The Baltimore Sun from Baltimore, Maryland • 129

THE SUN, Sunday, July 16, 1972 K3 INDEX 19 SO 100 (RATIO SCALE) The new work ethic: Is greater productivity so good? By RALPH DEAINS 350 U. S. DEPT. OF LABOR -Ji BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS 150 mJTPUT PER MAN-HOUR tooLI I i I 1950 55 60 65 70 end of Word War II tar 1965. But the average annual increase fell to 2.1 per cent during the 1965-1970 period.

That decline is the basis for. much of the concern now being expressed, even though productivity rebounded in 1971 and is widely forecast to improve again this year. Those who continue to see a "productivity recall that productivity usually increases during a business recovery. They suggest that the current increases only mask a long-term trend in the opposite direction. A list of reasons For two successive years, 1969 and 1970, productivity growth in the non-farm economy was less than 1 per cent.

This was described as "an unusual occurrence in the postwar period" by economists in the division of productivity research, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Previously, when increases in output per man-hour slowed in one year, they advanced rapidly the next. Several reasons are offered for this two-year deline: 1. A youthful labor force. Young workers are generally considered to be less productive than older, more experienced, workers.

During the 1960's the number of workers 16 to 24 years old increased from 12 million to 17 million. 2. Increase of women workers. Women workers, particularly married women, are generally considered to be less productive than men, partly because they take part-time work and because they work at clerical jobs in which productivity is difficult to measure. Seven million women entered the labor force during the past decade, 5 million of whom were married.

3. Shift to a service economy. More workers were producing goods than providing services immediately after World War II. But service "industries" government, transportation, public utilities, trade, finance and real estate took the lead in the Fifties and this trend accelerated in the Sixties. By 1969, just under 45 million persons in the labor force were providing services while fewer than 25 million were producing goods.

Services are generally considered to be less efficient than goods-producing industries. 4. Arms race and technology lag. Research and development is believed to be a major factor in productivity growth. While the United States made a large expenditure on technology during the Sixties, most of it was concentrated on military and space activities.

According to Seymour Melman, professor of industrial engineering and management at Columbia University, the proportion of the gross national product devoted to military purposes (8 to 10 per cent) "includes a preponderance of the research and development, scientific and engineering manpower of the country." The effect of this concentration on military and related work "is the relative technical depletion of many civilian industries and activities." 5. Emphasis on environmental improvement. While improvement of the environment is necessary and desirable, it can act as a drag on productivity in a strictly economic sense. Money which might be used to increase the productive capacity of the country is now being used to improve the quality of the air, land and water. Because "cleaner air" is not accounted for in calculations of the gross national product or of productivity increases, it represents a loss.

6. Organized labor practices. Unions are frequently accused of contributing to the productivity problem by resisting the introduction of automated equipment, insisting on "featherbedding" and invoking "work to rule" slowdowns. Some observers, however, believe that profound changes in public attitudes had more to do with the productivity problem than purely economic factors. Rejection of old work ethic For one thing the very idea of economic growth and progress is becoming anathema to an increasing number of Americans.

In a Harvard Business Review article on the productivity problem, management expert Gordon F. Bloom wrote: "It is unfortunate but true that 'progress' is becoming a bad word in virtually all sectors of our society-conservative, liberal or radical." He and others speculate that this shift in thinking was brought about by the sudden realization of the magnitude of the problems created by pollution, overpopulation and technological advances. Many Americans advocate a national policy of zero economic growth. While economists cannot measure the impact of this new attitude on productivity, many are convinced that it has contributed to the falloff. Even more important is a basic change in the way young people look at work.

"The traditional concept that hard work is a virtue and a duty, which older workers adhere to, is not applicable to younger workers," according to Ken Bannon, a vice president of the United Auto Workers Union. Corporation executives seem no less puzzled than many other Americans as to why young people entering the labor force even in a time of job scarcity-are less enchanted with the so-called Protestant ethic of hard work and up- Economists have begun to identify poor productivity growth as the root cause of many other economic ills. They contend that the efficiency of American workers, if not actually declining, is at least not growing as fast as it was in the past or as fast as that of workers in other countries. Although productivity began lagging in the mid-Sixties, wages continued to go up. These are viewed as the major factors in America's persistant inflation and the failure of American goods to compete in foreign and domestic markets.

