ML20198S144
| ML20198S144 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1986 |
| From: | Ilgen D MICHIGAN STATE UNIV., EAST LANSING, MI |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#286-476 OL, NUDOCS 8606100339 | |
| Download: ML20198S144 (207) | |
Text
__
4%
1 ORIGINAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA c' x- m 7 g
(U 2 C
NUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSIONl JUN 91986- .
3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSIN ~ BOARD n::as
~
% ~ sl5. $l" , l 4 ' -
% / yp Sh5(N 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 6 In the matter of: : Docket Nos. 50-456 7 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 l 8 [Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, .
9 Units 1 and 2] :
10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 11 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 12 Three First National Plaza 13 Sist Floor 14 Chicago, Illinois 15 Friday, May 23, 1986 16 Deposition of: DANIEL R. ILGEN, 17 called for examination by Counsel for the Licensee, 18 Commonwealth Edison Company, pursuant to notice, taken before 1
19 Marilynn M. Nations, a Notary Public in and for the 20 -------------------------------
21 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
22 1625 I Street, N.W. 293-3950 Washington, D.C.
1 I
(a 8606100339 860523 ADOCK 0500 6 PDR
2 1
Commonwealth of Virginia, commencing at 11:10 o' clock, a.m.,
2 when were present on behalf of the respective parties:
3 4 APPEARANCES:
5 For the Licensee Commonwealth Edison Company:
6 MICHAEL GILL, ESQUIRE 7 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 8 Three First National Plaza 9 Chicago, Illinois 60602 10 11 For the Intervenors BPI, et al.:
12 ROBERT GUILD, ESQUIRE
() 13 109 North
Dearborn,
Suite 1300 14 Chicago, Illinois 60602 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
l 3
s 1 CONTENTS O2 3 Witness: Examination by: Page:
4 5 DANIEL R. ILGEN Mr. Gill 4, 77 6 Mr. Guild 162 l
7 Mr. Gill 165 8
9 ***
10 EXHIBITS 11 12 ILGEN DEPOSITION EXHIBITS: FOR IDENTIFICATION 13 14 Exhibit No. 1: 5 15 Prefiled Testimony of Daniel 16 R. Ilgen.
17 18 Exhibit No. 1-A: 5 19 Curriculum Vitae of Daniel 20 R. Ilgen.
21 22 O
3
4 1 PROCEEDINGS 2
[11:10 a.m.]
3 MR. GILL: This is the deposition of Dr. Daniel 4 R. Ilgen, taken pursuant to agreement as of this date, I 5 believe; is that right, Bob?
6 MR. GUILD: That's true.
7 Whereupon, 8 DANIEL R. ILGEN 9 was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn by 10 the Notary Public, was examined and testified as follows:
11 EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. GILL:
13 Q Would you state your name and your business address,
( }
14 please?
15 A My name is Daniel Richard Ilgen. My business 16 address is the Department of Psychology, Michigan State 17 University, East Lansing, Michigan.
18 Q For purposes of sending a copy of the transcript to 19 you or communicating with you, is that sufficient for a 20 mailing address?
21 A I'll give you a Zip Code to add on there, and that's 22 48824-1117.
O
5 1 Q Let me show you what has been previously marked as 2 Ilgen Deposition Exhibit No. 1 and 1-A, which purport to be 3 the testimony of Daniel R. Ilgen and a copy of the curriculum 4 vitae for Daniel R. Ilgen.
5 Would you just take a look at those and tell me 6 whether those are actually copies of the testimony that you 7 submitted here and a copy of your current curriculum vitae.
1 8 (The documents previously marked l 9 Ilgen Deposition Exhibit Nos. 1 10 and 1-A for identification were 11 i
submitted for the record.]
12 [ Witness reviewing documents.]
fG'h 13 A Yes, those are.
14 Q If you would look at the curriculum vitae for a 15 minute, Ilgen Exhibit No. 1-A, have there been any changes or 16 additions or corrections made to that vitae or that should be 17 made to that vitae to make it current?
18 A There are some changes and additions, but they're 19 not particularly important, just things that have happened --
20 that's December 1985, and there would be some minor changes 21 since that time.
22 Q I take it you are still employed at'the same -
O s
e- i
6 1 location that you were employed then?
' I 1
(/ 2 A Right, I am.
3 Q And do you have the same title?
4 A That's right.
5 Q The same duties?
6 A Uh-huh.
7 Q Are there changes other than in the area of 8 additional publications, either in the form ef books, book 9 chapters, book reviews? Are there other changes here? Have 10 you done additional outside consulting work that's not 11 reflected on here, other than this case?
12 A Yes, there is one other -- actually two things that O
'd 13 I'm working on.
14 Q Could you tell us what those two things are?
15 A Okay. Well, the first one is a project that I'm 16 doing with the Office of Naval Research, or actually it's with 17 the Navy Human Factors Lab in Orlando, Florida. I have a 18 contract with them that began the middle of March sometime to 19 work on goal-setting, individual goal-setting and translating 20 individual goal processes to group goal-setting issues. That 21 research is just beginning. It's a one-year, 12-month 22 contract. The contract is actually with Battelle, Battelle
- - __,_,,_~_-m. _ _ _ . _ . ._
7 1 Research Group. The Navy subcontracts to Battelle; Battelle 2 subcontracts to contractors.
3 Q Is the individual goal-setting for a certain class 4 of personnel in the Navy, or is it across the board?
5 A It's across the board. It's really a theoretical l 6 notion of asking, to what extent do individuals -- what we
! 7 know about individuals and how they set goals, to what extent 8 does that translate to what might happen in groups.
9 Q And then you mentioned there was a second project.
10 A There is a second project. That is that I'm serving 11 as an expert in a trial for a law firm in the Washington, 12 D.C. area, and that's Paul -- I can't tell you, I'm not sure
( ) 13 who all is on there -- it seems to me it's Paul, Walker, 14 Jakofsky, and someone else, is the firm.
15 [ Reporter's Note: Paul, Hastings, Jakofsky &
16 Walker.)
17 The issue in that case is an alleged class action 18 issue related to performance appraisal systems for General 19 Motors, and the law firm is supporting General Motors.
20 My involvement has been to look at that performance 21 appraisal system that they use.
22 Q Are the claims by the plaintiff class, are they O
- .. . - - . . - - - _ _ . = - _ . . . -
4
- 8 l
1 related to race or sex, or what is --
! 2 A Race.
3 Q Any other outside projects other than what is listed i
! 4 in your resume, the one you are currently here on and these 1
$ 5 two, that have developed since December '857 i
j 6- A Not that I recall.
i 7 Q Outside of the work or the period you spent in the i
! 8 military from 1970 to '72, have you had any other job i
{
9 experience outside of the academic setting?
i 10 A No, I've been academia ever since. l 11 Q Just so I'm clear, does that include also before you j 12 were in the military -- strike that. Let me ask a different 13 question.
14 Before you were in the military, did you have job j
15 experience outside of the academic setting?
16 A No, none other than jobs that I've held working I 17 through college, but once I completed my graduate education, I I
18 went into an academic position, then into the military, and then back into academics.
j 19 I
j 20 Q Did any of the jobs that you had while you were
{
21 working through college involve working in construction or in 22 the construction field?
!O
__ _____ _ _ ______.___ ___ . _ ~_.,.__ _ __._ _ ._ _ -_..___._,
9 i
1 A Well, somewhat related to construction, I guess. I l '
2 worked on a maintenance crew in a park. We did a lot of --
3 some construction-type work, cutting down trees and helping 4 build buildings, et cetera.
l 5 Q Were you employed by a village or a city at that 6 point?
7 A Yes, a City Park District.
8 Q Anything else that would be related to or connected 9 with the construction industry?
10 A Well, I worked one summer part-time for my uncle, 11 who was a cement contractor.
12 Q When was that?
() 13 14 A That's a tough question (laughing).
Q I don't need an exact year. When you were in high 15 school or college?
16 A High school, high school. I was probably sixteen 17 years old.
18 Q What sort of projects were you working on there?
19 Was that small construction, large construction?
20 A Small construction.
21 Q Do you know how big a cement crew he had working for 22 him?
l O
10 i
1 A Three or four people.
2 Q Anything other than those two in the construction 3 industry?
4 A No, I believe that's all.
j 5 Q Have you ever had, either in your work experience or
, 6 in the private consulting that you've done while you've been 7 in academia, worked in the nuclear field at all?
8 A No, I haven't.
9 Q Either before you graduated and went into your work 10 at the universities or private consulting since then, have you (
i 11 worked on projects that involved quality assurance or workers ,
12 in the quality assurance area?
()
r 13 A No, I haven't.
14 Q While you were in college -- your resume indicates j 15 that you have a Bachelor's, Master's, and a Ph.D -- in any of I
16 those programs, did you do any work that was directly related 17 to the construction field, where you did studies of it or 18 research in that area or field studies?
19 '
A No, I didn't, not in that.
20 Q Again during that same. time period, while you were 21 in your university studies for the Master's, Bachelor's, or 22 Ph.D., did you do any work that had you directly involved with O
d 11 1 quality assurance departments, either in research or field 2 studies or anything like that?
3 A No.
4 Q Same question with respect to the nuclear industry.
5 Did you do, during that timeframe while you were in college, 6 any work that was directly related to the nuclear industry, 7 either in terms of study or field studies?
8 A No , I did not.
9 Q Of the three topics -- the construction industry, 10 the nuclear industry, or quality assurance area -- were there 4
- 11 any courses or seminars that you took while you were in one of 12 the three institutions you studied in, or two institutions you
( 13 studied in, that related directly to quality assurance, j 14 nuclear, or the construction industry?
, 15 A No, none.
16 MR. GUILD: Mike, could we take a brief break?
17 MR. GILL: Sure.
18 (Recess.]
19 BY MR. GILL:
20 Q I think we had left off with what you had done in 21 the various fields while you were at Iowa State or the i
22 University of Illinois studying. Since leaving there, have l
i
- - - - - - _ ,____. ,-. . ~_ _ _ , ,, -
-wr_y. _ . - . _ . _ , . . , - - _ , - , - . , - - , - _ _ - - _ _ _ . - . - . , _ , _ . . , _ _ - , . - . - . , . - - , ..-_.___--_,_4 _
12 1 you done projects or studies or private consulting with 2 respect to the construction industry?
3 A I have not.
4 Q With respect to quality assurance type work, have 5 you done any studies, analyses, private consulting, since 6 graduating from the University of Illinois?
7 A None that were directly quality control.
l
, 8 Q There were some that involved quality control or 9 quality assurance?
10 A There were some that had -- there was one project in 11 particular that had quality assurance issues related to some 12 of the people I was working with.
() 13 Q Which project was that?
14 A That was a project that I had with the Navy. It was 15 a contract with the Navy. We wara working in a place called 16 the Navy Air Re-Work Facility in Alameda, California. It went 17 by the acronym, the NARF. These people were concerned -- the 18 task of a Navy Air Re-Work Facility was to bring in aircraft, 19 strip them down completely, engines, everything off them, even 20 the paint, and then reconstruct them, re-work them and put 21 them back together.
22 , We were working with a goal setting and feedback and
l l
l 13 j 1 motivation program. Some of these people were not quality 2 control people directly, but their work was monitored very 3 closely by Quality Control, as you might imagine with aircraft 4 parts.
5 Q Talking about goal setting in this situation here, 6 with the Navy Air Re-Work Facility, did any of the goal 7 setting you were involved in have to do with production 8 schedules or was it something else you were setting goals for?
9 A Well, it had to do with productions in terms of 10 meeting standards and number of units produced, types of units 11 worked on.
12 Q Did you have a direct involvement in the goal
() 13 setting or establishing a framework for goal setting for that 14 type of thing, the production'of units and types of work, et 15 cetera?
l 16 A I worked with a team that did set up the procedurer.
17 for dealing with that.
18 Q Was there any document published as part of that 19 work that you did, that discusses the goal setting procedures 20 for this Navy Air Re-Work Facility?
21 A Tangentially; yes. Not directly; close. May I see 22 that?
l
(
13 1 motivation program. Some of these people were not quality 2 control people directly, but their work was monitored very 3 closely by Quality control, as you might imagine with aircraft 4 parts.
5 Q Talking about goal setting in this situation here, 6 with the Navy Air Re-Work Facility, did any of the goal 7 setting you were involved in have to do with production 8 schedules or was it something else you were setting goals for?
9 A Well, it had to do with productions in terms of 10 meeting standards and number of units produced, types of units 11 worked on.
12 Q Did you have a direct involvement in the goal 13 setting or establishing a framework for goal setting for that 14 type of thing, the production'of units and types of work, et 15 cetera?
16 A I worked with a team that did set up the procedures 17 for dealing with that.
18 Q Was there any document published as part of that 19 Work that you did, that discusses the goal setting procedures 20 for this Navy Air Re-Work Facility?
21 A Tangentially; yes. Not directly; close. May I see 22 that?
O
14 l 1 Q Sure. I will hand you what has been marked as Ilgen 2 Deposition Exhibit No. lA.
3 A (Perusing document.) It is not listed in here.
l 4 Q Do you recall the title or where it was published?
5 A It was a technical report that we produced for the 6 Navy. I was first author. When I get back to the office, I 7 can give you the exact title. It dealt with what is called 8 expectancy theory approaches, expectancy theory measures
! 9 related to performance.
10 The one that is most closely related to that, as I 11 recall, and this may not be correct, the authors were myself, 12 Del Nebeker, Howard Weiss and Robert Pritchard. I'm not sure 13 of the order. I know I was first.
14 Q What is an expectancy theory?
15 A It is a motivation -- it is a theory of motivation, l
I 16 very frequently referred to in work settings that p argues that l
17 people's motivation is based on a decision process in which 18 they consider the utility or pay-off associated with various 19 courses of action, and it very explicitly lays out sort of a 20 calculus of how one determines utilities. I can be more 21 specific, if you want. -
22 Q That is probably sufficient for what I can handle.
O 2
l 1
15 l 1 Specifically with respect to the Navy Air Re-Work 2 Facility, was one of the goal setting measures that they were 3 asking you to work on, setting goals for production of units 4 over time?
5 A Yes. Let me modify that. Meeting standards over 6 time, those standards had as part of them issues related to 7 number of units. It was primarily meeting standards.
8 Q What else is included within standards, other than 9 number of units?
10 A Units of acceptable quality.
11 Q How did you, as part of this study, recommend that 12 the Navy go about establishing what number of units of l
(~'h 13 acceptable quality could be produced over time?
V 14 A Again, I don't recall specifically. I do know that 15 they had a Methods and Standards Department that had 16 determined through methods and standards procedures -- had set 17 up standards for jobs. We relied very heavily on that unit to 18 define standards for the jobs.
19 Q Essential to establishing that sort of measure and 20 measure of units of acceptable quality over time would be 21 having someone with the expertise specifically related to the 22 type of manufacture going on to be involved in that process; i
O
l l
16 1 is that right?
2 A Right; yes.
l 3 Q In your opinion as an industrial organizational l 4 psychologis't, is it proper for the Navy Air Re-Work Facility 5 and the type of circumstances they have here, where you have 6 the manufacturer of an unit where safety considerations are 7 obviously primary, to have units of acceptable quality per 8 time standard applied to production?
9 A In those kinds of settings, yes. I think you can 10 make some judgments about each of those, about quality and 11 about normal rates per time period.
12 Q You may not be able to say a unit will be produced 13 every 16 seconds or 16 days or whatever, but having some range
( )
14 for production standards to be applied in a manufacturing or i 15 assembly facility like this would not be improper in your 16 view?
17 A As long as they serve as guides, general guidelines, 18 that they have to recognize. In this case, too, perhaps in 19 dealing with an air cabin compressor, let's say, there would 20 be certain standards for how long it should take to re-work 21 and reassemble an air cabin compressor, but there was also 22 full realization that sometimes you run into problems, and in O
17 1 those standards, there are built in ways to consider 2 exceptions. Exceptions are recognized as being the normal.
3 Q What might happen under a circumstance like you were 4 involved with at the Navy Air Re-Work Facility is that they 5 would have some standard and if production for some reason 6 fell below those standards, they would then go to a second 7 level of inquiry to find out whether or not it fell into one 8 of the exceptions? Is that the concept?
9 A I'm not sure what their whole process involved. You 10 do have some way to recognize exceptional work in that flow of 11 work.
12 Q Within this framework of the Navy Air Re-Work 13 Facility, did they have a quality assurance / quality control 14 function being performed?
15 A I don't recall the system they had. I'm sure they 16 had a quality control system involved there somewhere. I'm 17 sure they did. I don't know how they did it or at what level 18 it existed.
19 Q As far as your involvement in the program, did you 20 understand that these standards for production of acceptable 21 quality units over time would apply to both the production 22 side and to the quality control / quality assurance side of the O
. -. _ _ __ __________ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ . _ . __.___.___.____.___m - .
I i i
18 1 operation? '
{ 2 A I don't understand what you are after.
i 3 Q I take it that in setting these standards for iI j 4 production for the airplanes within this Navy Air Re-Work
\
l j 5 Facility, that you are looking ultimately from the time the l
t i
6 plane comes in, and depending on what sort of work has to be i
j 7 done to it, to the time it goes out the door, there is some I
l 8 sort of standard applied to that for production of a quality I i
9 unit; is that right?
I j 10 A That's correct.
I t
11 Q Within that framework, if there is a quality 12 assurance / quality control function that has to be performed,
[ }
13 is it also incorporated in there and given some time period in
! 14 that analysis? -
4
- 15 A Iwouldassume
- htis;yes.
16 Q You as a consultant to the Navy Air Re-Work Facility 17 would not object to them having that sort of time period or i^
18 time assessment placed on the quality assurance, quality
^
19 control function part of that assembly?
20 A No. I think that is part of that job. L
! l l
21 Q Did they have civilian employees or military
! 22 employees at the facility? Do you recall?
o 1
I i i 4,
i 1
. . _ - - . - . . _ . _ . ~ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . , _ , _ _ _ . .._ _ - _ __
19 1 A These employees were civil servants. I don't recall (3
O 2 whether they were standard GS level types of positions. They 3 were civil servant employees. The actual workers we dealt 4 with were all civil service.
5 Q If the analysis being done by the people managing 6 that facility showed that a worker was falling below the 7 production criteria that had been set, and his function for 8 some reason didn't fall into one of the exceptions, his 9 performance was not at the level that had been established and 10 set as being a reasonable level, and that employee was 11 criticized or reprimanded for that, would that be harassment 12 of that employee in your view?
13 A Again, in the abstract, you can't tell. It would 14 depend on why that person had -- what were the circumstances 15 surrounding poor performance. By " poor performance," in the 16 sense of performance that did not meet the standards that the 17 management was looking for.
18 Q If he had some justifiable reason for failing to 19 moet the standards, then you would feel that criticizing him 20 for that would be harassment, if there was no justifiable 21 reason for the employee failing to meet the standards, the 22 criticism of the employee would be valid?
20 1 A Again, the extent to which -- let's back up and look
(_/ 2 at the process. If an amployee fell below standards for some 3 time, that would trigger looking into it. In looking into 4 that, the issue would be to what extent did that seem to be 5 justifiable.
6 Q If ultimately it was determined after appropriate 7 review and all, that his failure to meet the standards was not E justifiable and he was criticized for that, would that be 9 harassment of the employee?
10 A The issue of how you decided that would be 11 important, and if you decided it in a way that gave that 12 employee fair representation for making that case, then I
)
13 don't think -- given uhat you said within these restrictions, 14 it would seem to be less related to haransment than if it were 15 an unjustified case.
16 Q When you say "less related to harassment," you would 17 still consider it to be harassment but it would be -- assume 18 the circumstances that you have the perfect review, whatever 19 review process you would like to have set up, whatever 20 analysis of the employee's reasons and justifications, after 21 all that, a completely fair tribunal determines that the 22 employee has justifiably failed to meet the production O
21 1 standards and the employee is disciplined or criticized for 2 his failure to meet the standards, would that be harassment 3 under those circumstances?
4 A Given the conditions you described, probably not.
5 Q Why do you have reservations about whether it would 6 be harassment? You said "probably not."
7 A Again, I would want to know what kind of --
8 harassment, I think, has some connotation of being presented 9 over time and having multiple cases of raising issue with a 10 person. You described a single case in which a person's 11 performance wasn't met.
12 Q If we take out the over time element, in this 13 assumed process, you now have the employee having gone through 14 this review, a perfect review, and whatever you would consider 15 to ha a perfect review, and found to be unjustifiable in his 16 delays and he is criticized on 15 occasions over three years 17 for his failure to meet production schedules; is that 18 harassment?
19 A No; I don't think so. I think the organization has 20 the right to judge the performance of the worker.
21 Q As far as the goal setting work that you were doing 22 for the Navy Air Re-Work Facility, was it your recommendation O
22 1 that the goals that were established be communicated to the 2 workers or not communicated to the workers, kept within l 3 management?
4 A In this case, again, I don't recall all the details 5 of what we did. The goals that were established were not 6 established by management, they were established by the 7 workers themselves. They set goals for themselves for the 8 next week, and then they got feedback from what is called the 9 management information system, computer out-put of how many 10 units or the number of quality units they had produced.
11 Again, I don't recall the details of the feedback, 12 but information would be fed back for what they had done for 13 the week. They would then see how close that came to meeting 14 the goals they had set.
15 An I recall, the goals went no farther than to their 16 immediate supervisor, and it was simply between them and their 17 immediate supervisor.
18 Q Did the analysis that was done by the Methods and 19 Standards Department of the job functions have any role in 20 this goal setting exercise?
21 A Not they did not.
22 Q Where did that analysis come into play in this O
1 23 1 overall goal setting that was being done for the Navy Air 4 2 Re-Work Facility?
3 A They established the units for the jobs. Perhaps I J 4 can describe it in more detail. A methods and standards 5 person would come in and analyze the job or some part of the 6 job and determine what they felt was performing at 100 percent i
7 of standard, and standards were set up on the basis of 100 8 percent of standard, 110 percent of standard, 90 percent of 9 standard. That was based on the work itself. The worker set 10 goals in terms of how he would perform -- they were all males 11 -- how he would perform for the next week with respect to the 12 standard, whether he would perform at 100 percent or 90 13 percent of standard, et cetera.
/)
14 So that the methods and standards people come in 15 first and deal with the job. Once they have got these 16 standards attached to the work units and the nature of the I
17 job, then they in a sense are out of the picture. From then j 18 on, it is between the worker and his or her supervisor in 19 terms of the nature of work.
! 20 Q So the methods and standards that had been set were i
21 communicated to the workers for their use as part of the goal-j 22 setting process.
t
- O l
I I
. , . - _ . - ~ _ . _ . - - - - _ . . , - _ , _ - - - - . - _ _ . _ _ . . , - - . , , , , , -
24 1 A Yes. They knew what the standards were.
2 Q In your view, was that a reasonable practice by the 3 Navy Air Rework Facility, to make available to the workers the 4 standards that had been set by the Methods and Standards 1 5 Department?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Do you know if that was published to the workers in
- 8 written form or if it was just communicated orally or how that 9 was done, the Method and Standards analysis?
