated an-
nual saving at this particular plant of $78,000 a year.
Unnecessary work was eliminated and men were released
for more productive activity. Those continuing on their jobs
got more money for less effort and eventually shorter hours.
As Peter Drucker put it in 1968, they worked “smarter, not
harder.”
The bricklaying experiment
Frank Gilbreth (1868-1924) and his wife Lillian (1878-1972)
were, like Taylor, also early pioneers in the application of a
scientific approach to work. Their achievements were popu-
larized in the book and later the 1950 movie, “Cheaper by
the Dozen.”
In 1885, when Frank Gilbreth began working as a brick-
layer, he found that workers did not always use the same mo-
tions to lay bricks. Some even used three different methods:
one when working on a routine basis, another when working
fast and another when showing the method to someone else.
Gilbreth, like Taylor, felt there should be a standard method,
determined systematically, which was prescribed by manage-
ment, not by individuals.
Gilbreth’s approach was to analyze each element involved
in bricklaying and to eliminate unnecessary motions. Gil-
breth reduced the motions from 18 to 4½ per brick, the half
of a motion being accomplished by scraping the mortar from
two bricks at a time. A scaffold was invented that would
move up as the wall was built higher so that the worker
would be laying bricks at the proper level each time and did
not have to stoop and lift his 200-pound body every time
he reached down to pick up brick or mortar. The movable
scaffold which keeps work at the proper level is still used in
many jobs even today.
A bricklayer often selects different shades of brick to give
a wall a nonuniform appearance. Although this mixing of
October 2019 | ISE Magazine 43
shades could be done by a lower paid
worker, it was better accomplished by
randomly palletizing the bricks back at
the factory. This type of post-World War
II innovation complied with Frank Gil-
breth’s principles.
Just as Taylor felt that there should be a
handbook to help in the standardizing of
data for motion elements in jobs common
to many industries, so Gilbreth thought
there should be a department of standards
in the United States government to assem-
ble data for standardizing the trades. He
felt that such data need not be confidential
but should be passed on like U.S. Bureau
of Standards material and product speci-
fications in other fields. Gilbreth’s work,
beginning with the study of bricklaying,
began to accomplish this, although not
under government auspices.
Gilbreth began bricklaying in 1885 and
published the book Motion Study in 1911, which dealt mainly
with bricklaying. He described three variables involved in
any job:
1. Variables of the worker
2. Variables of the surroundings
3. Variables of motion
Gilbreth emphasized the happiness of the worker as well
as his productivity both on and off the job. His son, Frank
Gilbreth Jr., suggested the objective of industrial engineering
should be to provide Time Out for Happiness, the title of his
book about his parents’ ideas and contributions (1971).
From these early experiments one can begin to see those
lists of factors that affect performance beginning to form,
such as:
• The effect of fatigue on performance; the variable directly
related to using appropriate tools and methods to do work.
• The proper selection of people to perform specific types of
work.
• The appropriate training to perform the work.
• The physical shape and layout of the workplace and sup-
porting entities.
• Compensation systems for the performance of work.
• Logistics systems that support the tasks to be performed.
A key byproduct of these experiments, not directly ad-
dressed in the experiments, is the effect of management styles
on the performance of work. What follows are some of the
obvious factors in this regard.
Knowing the worker
In all of the years that I have been involved with people and
the work they do, I believe that one of the most, if not the
greatest, impacts on the performance of any job is the fail-
ure to fully understand the person doing the task. Time and
again, I have witnessed the ignorance that goes into improp-
erly selecting someone to perform in a specific profession, to
complete a particular task or to perform the most mundane
work that needs to be accomplished.
This business of knowing the worker before the work be-
gins is most tricky and, in many cases, near impossible in
today’s working environment. If you will recall, during Tay-
lor’s sand-shoveling experiment, he used terms like “average
man” and “properly select the men.” But he doesn’t give any
clue as to any metrics that were used in this process of prop-
erly selecting the men.
Nevertheless, the impact and/or damage that occur when
the wrong person is given a task to perform can be hurtful, if
not catastrophic, to both employee and employer. Examples
of this are many; here are a few:
On an assembly line, the least dexterous person is stationed
at the operation requiring the most dexterity. I have wit-
nessed the chaos this causes for everyone; only the union
representative could resolve it because he knew the workers
better than management and was able to rebalance the posi-
tions on the line.
