A qualitative study of work stations in industry: employer, professional and service recipient views.

A Qualitative Study of Work Stations in Industry

Significant changes in rehabilitation legislation and employment expectations have expanded the opportunities for persons with mental retardation and emotional disabilities to achieve integrated employment in their communities. Until recently, vocational training for such persons was conducted in segregated sheltered workshops. However, sheltered facilities have been described as poor models for achieving integrated employment, thereby creating a demand for alternative service programs (Bellamy, Rhodes, Bourbeau & Mank, 1986; Pomerantz and Marholin, 1977; Nisbet and Vincent, 1985; Whitehead, 1979).

One service model purported to achieve valued, integrated employment opportunities is the Work Station in Industry (WSI) (McGee, 1975), sometimes called enclaves, workshops without walls, or mobile work crews (Manke, Rhodes & Bellamy, 1985; Rhodes & Valenta, 1984; Vash, 1977). For the purposes of this study, work stations have been defined as a work group consisting of five to twelve individuals performing real work in a real work setting. Within WSI's, supervision and pay are provided primarily by the human service agency (Conte, 1982; McLoughlin, Garner & Callahan, 1987; Vash, 1977). Purportedly WSI provide alternatives to both competitive and traditional sheltered employment by maintaining some of the benefits of integrated employment and providing supports to individual workers that are required to increase the likelihood of long term job success. In particular, persons with disabilities who are employed through the WSI model remain employees of the vocational agency while working in local business and industries. This arrangement is usually the result of a sub-contractual arrangement between the agency and employer.

Work stations are said to have several advantages over sheltered workshops (Brickey, 1974; Durand & Neufeld, 1980; Hagner & Como, 1982; McGee, 1975; Riscalla, 1974). These include lower overhead costs because they are located in regular industry and utilize available floor space, utilities and equipment; low capital requirements; better opportunities for physical and social integration of workers with disabilities; higher payment schedules; and greater potential for expansion of work opportunities and/or job placement.

Using qualitative methods, the authors attempted to: 1) analyze the potential advantages and disadvantages of the Work Station in Industry model in relation to the workers, employers and staff members and; 2) describe its impact on the workers, employers, and staff members. Method

Five separate work stations were studied over a period of nine months. The research involved a subject pool of 54 persons, including 35 disabled individuals, who will be referred to as WSI workers, 8 employers and 11 agency staff. The study was conducted in two overlapping phases utilizing participant observation and open ended interviewing. Participant observation was employed to provide data on the actual operation of the work stations, including the subjective experiences of participants. Approximately 175 hours of observation and note-taking was conducted on the five work stations during this phase of the research.

The study also involved a series of unstructured interviews with work station workers, employers, agency staff, and non-disabled co-workers. The purpose of this phase was to identify the stated functions of the work station as viewed by each participant, and to conduct participant observations of the programs' actual operations.

Since each group of participants in the study were associated with the WSI in different ways, a series of open-ended interview questions were developed for each group and used as a framework for the interview session. A few examples of questions include: 1) Describe how the WSI was started; 2) Explain what you accomplished through a WSI; 3) What are the advantages of a work station? 4) How do you like the WSI? 5) What do you dislike about it?

Approximately 35 hours of interviews were conducted and transcribed for the study. Also observational data were recorded and agency documents (e.g., worker records, supervisory reports, pay records, office memoranda, etc.) were examined in order to generate as many sources of information as possible.

Participants

The 35 WSI workers involved in this study ranged in ages from 21 to 57 years of age and included 12 women and 23 men. Thirty-one persons were labelled mentally retarded. Four individuals were described as having a psychiatric disorder as their primary disability. Many persons also had secondary disabilities which included: seizure conditions (7), speech impairments (3), cerebral palsy (1), and visual difficulties (1). Five persons had combined diagnoses of mental retardation and emotional disturbance. Of the individuals labelled mentally retarded, 15 were classified as mild, nine as moderate, two as severe, and two as profound. See Table 1 for a description of workers.

A total of 26 WSI workers were formally interviewed. Nine persons did not participate in this part of the research because they: 1) were not sufficiently verbal to be interviewed; 2) were absent during the interviewing phase; or 3) declined to be interviewed.