10 A It was very public. Again, I can tell you exactly 11 what happens. If you get an engine to work on, and for 12 example, you may need to check the fuel lines, there would be
( 13 a computer card attached to that engine that would have a '
}
14 check next to fuel lines, and then it would have on there 2.5 15 hours, and that 2.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> would be the time that was 16 considered to be 100 percent of standard for that job.
17 The worker would take the engine, log it out and 18 then log it back in, and if the person worked on it 2.5 4
19 hours, they worked at 100 percent of standard. If they had it 20 three hours, they worked whatever that happens to be less.
I 21 That information was public in the sense it was right on the 22 card.
I J
O J
l l
\-.-..--...----.-..--.------- . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .
25 1 Again, realize thic is my recall of this so I might t
s-- 2 not be that totally accurate, but as I recall, when we first 3 started working with that, very little attention was paid to 4 the amount of time that was put on there. They simply paid 5 attention to getting the job done.
6 Q Very little attention was paid by whom? By the 7 worker?
8 A The worker did not feel any pressure to stick to the 9 100 percent standard. In fact, no one, or very few people i l
10 were working at 100 percent standard.
11 Q Was there some norm that had been set up versus 100 12 percent standard where the workers did pay attention and work
( 13 towards that standard, say 75 percent of?
14 A I suppose there were norms. Norms did develop.
15 Yes. I would say yes to that.
16 Q Do you know if a similar sort of cards were put out 17 for the QA/QC analysis that was required with respect to this 18 rework?
19 A I really don't recall.
20 Q As far as an expert reviewing the process at the 21 rework facility, did you have an objection to them putting a 22 card with the unit specifying the 100 percent standard?
O
26 1 A No, I didn't.
2 Q Would you have such an objection if they had done 3 the same thing for the QA/QC work?
4 A No, I think I would not object to having the worker 5 have some idea about how much time a certain weld inspection 6 took, especially if the norms were as they were in the NARF.
7 At the NARF it was realized that taking longer was not 8 something that there was any penalty at all associated with 9 taking longer. That was a very acceptable thing to do because 10 the norm was aircraft safety.
11 Q Under the system they had set up at NARF, was it the 12 case that if 90 percent of the workers performed at 75 percent
() 13 of the standard on an ongoing basis and they had found an 14 employee performing at 25 percent of the standard, would you l 15 have expected under the system they had there that some 16 further analysis would have been done of that worker?
17 A Again, I don't reccll what they did. I would expect 18 that there would be some check. I don't recall.
19 Q Other than the work with the Naval Air Rework 20 Facility, have you had any other consulting, study, research 21 involvement with QA/QC, quality assurance and quality control?
22 A No.
!O 1
1
27 1 Q And I think we covered it, but just to make sure, as 2 far as the nuclear industry is concerned, have any of your 3 studies, analyses, private consulting been involved with 4 nuclear construction or the nuclear industry in any way?
5 A No.
, 6 Q As far as the courses that you have taught in the 7 various positions that you have held in various academic l
8 institutions, have any of them directly related to I
j 9 construction management?
10 A No.
11 Q How about seminars in those institutions? Any on l
12 construction management?
l
() 13 A No.
14 Did any of the courses or seminars that you have Q
15 taught with the various academic institutions you have been i
16 with focus on quality control, quality assurance, or the 17 management of those type of areas? ,
18 A No.
19 Q As far as, again, the courses and seminars that you 1
20 have taught, have any of them focused on the nuclear industry,
- 21 either construction or nuclear management in any form?
1
- 22 A No.
1 i
!O i
1 4
. --.- ~ ,_.-- .,.,- ,,~.
mm. - m -_,,, _ _ , , _ - , - . . , , _ . - - - - _ - _ - _ - , . . . _ . _ - , _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . , . - , - . . . - . _ _ _ . . . _ _
r .
t 28 1 Q Expanding that slightly, as far as the work that you 2 have done, either consulting or as far as the course work that 3 you have taught or studies and research you have done, has any
+ .
4 of it been in the utility industry in general, electric 5 utility, water, gas utilities?
I 6 A No, I don't believe so.
7 Q And as far as your publications or research projects 8 that you have done, have any of them focused on construction 9 management?
I 10 A No.
11 Q How about on quality assurance?
12 A No.
13 Q And the nuclear industry?
)
14 A No.
l l 15 Q Have any of the publications that you have authored 16 focused on the effects of harassment on performance of l
17 employees?
18 A No.
19 Q Have any of k2un publications that you have worked on l
20 focused on the effects of intimidation on the performance of 21 employees?
22 A No. -
l ~
lO .
_m
29 1 Q Have any of the publications you have worked on O
\s) 2 focused on the effects of production demands on performance of 3 employees?
4 A What do you mean by production demands?
5 Q Let's take it in terms of setting of units of 6 production over time, if that is appropriate to the analysis, 7 or if it is a different setting where they don't produce 8 units, producing some level of work per time.
9 A I think the work on work motivation that I have done 10 deals with that in a somewhat obtuse fashion. If you are 11 interested in the motivation of people to work, you look at 12 performance as a criterion of how they are doing.
13 Q Then from the standpoint of measuring their 14 satisfaction with their job, you take a look at performance --
15 or their motivation, you look at their production?
16 A Their motivation. I mentioned before that I have 17 worked with issues related to expectancy theory, and I am 18 interested in people's beliefs about the extent to which they 19 will be rewarded for producing at certain levels, so for that 20 we have looked at some type of performance measure.
21 Q More specifically, has any of your work in that area 22 looked at whether establishing some sort of production 0
a 30 1 measure -- and we have talked about measurement or units over
/g k/
m 2 time or whatever -- affects the quality of production?
3 A I don't believe I have worked directly wit'a the 4 effects of one on the other. In most cases we have looked at 5 performance as being a function of both quality and quantity, 6 as I recall.
7 Q In measuring the performance, you look at both 8 quality and quantity to see how the employee has performed; is 9 that what you are saying?
10 A Yes. Performance is judged to be a function of both 11 quality and quantity, and in some way you try to incorporate 12 both of those or hold constant one of them.
("')
V 13 Q Normally in a corporate or work setting, if one is 14 going to measure performance or set up standards of 15 performance, what they are trying to do is maximize quality 16 and quantity; is that right?
j 17 A In a sense they are trying to deal with those. I 18 want to qualify " maximize." I think that what you have to ask 19 is, given the particular job, does the mix of quality and 20 quantity match the job tiat you are dealing with? I think 21 that most jobs have both a quality and a quantity dimension, 22 and the nature of the job influences the natura of those O
.i 31 1 mixes.
2 Q So, for instance, on the NARF, the Naval Air Rework 3 Facility, where quality is obviously a primary consideration, 4 you are going to be more flexible on the quantity aspect of it 5 or less value the quantity aspect of it; is that right?
6 A Yes, exactly.
7 Q But as far as the management of that, you would 8 still recommend that they have some measures taken of i
i 9 production levels as part of that analysis, but that just that 10 they are not factored in as heavily as, say, in somebody that 11 is producing in a widget factory; is that right?
12 A Yes, exactly, i
13 Q
( } Just on a theoretical basis, you have no objection 14 to somebody who has an industry that has a primary concern for 15 quality or safety also having, measuring and considering, at 16 least, as part of their analysis a quantity aspect of that; is 17 that right?
18 A That's correct.
19 Q Would you take a look again at Ilgen Deposition 1 20 Exhibit 1-A, your vita, pages 12 and 13, where you have the 21 reports prepared for organizational use only?
I' 22 A Yes, I have that.
O
32 1 Q Could we take each of those, starting with the work 2 you did for the Department of Personnel Administration at 3 Purdue, and would you explain what it was you were doing for 4 them and how you went about that work?
5 A All of these follow a certain pattern, so let me f 6 describe the general pattern. What I have done in all cases, 7 these were not reports that were generated as a result of the 8 corporation or unit contacting me and asking me to do 9 consulting work; rather it was me contacting them saying I was 10 interested in studying a particular problem, a research 11 problem, and as part of the acceptance or the ability to 12 access the data, I would produce for them a report that I felt
() 13 would reflect on some of the administrative uses of this in 14 the data that we collected. So they are all generated in that 15 same way.
16 In the first case, we looked at absenteeism of 17 employees. In this case it was clerical workers at Pursue 1
18 University, and absenteeism records were pulled from company 19 files, and that was used as the criterion, and turnover was 20 also looked at. We then gave a questionnaire that dealt 21 primarily with job satisfaction issues and also issues dealing 22 with work group norms that developed that were present.
O ,
J
_ _ , - - - _ ----.---,-.__---.-,,__--__,r.- --
- ___ , . , , _ _ . -_ .,.._-, .-- - - . - - - - - - - - . - . - - - . - . . .- 7
33 3
1 We would relate the satisfaction and work group 2 norms to the attendance measures that we had gathered over the 3 time, so the general model was to give the questionnaire, wait 4 six months or a year, wait some time period, over that time 5 period we gathered absenteeism and turnover data, which we 6 then related back to the responses on the questionnaire.
7 I then prepared a report for Purdue University 8 addressing the issues of what I thought were some of the 9 administrative ramifications of this as it related to 10 absenteeism and turnover that might be useful for them.
a 11 Q Were the surveys that you handed out given only to 12 the clerical workers or were they done to the management there 13 also?
14 A In that case I believe they were strictly the j.
- 15 clerical workers.
16 Q Was there any attempt made to check as a measure of 17 this the level of job performance, meaning the quality of job 18 performance by these clerical workers? j 19 A No. There was nothing in the absenteeism ~ study.
l 20 Q As far as a correlation of absenteei5m to job 21 performance, nothing at least out of this study, was done on l 22 that? !
f O
34 1 A No, nothing.
ry 2 Q In other work that you have done, have you done 3 research on or conducted a study of absenteeism rates versus 4 quality of job performance?
5 A No;. I have not.
1 6 Q Are you aware of literature discussing the 7 relationship between absenteeism and quality of job 8 performance?
9 A I can't point to a specific study; no.
l I 10 Q The reason I asked the question, there was a 11 suggestion, I think, in your testimony, that one of the 12 behavioral traces one might look at is absenteeism; is that 13 right?
14 A Yes.
i 15 Q From data on absenteeism, are you aware of studies
'l 16 or have you done studies that would allow you to project
! 17 quality of job performance based on that?
18 A I have not done studies in that. I'm not aware of a 19 particular study that relates absenteeism to the performance 20 of the unit.
21 Q Are you aware of a general accepted relationship 22 that is d[twn by persons in your field, between absenteeism l ~
.O 4
I
--. - - - , . , - - ,~,,,c----- , , , - . - - - - . - - - ,- - ----- , -
. , - . , , . - - . ~ . - - , , -
35 1 and quality of job performance?
2 A No. I can't quote you the correlation or anything 3 like that.
4 Q If we went back and did this sort of study that is 5 suggested here, behavioral traces, and we checked absenteeism, 6 which I assume would not be that difficult to do, what would 7 we know when we got done checking the absenteeism rates of 8 employees at the Braidwood station, about the quality of their 9 job performance, the QC inspectors?
10 A I'll make two statements. As I recall, and I can go 11 back and look at my testimony, I was using absenteeism as an 12 example of a behavioral trace type of measure. I was not
() 13 saying that was necessarily one that would be useful in the 14 Braidwood case.
15 As I recall, what I was saying is there may be data 16 that are available that you can make these kind of 17 inferences. Certainly, there is somewhat of a popular notion i
18 that you don't want a car produced on Friday afternoon or 19 Monday morning, sort of a time period relationship to 20 quality. I'm not aware of a particular study that would find 21 that. If you had reasons to believe that there may be 22 differences in performance and quality as a function of the O
36 4
1 time in which people are absent, then you could go back and 2 look at those absenteeism data.
3 As I was using absenteeism there, I was thinking 1
4 more along the lines of giving examples of things that are 5 traced data that one uses when you go back and try to decide i
6 what happened in the past.
7 Q At least in this instance, with just the absenteeism 8 data without further work, you would not necessarily be able l
9 to project one way or another about the quality of the QC 10 inspectors' work?
1
]
11 A The key there is without further work; right. I 12 can't say right offhand that absenteeism necessarily meant 13 that the quality of work was lower.
( )
14 Q The additional work that you would do would be what?
j 15 A You would have to -- realize, I am talking off the 16 top of my head.
l 17 Q I am talking in general, what sort of analysis would 18 have to be done.
19 A You would have to have some idea about the standards 20 of quality, some notions of how you judge quality. Actually, 21 I'll take this back. I am aware of a study, in the sense that
(
22 there is some work -- I chaired a session in April on a study l
i O
l
I 37
- 1 that was done on coal miners. This work was done by Goodman 2 at. Carnegie Mellon, who looked at the number of accidents, as 3 I recall, that were present in coal mines, as a function of x
4 the number of people on the team -- in coal mines, you work in 5 small groups and I can't tell you the size -- you go down in a 6 small group and loosen the coal from the edge, put it in the j
7 carts and pull it up.
8 They looked at the extent to which that team was
, 9 made up of people who were full-time workers and the extent to t
10 which the team had members who were filling in for someone who
- 11 was absent. They coded the filler's in, in terms of whether
- 12 or not -- let's take a team of four -- whether you had one j () 13 14 filler in, two filler's in, three filler's in, four filler's in, j 15 As I recall, the number of safety violations was 16 related to the extent to which the team was full-time and not
- 17 composed of people --
i
- 18 Q That might make some sense in that study, obviously i
- 19 if you have a team that learns to work together, they respond 20 to each other in certain ways, and that would be a logical ;
- 21 explanation for it; is that right?
i 22 A Sure.
i a
i 4
. _ _ . _ _ . , _ _ _ . , _ - _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ ___._....__ _,_. --..- __. . __ . _ . _ . - - . _ . _ . _ . . ~ _ _ _ . -
38 1 Q From that, would you be able to project what this .
O
\- / 2 would mean about an individual QC inspector going out to 3 inspect a weld, if he was absent 25 percent more than other QC 4 inspectors? Would you then project from this study the 5 quality of his inspection on an individual weld, when he is 6 1 on-site? '
7 A No. I cannot make any direct inference from that, 8 that would be the case. I think from the coal mining study, l 9 however, it might get me to explore whether there might be 10 some types of relationships. If I looked very closely at the 11 QC's job and some things related to it, perhaps there would be l
12 something there. I can't say that directly.
(} 13 Q Assuming, again, going back to the original 14 question, assuming you were going to figure out how to study 15 this, how would you approach it in general to study the 16 question of whether absenteeism is related to quality for the 17 QC inspector job?
18 A I think what I would do in that type of setting, I 19 would go to -- I am assuming I am going back to records. I 20 would go and look at the nature of inspections. As I 21 understand the process, there are some random checks on 22 inspections that people nake. Perhaps I could go back and O
U
~
39 1 look at the random inspections made by the NRC or some other 2 agency, and in that data, I would assume what that says is you 3 re-inspected weld number X, done by person Y, and you could 4 check to'see whether or not person Y was working on overtime, 5 whether it was the first day back on the job for that person, 6 related to attendance behavior in some fashion.
7 Perhaps you could also check to see whether it was 8 done in certain time periods, Monday morning, Friday 9 afternoon.
10 If in the process of doing that, you began to become 11 convinced that there could be some' relationship, it would be 12 worth further study.
( 13 The whole process is one of in a sense of building a 14 theory around the possibility of absence being related to 15 performance. At this stage, I have no theory. I would pursue 16 it in that kind of fashion and ask are there things that would 17 possibly make absenteeism and performance be related, and then 18 check out those types of situations.
19 Q As far as behavioral traces are concerned, taking l
i 20 the category as broadly as you would like to define it, are i
i 21 there behavioral traces that you either know are available 22 from Braidwood or would expect were available from Braidwood, f~%
G i
40, 1 that would allow you to make projections about quality of 2 performance without having to go through this type of analysis 3 ,you are talking about on absenteeism, validating the trace 4 first?
5 A You are asking two things. You are asking one, is 6 there a behavioral trace that I could make inferences about 7 performance. The second is bringing in absences.
8 Q Let me rephrase the question. I wasn't bringing in 9 absences -- to the extent that you indicated for absenteeism, 10 basically you needed to do some validation before you could 11 use it as a behavioral trace to project quality. Is that 12 right?
)
13 A I would have to have some reason to believe that 14 there was a link between absenteeism and quality. I would
! 15 have to check that in some way.
16 Q Are there behavioral traces that you are aware of 17 that do have a direct link to quality that you could look at 18 on Braidwood?
19 A Again, from the limited amount of information that 20 I've had of the Braidwood case, I would think you have 21 indications by this random sampling process, of the quality of
, 22 inspections that had been made.
O
--y .-- - , . - - m --__--,--- ---m-
,_. . _ . - - . - . . _ _- - .--_--. _.-=_- _ - _ . . _ _ - ._- . - -
41 1 Q From those random sampling's, depending on the 2 nature of the data and all that is available, you might be 3 able to make some projection about the quality of an '
i 4 inspector's work; is that right?
5 A I think that would be one source. Another possible
- 6 source -- this is more obtuse. Let's say, for example, the 7 methods and standards people, which I assume they have made 4 8 some judgments about how long certain inspections and welds 9 take, they have some idea of what they take, if you have some
- 10 idea of that, you might go back to the records and look over a
)
11 three month time period for any one given individual, for the 12 number of inspections he signed off on, and compare the
() 13 14 theoretical amount of time it should take to do those against the amount of time the person actually took, the real time in 15 that time period, realizing that they may not sign off on each 16 one immediately afterward, but if you averaged these for all 17 people over three months or six months, you might get some i
18 idea about the amount of time they are taking against the 19 theoretic time, and if it turns out that they are taking far 20 less time to do these inspections then the Quality Control
! 21 people say, that is one piece of evidence implying that J
22 perhaps quality is lower.
]
i i
O 9
,--.--,-----,_,-_-_--,--,_,-,_-__,,---,-._..._-.y----w --
- - _ , ,1--_.. - , - - -.- -- , -- - - , - , - - - - , - , - - , , - - - - ,,-,----.7, - _ ,,._.-,,-
l l
42 l I
1 It is an inference process. It doesn't prove l
(, l s- 2 quality is lower. It is just one piece of information that
]
3 might point in that direction.
4 Q There is probably a correlation between such data 5 and quality; you won't know for any individual inspector 6 whether or not it actually reflects a quality problem on his 7 work, if you came up with that data; is that right?
d 8 A Right. For one inspector, you couldn't say. If I 1 9 know it takes eight hours, that normally in eight hours, you 10 do five inspections, and I find the mean number being done for 11 all people is 45, then that just raises a red flag.
]
12 Q On the other side of that, if you found the
( ) 13 inspectors were all equal to or taking longer than what the 14 norm standard was set by the Methods and Standards people, i 15 that would at least raise the implication or give you further 16 evidence of the fact that there was not a quality problem; is 17 that right?
18 A It would not say there is not a quality problem. It 4LucJ.J~and/
19 would indicate that4 4enit' pointing to a quality problem. It 20 wouldn't disprove quality any more than it would prove 21 quality.
22 Q In both directions you are saying that in one way, I
43 1 if it is too fast, it points to the possibility of a quality 2 problem, and if it is at appropriate speed or slower, it does 3 not point to a quality problem?
4 A That's right.
5 Q On the first level of analysis you were doing, 6 looking at the re-inspection program or the random inspection 7 program, if you found that there was a certain level of error, 8 more than what would be expected, again, that would point to a 9 quality problem and just the opposite, if you were within 10 accepted norms, you would expect that would point away from a 11 quality problem?
12 A That's correct.
() 13 Q Any other behavioral traces that you are aware of or 14 you would expect in a normal corporate optration, that you 15 would be able to find that might relate to quality?
16 A Offhand, I can't think of any.
17 Q As far as the quality data is concerned, have you 18 looked at any of the data on the re-inspection programs at 19 Braidwood, to analyze it?
20 A No; I haven't.
21 Q Did you request any of that data?
22 A I did not.
44 i
1 Q Do you have a basis for giving an opinion as to what 2 level of correlation should exist between the re-inspection 3 program and the original inspection program, how much error 4 would be tolerable before the arrow is pointed one way or the 5 other?
6 A No; no idea. I'd assume there are industry 7 standards or someone has looked at that. I would first check 8 with the industry and the NRC and see what kind of averages 9 exist on that degree of correlation 10 Q You have not done that?
11 A I have no idea; none at all.
12 Q As far as the methods and standards sort of 13 analysis, do you know what data exists for Braidwood in that 14 regard, or what the data is for Quality control inspectors in
! 15 general for the type of work being done by comstock?
16 A No; I don't.
17 Q Going back to your vitae, the second one listed 18 under " Reports Prepared for Organizational Use Only" on page 19 12 is Baxter Laboratories work.
20 What did you do for Baxter Laboratories?
21 A You put me on the spot, because I can't remember the i 22 details.
O
. 45 1 Q In general would be fine.
Os 2 A It was back in '74^or '75. In general, what we were 3 .doing, we were again looking at an expectancy theory notion of 4 motivation. We were asking, what are the people's beliefs 5 about the relationship between their behavior and their 6 performance, the amount of work and amount of effort they put 7 in, and how well they did. We'd look at, to what extent do 8 you believe, as you put forth more effort, you will do better 9 as an engineer?
10 And we also looked at how committed they were to the 11 organization. We would relate the questionnaire responses on i
12 their beliefs about the relationship between their effort and
(} 13 performance and also their beliefs about, if they were a high 14 performer, what kind of rewards did they get. In setting up 15 this calculus where you multiply one by the other, we would 16 predict how they performed on the job and how committed they 17 were as a response to these questionnaires.
18 That was the general model that we were werking off 19 of. We then took those data and interpreted them for 20 Baxter-Travenal and distributed this report, saying this is 21 how your employees see the relationship between what they do 22 and what'they get. That is the general theme of it.
l
46 1 Q I may have missed it in there, but did you take that f
\ 2 data on what the employees believed and test that against some 3 standard of what their actual performance was, either 4 management's perception of their performance cr some 5 performance standard for the engineers?
6 A My recollection is that we had their supervisors 7 rate their performance, and we compared the supervisory 8 ratings. I may be wrong on that. When I worked with Baxter, 9 we worked with two groups. We had salespersons, and I did not 10 give them a report on the sales. In the sales, we had a 11 objective data in the sense that we had the sales volume.
12 But for the engineers, I believe we used performance
() 13 measures -- I mean, performance ratings. Again, I could be 14 wrong.
15 Q Okay. Do you recall -- and this probably extends 16 beyond your recollection, then, based on what you've said --
17 whether there was a relationship between the worker's job 18 satisfaction and the rated job performance by his supervisor?
19 A I don't recall.
20 Q Do you recall on the worker's perceived performance 21 versus the rated performance?
22 A I don't recall what the relationship was.
O
- . = - - . _ . _ - _ - . __ ._ .. - . - . - - . - _ - -. . _ .
47 1 Q Going down then to Delco-Remy, what did you do for
, 2 them in '78?
