the employer relations representative who contacted the employer, the interviewers who handled the selections and referrals, the occupational analyst, and the supervisor of employer services who led the meeting. The basic information on record was presented to the group as the foundation on which a plan aimed at capitalizing on the apparent potential might develop. The discussion leader carefully pointed out that this was the only purpose of the meeting. Such time-wasting luxuries as criticizing past actions, blaming fellow workers and finding fault with personnel and procedures up and down the line from the district office to national headquarters were ruled out because they seldom prove fruitful.

In an atmosphere of informality and frankness, questions began to arise for which no immediate answers were available in the records. What were the turnover jobs? What were the volume jobs? Why were so many referrals rejected? Why didn't the office get a cross section of orders? Why was the company's personnel manager often so busy that he could spend very little time with the employer relations representative? These were the questions the group

set out to answer.

This was a typical "group approach" to the solution of an employer relations "problem." The group approach, introduced in New Jersey by a representative of the Employment Service National Office in June 1953, is the newest "old" technique known to man. Simply, it represents a group of people who have a common interest or problem getting together to plan concerted action toward a common goal. Illustrating teamwork at its best, the group approach in employer relations is the concentration of the resources and facilities of the local office in developing and carrying out a plan of service to a given employer. It is a management technique which is applied more universally but less intensively at workload estimating time.

A Mystery Solved

To continue with the case of the Cadmus Corp., one of the referral interviewers remembered a telephone conversation in which the personnel manager had stated he was very busy with payroll duties on Fridays. It so happened that this was a point of information that none of the rest of the group had. The interviewer did not make it a part of the record, partly because of the pressure of other work at the time, and partly because she normally did not make entries on the employer record. However, the employer relations representative felt that it cleared up the mystery of why Friday contacts were unproductive. This was typical of the simple but important facts which the group developed.

The discussion leader proceeded to list on the blackboard the four main points which the group agreed were problem areas in dealing with this firm:

1. This office had been unable to get complete job information when the employer placed openings.

2. Each time a job order was placed, a new hiring official, who seemed to have very little knowledge of the job, dealt with the office.

3. Changes in rates and job requirements were made by the firm subsequent to placing openings with the local office.

4. It had been very difficult to get accurate labor market data and it seemed that some "new hires" were actually "call-backs" of former workers.

Each of these problem areas was listed. Opposite each, in a column titled "Action To Be Taken," were listed the steps which the group agreed upon as necessary and proper. Opposite these steps in still another column were listed the local office persons who should handle these steps.

Which Should Be First?

This information represented a rough plan but did not take into account the timing of these actions. The group then agreed upon which of the actions listed should take precedence over all others and this was listed as point No. 1 in the plan of action. In a similar fashion, the timing of the other steps to be taken was listed chronologically and the final result was the local office's plan of action for this firm. It was not intended that all these steps should be taken care of immediately or even in the very near future. This was a plan in terms of months, perhaps 6 or more. It was also agreed that, if the results of a contact with the employer required that the plan be amended, this would be done. However, the plan would remain the basis for action aimed at improvement of service to this employer.

The plan agreed on by the group had four main points:

1. Obtain, if possible, complete job order information, preferably in the form of job specifications to be made by the occupational analyst.

2. Try to persuade the employer to have one person. in the plant handle all job openings and interviews and place all job orders with the local office.

3. Explain to the employer the importance to the local office interviewer of having stable rates and requirements on job orders.

4. Stress the importance of labor market information, particularly the difference between new hires and call-backs.

As of this writing, data are available for an 8-month period following adoption of the plan. During that time all points in the plan were put into effect. This was done principally by the employer relations representative on normal visits. However, on one occasion, the manager accompanied him to assist in convincing the employer that having one individual deal with the local office made for more efficiency. The interviewer now reports that the former confusion, which resulted from dealing with several different individuals in the plant, has been eliminated. The occupational analyst developed job specifications for "repeat" orders. The average penetration rate is now 30 percent, an improvement of almost 200 per

cent. The average number of placements a month is three times as great as it was prior to the plan of action. The turnover rate has dropped to 3.7 percent and the ratio of referrals to placements is now 2.8 to 1. By any standard this represents a considerable improvement in relationships with the firm. In addition, there is a much better understanding between the employer and the local office as well as a higher degree of mutual respect. The tasks of all Employment Service personnel dealing with the firm are more pleasant than they were.