Settings

The two agencies in the study were well established human service organizations and were responsible for operating the five work stations described in Table 2. Agency A consisted of about 350 workers, almost all of whom were mentally retarded. They have served this population for approximately 15 years. Agency B was comprised of about 600 workers most of whom had been classified as mentally retarded and/or emotionally disturbed. This organization has been in existence for approximately 20 years. Both agencies served the majority of their clients through a sheltered workshop program and had only a small percentage in the WSI program.

Data Analysis

Field notes and taped interviews were transcribed and analyzed using the Constant Comparative Method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This technique involved a line-by-line examination of the transcripts and field notes in separate descriptive themes in the data were identified for agency staff, employers and WSI workers. Three different sorting operations were used. First, comments about the work station were sorted according to who made the comment. Agency staff comments were placed in the first group, employer and co-worker comments were placed in the second group, and worker comments were placed in a third group. Second, comments within each group were sorted into positive statements about the work station and negative statements. Third, each of the groups was examined for cohesive themes or categories that united the comments within that particular group. From these themes a series of outlines were developed that represented each sub-group's perspective about work stations. The outlines were then merged into a narrative which comprises the results section.

Quantitative analyses were also performed on wages earned in the workshop and compared with those of the same client at the work station. Using data obtained from client records for 14 subjects, this analysis utilized the Sign Test (Nemenyi et al., 1977) to assess the statistical significance of observed differences in pay. Results

Stated Agency Goals

Representatives of the two agencies studied emphasized different objectives for their WSI programs. While Agency A frequently mentioned the vocational advantages of their work stations, they also stressed the social benefits of their programs, especially in comparison with their sheltered workshops. The staff most frequently noted benefits such as enhanced social integration, social skill development, heightened worker self-esteem, and enhanced work environments. Agency B personnel, on the other hand, almost ignored nonvocational issues when describing their work stations programs. They discussed WSI as a vocational, skill training enterprise which was designed to prepare people for competitive employment.

Agency A also more frequently noted the financial advantages of the WSI to their organization. Although these fiscal benefits were not described as explicit goals of the work stations, it was clearly implied that without such advantages, the programs would not continue to enjoy a favored position within the agency. Agency B seemed to consider their WSI as a minor part of their overall services and rarely mentioned financial issues.

While the two agencies deemed to hold dissimilar views toward the WSI, they operated the programs similarly. Their disparate orientations however, had little impact on how WSI workers experienced and described the two programs, or the day-to-day operation of the programs. Economic Factors

Advantages

The WSI program reportedly had economic advantages for all of the participating parties. Some employers reported that they did not have the financial resources to contract for the quality of work that they wanted and saved as much as 20% by using the work stations rather than a commercial janitorial contractor.

Employee attrition and absenteeism expenses were also reportedly less with the WSI. Moreover, employers described lower management and supervisory costs because of the presence of WSI staff, and in some cases noted reduced expenses for equipment and supplies which were provided by the agencies.

The agencies also reported financial benefits from the WSI program. Overhead costs were reduced because agency buildings, rent, maintenance, or special equipment were not required. Moreover, WSI workers did not have to be paid for "make work" between sub-contracts when there was no agency income. Finally, the WSI needed less staff which reduced salary and benefit expenses. One agency indicated that the work stations increased its income from other referring human service organizations. Clients reportedly moved through the agency quickly, allowing for new clients to be served and therefore more case service money to flow to the agency.

A total of 19 of the 26 workers interviewed favored WSI over the sheltered workshop because of higher pay. Contained in Table 3 are comparative figures for 1980 and 1981 calculated for the same persons who worked in both the Agency A workshop and WSI.

While these figures are likely higher in 1989, there is no evidence to indicate that they have changed relative to each other. Those working in the work stations earned three times the income, or significantly more money (p. < 001) for an equivalent number of hours. This difference more than accounts for the increased income which may have resulted from an annual raise or inflation.