3 A There we again used a survey of employees and 4 basically asked them how satisfied they were with the nature 5 of performance feedback that they got from their supervisors 6 and the performance feedback process. They had a system, like j 7 many corporations, where supervisors sat down with 8 subordinates on a periodic basis and discussed their 9 performance over the last time period. And we looked at the 10 degree to which these people were satisfied or dissatisfied i
11 with that program.
12 Q Did any of that analysis check back against the
! 13 4
( ) worker's performance, to correlate with performance at all?
14 A I don't recall. I do not -- well, I don't recall. I d
l 15 Q What type of workers were you working with at i
i 16 Delco-Remy?
j l 17 A They were salaried employees, I'm sure. They 18 covered a wide variety of jobs. I'm certain they were 19 salaried, because we didn't deal with the union.
20 Q What does Delco-Remy do? What type of tasks were 21 these people performing?
22 A They covered a wide range of tasks. They were up 4
i i
1
48 1 through management, finance, accounting, some professional f')
(m/ 2 people down to supervising office workers and direct 3 supervision.
4 Delco-Remy is somehow connected to General Motors.
5 I'm not sure whether it's a subsidiary. It makes headlights 6 and radios and electronics for automobiles.
7 Q Then the next one we have here is simpson Timber 8 Company, 1980. Could you tell us what you did there?
9 A Sure. There again, we were interested in 10 performance appraisal and performance planning. They had a 11 system where supervisors would sit down with subordinates, and 12 they set goals and fed back information.
( 13 We surveyed pairs of supervisors and subordinates,
}
14 prior to the time that they were going to sit down with this 15 interview. So about a month nhead of time, we surveyed them
, 16 in terms of what the subordinate thought their performance was 17 like, how they got along with their supervisor, et cetera, and 18 we got it from both the supervisor's and subordinate's 19 standpoint.
20 We then waited until after the interview was over 21 and went back and asked similar kinds of things and how 22 satisfied they were with the interview, and we were interested i i
O
49 1 in how well the subordinate perceived their feedback and their 2 ratings, what they thought they were, what they were told by 3 their superviser they did. And we related their reactions to 4 the interview process to their earlier responses, their 5 satisfaction, their views of their supervisors.
6 Q And the last one we have listed under here is the 7 development and test of a performance appraisal instrument for 8 custodians at Purdue. Could you tell us what that was about?
9 A Here we went through just a standard development of 10 an appraisal instrument, which is called a behavioral anchored 11 rating scale. We had custodians come into a conference room 12 and basically tell us what they did. "Think of the time 13 you've done your job well; think of the time you've done it 14 poorly." And they generate a bunch of statements. Then we 15 take those statements and scale them and develop a rating 16 scale for the custodians, and we turned that scale over to 17 Purdue University, and that report describes the scales that 18 resulted.
19 Q From this survey, did you then compare the survey 20 data against some known data on their performance to set up a 21 performance appraisal?
22 A No. Well, actually, I take that back. We did try
i l 50 1 to assess -- and it did not work very well -- we tried to 2 assess their performance by sending a person, an undergraduate 3 team that we had, to randomly sample behavior from the 4 janitors. They would go in and rate the degree to which the i
5 floors were swept, and they were set to go in on a random They would go in at 2:00 o' clock in the morning for 6 basis.
I 7 the night crew, and then we related those data to the
- 8 appraisal instrument. It didn't work.
9 [ Laughter.]
i 10 Q You didn't get the correlation?
4 11 A Not what we hoped for. We spent a lot of time and 12 effort on that one.
13 Q
( Each of these would be a field study analysis; is 14 that right, each of the ones that we've talked about here in 1
l 15 this category of " Reports Prepared for organizational Use?"
16 A Yes, they are all field studies, not field i
, 17 experiments.
- 18 Q Okay. Have you done field studies or field i
! 19 experiments related to the construction industry?
20 A No, I haven't.
1 j 21 Q How about field studies or field experiments related i
l 22 to quality assurance department performance?
i I
\.O
51 !
1 A No.
2 Q Field studies or field experiments related to the i 3 nuclear industry?
4 l 4 A No.
i f
5 Q Under "Recent Consultation" on page 13, you have 6 General Motors Corporation listed. Is that the one you told
?
7 us about earlier, the class action one?
8 A Actually that was not, no. That was simply a day i
9 that I spent with them discussing performance appraisal lo systems and how one should design and what r.re some of the 11 characteristics of good performance appraisal systems.
12 Q And Michigan Bell Telephone Company, what did you do
() 13 for them?
14 A There I participated in an executive retreat type of I 15 meeting that they had. I presented material on downsizing, 1
16 the motivational impact of downsizing on employees who remain.
i 17 Q " Downsizing" meaning make the company smaller?
18 A Right, right, layoffs.
19 Q And in your testimony, you had mentioned some l
l 20 consultation for the U.S. Navy. Is that the work that you I
} 21 described at the outset with the individual goal-setting 22 translating into the group?
i l <
52 1 A Yes, that's correct.
2 Q I will show you this book, without marking it as an 3 exhibit if there's no objection to it, since it's a library 4 book, but it is "A Theory of Behavior in Organizations" by 5 Naylor, Pritchard, and Ilgen and ask you to take a look at 6 that book versus page 1 of your testimony, Ilgen Deposition 7 Exhibit No. 1, and tell me if that's the book that is referred i
8 to on page 1?
9 A That is correct.
10 Q It indicates here on page 1 that it's a 11 Prentice-Hall publication. I think the book indicates that 12 it's a different publisher. But it is the same book?
() 13 14 A It is the same book. That was my error on pace 1.
It's Academic Press. I have another textbook with 15 Prentice-Hall.
16 Q As far as that book is concerned, are there sections 17 of that book which focus on the question of the effects of 18 harassment on performance, the quality of performance?
19 A Nothing focuses directly on harassment.
20 Q Is there anything that focuses on intimidation as it 21 relates to performance or quality of performance?
22 A No, not directly.
l O
. - - = . - - -. .- _. . . - - - _ _ . - .. - -
4
, m 53 1 Q And as far as the effects of setting production 2 goals versus quality of performance, is that discussed in the 3 book?
4 A I don't think so. We do discuss performance 5 issues. It would be indirect, but not directly.
6 Q Can you tell me which sections by chapter or page, 7 maybe looking through the table of contents, that deal with 8 the performance standards that would relate to this generally, 9 as opposed to directly?
10 [ Witness reviewing document.]
11 A Well, in both Chapters 1 and 2, 1 addresses the 12 issue -- our point of view that behavior, that people in
() 13 organizations don't deal with behaviors; they deal with 14 products of behavior. Products are sort of the outcomes or j 15 the outputs that you have. Certainly implied in that is that 16 these products have quality and quantity issues associated 17 with them.
18 And the model in Chapter 2 is a motivational model 19 related to how people perform, and performance is'an aspect of 20 that.
21 Q In putting togethar this book, did you pull together l 22 research or do research or do a literature review which 1
i l
i 54 1 involved literature showing a relationship or testing a 2 relaticnship between setting of specific production goals and 3 performance?
4 A Well, clearly we talk about issues that are dealing 5 with goal-setting types of things, and also clearly there is a 6 very strong literature that shows there is a relationship, a 7 positive relationship, between goals and performance, and I'm 8 well aware of that. I can't point in there where we dealt
- 9 with goals.
10 Q The relationship is between goal-setting and 11 positive job performance, meaning that if proper goals are 12 set, you get a higher level of performance? Is that the 13 correlation?
{}
14 A Well, perhaps let me talk a little bit about 15 goal-setting. The literature on goal-setting would argue that 16 goals have two major important dimensions, if you want. One 17 is the degree to which they are specific, and the second is 18 the degree to which they are difficult, how difficult they are 19 as compared to other people who perform these kinds of tasks.
, 20 And the data show that there is a positive 21 correlation between performance and goal difficulty and goal 22 specificity. In other words, the more difficult the goal, the O
y 55 1 more -- the higher the performance, assuming that the goal is
~T 2 attainable.
3 Secondly, the other thing that you find is that 4 performance tends to be better when the goals are specific 5 than when they're general. " General" usually means, "Do your 6 best." I mean, in the literature, "Do your best" is 7 considered a general goal versus, " Accomplish this number of 8 things or this level of performance."
9 Q Taking a specific type of goal, then, the goal 10 relating to number of units of production over time, if one 11 were to lay out with specificity the goal of number of units 12 per time that the worker was to meet, would you expect that
/~' 13 b) his -- that there would be a positive correlation between that 14 and his job performance?
15 [ Pause.)
16 A I'm hesitating because the positive relationship is -
17 -- for one case, you can't get a positive relationship. What 18 you have to say is, for a group of people who have a number of 19 specific goals at certain levels -- you have a goal; I have a 20 goal; Bob has a goal; different people have goals -- and you 21 relate our performance over the group to our goal level, then, 22 yes, there will be a positive correlation that there is a 1
-f 56 1 tendency, in general, it's found there's a tendency for the 2 higher goal set, the higher the performance, assuming that 3 those goals were attainable.
4 Q So to expand the example, then, to try to 5 incorporate what you're asking for, if we took a number of 6 specific goals, one of which W s number of units per time, and 7 it was a goal that was attainablo,, and we delineated that 8 specifically and looked at that over a group as far as 9 - performance, you would expect'a positive correlation?
10 A Yes, I would. Yes.
11 Q And if we again, setting' that saine sort of series of 12 goals, specified a difficult but attainable. number of units 13 per time for production, you would expect, looking over a 14 group, that that again would correlate positively to job 15 performance?
15 A Yes. And again, I Want to state what performance is 17 here. Performance"is number of units produced. That is
~
18 .. assuming that the task thrit you'are working with can be 19 -reduced to number f units produced as being the performance.
20 Q All right. I didn't want to limit it that way, so 21 let me try it differently.
l i
22 If you were going to look at your normal.way of 1 t
s
^
57 1 measuring job performance, which is a balr.tce of quality and lO )
\~/ 2 quantity, and you set a number of specific goals, one of which 3 was a difficult to attain but attainable number of units 4 produced, would you expect that joint measure at the end for a 5 group to be higher, the quantity / quality balance measure that 6 you would normally apply to job analysis?
7 A I would expect, if you can capture in the goal both 8 the quantity and quality notions and you can capture in the 9 performance the quality and quantity notions, then that there 10 would be that positive relationship, although I will also say 11 that most of the research that's done has been done on rather 12 simplistic tasks where quality has been controlled or quality
() 13 was not an issue, such as planting pine trees in the forests 14 or looking at the number of pounds of logs that are loaded on 15 a logging truck, seeing how close people come to the legal 16 limit for the highways that they're driving on, where there 17 isn't a quality dimension to them nearly as much.
18 Q All right. So to the extent that there is 19 literature on it, it suggests a positive correlation. What 20 you are suggesting is that there may not be sufficient 21 research to carry this over to a projection in an area where l
22 quality is a primary concern?
O
58 1 A That's the issue, right. The quality issue has not 0)
\- 2 been dealt with well.
3 Q So at this point, what that would do for you as a 4 scientist looking at this is if you were put into an area 5 where you had a high concern for quality, you would be i
1 6 reluctant to make a projection from your goal-setting 7 information, is that right, about the quality of performance?
8 A Yes, it would.
9 Q Is there any literature to indicate or any research 10 that has been done or any research you have done that would 11 indicate that setting specific goals in this type of work 12 where quality is a primary concern, that the correlation is,
() 13 14 in fact, reversed, that it is a negative correlation?
A No, I have no evidence that it is reversed.
15 Q Have you testified previously as an expert witness?
16 A No, I haven't.
17 Q Have you given a deposition in the case that you are 18 involved in in Washington for General Motors?
19 A No, I haven't.
20 Q Can you tell me how you first became involved with 21 this project, how you were contacted and how you got involved 22 in this analysis for Braidwood?
O
i 59
, 1 A I can recall pretty specifically. I was contacted l 2 by Bob by telephone.
3 Q That's Bob Guild.
4 A By Bob Guild. At the time, I was visiting the 5 University of Illinois in Champaign / Urbana. I was down there 6 to give a talk and simply had a phone ~ message that he was 7 trying to reach me, and I called him back at that time. The 8 dates on that were right at the end of February, j 9 Q Of this year?
I 10 A Of this year, yes, 1986.
11 Q Had you worked with Bob Guild before?
i 12 A I have not. No, I haven't.
(
13 Q Did you call Bob back, then, in response to that?
14 A Yes, I did.
15 Q In the conversation you had when you called him back 16 or subsequently, have you learned how it was that Bob came to 17 learn of you?
18 A I believe he mentioned it at that time, but I'm not 19 sure. As I recall, he had contacted Irv Goldstein with 20 relationship to something that Goldstein had done, and Irv 21 Goldstein had mentioned my name.
?
22 Q The thing that Irv Goldstein had done was the work o d
10
60 1 Comanche Peak; is that right?
2 A That is correct.
3 Q Have you worked with Irv Goldstein previously?
4 A I have not done research with him. I am on a 5 committee with him that meets frequently. He is currently the 6 President of the Society of Industrial Organizational
? Psychology, and I am on the Executive Committee for that 8 Society. We met in Washington last week. We meet frequently.
9 Q Has you done any work or had you consulted with him 10 at all or even talked with Irv Goldstein on his Comanche Peak 11 work?
12 A No, I hadn't.
O
%/
13 Q Have you ever had any involvement witn the nuclear 14 industry in terms of intervention in proceedings or membership 15 in organizations that either support or resist the nuclear 16 industry previously?
17 A No, I haven't.
18 Q At the time you first spoke with Bob Guild, did he 19 indicate to you whether or not Professors Arvey and McKirnan 20 were working with him?
21 A I don't recall.
22 Q Taking the first phone contact you had with Bob
61 1 Guild when you returned the call, can you recall what was said 2 during that conversation?
3 A My recollection of it was that he described briefly 4 the nature of the position with respect to the quality 5 control inspectors and had stated the nature in general of 6 what Professor Goldstein had done with respect to generally 7 saying how does behavior in work settings work, and asked if I 8 felt qualified to respond to describing a general model of 9 behavior in organizations and would be willing to do so if I 10 were to get some further information.
11 At that time I did not commit myself to doing this.
12 He agreed to send some materials to me, and it was after
(} 13 reading through those and calling him back that I agreed to 14 provide my thoughts on some of the issues that affect behavior 15 in organizations.
16 Q As part of the task that was given to you, were you 17 asked to reach an opinion as to whether or not the quality of 18 the work by the inspectors had been affected by harassment and 19 intimidation or production schedules at Braidwood in this 20 initial phone conversation?
21 A No, not in the initial phone conversation.
22 Q Has that subsequently become your task, as you view O
i i
62 1
! 1 it?
4 v 2 A No, I don't really see my task as that. I see my 3 task as asking what are some of the things that affect l
4 people's behavior in organizations and what are some of the l
5 ways in which we are influenced, what are things that affect 6 us and influence us to perform our jobs in certain ways. As a j 7 result of that, I did look at some examples that might be 8 related, that are related to the nuclear industry, but my 9 primary task is to say why do people behave as they do.
1 10 Q If you were asked to reach an opinion as to whether i
11 or not the quality of performance had been affected by j 12 harassment and intimidation, production schedules at
()
4 13 Braidwood, would you have to do the sort of analysis that you l 14 describe on page 24 of your testimony to reach such a 15 conclusion, that being the retrospective reconstructions, the i 16 behavior traces and the combination of those two to do the 17 evaluation?
18 A I think what I feel is I would have to gather a lot l
19 of additional information. Exactly what that would be, I can't
- 20 say.
i e 21 Q You don't have the information at present to reach 22 such a conclusion?
I 1
1 J
O i
i
__ . . _ , . . _ . _ - _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ ._ _ . _. _ . _ _ . ~ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ . -
63 1 A Not to reach -- I can reach a conclusion whether O(m/ 2 these things would imply that it is worth looking into 3 further, but did it or did it not, no, I can't reach that 4 conclusion.
5 Q Were you as part of your task asked to decide 6 whether or not there was harassment of quality control 7 inspectors at Braidwood?
8 A No, not whether or not it occurred.
9 Q Were you asked to assess whether or not there was 10 intimidation of inspectors?
11 A No, not was there directly. We questioned more is 12 this a case in which there could have been harassment, is it a
( } 13 case in which there could have been intimidation. I don't 14 recall whether we used each one of those issues, but I can 15 reflect on does it seem possible in that setting.
16 Q Were you asked to reach an opinion as to whether 17 or not there were unreasonable production quotas imposed on 18 quality control inspectors at Braidwood?
19 A No.
20 Q To reach a conclusion as to whether or not there was 21 actually harassment of inspectors, would you need more 22 information than you currently have?
C)
64 1 A Yes, I would need more.
2 Q What type of information would you look for to make 3 that sort of analysis?
4 A I think that in any case, you need to take the sum 5 total of all you can muster up, so to speak, and I think you 6 need to know what are some of the responses that you w uld
.2 j 7 find -- well, we have talked about whether peopleSweeuw &>4**,4,c4_
vush 8 gi nfluenced,by-;;rfe__;nce, whether these people felt that the i
9 demands that were made on them are more than the -- the 10 demands for production were much greater than what the i
11 industry allows, perhaps how it compares to other responses in 12 other settings.
13 I guess my point is that one has to consider a
( }
14 number of factors other than simply one set of, one type of 15 data.
16 Q And that would be true for the harassment and the
! 17 intimidation and the question of whether or not there are 18 reasonable production or unreasonable production goals set?
19 A Yes, in particular the latter. Without studying I
20 further the issue of what is a reasonable production goal, I 21 have no feel for that at all.
22 Q And to study that, you would have to do the type of O
65 1 analysis that a standards and methods type department did for 2 NARF?
3 A That would help, yes. The type of analysis that was 4 done at the NARF was only at the NARF, and I think you would 5 want that at the Comstock work, at Braidwood. Also in this 6 case I think you have got a comparison. You can see to what 7 extent what was being expressed as the production goals at 8 Braidwood compares to what is being expressed at other nuclear 9 plants of similar types, and are these in line with or out of 10 line with production goals.
11 Q Have you undertaken any sort of analysis along those 12 lines with respect to production goals?
13 A None.
(
14 Q Do you anticipate doing such analysis before you 15 testify?
16 A No, I don't.
17 Q Going back to the task as you have formulated it 18 with respect to this harassment and intimidation and 19 production, the way I wrote it down was is this a case where 20 there could have been a problem? I am not sure I understand 21 what sort of analysis one does to determine that. What type 22 of analysis have you done to determine whether or not this is i
O
66 1 a case where there could be such a problem? What are you 2 looking for?
3 A Well, I go all the way back to the notion of the 4 types of things, as I indicated in the testimony that you 5 have, as what are people influenced by, what kinds of things l 6 influence us? I would argue that we are influenced by what we l
7 are told by our superiors, we are influenced by what we hear t
8 is happening, and the issue is really to what extent are 9 certain behaviors seen as leading to rewards and punishments?
l 10 In any type of setting I think we have certain 11 rewards and punishments associated with just about every 12 behavior, and the question becomes are there conflicts between
() 13 what some people are asking us to do and what other sources of 14 information are implying we should do? We get certain kinds 15 of conflicts there. To the extent that there is any reason to 16 believe the conflicts might have existed, and furthermore to 17 the extent that these conflicts may be inconsistent with the 18 values and the norms that these people hold, that is an 19 indication of a possibility for harassment or intimidation if 20 pressure is being put on.
21 In reading some of the testimony, I simply would 22 thi.nk that some of the things that were being said, especially O
I 67 1 in the memos that were presented at the end of March and early 2 April, would indicate that it deserves further attention.
j 3 Q Short of undertaking a full-blown analysis like you i
3 4 have proposed on page 24 of your testimony, would you, before 5 you reached the conclusion to go that route, try to take a 7
6 look at any further information here or would you want to see 7 any further information here, or do you have enough now that 8 you are ready to recommend that a full-blown analysis be run j 9 with all surveys and reinspection programs and everything 10 else?
J
- 11 A I don't know what you are asking me in the sense of 1
12 what is my role in this. My role, I thought, was to ask how
{
() 13 14 do people behave. If you are asking me is my role to make the
! decision, then I need much more information. I am not taking 15 that role.
4 16 Q On page 23, question 21, "Do you have any i
17 recommendations for the Licensing Board with respect to how l 18 they might verify conditions of harassment, intimidation and i
j 19 production pressure that occurred at Braidwood at the time
! 20 under consideration here?"
21 On the next page and a half, an explanation of the t
j 22 procedures that could be followed to assess it, which I
i
!O e
i 4
1 I l f i 68 j 1 concludes in the last paragraph "On the basis of the evidence l
2 I have reviewed regarding Braidwood, I would strongly i
l 3 recommend that a detailed evaluation be performed which may 4 employ some combination of retrospective reconstructions, l 5 behavioral traces," as you describe above.
i-j 6 I read that, and correct me if I am wrong, as being l
1 7 a recommendation that the Board conduct in effect the full
- 8 experimental analysis or survey behavioral trace, reinspection 9 analysis at Braidwood, to determine whether or not there is a j 10 problem there; is that right?
i
- 11 A Yes. I think that gathering this further i
12 information would increase our confidence to the extent to 13 which harassment did or did not exist.
4 14 Q Is it possible, for instance, you mentioned you were i
l 15 aware or somebody had told you there was some re-inspection i
} 16' data available here. Is it possible on the basis of that k,
17 re-inspection data alone, if you reviewed it, that you would j 18 conclude that such an analysis wasn't required?
19 A More than likely, no. I would see that as one piece
- 20 of information in this building, sort of trying to solve the i 21 puzzle of whether or not this went on. I don't think any one
} 22 piece of information, survey data, trace data, et cetera, can O
i 1 69 i
, 1 increase our confidence sufficiently, at least from what I a 2 have seen, in the limited amount of information I have about I
i 1
3 this case, I think you need multiple pieces of information i 4 that collapse on a general conclusion.
1 l 5 Q Sticking with that re-inspection possibility, let's I
j 6 assume for the moment that you had 100 percent re-inspection 7 program by a separate contractor at Braidwood, and assume i 8 there was 100 percent correlation or agreement between the j 9 re-inspection program and the inspection program done by i
10 ccmstock; at that point, would you feel confident in saying 11 stop the analysis, I don't see a problem now demanding this i
12 other analysis?
i
() 13 14 A Not I don't. There are two issues here. Maybe I can pull these apart. I think we have a little theory here.
e i
15 our theory says harassment and intimidation lead to production 16 differences -- harassment and intimidation lead to lower 1
17 quality inspections.
{
I 18 If our only goal is to ensure there are quality
{
i 19 inspections, then those random sampling's would give us some l I
j 20 idea about that. I think on the basis of that sampling, if 21 you had a good sampling process, you could reach some a
22 conclusions about the quality of inspections that had been l
!O i
i
.. _ - . . ._ .__ . .- _ _ _ _ - _ _ = __
70 1 done.
a 2 The quality of that inspection doesn't necessarily 3 mean, if it is high, that harassment and intimidation didn't 4 come forth. We could be prisoners on a chain gang and still 1
5 do very good work and be tremendously harassed and intimidated 6 to get there. It depends on where you are putting the i.
