Trist and Bamforth Flashcards
What was the system of longwall coal extraction before mechanisation?
There were interdependent working pairs (a hewer and a mate), with a “trammer” usually attached, making up a “collier”. The working group made their own contract with management, and worked their own face of coal. The working unjt was able to function well in a range of layouts. Social bonds were developed as tasks brought workers close together.
Why did the unmechanised system of longwall coal extraction work well?
The work group experienced the entire cycle of operations, so for each individual, the task has “total significance” and “dynamic closure” - workers understood their own value, so there was meaningfulness of tasks. Supervision was internal to the group, and they had “responsible autonomy”.
Why were the groups involved in unmechanised longwall coal extraction able to considered “self-regulating”?
Because they have the whole work task occurring within the group. they had a quality of “responsible autonomy”. Complex social relationships and group self-selection played a part - workmates had long term social ties between one another, often through family ties, and members of a work group would often take it upon themselves to care for a miner’s family if they died in work. Multiplicity of skills also contributed to the pattern of responsible autonomy; each member of the pair could substitute for the other due to there being wide range of tasks. Therefore, workflow became fluid and flexible, and self management made sense. In addition, the wide dispersal of activities in the mine meant that hierarchal direction wouldn’t work - miners used their own initiative because darkness and isolation within the mine meant that there was no possibility of continuous supervision.
Why did groups remain small under the longwall method, and why were these small
groups so effective?
The self enclosed nature of the relationships in the small groups meant that it was very difficult to combine
groups in any intermediate structures - the social advantages were lost. Continuous work of many groups across one coal seam allowed smooth functioning and adaptability of groups - work could be stopped and then
immediately picked up in a later shift, due to there being no task interdependence. Cycle stoppages had no
negative effects, and groups could respond to unforeseen underground conditions.
How did mechanisation change the character of longwall coal extraction?
Coal cutters and mechanical conveyers meant that coal-getting became technologically complex, and it became
necessary to work a single long face (large group) rather than a series of short faces (small groups). The cycle
groups were made up of 40 to 50 workers. The new system based on differentiated tasks and segregated roles
disturbed the social balance, and removed responsible autonomy. There were seven principal jobs, and one
manager.
What were some of the problems with the new mechanised system of coal extraction?
There was heavy task interdependence - one hundred percent performance was required at each step, and with
one weak link, the system became vulnerable. Shift timetabling also meant that many in the group didnʼt spend
much, if any, time together, and there was little social integration, even though it was essential in view of the close
interdependence of tasks - a major contradiction. Task interdependence combined with the inflexible nature of
work. Mistakes and difficulties in one stage of work brought reverberations throughout the cycle, and cycle
stoppages were frequent. Around 200 tons of coal was lost every time the cycle was stopped.
What was the impact on the worker due to the mechanised coal extraction method?
Social isolation became endemic to the job, bringing about psychological stress made worse by the isolated
nature of the work. Morale was crushed, recruitment slumped, and labour turnover increased.
What were the social implications of the mechanised coal extraction?
Trist and Bamworth describe four impacts of the social alienation faced by workers under the longwall system.
Informal groups were formed, usually around a natural leader. But these groups conflicted with the structure of
tasks in the longwall method. Reactive individualism of workers became a defence - distrust and secrecy of
workers further degraded any social integration. Mutual scapegoating was another result, and as a result of social
discohesion and task interdependency, it too brought a loop of social seperation. Absenteeism was a major issue
- workers dealt with the horrible conditions with self-compensatory skipping of work. There were widespread
negative psychological impacts of the longwall method.
How did the results of the mechanised system compare with the longwall coal extraction system?
Productivity was in fact lower in the mechanised (longwall) system than under the pair group system.
What are the wider implications of Trist and Bamworthʼs work (coal extraction)?
Trist and Bamworth put this in the context of a theory of social-technical systems. The interaction between
complex social systems in coal mining and technical procedures and knowledge is important to consider.
Technical conditions alone should not be considered - as was done with the mechanised longwall method (or
social conditions alone), but instead a joint optimisation should be found. Consideration of the social aspect of
work systems is difficult, but it can yield much greater productivity