A highly paranoid manager of lawyers micromanages to
the point of destroying the creative ability and the ultimate
resignation of very capable attorneys. This was an extremely
costly impact because there was no attempt to “know” that
manager.
Frank Gilbreth (1868-1924) created more efficient methods for bricklaying and
pioneered the government’s creation and maintaining of work standard for the
trades. He and his wife Lillian (1878-1972) were subjects of the book and movie,
“Cheaper by the Dozen.”
44 ISE Magazine | www.iise.org/ISEmagazine
Factors that affect the performance of work
An extremely competent but highly introverted
computer programmer was assigned to be a team
leader. A very happy and highly productive profes-
sional became frustrated and the team lost momen-
tum and could not meet the objectives and deadlines
of the project.
Some of the useful techniques for helping to know
the person before they are hired are the following:
• In depth multiple interviews conducted by several
individuals, your best performers and your worst
performers. If the worst performer raves about the
candidate, be very careful.
• Use only candidates who are proposed and voted
on by the current workforce. Whole Foods finds
that this works well, but again, the above caveat
would apply.
• The employment of extensive psychological tests
works well for some businesses. Target uses them
and finds them to be very effective.
• During the interviewing process, seek to find
the individual’s turn-on item. Highly productive
workers usually have something they do that gives
them a “high” and, all other things being equal,
they would do rather than anything else. This
could be related to sports, puzzle activity, religion,
etc. I have found that people who do not have a
“high” item turn out to be mediocre performers.
Dealing with boredom
No one is bored with their job the first day they start
the job or task. It may take a short time or it may
never seriously affect productivity. The Transporta-
tion Security Administration revealed in 2013 that
boredom was setting in so fast for baggage examiners
that it was necessary to limit their time at a station
to 20 minutes. On the other hand, famous authors
sometimes say writer’s block slows them down but
yet they continue to crank out bestseller after best-
seller.
In my own history, I tended to get bored after do-
ing the same job after one to two years. I was fortu-
nate in being able to bounce from technical jobs to
managerial positions to engineering areas to com-
puter systems to financial work, etc.
Skillful managers tend to be very adept at spotting
boredom and doing something before a deleterious
downward spiral in performance seriously affects the
employee and/or the business. Changing or rotating
assignments can help; brief educational sabbaticals
sometimes help. When all else fails, do not hesitate
to help the bored worker find another job.
IBM’s Watson a pioneer in defining
‘company culture’
The company that later became IBM, International Business Machines
Corp., began as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company
in New York City, formed by the merger of three small firms in New
York, Washington and Ohio. Thomas J. Watson Sr., who had been
sales manager of National Cash Register Co., took over in 1914 and
immediately sought to unite the fractured company through the first
strategic use of a “company culture.”
Watson encouraged smart employees to suggest new ideas, all
the way up from the assembly line to management. He created the
company’s motto “THINK,” and it was plastered on signs throughout
the company’s plants and offices.
“The trouble with every one of us is that we don’t think enough,”
he once told his executives. “Knowledge is the result of thought, and
thought is the keynote of success in this business or any business.”
From that, Watson created his basic beliefs, shared by the company
to this day: Respect for the individual; the best customer service in the
world; and excellence.
The man often called “the world’s greatest salesman” died in 1956
at age 82 as IBM board chairman, shortly after he had turned the
company over to his son, Thomas J. Watson Jr. The younger Watson,
who died in 1993, shared the inside look at IBM’s core values and
management decisions in his book, A Business and Its Beliefs: The
Ideas That Helped Build IBM, published in 1963.
“We believe an organization will stand out only if it is willing to take
on seemingly impossible tasks,” Watson Jr. told a Columbia University
audience in 1962.
IBM employees picked up the theme and helped reshape the
company’s core values over the years. In 2003, they started a global
idea exchange called Values Jam that later became Innovation Jam,
which in 2006 attracted more than 150,000 participants from 104
countries to share best practices.
Thomas J. Watson Sr.
Photo courtesy of IBM
October 2019 | ISE Magazine 45
Setting organization principles
The basic set of principles that an enterprise uses to man-
age the work to be accomplished has a major impact on the
performance of workers. At the beginning of my 30 years at
IBM, the principles laid down by Thomas J. Watson at the
founding of the company were:
Have respect for the individual. Thomas Watson Jr.
said his father believed an organization owed a special re-
sponsibility to its people. This took several forms at IBM; the
“open door” policy was pattern setting for many companies.