4 7 emphasis in this process.
8 Q To make sure I understand, we have two levels of 9 analysis that are being measured by this type of 10 recommendation you are proposing on pages 23 and 24. One, a 11 measure to find out whether or not there really was a quality 12 problem.
() 13 A Right.
14 Q Two, to determine whether or not there really was 15 harassment and intimidation.
16 A Right. As I see it, both of those are tangled up in 17 this process.
18 Q The quality problem, answering the question of I
19 quality doesn't necessarily answer the question of harassment 20 and intimidation in your view; is that right?
21 A That's correct.
22 Q Answering the question of harassment and
1 1 71 1 intimidation doesn't necessarily answer the question of i
2 quality?
3 A That's correct.
1 4 Q If we are focusing only on the quality aspect of it 4
i 5 and you had a 100 percent re-inspection program by a separate
- 6 contractor and no allegations of harassment and intimidation i
i 7 there, you would be able perhaps to say, the quality concern 8 has been solved, but I am still concerned about the harassment 9 and intimidation; is that right?
10 A That's possible. Certainly that inspection would I
11 lead me to -- it would certainly increase my confidence in 12 quality.
( ) 13 Q I take it that some sampling program, since 100 14 percent re-inspection is not likely anywhere, some sampling
! 15 program either done now or done in the past, following as 16 these people went along, may give you some assurance on
! 17 quality but again, it doesn't answer your harassment and
- 18 intimidation question?
l l 19 A There are theories on sampling that would be able to i
l 20 ensure -- that you would be able to be quite confident on the 21 quality; I agree. As to theories on sampling, what percent j 22 you should take and what types of welds you should be looking i O 4
- -y-~,-3 -,~,,_--_,,-,,--yy_,,--,-.- , ,,-m,-._,,-_.m --
~,c% ,.w, -.r,, , -,mm,-,,---,-y, m-,yy,-e-,...w,-w-_, .
i 72 1 at and how many of each type, et cetera.
2 Q That would get you back into again going to the 3 industry standards, the NRC standards, or whatever, for what 4 the agreement rate has to be between the re-inspection and the 5 initial inspection, and that sort of analysis would fall into 6 that also; right?
7 A Yes; you would look at that.
8 Q To assess the harassment and intimidation aspect of 9 it, what further would you require as far as this program?
10 Taking the facts as you understand them for Braidwood, what 11 would you require further to get the assurances on the 12 harassment and intimidation aspect of it?
13 A Let me throw out some ideas. These are some things 14 that I think might be associated with it. By saying I am 15 throwing these out, I'm not saying I've closed off the set.
16 You can't say a priori where you would stop looking.
17 You might, for example, make some inferences about 18 when were the major times of harassment, on the basis of your 19 data, what were the trigger points of harassment. Let's say 20 just as an example, if someone were fired -- rumors were 21 someone was fired from the job and you knew the dates when 22 that occurred and likewise, let's say you also knew the exact O
73 1 date when one supervisor publicly shouted and said some things 2 to another person, you knew what that time was, n the basis 3 of that, you might look to see whether certain things that 4 might be associated with harassment occurred more or less 5 around those time periods.
6 For example, you assume that quality is affected by 7 harassment and you look at these random inspections in the 8 data. You plotted them over days. You found that the quality 9 went down in the months after, or very soon after this 10 shouting incident occurred. You found that quality under 11 certain supervisors who were known to be higher on harassment 12 was lower than supervisors who were known to be lower on 13 harassment.
14 What I am saying that you are basically looking for 15 things that you might expect to be associated with harassment 16 to see whether or not they occurred. Perhaps you might also 17 assume that if I was being harassed and there was a lot of 18 harassment, I would be more likely to stay home than come to 19 work; see whether absenteeism fluctuated around those times 20 that were known to be higher or lower.
21 These are just ideas of things that you are trying 22 to build additional information on. In survey data --
O
74 1 Professor Arvey spoke more to the survey data than I would.
(/ 2 I'll let him address that issue. Those data, too, might give 3 you some idea about how people felt about it.
4 Gathering them today has the problem of -- a lot of 5
/4 things have gone on since that time. They - ==314 ;r'her 6 addtM MnCMfenne4&ea. Maybe another issue would be to see a.N 7 whether or not at a certain time en Union organization 8 increased at about the same time rumors of some kinds of 9 problems occurred. The number of grievances went up at that 10 time. The number of visits to the NRC, complaints made.
11 None of these are satisfactory in and of 12 themselves. If all of these things that you think would be
/~'N 13 associated with harassment begin to converge on a similar V
14 pattern, that strengthens your confidence in the notion that Jf 15 something he similar to what you might call harassment might 16 be going on.
17 Q You might get one or more of those and it would be a 18 subjective judgment when you got done as to whether -- I take 19 it with relating harassment to quality, you may have a 20 straight line on quality and yet you still may find harassment 21 took place?
22 A Sure. The end result is a subjective judgment in O
75 1 that process.
I
\_/ 2 Q As far as these various factors you have suggested, 3 for instance, the quality, amount of time they stayed home, 4 how they responded on survey data, Union organization, have 5 those sort of data been correlated to harassment in studies 6 that you are aware of?
7 A No , primarily because I don't think harassment is a 8 technical term. Harassment is something in our language use 9 that we use. Social scientists don't do research on 10 harassment, as far as I'm aware. We talk about negative 11 sanctions and pressure, social pressures, et cetera. No one 12 really explores harassment, although I think they are related 13 to these things. These are pretty fuzzy terms.
V(T 14 Q As far as the negative sanctions and the terms you 15 mentioned, correlations between those and quality and staying 16 at home and survey analysis, Union organization activities, 17 have there been correlation studies done of those terms versus 18 those measures?
19 A Again, I can't cite specific sources. You do find 20 relationships between job satisfaction, satisfaction with a 21 supervisor, for example, and attendance. I think there in 22 some relationship there. It isn't very strong, but there in
(
76 1 some. There is also job satisfaction and number of 2 grievances, satisfaction with supervisors.
3 Q What about job satisfaction and quality?
4 A There is not much correlation between -- there is 5 virtually no correlation cross studies between performance and 6 job satisfaction. The mean correlation is about .14, and 7 quite low. Quality is certainly part of performance. I don't 8 expect it to be high. I can't cite a study. I wouldn't 9 expect a very high correlation, simply because you do not find 10 a strong correlation between satisfaction and performance, and 11 that is very well documented.
12 MR. GILL: Off the record.
13 (Discussion off the record.)
( }
14 MR. GILL: Let's recess. We will come back at 1:45 15 p.m.
16 (Whereupon, at 1:12 p.m., the deposition was 17 recessed for lunch, to reconvene this same day at 1:45 p.m.)
18 ,
19 20 21 22 O
77 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 3
- 2 (2:12 p.m.)
l 3 Whereupon, i
j 4 DANIEL R. ILGEN, 5 having been sworn under oath previously, was examined and 6 , testified further as follows:
. 7 EXAMINATION - Continuing l
8 BY MR. GILL:
t 9 Q Focusing on the second half of the analysis that 10 we were talking about, the harassment and intimidation, 11 analysis as to whether or not it existed, assume during 12 the course of these proceedings that the management personnel
() 13 from Comstock are presented, testify and are cross-examined, 14 the QC inspectors who have claimed any form of harassment and 15 intimidation are presented for testimony and cross-examined, 16 that qua)ity data, reinspection data and that sort of thing 17 that is available is presented to the Board. On the basis of 18 that record, the record that you would have from that, would !
19 you as an industrial organizational psychologist be in a l 20 position to reach a conclusion as to whether harassment or 21 intimidation existed? ,
I 22 A That certainly would be the kind of information I 1
9
78 1 would look for initially. I don't know the job well enough in 2 the sense that I have done a job analysis and gone out and 3 studied it specifically to know whether I have got the whole 4 set. You can think of it as a set of things that you would 5 use to make inferences. Those would be within the set. Those 6 data would be within the set. Whether that is sufficient I 7 can't say at this time, and I would have to know more about 8 the specific jobs in order to decide when I felt comfortable 9 with that. It depends on the specific case.
10 Q Taking first from what you know right now about the 11 jobs, are there other data that you think the Board has to 12 have before it before it can decide the harassment and 13 intimidation issues other than those two categories I gave 14 you, the testimonial and the quality data? I'm not saying 15 that you are foreclosed from anything if you knew more about 16 the job, but knowing what you know now, is there anything you 17 absolutely believe they have to have?
18 A Nothing just jumps out as being necessary right at 19 this point, but I would have to know more.
20 Q What is it about the job that you would like to know 21 in order to make an assessment of what additional data would 22 be required? or to phrase it easier, can you give me an O
79 f
1 example of something that you would find out about the job or x/ 2 you would ask about the job to know what additional data might t i
2 be needed?
4 4 A First of all, I think you would want to know what 5 are the duties and responsibilities that are involved with 6 this job and how is the job defined and what are the 7 characteristics of it. I would think you would also want to 8 know the types of things or how that job fits in to ths 9 organization in the sense of what kinds of performance are
. 10 considered good, what were considered bad, who was promoted, 11 who wasn't promoted -- I am using promotion now as just one 12 variable -- but people that are rewarded and not rewarded,
( ) 13 what are some of the characteristics that led to that, to try 14 to understand what these people do and what is there about the 15 nature of their relationship with thnir supervisor, their 16 relationship with the company, with the union that influences 17 why they do what they do.
18 Q The type of data you suggest there, I take it, would 19 be the type of thing one could explore on examination, either 20 in your business in a survey setting or in our business in 21 testimony at trial or in deposition, to acquire that type of 22 information; is that right?
l 1
i I
4
80 1 A In part. The other part, I think you really need to 2 go out there and look at the job and interview people on the 3 job that are holding the job, interview management, look at 4 how that job is handled and things related to it. In a sense 5 it's like a set of concentric circles. You start with the job 6 and you begin to probe and try to understand the degrees of 7 relationship, you go to the supervisor, and there is a point 8 at which you reach diminishing returns, you feel that you 9 understand it, and at that point I think you are in a much 10 better position to make judgments about what types of 11 information you feel you needed in order to be more confident 12 about what went on.
13 Q Can you, speculating now, not tying it directly to 14 Braidwood, but can you, speculating from your experiences, 15 give me an example of something you might find out about the 16 job that would lead you into another data category? I'm just 17 having a problem. I can see you going out and learning 18 everything about what the Qc inspector does, and then I still 19 don't understand what it is that that gives you as far as 20 finding another category of data to look at.
21 A I think you would want to know, certainly, what the 22 person does. You would also want to know how the relationship O
4 81 i
i 1 is between the QC inspectors and supervisors. You would also
, 2 want to know company policy in terms of the publication and
! 3 the statements that are being made by the company in respect 4 to can you go to whistle-blowing kinds of activities. That 5 would be sort of the objective state. And furthermore, you
! 6 would want to know the subjective, the types of things that i 7 might influence whether you would be willing to whistle-blow j 8 or not: who has in the past, who hasn't, what has happened to
- 9 people who have, what has happened to people who haven't.
f 10 So those are some of the things you would begin to 11 explore as types of behaviors that you would expect might be 12 affected by harassment if it were present, and that the focus
( ) 13 of this issue is that you would have some idea about what you 14 would expect to happen if harassment were present, and then j 15 you would work off of that to ask whether those conditions
- 16 seem to exist or not.
i 17 Q How do you reach this baseline of what you would 18 expect to happen if harassment were present? How do you get 19 to that point? How do you formulate the model to know what 20 would happen if harassment were present? Taking, for example,
, 21 this idea of whistle-blowing, how do you know whether or not 22 harassment is tied to the number of reported whistle blows by i
- O l
1
82 1 people on site?
2 A I think what you do is you build -- I keep saying 3 build a theory, but in essence that is what you are doing.
4 You are saying I have had some hunches and some ideas in this 5 setting what would be the types of things that would happen 6 if people were harassed, and we have already mentioned things 7 like we might expect them to do lower quality, more frequent PS2-8 inspections. We would expect them to be less willing to go to 9 the NRC. We might expect them to -- well, let's just settle 10 for that. And if that makes sense to us, then we would explore 11 what things might be present that would tell us whether these 12 things were happening or not. I don't have a way to state 13 it. It is a detective problem, in a sense, based upon what 14 you know about what you think harassment is and what you 15 expect to happen in that particular setting if it were going 16 on.
17 Q And getting to that expectation, that really is just 18 tying your knowledge of learning behavior and working with a 19 concept of logic to, in effect, hypothesize as to what might 20 happen if harassment were present; is that right?
21 A Exactly. And I have talked about expectancy 22 theory. I have got some theories that I would use to work off O
m_-
83 1 of it, role conflict issues.
O
(~ / 2 Q I believe in your testimony you indicated that you 3 would have some doubts about the validity of QC inspector 4 testimony that they did not sacrifice quality because of 5 harassment; is that right?
6 A I said I would question it. I didn't say that it 7 might not be true. I'm not accusing them of lying about it.
8 I'm just saying that let's realize that there are pressures 9 for us to not even remember it in some cases.
10 Q And that is in the context of whether or not they 11 may have sacrificed quality because of harassment; is that 12 right?
13 A Yes.
4 14 Q I want to focus now on the second half of the 15 analysis, not the quality analysis but the harassment 16 analysis. As far as their self-reporting, their testimony 17 concerning whether or not the incidents that existed -- not 18 making the judgment as to whether it is harassment or not --
19 but reporting incidents that occurred to them, would you find 20 their testimony to be valid on that or do you have the samo 21 doubts about the validity of the inspectors' testimony in that 22 area?
1
_ 84 1 A You ere saying Shether they felt they were harassed.
2 I think that there are things there, too, that would limit 3 whether you would repor,t validly. Perhaps the pressures are a 4 little bit less, but in a sense, to say that you yielded to 5 the pressures of others and others pressured you is a somewhat '
6 self-deprecat1'ng position, so there would be a tendency not to 7 want to say I yield to others.
8 Q I think that takes us back again, yielding to the 9 pressure would take us back to the effects of harassment as 8
e 10 opposed to whether harassment actually occurred. I was trying 11 to get back to a level beyond that as far as their reporting 12 that so-and-so said such-and-such to me, so-and-so said
() 13 14 suci[-and-suchtomethatIconsideredtobeharassing. Do you have doubts also about the validity of their reporting in that 15 category?
16 A At least off-hand, I would have less doubts about 17 that than I did about the -- or than I do at this point. But 18 I have to explore more the kinds of things that would lead to 19 one reporting that or not reporting it. I really would have to 20 look much more closely at what would lead you to want to say 21 one versus the other. But relatively speaking, less than the 22 other. Certainly that.
V .
d
. l
85 1 Q So as far as judging quality, would you agree that 2 probably the strongest indicator of quality, the best analysis 3 you could have of whether or not there was a sacrifice of 4 quality would be the over-inspections or re-inspections if ,
5 they were properly sampled or properly done?
6 A That is the best that we have discussed so far that 7 I can think of, and I can't think of a better one right now.
8 Q As far as analyzing harassment, looking at whether 9 or not there was harassment, again putting levels on and 10 recognizing that you have identified more than one factor, 11 would the self-reporting by the employees and by management be 12 the best indicator you would have of whether or not there was
() 13 14 harassment?
A There I'm not sure. I'm just not sure. Again I 15 would argue that the norms develop. For example, a norm 16 among workers often is that you don't squeal on others, and 17 the squealing kind of notion, I have no idea to what extent 18 that is -- loyalty, for example, is another. Loyalty, 19 squealing on others. To what extent do the people feel that?
l 20 That would decrease the extent to which you would be willing 21 to even come out and talk about the harassment process. .
22 So without knowing more about the work setting and
. O
l 86 4
1 being out there, I can't say that that is the best way to find 2 out if there is harassment.
3 Q I take it those sort of factors can work in the 1
4 other direction also. If you have unionization activities, it 5 may be more likely that you will come forward with that same 6 sort of thing to use it as a tool in your union organizing, to i
7 claim harassment, or if you have a buddy that claims he has 8 been harassed and somebody comes around to ask you, to protect 9 your buddy you may also come up with your example of 10 harassment. Those sort of pressures could exist also. You 11 would have to explore those.
12 A You would have to explore, but they can go for and
()
13 against. You can't say that ahead of time.
14 Q Before we started today, you gave me the opportunity 15 to look through a folder of documents you brought with you. It 16 is a manila folder labeled "BPI, Chicago Trip 5/23." Is that i 17 the collection of documents that you either reviewed or relied 18 upon in preparing your testimony?
- 19 A That is actually a set that is bigger than I relied 20 upon in preparing my testimony.
i 21 Q What does this set encompass, then. How did you 22 choose what documents would be in this folder that were i
87 1 tendered to me today.
2 A These are the ones that I have received from Bob 3 Guild up to this time. The testimony was prepared in early 4 May. In fact, I have got a date on it. April 28th. It must 5 have been late April. Since that time, the depositions that 6 were taken of Arvey and McKirnan were made available to me. I 7 did not have those at the time I prepared the testimony.
8 MR. GUILD: The record should reflect not the 9 McKirnan deposition since it doesn't exist yet.
10 BY MR. GILL:
11 Q To clarify, you have the prepared testimony of 12 McKirnan, the prepared testimony of Arvey, and you also have
() 13 14 the deposition of Arvey; is that right?
A That's right. Those were not available at the time 15 I prepared this.
16 Q And the other information in here would be the stuff 17 that you had reviewed or relied upon in preparing your 18 testimony?
19 A Yes, I think everything else was before this date.
20 Q Was there a division of labor that you were aware of 21 between you, Arvey and McKirnan with respect to analyzing the 22 issues here?
O
88 1 A Not at the time that I was dealing with it. My task 2 was to describe the psychological effects of work, and there 3 was no" discussion when I agreed to do that that this would be 4 a task divided among three people. I did know that Arvey was S going to get involved after I started working on this, and I 6 know his work well enough to know kind of where he would come 7 from.
8 Q Based on your revicw of the testimony of Arvey and 9 McKirnan, how did their perspectives on the problem differ 10 from your perspective on the problem? As you look at it, how 11 are they approaching it differently than you?
12 A I don't think that we disagree at any point along
' (~ ) 13 the line. I think that Arvey's point of view is to focus on
\_/
14 punishment and the effects of punishment and the ways in which 15 one might do research in particular using some kind of survey 16 methodology to try to discover to what extent harassment and 17 intimidation exists. So his is much more focused, at least in 18 my opinion. He was focused on a particular issue, punishment 19 and discipline, discipline being reaction, in the workplace.
I 20 McKirnan's testimony as a social psychologist is 21 more concerned with the norms and values that develop in work 22 settings and focused more particularly on that as an l
89 1 orientation. I was less focused than the two of them, at least O
(m l 2 in my perception. I see myself less focused and dealing with 3 the overall picture of why people do what they do in work 4 settings.
5 Q I use the term " industrial organizational 6 psychologist" in connection with you. Is that a correct 7 designation of your specialty?
8 A Well, I teach in that, and my work is, much of it is 9 in the field of what's called industrial organization 10 psychology. I'm not calling myseif an industrial 11 organizational psychologist. I am not licensed, and there are 12 very specific regulations about using that term to call 13 yourself. But my work falls within the domain of what is
[
14 typically labeled industrial organizational psychology.
15 Q Is there a better designation that you would give to 16 yourself, a more accurate one than that?
f 17 A No, there isn't.
18 Q The distinction you draw when you say it can be a 19 licensed specialty, that means just licensed by a State 20 Licensing Board in Michigan?
21 A Yes. Well, it's licensed -- yes, it's licensed in
, 22 many states. In Michigan, I am not licensed, because there
90 1 are some very specific requirements that make it impossible 2 for people that are trained as industrial organizational '
l 3 psychologists like myself to get licensed. In particular, 4 their law requires that everyone must do an American l 5 Psychological Association supervised internship, basically a 6 one-year internship. No one in my field does that, and 7 therefore we're not licensable in Michigan.
8 Q Well, I'm just sort of confused by that. What is it 9 that a licensed industrial organizational psychologist can do 10 versus a non-licensed industrial organizational psychologist?
11 Why would one be licensed?
12 A Well, I think there's a certain -- that professions 13 try to license and direct the behavior of their members, and 14 that is, I guess, why any profession has a licensing kind of ,
j 15 procedure.
16 Q Let me try to rephrase it. I don't think I phrased 17 it correctly.
I I
18 In the legal profession, if you're licensed, you can 19 practice law, and if you're not licensed, you are violating 20 the law if you practice law.
21 I taka it that you do a type of work and you teach ,
22 in an area of industrial organizational psychology without i
l
!O 2
i I
91 1 being licensed in that area.
O2 A Yes.
3 Q Is there something you would be permitted or that 4 you are prohibited fron doing because you are not licensed as i
5 an industrial organizational psychologist in this state? '
6 A Little beyond the issue of calling yourself an 7 industrial organizational psychologist. And as a member of 8 faculty, I can say that I teach in the area of industrial 9 organizational psychology and am a member of that program.
10 MR. GUILD: You found the one thing, Mike, that he 11 can't do. He can't call himself one.
12 THE WITNESS: So I will not call myself an
( }
13 industrial organizational psychologist.
14 MR. GILL: Off the record.
15 [ Discussion off the record.]
16 BY MR. GILL:
17 Q Are you licensed in psychology, or is there a i
18 license for psychology in the state also?
19 A No. Well, there is a license for psychology, but 20 there is no reason for me to be licensed. It's primarily 21 clinical psychologists.
22 Q You told me, but I forgot. Professor McKirnan is O
92 1 what sort of specialty?
s/ 2 A He is a social psychologist, I believe. I do not ,
3 know him personally. I don't know his background, but I !
l 4 believe he's social, but I'm not sure.
5 Q And Dr. Arvey is what?
6 A He's an industrial organizational psychologist.
7 Q Did you have any role in bringing Dr. Arvey into G this piece of litigation?
9 A Not that I know of. In our first telephone 10 conversation, I don't recall the details, but I might have, if 11 Bob Guild had mentioned who does work in that area, I would 12 have mentioned his name. I don't recall making any reference 13 to that.
14 Q Let me just quickly, if I can, read a description of 15 the materials that appear in this folder here. If I'm 16 misdescribing something in here for the record, let me know.
17 I think we have copies of most of it, so it won't be necessary 18 to mark it or copy it, if that's okay with Mr. Guild.
19 The first one is the testimony of Daniel R. Ilgen.
20 The second is a three-page statement of the i 21 Harassment Contention with the label," Revised," on top of it.
22 The third is an NRC memo from McGregor and Schulz to O
93 1 Warnick and Williams, dated March 29, 1985.