The earnings discrepancy occurred because WSI workers were usually paid a minimum hourly rate for jobs in the service sector, while workshop employees were paid a piece rate for manufacturing-type jobs. A second factor accounting for the earnings discrepancy was the availability of more money for client wages in WSI. Work stations had fewer overhead expenses, and therefore had more money available than the workshop for wages. WSI workers also mentioned that the WSI provided steadier work. As one person related: "The work station is much better than the workshop. You don't have as much down time, and you get a bigger paycheck; and you don't have to put up with the garbage in the workshop."

Agency persons also believed that WSI's provided clients with a steadier form of income. As one staff stated:

The work is steadier; hardly any down time on a work station; whereas in a workshop a very big problem is the constant ups and downs. A job comes in and is the constant ups and downs. A job comes in and is gone, and you sit for a couple of days.

Workers also described WSI as providing more job security. As one individual noted:

I got to get something I can depend on. I mean, I'm not fussy, but I'm 57 years old. It's a job. It keeps me going, gives me money and it's dependable; and I don't have that much to worry about.

Other clients were told that they could stay in the WSI program as long as they wanted. In fact, three clients had been in the program for over three years, a point which will be discussed later in this article.

Unlike the workshops which relied on the vagaries of sub-contract work, WSI relied mostly on service jobs. This type of employment typically remained stable regardless of external economic conditions. Thus, there was always work to be done. WSI workers knew that they had a job everyday. The work reportedly was of higher status than that performed in the workshop, the jobs were fairly predictable each day, and the work was always needed.

Disadvantages

The only disadvantages mentioned by the staff were the initial economic risks they experienced. They noted that undertaking such a program required start-up money, financial reallocation, economic liabilities, and risks to their community reputation. Further costs such as providing daily transportation and vehicle maintenance were initially expensive and diverted money from well established projects. Training and Employment Factors

Advantages

Agency staff believed that WSIs were an excellent "pre-placement tool" for many workers because of the skill training it provided. Worker skills were enhanced due to the high expectations of employers and work station supervisors, the better facilities of the host company, and the consistency of the work. Workers also felt that they received better training in WSI than in the workshop, frequently noting that they had been taught useful skills, and that they had been taught well:

(The supervisor) showed me how to use a (rug) shampooer, how to extract a rug, and how to strip a floor, wash windows, do lights, and walls. He taught me everything in here. I know how to dust, any job in here. I have been well trained. I know where everything is, what to use, and how to do it.

Disadvantages

While the WSI training was described as better than that provided in the workshops, it contained some flaws which were not well described by the program participants. Observations of clients and supervisors revealed that very little intense, extended training occurred. For example, at one work station operated by Agency A, the supervisor was often not present where the work was being performed, and only returned to the site after the work was finished. Except for the initial job orientation, each person was entirely independent regarding what was done and how it was done. Similarly, Agency B conducted a WSI in which supervisors were dispersed throughout the building where it was impossible for them to spend much time enhancing the skills of individual workers.

The lack of adequate training may have adversely affected the placement success of both WSI programs. 64 of 69 workers in Agency A had either been returned to a sheltered workshop or had remained in the work station. Of 175 "graduates" of Agency B's WSI, 52 were reported as competitively placed. However, the staff noted that many of these persons had "bounced back" to the workshop.

The lack of training offered in the observed WSIs appeared to be due to several factors: a) the limited number of supervisors available in the work sites; b) a lack of supervisor instructional experience, knowledge, and skills; c) the emphasis on completing the work rather than teaching new skills; d) the absence of a well articulated, systematic training methodology.

Another problem with worker training was reported as indigenous to the concept of group work itself. Agency staff reportedly devised work tasks in order to occupy as many clients as possible and to simplify jobs when necessary. Jobs were broken up into smaller tasks to which workers were assigned. As a result of this arrangement, many workers rarely tried other tasks, thus minimizing the training value of their total experience. Further, some individuals were taught that they were only responsible for one task and consequently showed little interest in, and often refused to do other, more complex tasks.

Some WSI workers seemed unchallenged by their work assignment, causing them to work slowly, or to finish early, and to wait for others to finish their jobs. The staff at one work station claimed that workers changed assignments weekly. Such changes were neither observed during the research period, nor reported by workers.