Furthermore, some economists believe that changes in the economy and in public attitudes toward jobs, the environment and technology may mean that future large-scale increases in productivity will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Of particular concern is that a new work ethic is taking hold, especially among young workers. This implies the rejection of such an ingrained national ideal as hard work being its own reward. There is fear that the United States might have to resign itself permanently to a lower standard of living, with all the social, political and economic implications it would entail. Decline began in 1965 The "productivity crisis" theory is highly speculative and many, perhaps most, economists believe the way can be found to maintain the traditional growth of American efficiency.

If workers are now disenchanted with their jobs and no longer idealize hard work, it is argued, then job-enrichment programs, technological advances and shorter workweeks might lessen the impact of that trend. Systems analysis and sophisticated managerial techniques might be brought to bear on such service industries as retailing, education and government to make them more efficient. It is also argued that the high productivity increases in other countries will eventually tail off and that American goods will consequently become competitive again. Both sides in this debate rely on the same statistics. Output per man-hour the most commonly used gauge of productivityincreased by an average of more than 3 per cent a year from the Mr.

Deans writes for Congressional Quarterly's Editorial Research Reports, from which this article was excerpted. creasing number of economists are questioning it. Manpower experts believe many efforts to improve productivity are doomed to failure if insufficient attention is given to worker attitudes. The division of labor has been the basis of large productivity increases but it has also been the major element in reducing work to a series of boring, repetitive tasks. According to psychoanalyst Erich Fromm, more than economic efficiency is at stake in the effort to improve the interest factor in work.

Fromm wrote, "There are good reasons to assume that the increase in boredom is one of the factors responsible for the increase in aggression" in the United States. Sometimes it doesn't work Efforts to make employees work harder or more effectively can be traced back to the Thirties when stopwatch-toting efficiency experts clocked the time it took to perform each segment of a job. More recently, managers have reduced work hours, increased benefits and salaries, provided off-hours recreational activities, sponsored vacation trips, and offered prizes, bonuses and a variety of other incentives. Increasingly, however, motivation theory is falling into disrepute. Despite the package of rewards for better work, many of the industries that offer them continue to experience absenteeism, tardiness, defective workmanship and high rates of personnel turnover.

Thomas H. Fitzgerald, director of employee research and training activities at the Chevrolet Motor Division of General Motors has suggested that it may be impossible to motivate workers in any significant way even with job-restructuring and job-enrichment pro- grams. Fitzgerald argues that people do not want to be motivated and consider attempts at it to be an unwar- ranted intrusion into their lives. "The language of motivation may become subtly elitist by suggesting that the employee resembles a captive rodent in a training box equipped with levers, trick doors, food pellets and electric grids," he said. Despite the complexities of motiva- tional theory, the reward of greater leisure time appears to have increased productivity in some companies.

According to a study by the Bureau of Labor -Statistics in mid-1971, about 600 companies were offering some form of the four-day workweek. By early 1972, a study by the American Management Association indicated that 700 to 1,000 companies in the United States and Canada were trying the shorter week. Furthermore, the association said two--, thirds of those companies reported a boost in productivity. Is more good? It is estimated that 75.000 to n. employees, about one worker in a thou- sand, is on a short workweek.

In a few places, the workweek has been shortened to three days of 12-hour shifts. Persuasive arguments are being mar-shalled on all sides of the productivity question: whether it is serious, whether it can be solved, and whether the goal is worthwhile. As has happened several times in the past, efficient production is once again being put forward as the key to national economic health. But what is new this time is the implied challenge of the new work ethic a challenge to the very premise that greater productivity is necessarily good. Chess is worst and best wy mmml chess mmm ward striving than their parents and grandparents.

Even the executive ranks of industry are not entirely free of the new work attitude. University graduates entering business typically profess to abhor aspects of technology that tend to reduce man to a machine-like function. Worker disaffection has reached what has been termed "crisis" proportions in the automobile industry, but is not confined to that industry. George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO, recently remarked: "There are certain areas in American industry where you specialize in work doing the same thing. This really does something to workers mentally They get bored to death, they lose all desire to do anything." The President's Manpower Report of 1969 contained a survey indicating that only 50 to 68 per cent of blue-and white-collar workers felt their work was fulfilling.