2 The next is an April 5, 1985 NRC memo from Weil to 3 Norelius.
4 The next is a March 29, 1985 NRC memo from McGregor 5 and Schulz to Warnick and Weil.
6 The testimony of David McKirnan is the next one.
7 The testimony of Richard Arvey is next.
8 The bulk of the folder is the deposition of Richard 9 Arvey.
10 And there is a BPI newsletter from the fall of 1985.
11 There is a segment of transcript, and it is 12 identified on top with the handwritten name "Snyder." Does
() 13 14 that mean it's from the Snyder deposition?
A Yes, I believe it is.
15 Q Okay. And it's pages 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, and 16 Deposition Exhibit No. 5.
17 Next has the handwritten label "Holley" on the top, 18 a transcript portion, pages 86 through 93.
19 The next is a handwritten label of "Perryman" on the 20 top, a transcript segment, 82 through 85.
21 The next is page 31 from what appears to be a 22 pleading probably in this litigation.
O
94 1 The next is a Comstock Engineering, Inc. memorandum O\
(s / 2 tha t has been marked previously as DeWald Deposition Exhibit 3 No. 17, dated January 2, 1985.
4 Then we have Comstock Weld Inspection Procedure 5 4.8.3, effective date July 12, 1985.
6 And then the testimony of Irwin L. Goldstein in the 7 Texas Utility Generating Company, Comanche Peak proceeding 8 with some handwritten notes.
9 And a segment of 10 CFR Part 50. It appears it's 10 all from Appendix B, again with some handwritten notes, 11 Does that, with the exceptions of the materials you 12 identified before which you received after you drafted your
)
13 testimony, constitute the materials that you either reviewed 14 or relied upon in drafting your testimony in this proceeding?
15 A Yes, it does.
16 Q Other than reviewing these materials, was there any 17 other work that you did in preparing to testify, any written 18 analysis, research?
19 A No, not really.
20 Q Obviously you drafted the testimony. But I mean 21 apart from sitting down to draft the testimony, did you go 22 back and do research in preparation for drafting it?
l O
95 1 A No, I didn't. No. There was a draft before this.
2 That's what I was hesitating about.
3 Q Did you expand the draft with some input on the 4 draft from Counsel for BPI?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Is there anything further that you have done since 7 preparing your testimony, other than reviewing the prepared 8 testimony of Arvey and McKirnan and the deposition transcript 9 of Arvey in preparing for your testimony in the case?
10 A No.
11 Q Is there anything you still plan to do in the 12 future?
13 A No.
14 Q Was there any specific literature on harassment, 15 intimidation, production levels that you reviewed in preparing 16 your testimony?
17 A No, there wasn't.
18 Q We started to talk about this before, and I'm not 19 sure that in that format we got a complete answer.
20 Let me ask directly whether or not you have a 21 definition that you use for the term " harassment" as it 22 appears in your testimony here?
\
l 96 1 A No, I didn't use a specific definition.
What is your understanding of the term " harassment?"
2 Q 3 Let me strike that.
4 Is that a term of art in your field of expertise, or 5 would your understanding of it be just the common 6 understanding of a layperson?
7 A It would be the common understanding of a layperson.
8 Q okay. Can you tell me, then, what your 9 uriderstanding of harassment is, as it's used in this 10 testimony?
11 A I think it's the issue of putting pressure on 12 people, trying to influence them to -- well, putting pressure 13 on individuals, I guess. The issue is putting some kind of 14 pressure on them, and that pressure would be in terms of 15 threats or some kind of negative sanctions that would be 16 imposed if you did not comply with what I want you to do.
17 Q In your understanding of harassment, as it's used 18 here, does it matter whether the pressure is being put on to 19 do something that is bad or good?
20 A Well, I think the issue tends to have the bad -- I 21 would tend to see it for the bad aspects of it, something that 22 you wouldn't normally want to do or something that you O
97 1 wouldn't do under normal circumstances.
2 Q Just to explore that, if they put extreme pressure 3 on somebody to go out and do their job right, you don't see 4 that as being harassment?
5 A No, I don't see that. If I would also agree that 6 doing it right is something I want to do. And if I agree with 7 the person who's doing it on what is right. I think we could 8 have different definitions of what is right.
9 Q And intimidation, is " intimidation" a term of art in 10 your area of expertise?
11 A No, it isn't.
12 Q Could you tell me what your understanding of
() 13 14 intimidation is, or maybe it's easier to tell how it differs from harassment, if it does?
15 A Well, I might see that as a little more severe in 16 the sense that it has with it some notions of threat. They're 17 very close in terms of definition. But I see it as having a 18 little more threat associated with it.
19 Q On page 2 of your testimony you indicated that your 20 task was to look at the questions of harassment, intimidation, 21 and production pressure.
22 Is " production pressure" a term of art in your field O
98 1 of expertise? At the bottom of the page.
2 A No, it really isn't.
1 3 Q In this context, what do you mean by " production l 4 pressure," or what is your understanding of " production 5 pressure?"
6 A Well, there I think the issue -- production pressure 7 is a more neutral term, and it's a term that, as I was using 8 it, referred more to pressure to complete numbers of units in 9 a certain amount of time, pressure to produce, to complete 10 more units.
11 Q And whether that's good or bad depends on the 12 analysis of whether or not the demand is reasonable that is
(} 13 being placed on the employee; is that right?
14 A Yes.
15 Q I think we talked about this before, but have you 16 done anything to analyze what would have been reasonable 17 demands to place on the employees in this circumstance?
18 A None at all, nothing.
19 Q Again, if we take a look at something where pressure 20 has been put on employees by management, to determine whether 21 or not it's harassment, the initial question that has to be 22 answered is whether or not the pressure that is being put on
99 1 is to accomplish an appropriate goal or not?
O
\_/ 2 A Yes, right.
3 Q If they are seeking an appropriate goal, then it's 4 not harassment; if they are seeking an improper goal, then it 5 is harassment?
6 A Yes, realizing the ambiguity in defining 7 " appropriateness."
8 Q And I take it, as far as defining what are 9 appropriate goals or inappropriate goals in the setting of the 10 QC inspectors, you have not done any research or analysis in 11 that regard?
12 A No.
13 Q I noticed in the materials you gave us that there
(}
14 was a copy of the Comstock inspection procedures. Did you
- 15 review that from the standpoint of trying to determine whether 16 or not the demands that were being placed on the employees 17 were proper or improper demands?
18 A No, I didn't.
19 Q Taking the two separate end results that we need to 20 explore here, one being the question of whether quality was 21 affected and the other being the question of harassment, I 22 take it from the standpoint of assessing quality, whether or 4
- - - . - = - . .- .. _ . . - .- - .-. -__ .. ._ - - - ___
100 1 not harassment perceived by employees was actual or just 2 perceived, makes no difference; is that right?
. 3 A You are asking me --
4 Q For quality.
5 A Whether there was or wasn't -- harassment is one of 6 a large number of things that could affect quality, and if all i
- 7 you were concerned about was quality, you don't have to ask 8 questions -- I wouldn't think you would have to ask questions 4
9 about harassment.
10 Q On quality, you don't necessarily have to explore 11 the herassment question to assess quality; is that right?
) 12 A That's correct.
[ 13 Q To throw in a second step, if you operate under the 14 thesis that harassment can have an impact on quality, there, 15 it is the workers' perception of harassment that is the 16 important variable, not whether or not he was actually 17 harassed; is that right?
18 A Yes. It's difficult in the sense that that shows 19 how difficult it is to define " harassment." Pretty much so.
- 20 The reason I am hedging -- let me give you another example.
21 If we were dealing with sexual harassnent, then you would say i
22 that sexual harassment only occurs if the person being O
i 4
.- ,--m-, ,,m.r,-, .----,.,--3 -
, . . . - - - - . _ -- ,.- -. .,... - m_.------_ - - , - - -,---,..mm .---,-- _ . _ -
101 1 harassed feels harassed.
O2 There are many people who would say sexual t
3 harassment is present if there are lewd jokes and things in 4 mixed company, that that in itself is sexual harassment, 5 whether or not a female in that company felt harassed. I s guess you could take that same logic to this position, but
~,
primarily it is whether they feel harassed. l 8 Q Sticking with the quality issue, as far as you are 9 concerned, is there a correlation between harassment and 10 quality, either actual harassment or perception of harassment 11 and quality?
12 A That is an empirical question. I cannot say at this
() 13 point whether there was in that setting. I think we are 14 operating under the assumption that harassment could lead to l 15 quality effects.
l 16 Q Are you aware of any study or analysis being done as i
l 17 to whether or not harassment impacts quality?
l 18 A No; I'm not.
19 Q This is back to the kind of analysis we were talking l
20 about before, where you take your basic underlining theories
- 21 and from that, using the detective example, you deduce the
, 22 hypothesis as to what could have occurred as a result of-t I
t f
l
102 1 harassment, et cetera? -
2 A Yes.
3 Q If we got to the point where you tested your 4 hypothesis and you found harassment could affect quality, then 5 whether or not there is actual harassment or perceived 6 harassment, there is probably going to be a correlation 7 between that and quality; is that right? It is the perception 8 of harassment that would affect quality? Would that be your 9 theory if you were going to explore it?
10 A Yes, but if I first demonstrated there is a 11 relationship between harassment and quality, I must first have 12 had to define " harassment," and it would have been taken care 13
( of.
14 Q For the hypothesis, I take it for purposes of your I
15 testimony here, you are using as a hypothesis that there is a 16 relationship between harassment and quality; is that right?
1 17 A I am saying that harassment could lead to quality 1
18 effects, that there is a strong possibility that harassment 19 could lead to quality effects.
l 20 Q Based on looking at learning theory; is that right?
21 A Right; and motivation, the extent to which people 22 are going to respond, where their rewards and punishments are. i l
)
\ l i
(/
s_ l l
I
103 1 Q In that context, for that hypothesis, when you use 2 the term " harassment," are you looking through the eyes of the 3 beholder or are you a neutral observer looking to see whether 4 harassment exists? '
! 5 A I think you could do that from the neutral observer, 6 by looking at the extent to which the beholder is being put in
- 7 a situation in which he or she is being asked to do behaviors 8 that are not consistent with what you feel he or she should 9 do. You can argue that these behaviors, where there is i 10 reasonable reason to believe that there are a set of things
) 11 that person is being asked to do, and not only being asked 12 explicitly but implicitly being directed to do, which is
() 13 14 inconsistent with the others. That would indicate some degree of harassment.
15 Q Your hypothesis is there might be a relationship 16 between that and quality which could be explored?
17 A Yes.
l 18 Q The second aspect of the question is just looking at
, 19 harassment, standing alone, as you define it, we have two i
20 inquiries, one quality, one harassment, and now we have the 21 harassment inquiry. That, I take it, has to be done from the 22 neutral perspective, or that is how you would be addressing i
l i
1 i,
.,.,-_,e , . ,,7.. ,_ _ , _,,_, ., , . . . - - , _ _ . ,,_.- ,
104 1 this issue if you were going to explore it, not from the 2 question of whether or not one perceived harassment, but from 3 the standpoint of whether harassment actually existed?
4 A Actually, I'd do both. I would go back to what I 5 said this morning. No one specific thing is going to 6 demonstrate harassment. It is the collapsing of many 7 different things that you think indicate it.
8 I think one indication is this gap between what 9 objectively the outsider says we are supposed to do and what 10 pressures are being put on to produce more units.
11 Another aspect is whether or not the QC inspectors 12 felt there was conflict between what they were being asked to 13 do. Perhaps neither one of those stand on its own.
/) You may 14 need two or three other things that would in a sense converge 15 on the same aspect that we think is consistent with what is 16 harassment.
17 Q In determining eventually harassment, you see that 18 as really kind of a combination of what actually occurred and 19 what was perceived by the beholder mixed together?
20 A Sure.
21 Q Have you ever seen any studies or done any studies 22 where workers in a large group setting like this construction O
1 I
105 1 site at Braidwood, were surveyed or interviewed with respect 2 to harassment, to find out if there is a baseline, normal 3 perception level of harassment on a job site?
4 A No; I haven't.
5 Q Do you know if any such study has been done?
6 A I don't know of any.
7 Q Would you go into the logical type of analysis, 8 based on your knowledge of people's behavior and behavior in 9 organizations, and expect that if you took 3,000 employees in 10 a setting and surveyed them, that in most settings, you would 11 find somebody who perceived they were being harassed?
12 A Oh, sure. You'd find some in every work group, 13 large work group.
(
14 Q on page 13 of your testimony, Ilgen Deposition 15 Exhibit No. 1, A15, you state "the job of Quality Control 16 inspector in a nuclear power plant involves two built in sets 17 of conflicting behavioral requirements defined by the 18 organization, work quality and work quantity."
19 Is it in fact true that work quality and work 20 quantity are in all cases conflicting behavioral requirements?
21 A I'll hedge on all cases, but I would say in most 22 cases, most jobs; quality and quantity at some limit become in O
4
~
106 4
1 conflict.
O2 Q As long as you set reasonable quantity expectations, 3 you could do that without affecting quality, without j 4 conflicting with quality; is that right?
5 A No. Again, it would depend entirely on the job.
l 6 Q Taking the example of the setting you were in at the l 7 Navy Air Re-Work Facility, if they made an analysis of what l
4 8 can reasonably be done by a worker during the course of a day, 9 and workers can perform this level of work competently, and 10 they set that as a standard for quantity, is that necessarily 4
'll in conflict with a quality requirement or a quality goal?
i l
i 12 A Again, it depends on how important quality is. In
() 13 14 that particular case, if you would stick by that, enforce 4 everybody to stick by it, yes, it would. There are going to i
j 15 be cases in which you can't get something done in that amount ;
i 16 of time. For the Re-Work Facility, you simply could not j 17 tolerate errors in quality, so you have to build in slippage.
18 In other cases, when it comes to producing Schwin 1
19 bicycles, and I'm not picking on Schwin, but bicycles, you 20 might say we can afford to have five percent of these with j 21 wheels that aren't exactly balanced, so we will let those run i
- 22 through and we will keep to the production. In that case, it i
!O 4
i
107 1 may have little effect and you could come to that conclusion k/
% 2 that you are going to match it up at some point.
3 It all depends on the job.
4 Q Going back to the NARF setting, if you set your 5 quantity requirement and also built into that quantity 6 requirement a flexibility factor, then have you taken away the 7 conflict between quality and quantity?
4 8 A Yes, or you have minimized the conflict. The 9 conflict between quality and quantity is still inherent in the f
10 job; it is inherent in the very nature of the work. What you 11 have done is set up a way, an operating procedure, that 12 minimizes the amount of conflict between those two. I would
( ) 13 say that minimizes it.
14 Q We were talking this morning about the studies that 15 had been done on goal setting and specific goal setting and 16 difficult goal setting may improve performance in some 17 settings. Based on that sort of analysis, wouldn't it appear 18 to be the case that if you don't set a quantity standard, and 19 you can throw in the flexibility portion of that, but if you 20 don't set a quantity standard, that you may in fact negatively 21 affect quality?
22 A Yes; that's right. Excuse me; not quality, not i
108 1 necessarily quality. You may negatively affect overall
[D 2
\_/ performance, which is a function of both quantity and t
3 quality. I don't think by not setting a standard you are 4 likely to have any impact -- you are not necessarily going to 5 have any impact on quality. I don't see any reason to expect 6 quality to be affected.
7 Q Is there some point where like in the setting at 3 Braidwood or at NARF, where you have severe quality 9 requirements, that further reducing the quantity requirement 10 is not going to have any beneficial impact on the quality of 11 production?
12 A Yes, and that's an empirical question.
() 13 Q It is subject to testing?
14 A Subject to testing and you would plot out -- I can 15 perceive something where you would set requirements for number i 16 of units to produce per hour, number of inspections, and then i 17 you compare setting one, two, three, four, five, and you plot 18 over time these two lines, one the quality and one the 19 quantity. There should be some optimal point where it would 20 level off.
21 Q Have you done that analysis for Braidwood to i
22 determine whether their standards were within or without that?
1 O
._a A._ .# L+ - u a - m a -.t 109 1 A No.
2 Q As far as this conflict between setting a quantity i
3 standard and quality of production, have you seen empirical or 4 experimental or research done in that area to show that 1
5 relationship to exist, or is that again one that you '
l 6 hypothesized from general learning theory? '
7 A I'm not hypothesizing it from general learning 8 theory, and I haven't seen research done specifically on 9 that. I assume there are data kept by organizations on 10 comparing them.
11 Q Have you looked at any of that data?
1 12 A I have not.
() 13 14 Q As far as your basis for your conclusion on that, what is your basis for concluding there is a conflict between 15 setting quantity standards and quality of production?
16 A What I was speaking in the testimony about was 17 specifically dealing with not the job itself of doing 18 inspections -- excuse me, not the job of producing units, et 19 cetera, but saying for a Quality Control inspector, the i
20 Quality control inspector in almost all jobs, is inspecting 21 something that is part of the production process.
4 22 The production process has inherent in it a i
i O
i
_ . , , . . _ , . , _,-__-.___._.,_..___..,.7 __._ - - __ _ _ . , _ . - _ _ , . . . , . - . . - - - _ _ . . - . . - . . _ . _ . _ _
j 110 1 condition of wanting to produce as many units per time period j
i 02 as possible. Any production system that I have ever seen has i
i 3 a goal of producing units and to do it effectively or l
4 efficiently, more units per hour is better.
5 At the same time, doing quality inspections takes 6 time and it takes time away from production. What I am saying 7 is the job of Quality Control inspector, the person in that is 8 always faced with a conflict between the time it takes to do 9 the inspections and the productivity or speed at which the 10 unit is operating. They always feel some pressure from both 1
11 sides. That's all I was trying to imply.
f 12 Q I'm still a little confused. Further on page 13,
( 13 "In such circumstances, there is normally a negative 14 correlation between taking time to inspect and keeping i
15 production going." Is that another way of saying what you 16 just said?
l
)
17 A The same thing; the more time you take to inspect, 18 the longer it takes for the unit to get out of your area, the 19 slower the production goes. As time of inspection increases, 20 production time slows down.
1 -
21 Q Assuming, taking the Braidwood example, assuming you 22 have a production and a quality program that are set up l
i
111 1 separately, if you increase the number of Quality Control 2 inspectors so that they do not slow production,'they can keep 3 up with production while working at whatever a reasonable pace 4 is, have you minimized or removed that conflict?
5 A Yes, you have by introducing a new variable now.
6 You have now increased the cost by hiring on more inspectors.
7 If you want to take this to the extreme, we can hire one 8 inspector for every welder who just stands behind him and 9 watches.
10 Q In any job setting where you have a Quality control 11 program set up, logically, there is going to be a conflict 12 that has to be dealt with, which is cost and production versus
( ) 13 the amount of time one spends on inspections or the amount of 14 inspectors one hires; is that right?
15 A That's the point I was making.
16 Q For the individual inspector, giving him a standard 17 to operate against, like in the NARF setting, a standard with 18 some flexibility built in, is there necessarily a conflict-19 between doing that and having him produce quality inspections?
20 A No, I don't think the conflict is -- how did you put 21 it?
22 Q If you have a Quality inspector and you set a i O I
112 1 standard for production and built in some flexibility 2 recognizing quality always has to ride over quantity, is that 3 necessarily in conflict with quality production? Is there a 4 necessary conflict there?
5- A By building that in, you are trying to minimize that 6 conflict.
7 Q Would you as an industrial organizational 8 psychologist object to a work setting which established that 9 sort of reasonable production standard with flexibility for lo quality assurance,. q'uality control inspectors?
11 A No. I would think you would have to consider those i l
12 things.
() 13 Q On page 14 there is a reference to the fact that the 14 manner in which a QC inspector chooses between conflicting 15 work behaviors is likely to be much more critical than in some 16 other jobs where quality standards are not as important.
17 I take it, however, that the conflicts that are 18 faced for the Quality inspector in a nuclear power plant are J
- 19 not uniquo to industrial fields; is that right?
20 A That's correct.
21 Q' Like in the airplane setting you had or drug 22 manufacture, like Baxter/Travenal, you have the same sort of f
113 1 problem that exists?
(~
2 A Yes.
3 Q Have you looked to see, other than in the NARF i '4 setting, which we discussed, at any other industries which 5 have thic sort of potential for conflict for a Quality Control 6 inspector to analyze or determine how they go about setting 7 production goals and deal with that issue?
1 8 A No; I haven't.
9 Q On page 14 you talk about your r6 view, I believe, of j 10 10 CFR 50, Appendix B. "Such authority must be sufficient to i
i 11 ensure independence from cost and schedule when opposed to 12 safety considerations."
13 At this point do you have an opinion as to whether
(
14 or not cost and schedule requirements for the Braidwood plant 15 oppose safety considerations for the Quality Control i
16 inspectors at Comstock?
17 A I do not.
18 Q That is again something you would have to explore 19 further in order to reach an opinion?
20 A Yes; it is.
21 Q I think we talked about this in general before. As 22 far as being able to make an analysis to determine what would I
.,-c - ,,, - . - . . , - - - , - - - , - - - . - - , . - - - , - - -
114 1 be a reasonable production standard or production level for QC 2 inspectors at Braidwood, you would need more information than 3 you currently have about the job; is that right?
4 A That's correct.
5 Q Do you intend to explore that before you testify?
4 6 A No; I do not.
7 Q Based on your review of documents or information you 8 have been given concerning Braidwood, was anyone fired or 9 disciplined for lack of productivity at Braidwood, in the 10 Comstock Quality control section?
11 A If productivity is in terms of number of units 12 produced, I don't recall specifically anyone being fired.
13 Q What about disciplined?
14 A Disciplined in the sense of being transferred or 15 something seen as being negative, as I recall, those types of 16 decisions -- I'm not sure what was related directly to 17 productivity.
18 Q In looking at the question of whether or not there 19 was sufficient smoke here to require this further examination 20 and require further analysis, what incidents of harassment or 21 intimidation, that you would consider to be harassment or 22 intimidation, either for production reasons or otherwise, did l
l
. _ = . - _ - - - -
115 1 you encounter -- what are you basing your opinion on?
2 A I think there were several issues. In my testimony, 3 I outlined some of these. They are numbered in the paragraph
] 4 on page 20. There were issues where ones were afraid of 5 losing their job, in particular as I recall, there was one 6 case in which a new employee who was within his 90 day trial 7 period, was removed from his job by what appeared to the rest 8 of the people to be -- at least in the reports that was made 9 -- I can't tell you which one -- in one of the NRC memos, I 10 believe, this person was fired for reasons supposedly because 11 he did not have tha proper qualifications.
i 12 There was another case in which someone was 13 transferred from the job of Quality control inspector and was
(}
14 seen as having done that -- the perception of that by the
. 15 workforce was that was for reasons related to the work that 16 person was doing.
17 There is the classic, by now often stated, Saklak 18 incident with Snyder, where threatening statements were made
- 19 with respect to signing inspections.
4 20 Those are some of the things that I think would 21 indicate -- specific behaviors that would indicate a need to 22 look at this more closely. Another factor is when you realize O
1 E
k 116 1 that -- again, this is my perception -- that the behavior of s 2 walking off the job and going publicly and identifying l
3 yourself as one in a group that had gone to the Nuclear '
4 Regulatory Commission and spoken out in a public meeting, in )
5 my opinion, it takes some real concern in order to take those 6 steps. There is the possibility of some real concerns there.