Another disadvantage of the WSI in relation to training was the fact that it operated like a sheltered workshop in establishing its contracts with community employers. This had several undesirable consequences. Individual worker improvements could not be rewarded as quickly as if they were paid directly by the employer, since studies were required before worker pay changes could be implemented.

Time studies were conducted sometimes three to six months apart, and therefore, could not capture increases in client productivity in a timely fashion. Time studies were also unduly sensitive to the random fluctuations of worker performance. Thus, an increasingly productive worker might not be adequately rewarded for his/her overall high performance if the time study was conducted when he/she was having an "off day".

An ironic disadvantage of WSI was its perceived resemblance to the real work world. According to agency staff and family members, persons often were reluctant to accept WSI jobs because they were perceived as too demanding, and the chance of failure was too great. In some situations, WSI jobs were viewed as too menial or not consistent with a person's interests, skills or capabilities. Employer/Agency Personnel Dynamics

Advantages

Employers explained that the presence of the work stations positively affected the work environment and raised employee morale. WSI contributed to a heightened sensitivity to persons with disabilities, and increased patience toward others in the work place, and an enhanced sense of community involvement on the part of the other employees. It was also evident that both employers and agency staffs had received considerable professional and community recognition for their involvement in WSI. Participants had been the subject of several favorable newspaper articles, and had received requests for site visits and professional seminars.

Disadvantages

Employers cited some disadvantages of the WSI, the most frequent of which was the troublesome nature of some worker behaviors. These included: interruptions and disruptions of other persons' work, social oversensitivity, appeals for attention, forgetfulness, need for frequent supervision, inattention to work and communication difficulties.

Agency staff also indicated that WSI held some disadvantages for their personnel. WSI required a restructuring of staff responsibilities, activities, and priorities. As one person noted:

Just in travel, a counselor has to be willing to go to

various sites. There are a lot more inconveniences

which just have to do with the fact that the real world

is a lot more important than the rehabilitation end.

Evaluation schedules, OVR meetings, sometimes

have to be set up when it's convenient for the work

world. And for a lot of people their habits die hard.

Often the WSI required agency personnel to modify significantly their work schedule to one which contrasted sharply with the conventional hours and holiday recesses afforded in-house agency staff. As one agency employee explained:

Supervision and backup are real crucial; it is a big

problem because human service benefits are quite

strong, probably to avoid burn-out. So each supervisor

gets all those holidays, personal days, and sick

days, but someone has to work. So that's a constant,

day to day headache, a big pain. I'm not even in the

work station, but sometimes I have to wash dishes.

The work station staff and the agency administration

have to have quite a heavy commitment.

Another disadvantage cited by staff was the competition the program spawned within the agency. Sheltered workshop staff reportedly resented the work stations for taking the best clients, and competing with the workshop for agency financial resources and professional status. It appeared that the resentment of workshop personnel concerning the appropriation of the best workers by the WSI was well founded in at least one agency studied. The practice of finding and employing the best workers was called "creaming" and it appeared to occur at different levels in the different work stations. Workers who presented behavioral problems were not considered for, or were dismissed from, the WSI. In both agencies there existed an evident selection process in which workers with behavior problems were "weeded out" until a relatively stable, homogeneous group of workers was found. This practice not only seemed to exacerbate the suspicions which existed between workshop and WSI staffs, but also seemed to reduce the kind and quality of real work, on-site training available to people.

WSI also posed what was termed "real world" issues to agencies. These issues were often extra, time-consuming sources of frustrations for human service staff. Two such issues included dealing with unions, and managing the negative responses of non-handicapped employees toward the WSI workers. As one WSI supervisor stated:

The unions are really militant about anyone else coming

to work, even if it's a job that their people don't

want to do. They are very jealous of their territory. A

lot of the other (non-union) people very much

resented our people coming in, and they would look

for problems and ways to make trouble for us. Social and Psychological Benefits of WSI

Staff members believed that the WSI had positive social and psychological effects on agency clients. As one individual noted, in some cases the changes are rather subtle:

I think the biggest benefit is intangible, or at least it's

hard to measure: a person's self-esteem, self-confidence,

and sophistication. The person who's been

on the work station for months as compared to one

in the workshop is more sophisticated. They're just

more at ease in a public place.