What Makes The Plan Work?

Now, what was there about this group approach method of dealing with this employer which helped improve our working relationship? Obviously, the situation was handled by the same individuals who had previously been dealing with this employer. There was nothing new or different in manual procedure or instruction carried out. Actually, it was merely a matter of improved teamwork and communication which resulted in better coordination of effort between the employer and the local office and among units in the local office. It should be noted that each individual concerned, i. e., the placement interviewer, employer relations representative, occupational analyst, the supervisor, and manager, apparently had been performing his own function conscientiously according to manual procedure and for practical purposes adequately. However, those bits of information, and the concerted effort which opened the gate to a solution of the problem, were not brought to bear on the problem until the group sat down together to work it out.

Communication, which in the field of industrial management means the rapid transmitting of vital information to affected units of an organization, has been the subject of increased attention in recent years. Study of various problems which have occurred in all types of organizations has revealed in many instances that while technical and operating performance was apparently satisfactory insofar as independent units were concerned, the problems persisted. The source of trouble was often found to be in the fact that one of the vitally affected units was working without information in the possession of other units dealing with the same situation. This condition results in either duplication of effort or making the problems more difficult than they originally were. Without proper communication, the coordination of effort so necessary to smooth organization is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

Let's take a look at another case in point. Our relationships with a firm which manufactures electrical wiring fixtures and has an average employment of several hundred were discouraging to say the least. Over a period of 6 months, our average penetration rate was less than 1 percent. Our ratio of referrals to placements was 4 to 1, and we had made only 2 placements as against 250 new hires made by the firm during a 6-month period. We had received only 7

January 1955

openings and these were all for clerical jobs, although it was known that electric cord assembler was one of the volume jobs in the plant. Obviously, there was something wrong, so a group approach meeting was held to see how we could improve the situation.

Some of the points which came out in the discussion were the obvious ones, such as our failure to receive a cross section of orders, the need for better job information on orders and the lack of orders for volume jobs. But it also developed that there was a general indifference to our service on the part of the employer. It was brought out that the personnel manager did not have the authority to hire; this right was vested in the plant superintendent who evidently had a definite antipathy to the Employment Service and to Government agencies in general. He had been particularly displeased because of some adverse decisions on disputed unemployment compensation claims.

cases.

The group evolved a plan having these key points: 1. There should be a specific and persistent effort to establish a better understanding with the plant superintendent.

2. There should be an effort to capitalize on the use of specific aptitude tests in the selection process.

Superintendent Is Won Over

Following the group meeting, the local office manager, in company with the employer relations representative, met with both of the firm's executives. There ensued a patient discussion of each point advanced by the plant superintendent in a conference which lasted 3 hours and included a tour of the plant. A mutual understanding and better rapport resulted. Arrangements were made for the occupational analyst to develop a job specification for electric cord assembler and to install the test battery in the local office. The superintendent agreed to hire some of the testselected individuals and compare them with his own selections. Within a month, the test-selected workers had demonstrated their superior qualifications for the job. The superintendent then agreed to hire electric. cord assemblers only through the local office after test selection. He referred all gate applicants for this iob to the local office for processing. Six months after the group-approach meeting was held, referrals to placements dropped to a little over 2 to 1. The penetration rate had increased 900 percent and the average monthly placements were 15 times greater than during the 12-month period before the groupapproach efforts were begun. In addition, the local office was getting orders for all job openings. Certainly, this demonstrates that the establishment of better understanding and communication with the employer was the key to success with this firm.

Is this group approach a panacea for all ills in employer relations? Definitely not. There are some conditions beyond ES control which represent temporary barriers to participation in the placement activity to any significant degree. A firm which is

9

laying off workers can hardly offer many placements, but the penetration rate should not suffer. There are some rare cases of employers utilizing questionable hiring practices, which result in high turnover, who still feel they should not change their outmoded methods. Other factors such as union hiring agreements cannot be solved by a group-approach "attack." It is felt, however, that even in these cases, the conscientious application of the group approach provides information which can be of inestimable value in planning future service on a realistic basis.

There is another angle to the group approach which is probably obvious to readers who are concerned with employer relations. That is that even though the system does not pay off in increased penetration rates in every case, the approach is a demonstration of Employment Service interest and knowledge of hiring problems which always has a favorable impression on the employer. It cannot help but raise his opinion of the Employment Service, even though conditions preclude his greater use of it. The employer, as a businessman, looks very favorably on a government agency operating in a businesslike way.