- 7 On the basis of those types of behaviors, I agreed 8 to respond to this.
9 Q You have given four examples, the 90 day employee 10 who was fired; the transfer from Quality Control; Saklak and 11 walking off the job and the NRC. Are there any other specific 12 incidents that you encountered or had been told about or which
/ 13 you are relying upon in reaching your conclusion?
}
14 A I don't recall the specific incidents. Actually, 15 there is one more. I recall the concern that supervisors were 16 unprepared, didn't have the proper qualifications in order to 17 be supervising people doing certain kinds of weld inspections.
18 The final one I recall is placing of new employees 19 on positions where they felt the new employees would feel less t
)
20 freedom to resist pressures.
l 21 In my opinion, none of those necessarily indicate 22 harassment per se. All of them together indicate that it is t
i 1
!O t
4
--_. .__.,_-.--i--,1 .----7 e v t- * ' ' '- - - ~ - ~ " ' - - - - ' - - " " - - ' ' ' - ' " - - - - ' ' " ' ' " - ' ~ ' - ~ ' ' " ~ " ' ' ' " '
117 1 worth looking further at.
h.N/ 2
- Q As far as the 90 day employee incident, where did 3 you develop an understanding of that? What is the source of 4 your understanding of that incident?
5 A It was from the materials I was given to read. I 6 don't know in what particular document that was stated.
j 7 Q You indicated there was some document that indicated 8 he had been removed within 90 days because he was not 9 qualified. I got the feeling you were saying there was a 10 further implication in here. Is that correct?
11 A I can give you my reaction to being fired after 90 12 days. The reason I think -- again, this is the first thing to 13 look at.
j
( ) As I recall reading that, the person was fired for 14 not having the proper qualifications in order to do that, and 15 was fired after being on the job two months, or a certain 16 amount of time.
17 In my opinion, whether that person had the proper 18 qualifications was something that the company knew on day 3
19 one. It wasn't some new information they had gathered over 20 the two month time period. It makes me at least question why 21 you would make a personnel decision on the basis of data that l
22 you had from day one, why you didn't make the decision on day t
118 1 one that this was an unqualified person, but rather, you wait
(' \
2 until after they had been there.
I 3 It would be like hiring you at this law firm and 1
4 beliove that we only hire Harvard people, but you got yours 5 from the University of Illinois. We take you on anyway and 6 after six months on the job we fire you because you are not 7 from Harvard.
8 That, to me, just indicated -- again, it is a brick i 9 in the wall and you would look further.
10 Q If it turned out that the facts were that the reason 11 the employee was fired was because he was unable to qualify on 12 the certification tests that he was required to take within 13 the 90 day period, if you assumed that as a fact, would that Q(~'i 14 explain your concern about this incident?
15 A Yes. I don't know if it would explain it away 16 entirely, but the argument I have just given you would not 17 hold up any more. Yes; that would change my opinion 18 somewhat. I would look more closely at that. That doesn't 19 mean that he couldn't have been fired for illegitimate 20 reasons, but it is not as clear as what I thought.
21 Q Any time an employee is fired, it may be he was 22 fired legitimately and maybe he was fired for illegitimate i
O t
l
[. - - - - - - - -- ,- - - ----^ ----- - ----
119 1 reasons; you would have to look further to know?
3 2 A Oh, sure.
, 3 Q As far as the transfer incident, what did you get 4 from that? The incident where somebody was transferred from 5 Quality control.
6 A Again, I think transfer could be used as a form of l
7 trying to remove employees who are not complying with pressure 8 to do more production. Since I believe that could happen, the i
9 transfer is one possibility. Do I think employees can be i
10 transferred for many other reasons? Of course, they can.
11 Q Was there something in this incident that led you to i
12 believe it was for reasons of fallere to comply with
() 13 14 productivity or some other bad reason?
A The only thing that led me to believe, and as I l
i 15 recall, it came up in the context of that type of situation,
! 16 and again my recollection is the QC inspectors were reporting i
l 17 this as an example. I may be wrong.
i 18 Q Going on to the Saklak/Snyder incident and the 19 statements made by Saklak in that situation, did you see that 20 as being an incident of intimidation of an employee?
l 21 A In my opinion, it seemed to be that, yes.
- 22 Q Is the fact that -- turn to page 19 of your i
4 lO i
120 1 testimony. I think you've reported in the first paragraph
(_s 2 there quotes regarding that incident, and the last line, it 3 says, "At times you make me so pissed off that if beating was 4 legal, you would be dead."
5 The fact that that is phrased in terms of only 6 being a threat if another incident occurred, which is making 7 beatings legal, does that take away the impact of it as far as 8 intimidation? Is it still a threat or intimidation?
9 A Well, it still seems to me to be a rather 10 threatening type of thing for someone to say to someone else.
11 Q Would you agree that it doesn't, as far as what 12 an employee should perceive from that, it does not immediately 13 threaten the employee with a beating; is that right?
(v}
14 A No, I don't think it's threatening with beating 15 at that point, but --
16 Q What is the intimidation or threat that is built 17 into that, then? What do you see as being intimidation 18 or a threat?
19 A Well, I think that in -- let's put this from 20 the standpoint of a conversation or interaction between a 21 supervisor and one of his subordinates. And if I were a 2
22 subordinate in that type of setting or anyone in construction l
l L
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - , - , - - ~ - - ------ -- ~
121 1 work, whatever, and you know that your supervisor feels so 2 strongly about some action that you took, to make a statement 3 like that to you -- and again, as I read that incident and 4 listened to it, it seemed to be made in a rather hostile way.
5 At the same time, I know that person is my 6 supervisor. I also recognize that that person has some 7 control over my future with the company and other things that 8 I understand about supervisory / subordinate relationships. In 9 that context, regardless of whether I'm fearful of the actual 10 fact of being beaten, the expression of that kind of a 11 statement from a person who controls a lot of my destiny with 12 the company is threatening.
( ) 13 That would be my interpretation of that setting.
14 Q So whether or not there had been a physical threat 15 to it, if he'd say, "You make me so mad that I'm going to do 16 everything within my power to end your involvement with this 17 company," that also would be threatening or harassment or 18 intimidation?
19 A I see that as a threatening statement, sure, 20 especially if I believe that that's the action you're going to 21 take, that you truly believe that, if you're my supervisor.
22 Q Taking the six building blocks that we have here O
122 1 that have led you to the position that you would recommend to 2 the Licensing Board that further review and analysis to be 3 done -- one, to determine quality, and two, to determine 4 whether there was harassment -- if we took away from those 5 building blocks all except the Saklak/Snyder incident and the 6 fact that the folks walked off the job and reported, as they 7 did, in the NRC memos, would those two incidents standing 8 along still be sufficient that you would continue to maintain 9 your opinion that further broadscale inquiry and formal 10 surveys and behavioral traces is required?
11 MR. GUILD: Which two are you talking about?
1 12 MR. GILL: I'm talking about the Saklak/Snyder
() 13 incident and the walking off the job to the NRC.
14 MR. GUILD: Are you taking those away, or are you 15 leaving those.
16 MR. GILL: No. We're leaving those two, leaving i
17 those two and removing the other four.
18 THE WITNESS: Well, I think they still -- I wouldn't 19 be ready to say that all things seem fine, I guess, because I 20 see walking off the job as a very powerful statement that I'm i
21 dissatisfied. At least in my experience of observing and 22 working in settings, and my own personal experience in the
!O
)
123 1 work that I've been in, for someone to feel so strongly as to b)
(._ 2 go to an outside agent or to walk off the job indicates to me 3 that there are some very strong feelings here, perhaps worth 4 pursuing further.
5 BY MR. GILL:
6 Q So if you had that one standing alone, would that be 7 enough for you, then, the walking off the job? You'd drop the 8 Saklak/Snyder incident?
9 A I believe it would. I believe that would be enough 10 to look further into this.
11 Q Is there something short of -- and let's assume we 12 had the walking off the job incident, and you have the memos
(~'i 13 from those meetings -- is there something short of this V
14 full-scale analysis that you propose that could be done 15 initially to determine whether or not this was something that 16 requires -- what I'm asking is, is there something where once 17 you make the decision you have to do an analysis of 18 harassment, you've now jumped off the ledge, and therefore 19 you've got to do a full-scale analysis, or is it like the 20 concentric circle thing -- you've now got an allegation, and 21 you can go out and look at another group of factors, and if 22 that one continues to point you outward, then you have to go O
- . - . _ - . . . _ . _ - _ . - . - - . _ . - - ~ .
124 1 out to a broader group of factors?
2 Are there steps here? Are there levels of analysis?
3 A Well, I think there are levels in this process. And 4 without understanding the whole situation, I don't know what 5 the level is. In fact, the whole issue of when you say "doing 6 a full-scale analysis," the full-scale analysis is a 7 concentric circle notion itself, because how large is the 8 full-scale depends on knowing that situation better.
9 So I think you really have to know the job and know 10 the interactions to know how far to go on this. I don't know.
11 Q As it stands right now, you are not prepared to put 12 together a defined and definitive program of what it is that 13 needs to be done to explore the harassment issued; you would 14 have to do further analysis for that?
15 A That's right. And that analysis would go directly 16 to the work setting and understanding that work setting.
17 Q Just to go back, when I talked about the full-scale 18 analysis, what I was coming back to is the program that's laid 19 out on page 23 and 24. Maybe I'm reading more into it than is 20 there. But what you propose on 23 and 24 is, I take it, the 21 types of analyses that can be done here, and it is not a 22 specific recommendation that any individual item be done; is O
125 1 that right?
2 A That's right. It's basically saying that there are 3 two kinds of data, if you want. One are these kinds of traces 4 that you could look back at, and we talked this morning about 5 what some of these would be.
6 There is another that you might do in terms of 7 interviewing or sampling of people with survey data.
8 Within those pools, there is a large variance in 9 terms of what one could do and how many data points you would 10 look at. So I don't know how many it would be or what it 11 would be necessarily.
12 Q In choosing those how many data points or what it 13 would be you would look at would require further analysis of g 14 this specific job setting and these specific examples of 15 harassment and further exploration of the harassment; is that 16 right?
17 A That's right. And then on the basis of that, you 18 would make some judgments about what you think are the most 19 important things that would help you -- convince you that 20 harassment was or wasn't present and that quality was or was 21 not affected.
22 Q Looking at page 23, the last paragraph of your O
l 126 1 answer to Question 20, it reads: "The issue of lowered 2 threshold and the fact that the QC inspectors may not have 3 admitted to themselves that they were affected by supervisor 4 pressure lead me to conclude that you should not discount the 1 5 March and April 1985 statements simply because of the reports ,
6 from the 1986 depositions."
7 Which March and April '85 statements are you 8 referring to there?
9 A I was referring to those NRC memos. I think there 10 were three of them, a total of three, that discussed 11 statements that were made.
12 Q In your interpretation of those memos, did you find
() 13 statements in there which contradict the statements that 14 inspectors have not admitted that they were affected by 15 supervisor pressure?
16 A The contradiction that I was implying in that was 17 the comparison of those statements to some statements from 18 depositions, I believe, that the ones that you in this file 19 looked at that had penciled names on the top, Snyder and 20 others, where, in the examination by -- I'm not sure by whom, 21 but statements were made that seemed to indicate less 22 knowledge and less awareness of some of these events.
O i
127 1 Q All right. So it was a downplaying of the I
2 harassment -- what I was trying to get at is, as far as the 3 statements that they didn't sacrifica quality because of 4 harassment, did you see anything -- do you interpret the March 5 and April 1985 memos as being contradictory to that? Do you 6 read them as being statements that they did sacrifice quality 7 because of prcduction pressure?
8 A Again, going back to this issue of harassment leads 9 to quality, I don't know -- right now I don't recall in the 10 March and April that there were direct statements that any 11 individual sacrificed quality. There were implications that 12 there were quality-sacrificing pressures, but there wasn't, as
() 13 14 I recall, a direct statement that, "Yes, I sacrificed quality."
15 Q At this point, have you done an outline or 16 established a program for what sort of reinspection would be 17 required here to assure that quality was not sacrificed?
18 A No, I haven't been asked to address that.
19 Q To go to the general learning theories here, and let 20 me see if I can restate them and whether I am stating them 21 correctly.
22 As far as the basic underlying theory, as I O
128 1 understand it, that's reflected on page 4 of your testimony is 2 that if the employee has the skills to do a job, then the next 3 level of analysis is, does he know what it is that he is 4 supposed to do, and the third level then is to determine 5 whether or not he has been motivated to do the things he is 6 supposed to do; is that right?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And then in determining, looking at the second two 9 -- for your analysis, you've assumed the skill level; is that 10 right?
11 A Yes, I did.
12 Q And for determining whether or not they know what
( 13 they are supposed to do, you're looking at the question of the 14 directions they got from authorities, the reinforcement of 15 behavior on the site, and the watching others or social 16 learning or however you characterized the third thing; is that 17 right?
18 A Yes, I'm saying you learn it three ways. There are 19 three possible ways.
20 Q And then finally you've gone through the theory of 21 how one then judges motivation, what kind of factors can 22 affect motivation to do the job right?
129 1 A In a quick way, right.
O)
(_, 2 Q Let me give you several facts or ask you to assume 3 facts, and if you would, tell me how they -- if you assume 4 these facts to be true, how they would fit into this learning 5 theory and how they might affect the outcome or the overall 6 analysis to whether or not quality by the inspectors was 7 sacrificed on this job.
8 If you assume that the Saklak/Snyder incident took 9 place, as you understand it, and that within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> or less 10 of that time that Saklak was fired from the job because of the 11 incident by the management of Comstock and with the agreement 12 of the Licensee, Commonwealth Edison Company, would that 13 impact on your analysis, or would that be a factor that would
( }
14 fit in somewhere within this learning theory analysis that l 15 you've done?
16 A Yes, I think it would. I guess if I go back to this 1
17 example new, you've got one thing that we have to assume, I 18 guess, and that is, you're saying, one, you have got a fact, 19 and that is that Suklak did this, and number two, you've got a 20 fact, that Saklak was fired.
21 Q Right.
22 A Now the issue is -- the real catch is that you have 1
O
I 130 1 to assume that he was fired because of the incident, not fired 2 because that we went to the Board or not fired because 3 somebody else took a stand, and if the only reason that the 4 person can possibly conjure up is that the person was fired 5 because the person made a statement like this to the other, 6 then that incident should tend to increase a belief that the l 7 company is responding responsibly.
8 Q What category -- that would fit into the learning 9 category, into one of the three learning categories?
10 A If you take the three learning categories, I think 11 in a sense what you've got there is an observation of some a 12 social behavior, if you want, rather than -- it's not 13 something that's company policy necessarily written down as to 14 what I should do, and furthermore it's not reinforcement that 15 occurs to me personally, but rather it's something I observe 16 happening.
j 17 And the way the theory works, it would argue that a i
18 supervisor sees what happens, observes, and says, "I can't 19 treat my people that way." That's closest to the theory.
20 Q To do that analysis, you assume that the only 21 possible reason you could conjure up for it was because the 22 statement was made.
- o j
l 1
1 131 1 Let's assume that what they assumed was not -- that 2 that was not the reason for the firing, but the reason for the 3 firing was because it was brought to the attention of Nuclear
{
l 4 Regulatory Commission authorities and the Licensee.
) 5 Would that analysis no longer work, then?
j 6 A Well, the impact would be very different, I think.
7 Q What would the impact be there?
i j 8 A That could be extremely different. It doesn't --
! 9 then the incident doesn't really say anything about what the l
10 company will or won't do. In fact, if it says anything, it l
I 11 may say to me that the company only responds if I put external 12 pressure on it.
l
[ }
13 The issue, this whole incident -- maybe I can use j 14 another analogy not so much to the learning theories, but l 15 there's a lot of emphasis now on the fact that people try to 4
- 16 make sense -- we try to make sense out of what we observe in 4
l 17 our environment, and this sense-making process is by making i
18 attributions to why wo think that that's occurred. And the 19 way in which we make sense out of it influences how we will 20 respond to it.
i 21 So that particular incident, we could make sense out 22 of it in two very different ways, and the impact on our i
i
- O i
i
i 132
, 1 behavior would depend on how we made sense of it.
2 Q Taking it form the standpoint of your supervisors 3 that you talked about, from the standpoint of the supervisors ;
4 in either event, would it communicate to the supervisors that 5 they can't behave to their employees in that fashion? Would 6 that be the thing that they would learn?
7 A Good point. I think you should learn that as a 9 supervisor, because it says either, "I can't do it because my 1
9 men will walk off the job and get me through the NRC," and, "I i ,
10 can't do it because the company will come back at me."
- 11 Q Even if you assume from the standpoint of the i
12 employee that it is communicating not that the company 13
( ) necessarily accepts this principle that what Saklak did is 14 wrong, but the NRC and the Licensee accepted that what he did J
! 15 was wrong and had him terminated, is there something that --
16 does that outlet that the QC inspectors now know they have 17 available make it less likely that they will respond to 18 harassment in the future from a supervisor, respond by i
19 sacrificing quality?
l l
20 A Within this hypothetical world of all things being 21 equal, it seems to me that, other things being equal, it seems 22 to me it does.
O
i 133 1 Q Do you know or have you been told or has anything I l
2 you read indicated whether Saklak ever fired anyone on the job l 3 because -- every fired anyone for any reason?
4 A I don't recall.
l 5 Q Do you recall any incidents in which Saklak 6 disciplined anyone, took punitive steps against anyone?
j 7 A I do not recall the details with respect to one i
8 person.
l
. 9 Q Under the learning theories that we are talking 10 about here, if you assumed as a fact that Saklak had not fired
- 11 or disciplined anyone for failure to respond to one of his i
f 12 directions, does that have any impact as far as what one 13 learns from his directions or how one responds to his k 14 directions in these learning theories?
15 A Again, other things being equal, if all of the l
}
l 16 evidence points to the fact that whatever he says has no j 17 impact on anybody, that decreases the extent of influence that l
18 he has, if there is no punitive effect, if nothing that we j 19 would consider negative ever happens.
20 Q Taken in a more general sense apart from the Saklak j 21 incident, I take it what the inspector perceives about the
- 22 power of the supervisor has an impact on how he will respond !
l
!O 4
f e
- . - . _ . . _ - , . . . _ _ , . _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - _ . _ _ , . _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ . , - _ . _ _ _ . . . - _ - _ . . . _ . _ ~
134 1 to the direction received from the supervisor; is that right?
2 A Yes, I would say that.
3 Q If we stick with the learning theory analysis you 4 have here, would that be in the motivational aspect of it? Is 5 that where that would come into play?
6 A In terms of the three things that we have put forth 7 there, assuming now these things happen, to me it is more in 8 the second, where I behave and I get reinforced. If I behave 9 and you yell and none of the reinforcers or sanctions ever 10 occur, or in the third, nobody ever observes reinforcements 11 following from his behavior, then we learn to ignore Saklak.
12 Q If you assume that Saklak had made directions to 13 employees in the past which they had interpreted as harassment
(
14 or intimidation and that under those circumstances, the 15 employees had refused to bow to that harassment and 16 intimidation, does the fact that other employees know that 17 someone has refused to bow to that intimidation have any 18 impact, from the learning theory standpoint, on Saklak's 19 ability to affect quality of production?
20 A Well, not necessarily. Again, in this particular i
21 setting I don't think it is necessarily the case if the 22 employee did not bow to it. What is more important there is i
i I
i L
135 1 what happens to the employee who did not bow to it. If you 2 believe that employee now has less chance of being promoted, 3 that employee is more likely to get laid off first, that 4 employee is more likely to get the dirty assignments, checking 5 the inspections out in the rain or whatever kinds of things 6 might fall from it, then having resisted, knowing that someone 7 talked back to Saklak doesn't have the effect of making him 8 more --
9 Q So the question is whether anything happened to the 10 employee after he did that. If nothing happened to the 11 employee, if no negative consequences were perceived by the 12 other inspectors, then we are back into what we just talked 13 about in the reinforcement of social learning sort of contexts 14 that they learned that saklak doesn't have the power to 15 enforce his directions.
16 A I would add only one more thing, and that is that if 17 in the resistance that this employee showed, if the employee 18 were saying that something positive should be done and nothing 19 were done, that could be seen as negative. If the employee 20 when threatened speaks back and says no, we should have 21 another inspector, or I don't know what, but nothing positive 22 got done either, that could be perceived as negative. But if O
136 1 n'one of those things happened, then, of course, the influence 2 is less, in my opinion.
3 Q Given a specific example of if we assumed that 4 Saklak had asked one of the employees to withdraw an ICR that 5 he had put in, a report of a noncomplying item, and he 6 refused, and if the employees perceived no job action having 7 been taken against him as a result of that, would that fall 8 into the category of a type of event that would, either by 9 reinforcement or social learning, teach the other employees 10 that saklak did not have the power to carry out his 11 directions?
12 A It would tend :o make them see that more than if he 13 had, yes.
14 Q Have you done any analysis on the personalities or 15 the value structures of the inspectors that work for Comstock 16 at Braidwood?
17 A I have not.
18 Q Would the value systems that these inspectors 19 brought to the job or the personalities that they have coming 20 into the job be relevant to the analysis of how they would 21 respond to harassment or intimidation and whether they would 22 sacrifice quality for that?
O
137 1 A Yes, I think that would be relevant.
2 Q In the discussion of motivation, you have some 3 discussion of a person trying to -- let me paraphrase it, and 4 if I get it wrong, I will go back and find it -- a person 5 trying to maximize their own gain or maximize their feeling of 6 achievement of whatever that they are trying for. That is a 7 goal that they have that motivates them to respond a certain f
i 8 way; is that right?
t 9 A Roughly. What I am saying is that people try to --
10 you can say that -- in a sense maximize the return they think 11 they will get from doing behaviors.
12 Q If an employee comes in with a certain value system 13
( ) to the job, a value system that he has internalized as he has 14 grown up that one does a job right, and you have some 15 discussion of that in your own testimony here, but that a job 16 is to be done right, I take it how strongly that person feels 17 about that issue as they come to the job will affect how he 18 will respond to the harassment or intimidation or whatever 19 influences are put on him on the job to do a job in a certain 20 way; is that right?
q 21 A I would expect that.
22 Q Could an analysis be done of the inspectors' l
138 1 personalities or the values of the inspectors here that would 2 aid you in determining whether or not the inspectors responded 3 to the harassment and intimidation by affecting quality?
4 A Well, I think you could gain some information on 5 that by either interview or questionnaire, survey types of 6 data. The one reservation that I can think of off-hand is 7 that the types of things you would need to ask and the 8 questions you would pose to people are pretty value-laden 9 questions and they are pretty transparent. Social scientists 10 talk about the social desirability of responding one way 11 rather than another, and as a result, the people will -- it is 12 rather difficult, if I ask you do you believe in doing your 13 job right, it is pretty tough to say no. You don't want to 14 even admit that to yourself.