In other cases the changes were more behaviorally overt:

They're the same people that six months ago were

working in the workshop, and yet they behave very

differently. Just their interaction with you and other

people at the agency would be different. They

wouldn't approach you to shake your hand, or they'd

do it in a more normal way. They would talk to you

about the same sort of things as you and I might talk

about. People in the workshop would commit some

silliness which you wouldn't want to listen to.

WSI workers also felt that the WSI offered a better social atmosphere. As one individual stated:

They got nicer supervisors here (WSI). They talk to

you and try to help you the best they can. But over

there (at the workshop) they don't help you that

much. I like working here better. I don't know what

I'm supposed to be doing over there (workshop).

People fight, pick a fight with me, or they butt iwhen

I'm talking.

In part, the worker's social comfort and behavral changes might have resulted from smaller groupings and iustry-based settings of the WSI. In contrast to the average 250 people who attended the agency workshops, the wo stations consisted of between 5 and 11 persons. The small number of people also reduced the chances for negative cial interactions.

Through the industry-based context of the WSI,orkers were exposed to the influence and high expectatis of the host employers. Although the WSI were not well iegrated, an issue which will be discussed in the followinsection, some physical proximity and social interactions betwe disabled and nondisabled workers did occur which staff anworkers described as positive. Integration/Segregation Characteristics

Advantages

Staff believed that the WSI were more physical and socially integrated than sheltered workshops. I consider it (WSI) like a social experiment. I ink we're educating the public, and if we can integre people with disabilities into a vocational setti within industry or a regular work type of atmospre, I think that's an important goal.

Disadvantages

While the staff may have seen the WSI as more tegrative than sheltered workshops, there existed considerle physical and social segregation. Workers in one WSI did tir house cleaning in an apartment complex during the dayte when virtually all of the tenants were at work. Anoth work station operated by Agency A operated in a room which waphysically isolated from other nondisabled workers. All thr of the work stations operated by Agency B functioned inhe evenings when most of the company's employees were absent Thus, social contact and involvement with other n-handicapped employees was limited.

Even in situations where disabled and nondisabd employees worked in the same area, social segregion was frequently perpetuated by WSI supervisors. Agencstaff served as intermediaries between nondisabled empyees and clients, reducing the amount of direct contact bween these people. In one instance, a client was observed ba nondisabled employee turning on a malfunctioning machine. Raer than indicating the mistake directly, the nonhancapped employee reported the incident to the agency supvisor who then corrected the situation. At another WSI, a b employee complained to the agency supervisor that a WSI wker talked too much and was distracting. The supervisor wassked to remedy the situation, which she did. The signifince of these events is that employers and nondisabled workersere learning, and agency staff perhaps inadvertently were reinrcing, patterns of social discourse which reduced rathethan increased social interactions and further segregated perso with disabilities.

One structural feature of the WSI which hinder the social integration of its clientele was the close ties had to the methods and image of the sheltered workshop. Oneay in which this association was manifested was the fa that workers were paid by the workshop instead of themployer. Thus, workers were separated in an important wayrom the employer, and did not experience a normative employer/employee relationship. Predictably, WSIorkers continued to manifest strong ties to the agency,n many cases stronger ties than to the employer or the nondisled employees. Summary

This qualitative study attempted "to get insid the WSI concept, study it indepth from various perspectis, and reveal aspects of it which have been ignored or ken-for-granted. The results revealed that the work stations of bh Agency A and B operated as service extensions ofheir sheltered workshops, and consequently suffered from many othe same shortcomings. These problems included organational goal conflicts, narrowly defined worker tasks, cent "creaming" and sporadic training procedures.