It simply allowed any employee to escalate problems or issues
to any level of management without fear of reprisal. Watson
espoused the importance of “recognizing that the individual
employee has their own problems, ambitions, abilities, frus-
trations, and goals.” Promotion from within was the rule
with rare exception.
Allow for “wild ducks.” Watson Sr. knew complacency
was the enemy of the organization, and he worked to make
sure the company had its share of wild ducks. Probably one
of the most significant examples of this were the wild ducks
in Boca Raton, led by Don Estridge, that created the IBM
Personal Computer.
Give the best company service of any company in
the world. This was a principle that measured employee
performance at all levels. Watson Sr. said that granting ex-
cellent customer service was the responsibility of IBM’s
sales and service forces but that good service requires the
cooperation of all parts of the business. When he was 18, he
sold pianos and sewing machines in the countryside. Farm-
ers, almost always short of cash, traded farm equipment or
livestock for goods. This embedded in him a keen under-
standing of how to please customers, even those incapable of
“paying” for his products.
Pursue all tasks with the idea that they can be ac-
complished in a superior fashion. Watson Sr. told his
employees, “It is better to aim at perfection and miss than it
is to aim at imperfection and hit it.” This set a tone of “opti-
mism, enthusiasm, excitement and pace.”
There is the story about a young salesperson who com-
pletely messed up and lost a significant sale to a major cus-
tomer. He was summoned to the chairman’s office fully ex-
pecting to be fired. Watson listened to the young man and,
after offering him guidance, told him that he had invested
too much money in him to fire him. It was this optimistic
tone that led to the senior Watson to hire salespeople even
during the Depression. He told a competitor that men of his
age always do something “foolish.” He added “some men
play too much poker, and others bet on horse races ... my
hobby is hiring salespeople.” When business picked up the
following year and boomed after the war, he appeared to be
not so foolish after all.
By the end of my 30 years in 1993, there was a decided
shift in the importance and relevance of the above principles.
Financial issues caused major changes in management and
associated changes in organization principles. As pointed out
by Lou Gerstner, who took the helm in 1993, these prin-
ciples, also known as the Basic Beliefs within IBM, “had
morphed from wonderfully sound principles into something
virtually unrecognizable. At best they were now homilies.
We needed something more, something prescriptive.”
The effect on performance by this shift in organization
principles is debatable. However, measurements at the bot-
tom line were not that impressive. A 24/7Wallst.com report
in 2014 listed IBM as the worst managed company. Though
a market leader in IT consulting and hardware, it struggled
to respond to the shift from servers and mainframes to cloud
computing storage and software.
In the first three quarters of 2014, the company’s hardware
unit revenues fell by 16%, and its pretax loss grew to $354
million. Even as IBM’s cloud computing sales expanded,
its annualized $3.1 billion in cloud services revenue were
a fraction of its nearly $100 billion in total revenues. The
struggling hardware business hurt IBM’s other segments as
its units often are co-dependent.
Much of that gloom, however, has tended to erode and in
2019, some predict a strong comeback for IBM, especially
with the now-strong focus on cloud computing.
In subsequent articles, we will discuss companies that have
become successful and there is a strong hint of the application
of original Watson-style beliefs that led to the great success
of IBM early on.
Respect for the individual has to be maintained for the
long-term success of the business. No amount of financial
goodness will last when loss of respect eventually drains the
business of the best performers.
Adam Cywar is a consultant, lecturer and author and a longtime
IISE member who has consulted with many organizations. Prior
to his retirement, he held middle-management positions in software
development and industrial engineering organizations at IBM, where
he pioneered the establishment of Activity Based Management con-
cepts and was the Founder of the IBM Worldwide ABM Compe-
tency Center. He was a contributor to the first edition of the John
Wiley Handbook of Industrial Engineering and introduced
Total Quality Management concepts within IBM plants in the late
1960s. Cywar holds a master’s degree and a bachelor’s degree in
mechanical engineering from the New Jersey Institute of Technology.
This is the first of three articles that addresses the age-old question of
what drives the performance levels manifest in completing work; look
for the others in upcoming issues of ISE. All are excerpts from his
book, Factors That Affect The Performance Of Work avail-
able at no cost at cywar.org.