15 So in getting that data and making judgments in an 16 absolute sense, it is rather difficult to do. Now, you might 17 be able to ask those kinds of questions and find that on the 18 measures you have developed, those people that score very high 19 are less likely to yield than those people that score high.
20 You don't know where the mean is, is what I am saying.
21 Q so you would have to test that against some other 22 group. You would have to have some tests set up to test them i
l
}
l 1
---,--.- - - --. -- - ~ . - - . . . - . . - - - . . . . . _ , - - - . - - , -
- 139 1 against other groups to analyze whether this individual or i 2 this group is different than the population as a whole.
! 3 A Right. It gains meaning only in a relative sense, 4 not in an absolute sense, due to the transparency of those i
,! 5 types of issues.
6 Q Do you know if there are any mechanisms or tools 7 available to do that sort of analysis?
- 8 A Well, there are some measures available. For
- 9 example, there are some scales that measure commitment to the j 10 protestant ethic or work ethic. There are scales dealing with 11 the extent to which people are interested in power and i
l 12 influencing others, a scale of Machiavellianism, for example.
() 13 There are scales relating to power that David McClelland uses 14 that would give you some idea, I think, of those types of i
15 things.
I 16 Q As far as your analysis, your opinion that you reach I
i 17 here that some further study is required, did you take into l 18 account one way or the other the personal values or j 19 personalities of the individual inspectors involved here or i 20 the group of inspectors involved?
21 A I wasn't thinking specifically about the values of i 22 them, but I certainly think that that is important to look at.
4 t
!O 1
i
,I
., .~ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ___. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
140 1 Q But as far as what you have done so far, that wasn't
[
2 part of the analysis to get to the point where you are now of 3 recommending that further analysis be done.
4 A I go back to the idea that the point I have been at 5 all along is not in any specific analysis but is in terms of 6 the general things that one would begin to look at, and it 7 falls within the general purview of information that you could l 8 gather. I hadn't thought specifically about that.
9 Q I am not phrasing the question correctly. What you 10 have done up to this point, you haven't looked at that; is 11 that right?
12 A No, I haven't, not at all.
() 13 14 Q That hasn't been a factor in your consideration for any opinions you have reached here?
15 A No, it is not.
l'G Q As far as the Saklak incident, whether or not Saklak 17 Oas fired or how his firing was perceived, was that a factor 18 that you took into account as part of your analysis that you 19 have done so far?
20 A The Saklak incident was one of many that would lead 21 me to say we should lock further into this.
22 Q What I am trying to understand from the term "Saklak
\
141 1 incident" that we are using here, is did you consider the 2 Saklak incident as being the quotes that you have reflected in 3 your testimony here, or did you look at the broader context of 4 what happened to Saklak after that incident, how the steps 5 taken against Saklak were perceived by the inspectors?
6 A I looked only at the point at which the reports were 7 made in those three documents.
8 Q At that point the accusation of intimidation had 9 been made but he hadn't been fired and no other steps had been 10 taken; is that right?
11 A In one of the memos I believe it did state that an 12 action had been taken against him. This was a memo that was,
() 13 as I recall, a response either of Consolidated or con Ed of 14 actions that were taken. I was aware of that.
15 Q How did that factor into the analysis that you did, 16 if at all, that you have done up to this point?
17 A Well, I was aware of that, and yet it didn't 18 discount the fact that it was important to consider the 19 earlier facts.
20 Q I guess what I am asking is you have six bricks to 21 build a basis for saying we have got to look at something, we 22 have got to go further, and did you as part of your analysis O
142 1 to date build a negative brick wall also, the countervailing 2 brick wall? Did you look at the fact that Saklak had been 3 fired and consider that as part of your opinions that you 4 have reached?
5 A Yes, I did. I considered that.
6 Q And what impact did that have? What do you consider
- / the impact of that to be on what you considered?
8 A I think the impact of that is if you think of these, 9 one set pushes you to something is drastically wrong, and 10 then you have this fact that he is fired, and that is a 11 positive and a counterforce of that, and if you get this on a 12 scales, it doesn't --
() 13 Q You don't see it as is tipping it far enough to make 14 it even.
15 A Exactly.
16 Q But it tips it somewhat.
17 A Sure.
18 Q As part of the analysis that you did, did you 19 analyze or did you consider whether Saklak had the power to 20 hire and fire employees, or had the power to fire or 21 discipline employees, I should say?
22 A I did not consider exactly what powers were i
O
l 143 l 1 associated with that. I did consider it again using the idea t
{
s- 2 of a supervisor with a subordinate, was basically how I looked i
3 at it.
4 Q Did you look at what these inspectors perceived as 5 being Saklak's authority or power to fire or discipline?
6 A I did not, no.
7 Q That wasn't a factor that you put on the scales as 8 far as the balance?
9 A No, I did not.
10 Q As part of the balancing that you did, did you take 11 a look at the directions that are given to employees of 12 Comstock at the nuclear power plant from their management, I~N. 13 meaning the training they receive, the type of information V
14 they get on their duties to report and responsibilities, et 15 cetera?
16 A No; I didn't.
17 Q That wasn't a factor one way or another in this 18 analysis?
19 A No.
20 Q I take it from your model, under the directions from 21 authority, that would be a factor that would at least fit into 22 this analysis, if you had that information to work with; is O
144 l l
1 that right?
(~
2 A That should be considered.
3 Q The fact that the inspectors who felt there was 4 intimidation or harassment by Saklak or whatever they felt 5 that led them out the door to go to the NRC Office, the fact 6 they had an outlet to go to, was that a factor that you took 7 into account in your analysis as to whether or not harassment 8 and intimidation may have affected quality?
9 A Yes; I did. That goes back in part to the NRC -- I 10 can't tell you -- regulation whatever --
11 Q 10 CFR Part 50?
12 A Right. That statement is a direct statement of a 13 formal mechanism that is built into the system.
( I took that 14 into account. I also think, however, that one has to balance 15 against that formal system the fact that there are informal 16 norms and informal processes that operate on the extent to 17 which you access that system.
18 The existence of that doesn't necessarily mean that 19 decreases all possibilities.
20 Q Just to follow through on that, the fact that the 21 system exists and that in one incidence, they were willing to 22 go forward and use that mechanism as a release, would that at 3
(V
145 1 least taken alone be a factor which would fit in on the Os- 2 balancing side, balancing off the possibility that there were 3 incidents of harassment and intimidation which you saw 4 affected quality?
5 A Yes, in a way. If that indicates there is a system 6 that exists and people are willing to use it. What is the 7 threshold at which they are willing to use it is a question 8 that I don't know.
9 Q It is a factor but how much it weighs is really what 10 you are not prepared to judge?
11 A That's right.
12 Q Did you take into account in your analysis what
() 13 protections are provided to employees on nuclear power sites 14 by regulation or statute, the whistle b?.owing statutes?
15 A Nothing other than the regulations that I looked at.
16 Q That is 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B?
17 A Yes.
18 Q You didn't look at any other statutory protections 19 provided to employees at nuclear sites?
20 A No.
21 Q If there are protections that guarantee them certain 22 rights, guarantee certain rights to whistle blowers, would v
146 1 that be a factor that would fit into this analysis somewhere?
2 A Yes, I think it's in there. It has the same 3 problems as the other; to what extent are people willing to 4 accesstheseandhowmuchpressuredotheyfeelp}h 1 f Even with 5 the existence of that, you still have the immediate pressure 6 of your supervisor who judges you day to day and the judgments 7 you make about the effect on that.
8 Q It would be a countervailing weight against them 9 sacrificing quality, but again you can't weigh it without 10 doing further analysis on how they felt about accessing that 11 system?
12 A That's right; yes.
() 13 Q Before you prepared your testimony and reached the 14 conclusions you reached, did you receive any information or 15 gather any information on what sort of over inspections or 16 inspection checks, surveillances, et cetera, exist, with 17 respect to the employees' work on-site, the QC inspectors' 18 work on-site?
19 A I was aware that they were aware there was some 20 inspection process, that after you are done, your inspection 21 could be inspected or may be inspected.
22 Q Is the fact that an inspection may be re-inspected l
O .
147 1 provide a motivation or fit into the learning theory somehow,
\~ / 2 one way or another? Does that reduce the possibility that j 3 they will sacrifice quality on harassment and intimidation?
4 A I think there are a couple of things that should be 5 considered. The existence of them, another inspection, makes l l
6 it more likely they will watch those inspections closely than l 7 if it didn't exist. However, there is the other issue, that 8 that is a rather long term kind of event. I would think of 9 this in the sense of it is like the smoker who knows the data 10 are pretty clear that one gets lung cancer, and yet you 11 continue to smoke, because the immediate pleasures of smoking
) 12 outweigh your long term effect of the fact that you know you
() 13 are really increasing the odds of getting lung cancer.
14 In a way, this is an analogous situation. The 15 immediate world, I would surmise, has a greater impact on your 16 behavior. The existence of this thing in the future is better 17 than not having it exist.
18 Q How effective it is depends on what level of 19 inspections or over inspections is done, so it is a question 20 of -- strike that.
21 I would assume that the level of over inspections 22 done and therefore the chances of getting caught if you ignore J
O J
4
148 1 quality problems would impact on how much weight that system 2 had; is that right?
3 A That would be one thing. The second thing is if you 4 are inspected and found to be wrong, what are the consequences 5 of having failed the inspection. Both of those things would 6 be taken into account.
7 Q Did you look at either of those factors in 8 connection with the work you did?
9 A No. I don't know what those are.
10 Q Did you find any other examples or were you aware of 11 any other examples of employees having been fired or i
12 disciplined for failing to do adequate quality work by 13 Comstock?
14 A I had listed those earlier that I recalled.
15 Q I think maybe you misunderstood me or I misphrased 16 it. You indicated some situations where employees may have 17 been fired or disciplined or you had some information on that,
~
18 for over doing their work or doing things right, I take it.
19 You gave an incident of a guy who was fired within 20 90 days. That was an incident, as far as you understood from I
21 the facts you had, there was no explanation, there was not a 22 reasonable explanation for why he was fired, so there might be
- O 1
149 1 some negative implication to it. The same thing for the guy 2 who was transferred for the work he was doing.
3 Is that right?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Are you aware of any incidents or were any incidents 6 brought to your attention where a guy was fired because he had 7 failed to do the job properly or had been disciplined because 8 he failed to do the job properly?
9 A Not that I recall.
10 Q If those sort of incidents existed, would those be 11 the type of things that would be on the balancing side of the 12 scale here, that would tend to cause employees to do their job 13 right?
14 A Yes, and other things being equal, I would think 15 that would influence you to do your job right.
16 Q As far as the overall model that has been proposed, 17 for learning theory and motivation, have you done any work to 18 test the effectiveness of that model in actual work settings?
19 A I have not tried to test the model, per se. If you 20 look at the cover of that book, you will see testing that 21 model is a long drawn out process. I have in a sense tested
! 22 parts of it, in that some of the things we have talked about l
l l
- o
150 1 at NARF, how goal setting affected behavior, and setting up 2 contingencies. We set up contingencies between their 3 performance and the reports they got. I have looked 4 specifically at that.
5 I am also quite well aware of the literature that 6 exists on the effectiveness of this kind of general model, 7 people responding in terms of the contingencies between what 8 they do and outcomes that they get, and the reward value they 9 see associated with those outcomes.
10 On the basis of that, I'm relatively confident that 11 model is a reasonable one for thinking about how people behave 12 at work.
13 Q Have you seen any studies or analyses done where you
(}
14 had harassment, whatever definition is appropriate, harassment 15 and assessing its impact in the workplace, its impact on the 16 employees in the workplace, under this type of model?
17 A No; I haven't seen any.
18 Q What about as far as on reasonable production 19 standards and its impact on the workplace under this model?
20 A No.
21 Q How, if at all, do the values of the co-workers or 22 the feelings of the co-workers about the job impact on the O
i 151 1 performance of an employee at a job site?
2 Assuming you have co-workers here who believe that i 3 the Quality Control inspector job at a nuclear site is i
4 important because of the safety considerations for the future, 5 does that impact on the response of a co-worker on a job site 6 to harassment and intimidation?
7 A Sure; I think it does. I think co-workers have --
8 the group members have norms or values that they either 9 express explicitly or implicitly, and then they typically will 10 provide rewards or punishments. This is kind of in the 11 abstract sense. They will provide rewards or punishments for 12 the extent to which their co-workers conform to those norms.
() 13 The primary notion or reward they have is acceptance or 14 rejection. If the co-worker does not conform to the values, 15 you may start out at a rather low level and maybe you will 16 ridicule them or tease them.
i 17 Another thing you might do is not allow them to eat 18 lunch with you and things like that. There are various ways 19 that co-workers have for controlling the behavior of others.
20 There are data on this, that people become aware of 21 what their co-workers want and the extent to which they desire 22 inclusion, influences the extent to which they will conform or l
O
152 1 not conform to what their co-workers believe.
2 Q Did you look at this at all as to whether or not 3 this was a factor in the behavior of the QC inspectors at 4 Braidwood?
5 A I didn't look directly at that; no. I did assume 6 the co-workers held to a value that one should do quality 7 inspections.
8 Q That would be a factor that would fit on the 9 balancing side of the scale again, in encouraging quality 10 inspections, despite harassment or intimidation?
11 A Yes.
12 Q You didn't go further to analyze what level or
() 13 weight it should be given at Braidwood in terms of how strong 14 are the values they felt or how strongly people needed to be 15 included in the group there?
16 A No.
17 Q I think we touched on this in a slightly different 18 format. In making an ultimate analysis to whether there was 19 harassment and intitidation or whether there was an effect on 20 quality as a result of harassment and intimidation, should an 21 analysis be made of whether the alleged incidents -- strike
, 22 that.
O
153 1 In assessing whether or not there was an effect on Ns 2 quality as a result of harassment and intimidation, if you 3 were going to undertake the full analysis now, an analysis of 4 it, would you agree that one of the things that should be 5 looked at is whether or not the allegations of harassment and 6 intimidation in each incident are valid, whether there was 7 actually somebody being forced to do something that was 8 improper as opposed to being encouraged or pressured to do 9 something that was proper?
10 A Yes. I think you should look at that.
11 Q That is not an analysis that you have done at this 12 point, on the various incidents you pointed out; is that,
/~h 13 right?
D !
14 A No; I haven't.
15 Q Did you meet with Mr. Guild at all after you 16 prepared your draft testimony?
17 A No.
18 Q Did you meet with him at all before the deposition 19 session today?
20 A Yes.
21 Q How long did you meet today, before the morning 22 session started?
O
154 1 A An hour and a half to two hours.
2 Q Could you tell me what topics were discussed during 3 your meeting today?
4 A We discussed to some extent the Arvey deposition; l 5 some on the McKirnan deposition. I am trying to recall what 6 else. I guess the specifics that came out of that, especially 7 with the McKirnan values, the role of values in work settings, 8 climate, those issues; the definition of " harassment" that 9 came up in the Arvey deposition.
10 We discussed to some extent some of my testimony, 11 going over some of the comments I made.
12 Q As far as the definition of " harassment" from the
( ) 13 Arvey deposition, what was the discussion about that?
14 A Just in terms of does harassment have a scientific 15 label, does it have a place in social science and the 16 literature, how is it defined in the dictionary. The 17 dictionary definition tends to spread it all over.
18 Q Your personal view is it is not defined in the 19 scientific setting; is that right?
20 A It really isn't. I think there is a lot of things 21 in psychology, social psychology and organizational psychology 22 related to what you are talking about here, but harassment, O
, - - . ,n. - - - . - -
__n- - . , - _ . - _ . . _ . _ . - . . _
155 1 per se, is not a term you would find if you looked it up in an 2 abstract of organizational psychology.
3 Q Are there other aspects of the Arvey deposition that 4 you discussed?
5 A I suppose there were. I don't recall the 6 specifics. I guess we did discuss the general kind of 7 orientation that was taken in that deposition in some parts.
8 Mr. Miller took that deposition and presented hypothetical 9 cases and said "what if."
10 Q What did you discuss with respect to that?
11 A Primarily the issue of be prepared to answer "what 12 if" questions.
() 13 Q Did you discuss whether or not further analyses or 14 inquiries should be done before you testified on some of those 15 "what if" questions?
16 A No. We didn't discuss answers to "what if" 17 questions.
I 18 Q My question was did you discuss whether or not l
19 before you testified, not today, but before the Board, whether 20 or not some of those "what if" questions should be analyzed as 21 far as the underlying truth of the data? l 22 A No.
O
l 156 1 Q Was there any discussion of additional work that you 2 might consider undertaking, a discussion of whether or not 1
3 additional work should be undertaken?
1 '
4 A No.
i 5 Q You mentioned in connection with the McKirnan 6 deposition, you discussed the role of values. What was that I 7 discussion about?
8 A I guess as much as anything, Mr. Guild was asking my 9 opinion about the role of values and where values fall and the 10 importance they might have in this setting, and where I fall i
11 in comparison to Arvey and McKirnan.
12 Q What did you say in response?
13 A
( ) As I recall, I described maybe a continuum in the 14 sense, where you have the industrial organizational emphasis 15 and that emphasis is very much one of dealing with specific 16 problems in organizations, and understanding specific topics 17 that go in work settings. It also is an orientation that is i
l 18 very much concerned with measuring people's abilities, 19 measuring, surveying attitudes, et cetera.
20 It has a very applied focus. At the other and of l
21 the continuum is social psychology, which is interested in the 22 social behavior of people and the general attitude. You could O
l i
157 1 think of a continuum, a line stretched between Arvey's 2 approach and McKirnan's approach, where McKirnan is more 3 theoretical in the sense of the social behavior of people.
4 Arvey is concerned with what is going on in organizations and 5 measuring assessment issues.
6 I described myself as somewhere in the middle, that 7 I was trained and had a lot of the Arvey type characteristics 8 with the measurements and concern for organizations, and yet, 9 at the same time, I have training and interest in the values 10 and notions that are related to work motivation, that link up 11 with social psychology. I represent a middle point in that 12 and a blending of their two positions.
13
( ) Q Does the discussion of climate fall into that? You 14 mentioned climate in the discussion of the McKirnan 15 deposition. Does that fall into that same area? Was there a 16 separate discussion on climate?
17 A I don't recall whether it was separate or not.
r l 18 Q Was there anything else talked about with respect to
, 19 climate, its effect on workers?
i 20 A I think, as I recall, Mr. Guild asked what I thought i
- 21 of climate and what is climate.
22 Q What did you tell him?
- O i
4
158 1 A As I recall, I pointed out that I thought at the
( 2 present time, there is a lot of interest in climate in 3 organizations and now we are calling it " culture" as being 4 sort of a climate related issue that exists in organizations, 5 and I think they do have some influence on our behavior, but I 6 am a little uncomfortable with trying to specify that. I'm 7 not exactly sure what " climate" means and what " culture" 8 means. Yet, I see some aspects of it being important and 9 worth further pursuing, but I am not really comfortable with 10 the position.
11 MR. GILL: Let's take a brief recess.
12 [Brief recess.]
13 BY MR. GILL:
(
14 Q Based on your experiences in the industrial 15 organizational psychology field, have you ever known or ,
16 observed employees who will claim harassment and intimidation 17 or other reasons associated with their firing, when in 18 actuality, they were fired or disciplined because they didn't 19 have the skills to do the job?
20 A That happens. Let me qualify that. The issue they 1
21 were fired for, let's say for legitimate reasons, they may not 22 have the motivation. They may have had the skills but not the
159 1 motivation.
p
\ 2 Q A worker who is fired because he hasn't done the 3 work, either because of skills or motivation, may come up with 4 an alternative reason for why he believes he was fired; is 5 that right?
6 A Of course, that happens.
7 Q On page 20 of your testimony, Ilgen Deposition 8 Exhibit No. 1, you say "I can say, however, based on what has 9 been observed in many other jobs, that when powerful 10 reinforcers are used..." and then you list that certain things 11 happen. Are those observations you have made on other jobs?
12 A [ Perusing document.] I can't specifically list one,
( 13 that I've observed all of those. Some, I have. Others, the
)
14 experience would be indirect knowledge of talking to others.
15 Q Which ones have you observed personally?
16 A I don't know in terms of -- I can't state a specific l
17 case I've observed, in the case of seeing someone performing 18 because of any one of those specifically.
19 Q On page 22, you were given an example of a 20 circumstance where you personally might place a conflict of 21 values, where you want to uphold your standards for evaluating 22 students and yet you know a student has circumstances that i
O
160 1 perhaps justify what happened, and therefore you may have I
\s / 2 sacrificed your quality standards but don't admit it even to 3 yourself, or don't admit it to the world; is that right?
4 A Yes. I'm saying I might not even admit to myself 5 that has occurred. I don't have a specific case of that.
6 Q That was a hypothetical?
7 A That's a hypothetical case.
8 Q You indicate at the end of that paragraph, "I see a 9 lot of similarity between this example and the testimony of 10 the QC inspectors." One significant difference between that 11 example and the QC inspectors is that both halves of what you 12 are responding to here are you are facing a challenge of two
() 13 14 good things; is that right?
on one hand, you have your standards, and on the 15 other hand, a concern about the student who is facing personal 16 problems, and the QC inspectors' situation, you have good 17 versus bad basically, with the QC inspector believing he 18 should do things right and maybe having done things wrong and 19 refusing to admit that, there would be a difference between 20 the examples; is that right?
21 A I see your point; yes. I would agree that is a 22 difference.
O
161 1 Q Does that make any difference to the analysis or the
, 2 applicability of the example?
3 A Offhand, I don't see that it makes a major 4 difference. It doesn't make a difference in terms of the 5 response.
6 MR. GILL: That is all I have.
! 7 MR. GUILD: I have just a few questions.
8 9
10 11 12 14 j 15 16 17 I
i 18 '
l 19 i
20 l i
}
4 21 22 1
!O
162 1 EXAMINATION
'N 2 BY MR. GUILD:
3 Q Dr. Ilgen, on page 14 of your prepared testimony, 4 you make reference to a provision of Federal regulations that 5 provide for employee protection against retaliatory action; is 6 that correct?
7 A Right.
8 Q You comment on that on the following page to the 9 effect that would have a positive influence but is not self 10 implementing. "Such institutional guidance, however, is not 11 self implementing..." et cetera.
12 A By "self implementing," I mean that doesn't mean it
() 13 14 will be accessed. Its existence doesn't mean it will be t accessed.
15 Q You were aware of that Federal regulation when you 16 prepared your testimony, as you reference it here?
17 A Yes; I was.
18 Q Mr. Gill asked you about Federal statutes that 19 protect employees. Just for a point of information, that 20 statute is embodied in the regulation you referenced. You 21 took that protection into account when you prepared your 22 testimony?
O V
i 163 1 A Yes; I did.
O
\ss/ 2 Q All right.
3 A Again, as I mentioned in my statement, I mentioned 4 to you that I read these.
5 Q Now pages 18 and following of your testimony, in 6 response to Question 19, you were asked: "Have you formed an 7 opinion on the existence of adverse influences on the work 8 performance of Comstock QC inspectors?" You answer yes, and 9 you go on.