Predictions vary A poll conducted by the Gallup organization in March, 1972, indicated that a majority of adult Americans did not believe that workers themselves included were producing as much as they should. Predictions of productivity growth over the next 5 to 10 years vary greatly. So many factors determine productivity that it is difficult, if not impossible, for economists to account for them all. Automation should help productivity, for instance, but the continuing shift to a service economy will deter it. Despite these uncertainties, the Council of Economic Advisers estimated that, on the basis of historical trends, output per man-hour would increase at an average rate' of 3.1 per cent a year between 1970 and 1975.

This forecast, made in 1970, is still generally accepted, although an in a "still life," but a magnetic field of forces, charged with energy as Faraday saw the stresses surrounding magnets and currents as curves in space, or as Gauguin saw vortices in the skies of Provence. Thus there is a strong element of animism and magic in the game. Lewis Carroll was aware of it when he chose chessmen as the Dramatis Personae for "Through the Looking and the Red Queen's "Off with his head" could come straight out of an Icelandic saga. I cannot refrain from quoting here a few lines from a poem by the Seventeenth Century pioneer of Sanscrit studies, High Court judge and poetaster, Sir William Jones because in its touchingly native manner it conveys the mythological flavour of the game: The champions burn'd their rivals to assail Twice eight fn black, twice eight in milkwhite mail. High in the midst the revered king appears And o'er the rest his pearly scepter rears On him the glory of the day depends, He once imprison all Vie conflict ends.

Check the deep vales, and Check the woods rebound. No place remains: he sees the certain fate, And yields his throne to ruin and Checkmate Echoes of Lear on the lonely heath "blow winds and crack your cheeks! rage! blow!" And rage they do. For, after all, the little buggers on the board, however alive they may seem, including the revered king and his queen of furious. pride, are masterminded by one's own mighty brain. In playing bridge or poker or Scrabble, there is a large element of chance which provides a convenient ex-: cuse for being beaten.

In chess, there is 1 no such excuse. And the worst misfor-tunes are those for which one has oneself, and only oneself, to blame. It might seem that similar considerations apply to tennis or boxing, where also skill, not chance decides the issue; and some of the stars in these games do 1 indeed take defeats hard. An unpardonable insult But even if one is in principle prepared to put physical skill on a par with mental aptitude, the mind itself which makes these judgments won't have any of it. To be called clumsy is an acceptable insult; to be called stupid is unpar- j-donable.

The great Alekhine, when beaten, often threw his king across the room, and after one important lost game smashed up the furniture in his hotel suite. Steinitz, on a similar occasion, van- ished from his quarters and was found disconsolately sitting on a bench in a deserted park. He died insane. So Morphy, who preceded him as world champion. Morphy suffered from perse-j.

cution mania Steinitz from delusions: He thought he could speak over the telephone without using the instrument and that he could move chessmen by electricity discharged from the tips of his fingers. What sane person could devise a symbol more apt for the om- nipotence of mind? 'I Glorious and bloody In the weeks to come we shall have the opportunity of watching two men facing each other in silence across the high-voltage board, where every move could make the fuses blow, each in a kind of waking trance, making the fig- ures perform an imaginary dance that exists only in their mind's eye, then mentally rearranging them in a differ- ent configuration, and yet another one, variation upon variation, while the bal- let-master himself remains immobile and the kaleidoscopic changes of see-' nery all take place inside his skull. While the game is on, it is only the choreography that matfers aggression is sublimated into dazzling acrobatics. There may be more unedifying episodes to come, but whatever happens, the fraternity of Passionate Duffers craves your indulgence for the magicians of the glorious and bloody game. i Peterson Vancouver (B.C.) Sun "Of course, In the old days it was Icelandic Vikings who were noted for their power plays, extortion and trampling of sovereign rights.

(Continued from Page 1) propagandist for the free world he is rather counter-productive. Spassky struck a milder note. He did not accuse Bobby of lying and cheating, only of suffering from persecution mania. Bobby boasted that he would "trounce" the reigning champion. Spas-sky retorted with a modesty gambit: he was not sure of the outcome, but in case victory went to Bobby, "I should be the happiest man alive if I were no longer champion." That explains perhaps why for the last six months he submitted to a gruelling physical and mental training for the match, running several miles a day and studying the records of all the important games that his opponent had played in the past.