Furthermore, the fact that the local office personnel get together as a team to work out a particular problem has salutary side effects. Each person knows a little better how to do his job and he doesn't even think of the experience as training. Each person is able to see clearly the part he plays in a total operation and his role is also understood clearly by everyone else. In graphic and specific operating terms, the whole local office organization is brought into the picture as the relationships and functions of the occupational analyst, labor market analyst, employment counselor, claims examiner, employment

relations representative, and the selection and referral interviewer come into focus on a particular problem.

A few points of advice seem in order for those who attempt to employ the group approach:

1. This device is not a new type of organization by another name. Yet, there is no other way to attain its advantages in the present-day large office pattern of specialization.

2. The group approach will not achieve 100percent penetration with any employer nor even improve penetration in every case.

3. Don't be surprised, alarmed, or critical of the simple but important facts brought to light in the group approach lest spontaneous participation of the group be stifled.

4. Be particular in the choice of firms on which to apply the group approach-some don't need it, for others it's a waste of time.

5. Integrate experience into the overall local office plan of action and workload estimate-highly successful service to a few firms to the detriment of service to others is of questionable value.

In

To date, the group-approach method has been utilized and plans of service developed for nearly 100 companies in New Jersey which had represented problems in placement activity. Even in the face of declining employment in certain parts of the State, the results can be evaluated as "excellent." most cases, penetration rates improved, the number of placements increased, and referral-to-placement ratios dropped. It is strongly recommended as a method to be applied to firms with which a satisfactory placement service has not yet been developed. In these cases, in the words of Isaiah, "Come now, and let us reason together." That is the group approach!

N 1953 the Denver local Employment Service office,

I in common with most offices of comparable size,

suffered a setback in its employer relations activities because of two factors: a budget cut, necessitating a reduction in personnel, and a heavy load of claims activity caused by industry making adjustments to a peacetime economy. At the same time, Denver was experiencing a phenomenal influx of inmigrants due to (1) a construction "boom," (2) publicity on a national scale of the advantages of life in the "Mile-High City," and (3) demobilization of Korean veterans. For a considerable period, everyone from manage

ment on down was engaged in processing claims, taking new applications, or making referrals on such job orders as came in. The spring of 1954 found the situation somewhat alleviated. We were shaking the snow out of our ears and coming up for air when, by coincidence or design, a representative of the Employment Service National Office came out of the East preaching the gospel of the "Group approach to employer relations." We were in a receptive mood and he presented his program with such enthusiasm and lucidity that everyone from the executive director down agreed to give the plan a thorough trial.

We have been working with the "group approach" technique for over 6 months at this writing. We like it. Without going into the techniques of its application at this point, we can say that it has given direction to our approach to several employers who were previously considered "problems." It has increased our scope of service to our major market. It has armed our employer relations representatives with facts instead of opinions. It has given our various office sections a greater understanding and respect for each other's functions and has developed teamwork. It appears that the cooperation of local office personnel is much better since the inception of the group-approach technique. This is true especially from the standpoint of personal participation of the placement personnel. The technique has helped us increase placement penetration.

After a group meeting has developed a plan of service for a firm under consideration, the approach to the employer of "an analysis of your account indicates we are not rendering you the service you should expect or that we are capable of giving, and we would like to know how you can help us to help you" has been very well received. It has caused employers to call upon us for many other services in addition to

supplying applicants for job openings. We have received requests for testing and for clearance information, and have been asked to set up testing programs. In a good many instances it has been necessary to revise master orders and prepare new job specifications. In some cases, job analysis studies have been indicated and have been accomplished by our State office Special Services Division. We have been asked for advice on everything from wage scales to plant reorganization. The concept of the conference-group employercontact approach is to have the staff members who are primarily concerned with providing services to the employer work as a team. These are the public relations representatives, the placement interviewers, the reports and analysis supervisor, the section supervisors, and the manager. All their knowledge about the employer under consideration is concentrated toward the ultimate objective of better service to the employer and consequently increased placements. Some of the factors considered in the determination of specialized services to an employer are the past and current placement experience; penetration rate; turnover, which indicates current placement potential because of economic factors in the area; and plant expansion.