Work stations reportedly had some advantages or sheltered workshops for disabled workers, but held more event advantages for employers, and agencies. The mostrominent benefits were reduced agency and employer operatnal costs and problems. However, workers also reported ecomic and psychological benefits, earning higher wagesnd feeling better about working in a "real" work setting. Rarding worker findings, however, it should be noted thatheir judgments of WSI were done predominantly in relation to shtered workshops, and may have been overly positive becse of this comparison. Participants in the study foexample, emphasized the enhanced worker wages only in relation to shtered workshops. If the participants in the study had mpared worker circumstances with more typical employmen situations, they might have made different conclions.

The WSIs studied exhibited many commonalities th other segregated employment programs: there was ttle evidence of competitive placement success; worke with disabilities were often physically and socially isolated fromheir nondisabled counterparts; work tasks were not ornized and completed in ways consistent with typical jobs; ges were less than minimum wage even for those who demonstratemore advanced work skills; and employer/agency interes were at times incompatible with client interests and stad agency goals.

In light of these findings it seems especiallymportant to carefully analyze the benefits WSI hold for perss with disabilities. As the present findings indicated, their social d economic interests are not necessarily synonymouwith, or equally considered with, those of professionals d employers. Numerous and diverse work stations noonly must be compared on a variety of variables with eltered workshops, but also contrasted with competitive d supported employment situations. Only such critical and prtical analysis will reveal whether WSI hold any real aantages for persons with disabilities.

During the review of this article internal andxternal validity and reliability were mentioned as methological problems which should be addressed. Using primary the writings of Guba (1981) and Rist (1977), the autrs would like to respond to these issues, noting that becse of space considerations the discussion can touch only ligly on the complex issues involved. Qualitative and quantitive inquiry are based on very different assumptions about thsocial and investigative worlds. Qualitative researchers beeve in multiple, constructed social realities, interactional relaonships between researchers and respondents, and the futity of nomothetic, decontextualized generalizations. Th, the standard criteria for judging quantitative inqui are not fully applicable to qualitative research. However, the are some similarities between the two research approacheshich should be discussed if only to clarify the naturand goals of qualitative inquiry.

For qualitative investigators the methodologic equivalent of internal validity is credibility which is detmined by verifying data and interpretations with the actual sourcesf the data. In the current study the issue of credibily was addressed through prolonged, on-site engagement, off-site scussions and questioning with others, and/or reliance on ltiple perspectives and observations.

While disdaining generalizability, qualitativenquirers believe in transferability, or the applicabilityf findings from one social context to another assuming the presee of sufficient contextual similarities. Sample selection, howev, is of little concern in the search for transferabilityRather, a qualitative researcher is likely to select a same which provides a diverse, rather than typical, band ofnformation (Guba, 1981, p. 21), to pursue investigative dep rather than breadth, and to focus on holistic and contextualactors rather than isolated, individualistic variables. In theresent study work stations were selected which varied on partipant age and characteristics, and on ideological charactestics. Moreover, the emphasis was on delving into each rk station rather than studying selected aspects of many. Ao, researchers examined the entire context of the work stationsn all their complexity and from the perspectives oall the major participants.

In addressing the issue of stability of result(reliability in quantitative terms), qualitative inquirers are f less concerned with avoiding inconsistencies or instability of sults as with accurately tracing the sources of such invaances. The present researchers attempted to account for divgent results by using several methods of collecting da, doing indepth interviews, and providing, within the space alloed, a precise trail of documentation for divergent rests.

While Guba (1981) has argued that qualitative searchers can pose criteria of trustworthiness for their rearch which is equivalent to that of quantitative inquirers,e has also acknowledged that such criteria are more rudimentary and less well accepted than quantitative criteria. Thus, alitative criteria may be seen as devising only a minimallpersuasive defense of findings and offering evidence of relive rather than unassailable trustworthiness (p. 24). Of cose, Guba has also noted that qualitative researchers are not smayed by this situation since they expect indeterminacy fm the real, constructed world (including the quantitative wod), and they are deeply suspicious of any criteria which opere to fragment, narrow, and/or decontextualize the study of thisorld.

Table : Summary of Client Information: AgencieA and B Through March 31, 1982

Table : Work Station Characteristics

Table : Comparison of Average Monthly Salariesf Workers in the Workshop (1980) to Workers in in Work Stations (1981)