Bobby did the same. Both are wonderfully cast for their roles: Fischer the rugged individualist, adventurous and occasionally reckless both in his life-style and chess style; Spassky the more benign type of Soviet bureaucrat, cautious, non-committal, evasive. For the last 24 years the world championship has remained a Russian monopoly, jealously guarded, carefully fostered by state grants, datchas and other privileges for the masters. Never in all these years has a Western challenger had a better chance of bringing back the ashes across the Iron Curtain. Accordingly, the Reykjavik contest was dubbed "the match of the century" before it ever started; and the unedifying prelude was quite in keeping with the emotional issues involved.

Yet all personal, political and tribal Bobby Fischer is certainly one of tbe world's greatest living chess masters, perhaps even the very best. But in the last two weeks he has written one of the least edifying chapters in chess history. His strange behavior has alienated millions of chess enthusiasts throughout the world, including many who originally favored him to win over Boris Spassky. The New York Times. passions apart, the bloodiness would still be inherent in the royal game, and if it were not there, the game would not be what I called it before a symbol or paradigm of the working of the human mind.

Chess is a battle of ideas; and the most savage battles have always been fought for ideas. No wonder that Caissa emerges from the medieval twilight with a tantalizing smile and a dagger her hand. She haunts oriental legends and nordic sagas in dramatic episodes where princes stake their fortunes or realms on a match against an outsider who infallibly wins and is infallibly slain for his pains. May have come from India Tradition has it that the game originated in the first millennium in India when the Buddhist influence was still predominant; and since Buddhists reject violence, they invented chess as a substitute for war. Firdousi relates how it was imported from India into Persia, where the Arab conquerors adopted it and eventually passed it on to Europe.

Harun al Rashid, Charlemagne and Canute are all alleged to have been passionate duffers, who got involved in violent chess incidents; but it is, oddly enough, in the great Icelandic sagas that Caissa stands revealed as a real bitch. The Icelanders were devoted to her and obviously still are; a Sixteenth Century traveler, the Norwegian priest Peder Clausson Friis, reported that the Icelanders "especially occupied themselves with the practice of the game of chess, which they play in such a masterly and perfect way that they sometimes spend some weeks' time playing each day on a single game, before they can bring it to an end by the victory of the one or the other combatant." Reykjavik a proper site In contrast to these peaceful marathons in more or less civilized times, the chess episodes in the Sagas relate to games which were short and violent, preceded by boasts and ending in slaughter. My favourite yarn is in the St. Olaf's saga, where King Canute plays a game with Ulf Jarl (Earl Ulf). Canute blunders, making a hasty move which makes him lose a knight; then, in true duffer style, recalls his move and makes another instead.

Ulf is furious, upsets the board, and takes sanctuary in a church where he is slain the next day by Canute's henchmen. Thus Reykjavik is not such an odd venue for the great event as it might seem to those ignoramuses who have not read the scholarly and voluminous work "Chess in Iceland and in Icelandic Literature" by Williard Fiske (published, in Florence, by the Florentine Typographical Society in 1905, with a memorable index of 34 pages). One might think that the game owed its popularity in these extreme latitudes to the long polar nights which did not favour outdoor sports. But Cuba has a tropical climate, and yet Havana at the end of the last century was the Mecca of chess, where several world championships were played and where the native world champion, Capablanca, was worshipped by the whole country. Persia, Iceland, Cuba and the Soviet empire became addicted at different periods, regardless of climate and race, as if by the spreading of an epidemic carried by strange bugs twice six different types of pieces on a simple chequered board.

Lewis Carroll was aware But why all the bloodiness, why the apparent malignancy? The reason is intuitively felt by every chess player, yet difficult to explain without giving the impression of indulging in artificial profundities. In the first place, each chessman, whether bishop, rook, knight or queen, embodies a dynamic threat, as if it were alive and animated by the desire to inflict the maximum damage (by attack or defence) on the opponent's men. When a chess player looks at the board, he does not see a static mosaic, The queens exulting near their consorts stand; Each bears a deadly falchion in her hand; Now here, now there, they bound with furious pride, And thin the trembling ranks from side to side Behold, four archers, eager to advance, Send the light reed, and rush with a sidelong glance Then four bold knights for courage fam'd and speed, Each knight exalted on a prancing steed Four solemn elephants the sides defend; Beneath the load of ponderous towers they bend. Now swell th' embattled troops with hostile rage, And clang their shields, impatient to engage When the battle Is over, there is a tragic finale: Now flies the monarch of the sable shield. His legions vanquish'd, o'er the lonely field He hears, where'er he moves, the dreadful sound;.