10 You cite there a number of facts. I think you i
11 characterized them as evidence. Are those facts from your 12 reading of the three NRC memoranda that Mr. Gill has
( } 13 previously referred to, the March 29 memos and the April 5, i 14 1985 memo?
15 A Those were quotes from those memos, yes.
16 Q And are those quotes a product of your review of 17 those memos?
18 A As I recall. I picked those off those memos, as I 1 19 recall.
t 1
20 Q okay. Those facts were facts -- I mean, assuming 21 they are facts now; they are statements included in those 22 memos to be more precise -- those statements were, that you l
l
l i
164 1 quoted from the memos, were considered in arriving at the 2 opinion that you express in Answer 19, together with the facts 3 that you set forth at the bottom of page 20, the powerful 4 reinforcers, correct?
5 A Yes.
6 MR. GUILD: That's all I have.
7 MR. GILL: Just one clarification.
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 4
l 18 l
19 20 21 22 lO l
- - - - , . - . _,_ __.,_.,,.,,____._,.._______,,,,_,._,,,,,--.% ~. ,, __,,,.,,__,y , .-- _ . m, , , _ , . .
,_-___y, - , - . - - ---.9 _. ,m ,, y y
165 1 FURTHER EXAMINATION s
l 2 BY MR. GILL:
3 Q As far as the facts, whatever they may be, that you 4 are laying out in response to Answer 19, are you saying they 5 come from the NRC memos to the exclusion of the other 6 documents we identified, or do they come from the NRC memos 7 and the other documents that we identified that you had prior 8 to your testimony?
9 A In my recollection, I believe I wouldn't have put 10 the March and April NRC memoranda there, if they weren't 11 direct quotes off of the memoranda.
12 Q This is referring to the quote at the top of page
() 13 14 297 A At the top of page 19, yes. I did not cite page 15 numbers or line numbers on that quote.
16 Q What I'm asking you is, does this include the --
17 Answer 19 goes on for another two pages -- do all of the facts 18 that are identified in there - " facts" in quotes -- come from l
19 the NRC memos?
20 A That's my recollection, but I would have to go back 21 and check it. I could do that.
22 MR. GILL: That's all. That's all I have. Do you i
l l.
l
. _. - -- =. _ - . . . - - - __-. . - . ._. .
i i
166 ,
1 i
1 have any?
2 MR. GUILD: No. !
3 MR. GILL: Thank you, t
- -4 [Whereupon, at 4
- 40 o' clock, p.m., the taking of I 5 the deposition was concluded.]
i 6
7
- 8 4
- 9 l -
- 10 11 l 12 f
f 13 i
14 i
- 15 i 16 17 18
/
19 '
20 21 i
22 w^-w-vt" yrwy - ywy mm-ww-g-yy -
r 167 1 CERTIFICATE OF DEPONENT f'%1
<V 2 3 I, DANIEL R. ILGEN, do hereby certify that I have read 4 the foregoing transcript of my deposition testimony and, with 5 the exception of additions and corrections, if any, hereto, 6 find it to be a true and accurate transcription thereof.
7
, 8 t -
9 7 DANIEL R. ILGEN 10 11 #C E f I
12 DATE 13 ***
14 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 15 Sworn and subscribed to before me, this the fo d.
16 day of Muee , 19 8d .
17 18 19 V
20 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR f
coua ry of wamm 21 My commission expires: #"# #' "'"'#'* #
JAMES F. RAINEY 22 Netary Public, Ingham Ccunty, Mt My Ccmmisstori Expires Mar.14,1988 O
Q
168 1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 2
3 I, MARILYNN M. NATIONS, the officer before whom'the 4 foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the 5 witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition 6 was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was 7 taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or 8 under my direction; that said deposition is a true record of 9 the testimony given by the witness; that I am neither counsel 10 for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the 11 action in which this deposition was taken; and further, that I 12 am not a relatf&e or employee of any attorney or counsel 13 employed by the parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise 14 interested in the outcome of the action.
15 16 %,oya_ % %_ ,Gim_o 3
17 MARILYNN M. NATIONS 18 Nethry Public in and for the 19 Oc' lonwealth of Virginia 20 21 My Commission expires January 15, 1989.
22
~
O
, RECEIVED APR 2 81986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA gx NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 'a EXHitlT
( ) $k)W m3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD *sl >
In the Matter of: )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Dockets 50-456
) 50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
TESTIMONY OF DANIEL P. ILGEN (On Forem OC Inspector Harassment Contention) 01: Please state your name, address and occupation.
A1: My name is Daniel P. Ilgen. I am the John A. Hannah Professor of Organizational Behavior in the departments of t'3
(_) Psychology and Management at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan, 48824.
02: Describe briefly your field of study and work.
A2: I teach, consult and publish in the fields of organizational and industrial psychology which deal with the subject of the behavior of individuals in work organizations and particu- s
, larly with factors which enhance or inhibit work performance.
I have a special interest in and have published on the subject of why people behave as they do on the job, notably in a book authored wi th J.C. Naylor and B.D. Pritchard:
A Theory of Behavior In Organizations (New York: Prentice-
,- Hall, 1980). I have consulted for industrial organizations Is 1
such as General Motors on performance appraisal systems and
(~')
'O for the U.S. Navy on the use of incentive systems for work motivation.
03:
Describe your educational background and employrent experience.
A3: I received my Ph.D. in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from the University of Illinois in 1969. Since then I have taught in m" field at the University of Illinois, the U.S.
Military Academy, the University of '
Washington, Purdue University, and Michigan State ,
University. I have performed research and published a number of papers in professional journals and co-authored books in this field. In addition, I have served as a
(' consultant to government and industry. A detailed descrip-tion of my educational and professional experience is con-tained in my curriculum vita, marked as Ilgen Exhibit 1, attached to this testimony.
04: What is the purpose of your testimony?
A4: I have been asked by Business and Professional People for the Public Interest on behalf of their clients to assist in evaluating the work performance of electrical cuality con-4 trol (OC) inspectors employed at the Braidwood Nuclear Power Plant in light of certain complaints of management harass- '
i ment, intimidation and production pressure.
O 2 i 1
4
05: How does an organizational and industrial psychologist
/~
V} approach the task of evaluating the work performance of these Oc inspectors at Braidwood?
A5: Before I identify and evaluate the specific influences which may either enhance or inhibit ef fective work by these inspectors, let me provide you with a general analytical model employed by organizational and industrial psycholo-gists to understand the behavior of the individuals in the workplace.
Such a model is generally applicable to work settings including, in my opinion, to the work cf a nuclear plant OC inspector.
06: What influences workplace behavior?
A6:
Behavior at work is no different from behavior in any other
\( setting. People invest time and effort in activities -
behaviors are a result of their decisions or choices. While I do not believe that the persons are necessarily aware of all of the decisions that they make, or that such decisions are necessarily rational from an objective perspective, I am convinced that people do think about what they do. At work, people make decisions about where to direct their time and effort.
At a very general level, we can think of the choice of activities at work as falling into two categories:
behaviors directed at accomplishing job performance and behaviors that are not directly work related. In the latter category fall such behavior as taking personal or sick time to go fishing, or programming the Monday night football pool 3
into the office computer.
6 07: What influences the choice of behaviors which are directed at accomplishing tasks impor, tant to effective job perfor-mance?
A7:
For starters, let us assume that the means for accomplish-ing the job and the right person for the job are known and agreed upon.
While there is of ten much disagreement on these sometimes dif ficult questions, let us assume agreement on what should be done and who should do it in order to focus on what then influences effective job performance.
If .
the desired behavior for the employee is known, then effec-tive job performance is a function of three factors: the employee must: (1) 4 possess the skills and abilities that make it possible to display the desired behaviors; (2) be aware of what behaviors are desired of him or her; and (3) be motivated to show those behaviors, rather than some other set of behaviors -- that is, be willing to invest his or her time and energy to accomplish the desired behaviors rather than engaging in some other set of behaviors. For our purposes here, we shall assume that the person has the skills and abilities to display the behavior and that our interest is in the latter two issues -- learning what behaviors are desired and being motivated to carry out those behaviors.
O 4
U '
08: How do employees learn what to do on the job?
A8: There are three general ways that employees learn the
'O is j
behaviors in which they should invest their time and effort on the job:
(1) through direction from some authority; (2) through reinforcement of their own behavior - the law of effect; and (3) through watching others on the job - social learning.
09:
How do people learn through direction from authority?
A9:
Let's assume that this authority is the person's immediate supervisor.
In this case, the supervisor would tell the employee what is expected on the job. This description *
- varies in its degree of specificity but, all the same, it points the person toward a set of behaviors. For a nuclear quality control inspector, specific instructions might begin with telling the person what weld attributes to check, how to identify defects, how to record inspection results, etc.
More general instructions would simply tell the person what welds had to be inspected. Pegardless of the degree of specificity, some "exper t" is telling the person what to do, and it is assumed that the person nas the skills and abili-ties to do the job once told what to do.
Direct communication may also come from sources that at first seem less direct. For example, the employee may consult a printed expert in the form of a job description or a work order which also directs him or her toward some set of activities. Here again the process is basically the O 5
4 same.
The employee receives some communication about what
~
it is that he or she is supposed to do.
For OC inspectors in the L.K. Comstock organization at Braidwood, direction might come through instructions from a OC supervisor such as Mr. Saklak, and through written direc-tion from the Comstock Weld Inspection Procedure 4.5.3.
010: How do people learn through reinforcement?
A10: Although there are many theoretical variants on this general theory, almost all assume that the person displays some set of behaviors and then is reinforced in some fashion for showing the behavior. If the behavior results .
in either receiving something that the person values or not receiving something that is aversive to the person, and
(-d) this happens in a way that the person sees some connection
\s/
between his or her behavior and the receipt of the reinforcement, then the behavior is likely to be learned.
In par ticular, if wha t is seen as being received f rom the behavior is positive, the probability of repeating that behavior increases; if either nothing good or nothing bad is seen as resulting from the behavior, or something aversive is seen to result, the behavior is less likely to be repeated.
This process is a rather loose description of what is known as the law of effect.
Clearly some behaviors at work are learned in this fashion.
The waitress who learns the names of regular customers begins to address them by name when they return, 6
discovers that the tips are larger after addressing them by name, and begins to pay attention to the names of regular customers and to find a way to use their names when they come into the restaurant. The teller who finds that he or she can finish up to 10 to 15 minutes earlier each evening if checking the day's totals is squeezed in between custo-mers during the last hour before closing (rather then waiting to begin the task until the bank is closed) tends to repeat the behavior. On any job, a number of behaviors are learned through the direct effect of receiving reinforcement for doing the behaviors.
At Comstock the actual work practices in performing weld inspections, for example, may have been learned through reinforcement.
The decision to document large
(~}-
\_
numbers of weld inspections on a single inspection report form, instead of a single inspection, may have been learned behavior. A weld inspection procedure may be open to a wide range of implementing behaviors, the choice of which is influenced by reinforcement.
Qll: How do people learn through watching others?
~ \
All:
The technical name for this is social learning theory. The I underlying notion of social learning theory is much the l l
same as the reinforcement position just described. That is, the theory assumes that people will tend to repeat behaviors that are reinforced and not repeat those that are not reinforced.
O 7
w .- . - - - - - - , ,--r---. - - - _ - - - - - - , , - , , . - , , - - - - - - , , , - , . - , . -
4 However, social learning theory recognizes that people i
do not need to directly experience the reinforcement.
Given the human capacity to see, to think and to process information, individuals can observe what happens to others like themselves and learn what is likely to happen to themselves in the same or similar situations. Simply observing the behavior of others and evaluating the kind of reinforcements that these others receive leads to what is called modeling. People model the behaviors of others by repeating behaviors that they see being rewarded in others and avoiding those for which others are either not rewarded or are punished.
- 012: How do these three sources of learning operate together?
A12: All three of the above mechanisms operate at work. It is
(}
safe to say tha t when you observe the whole set of behaviors representing an employee's work behavior over a given period of time, some of those behaviors were probably learned by each one of the means just described. In addition, some may have been learned by one means and then modified by others.
Even with a relatively simple task like entering the text of the present material into a word processor, one "ex pe r t," the manual, tells me that I should format it one way and another " expert," my secretary, tells me a different way to do it. Both of these systems are probably workable, but they are not the same, and I must choose O
8
. I
. between them. When multiple sources exist recommending 73 ways to distribute time and effort, a form of conflict
'V exists in the sense that the person must make a choice, and that choice will usually not be to choose both alterna-tives.
Conflicting choices of behaviors also exist between the three modes of learning that have been described. For example, a supervisor's instructions may be to do the job one way, while at the same time the employee observes others like himself doing the job the way the supervisor says to do it, and yet not receiving any reward for their behaviors. Or the person may be told to do the job one way, but reinforced for doing it another way.
In any job, conflict within and between the three modes
(} of learning is bound to occur. This conflict is so preval-ent that there is an extensive literature on it, typically labeled " role conflict." The interesting guestions surrounding role conflict are not so much in demonstrating that it exists (because it is so prevalent), but rather in exploring what employees will do in the face of role conflict. Assuming that the individuals are aware of the different role demands and the existence of some conflict-ing demands, the question of what behaviors are chosen is one of motivation rather than learning.
Finally, for both within and between the three modes of learning, more than one source may exist for learning the behavior, and these sources may not agree.
O 9
6-Q13: How does motivation influence work behavior?
A13: Knowledge about what behaviors are to be carried out, along with possessing the skills and abilities to carry them out, are only necessary conditions for behavior. The other quality needed is the motivation to engage that behavior.
In the framework discussed so far, motivation refers to the conditions that lead the individual to choose to devote his or her time and effort to performing particular behaviors
-- behaviors that the person is capable of performing.
Two conditions are central to the view of work motiva-tion taken here and held by most of the positions that * '
dominate current thought on the subject. The first is that there are outcome which people value to some degree. Some
) examples of outcomes are pay, the friendship of supervisors or co-workers, working conditions, security, safety, promotions, and a sense of achievement. Second, valued outcomes influence decisions about allocations of time and effort to the extent that the employees believe that their behavior is associated with outcomes they value. When outcome is associated with some particular behavior and the outcome is seen as valuable to the employee, the outcome is often labeled an incentive. The opportunity for overtime is an incentive for an inspector to the extent that the inspector values extra pay for extra time, and to the extent that the inspector believes that devoting time and effort to inspecting will increase his or her chances of being O
10
} -- -
Sometimes the behaviors with which the target behavior is competing are other behaviors also prescribed by the
( \
\/ employer.
In this case, there is conflict between two sets of demands made by the employer. Consider the example of a salesperson selling aircraft to third world governments.
Such a salesperson with a U.S. firm is told by his or her employer to "make sales" but is also told that he or she must operate within the ethical limits of Western culture which restrict the giving of bribes to government officials.
When the person gets down to trying to do business with his or her customers, it is ouickly learned that the two sets of prescribed behaviors cannot be .
satisified simultaneously even though both sets of behavior are being stressed by the same source -- the employer.
(3) According to our model, whether the person selects to devote time and effort to making sales with or without of fering payof fs to potential customers depends upon which of the two behaviors is perceived by him or her to possess the higher utility. To gather information to make this decision, the person will probably look to what happened to other salespersons selling to similar customers.
In this example, the conflict between behavioral choices occurred within two sets of behaviors, both desired by the company. The conflict may also be between a set of behaviors prescribed by the employer and behaviors
- prescribed by some other source. For example, in the case of the rate of inspection, supervisors may be advocating
/~')
(_J 12
4 l l
i
)
9 inspecting more units per time period and NRC regulations f
may, in effect, require inspecting less. As was the case S/
in the previous example, the employee should choose that behavior which most closely matches what he or she believes will lead to the greater amount of subjective return, taking into account the nature of the outcomes that are likely to accrue from following the wishes of the super-visor and from following the direction of the regulations.
Q15: How can we apply this general model of industrial and organizational psychology to the evaluation of work i
performed by quality control inspectors at Braidwood? .
A15: The job of quality control inspector at a nuclear power plant involves two built-in sets of conflicting behavioral g") requirements defined by the organization: work quality and
'a' work quantity.
The first behavioral recuirement is to inspect with sufficient care to assure the prescribed level of quality. The second behavioral requirement is to inspect with sufficient speed to meet prescribed or understood production rates or work quantity requirements.
In such circumstances there is normally a negative correlation between taking time to inspect and keeping production going. In addition, the reporting of quality defects identified through careful inspection may conflict with production requirements.
While such a quality versus quantity conflict is J, certainly not unique to the job of OC inspector at a
( )
v 13
I nuclear plant, the manner in which the nuclear CC inspector s chooses between conflicting work behaviors is likely to be b
a much more critical question than the choices made in another job where quality standards are not as important.
016: Are you aware of any institutional guidance to the nuclear industry on how such job role conflicts are to be resolved?
A16: Yes. I am familiar with guidance from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission which attempts to insure that con-flicts between production and cost considerations on the one hand and quality assurance on the other will be resolved in favor of quality. I am aware that the NRC's
- regulations provide that "[t]he persons and organizations performing ouality assurance functions shall have suf fi-(^}
V cient authority and organizational freedom to identify quality problems; to intiate, recommend or provide solu-tions and to verify implementation of solutions." Such authority must be sufficient to insure " independence from cost and schedule when opposed to sa fety considerations."
J These are provisions of Title 10, Code of Federal Regula-tions, Part 50, Appendix B, Quality Assurance Criteria for s
Nuclear Power Plants.
In addition, I am aware of NRC Regulations for Employee Protection, 10 Code of Federal Pegula tions Section 50.7, which prohibit an employer from taking retaliatory action against a nuclear employee, such as a OC inspector, for identifying quality or safety concerns. I am advised by 14
, - -- - . _ . ~ , . - . - - . - . _ - - . - - - - . - , . - , ,, - ,
I 1
? . . . !
counsel that these NRC regulations apply to the work I
activities of the electrical OC inspectors at Braidwood. j Such institutional guidance recognizes the existence and l
significance of potential quality versus quantity role conflicts in the nuclear industry. It also makes clear the institutional preference that quality considerations prevail over other interests. Such institutional guidance, however, is not self-implementing. As is the case with other direction from authority, such guidance provides only one of a number of sometimes conflicting influences on actual work behavior.
, e-j 017: What influences the choice between quality versus quantity work behavior for OC inspectors?
I A17: When quality control inspectors face such conflict, the concern of the NRC regulations, as I see them, is to advo-cate that the net ef fect of all influences must be such that the OC inspector selects the work behaviors of performing quality assurance work effectively.
Psychologically speaking, the self-perceived utility associated with ef fective quality work must be as attrac-a tive or more attractive to the OC inspector than devoting time and effort to meeting production schedules. The inspector will look at the work environment to attempt to judge the rewards and punishments associated with devoting 1 time and effort to each domain ( i .e., inspection and production). One of the first places the inspector will O
15
i look is to the company and the people who represent it, gg particularly supervisors.
The inspector will look not only G
at what company representatives say, but what they do.
Thus, if they were to say that effective and careful inspections are the most important thing, but, on the other hand, most of the praise and other important incentives that QC inspectors receive tend to come from meeting production-related goals, then the inspector is likely to shape his or her behavior toward production.
The person will also look to what is going on with his or her colleagues. Again, if the person observes the balance of the rewards associated with production and, even
- worse, negative sanctions associated with inspection when the two behaviors come into conflict, he or she is likely
( ) to model behavior of production emphasis. Or, alternative-ly, if the person does not select the behavior that he or she believes will lead to the greater extrinsic reward and decides to stick with a belief that inspection responsibil-ities are most important in spite of how the company distributes rewards, it is likely that the inspector will experience some degree of stress and role conflict on the job, which itself may adversely af fect work performance.
The person may look to what happens to another person in a symbolic fashion, as well as direct observation. In this case, he or she may turn to the folk tales that pass through any work force. Often these are based on stories passed by word of mouth about things that have happened to O
16
.4 - _
~~ -
other workers in the past.
These tales are often based on truth, but may tend to be elaborated on over time.
O The main point is that they are accepted as fact and guide the behavior of those who hear them and believe them.
Furthermore, they die slowly. It of ten takes a major reversal of behavior on the part of the parties involved in the tales to reverse the beliefs about what their position is on some issue. It of ten is not enough to simply make some minor change of course, and certainly not enough to merely proclaim such changes.
In sum, one must carefully review and evaluate the many influences on work behavior - the sources of learning and . e the factors affecting motivation - in order to understand how conflicts betaeen quality versus quantity are resolved
(} by quality control inspectors.
018:
Have you reviewed and evaluated such influences as they affect the work behavior of electrical cuality control inspectors at Braidwood?
A18: Yes, to a limited extent.
I have reviewed a number of sources of factual information describing the work environ-ment of L.K. Comstock OC inspectors at Braidwood and the influences which affect their work performance. I have reviewed a number of documents, including the Quality Control (OC) Inspector Harassment and Intimidation Conten-tion, three Nuclear Pegulatory Commission memoranda reflecting complaints of management harassment, intimida-17
' L) tion and production pressure by a large number of Comstock inspectors, (3 Nuclear Regulatcry Commission Quality Assurance
(,)
and Employee Protection regulations, cer tain Comstock OC inspection procedures and inspection documents, and por-tions of the deposition testimony of a number of Comstock QC inspectors.
Ol9:
Have you formed any opinion on tne existence of adverse influences on the work performance of Comstock OC inspectors?
A19: Yes.
In my opinion, there have been a number of cases when conflict between inspection cuality and inspection quantity
- was likely to have arisen.
On the basis of the March and April NPC memoranda I can identify a number of influences
\ on learning and motivation which strongly suggest the need for a detailed evaluation of the adequacy of the inspec-tors' quality assurance work performance.
By this I mean that it is highly likely that OC inspectors felt a good deal of pressure or conflict between their need to do high quality inspections and the desire of their supervisors for speeding up the inspection process to a point of perhaps interfering with the quality of the inspections. On the positive side, I would assume that the inspectors wanted or desired to do quality inspections and that the official Comstock position supported quality. However, the actual message received from Comstock supervisors appears quite different.
O 18
'1 Some specific examples of the message being sent by Comstock came out in the March and April NBC memoranda.
In one case, an inspector describing a confrontation between himself and his supervisor regarding the inspector's unwillingness to close out some inspections said: " Pick
[the supervisor) says, 'No wonder we have such a back log of documents you won't evaluate them or close them out.' I said,
'I have to follow my procedure - It's not my decision to close out ICRs or NRCs.' Rick said, 'I can put you in the vault or whatever and make you do it all.' Pick came back to my desk and said, ' At times you make me so pissed off that if beating was legal you would be dead." .
- Another inspector said that this incident was not the first.
In fact, he said he knew of at least five other
(} occasions of this type of treatment. That inspector went on to describe other kinds of negative sanctions associated with not speeding up inspections. These are as severe as being " rail roaded out," that is, losing one's job. In addition, it seems clear that the OC inspectors did not believe that the pressure and negative sanctions were limited to one bad supervisor. The Company supported this negative view in the opinion of OC inspectors by putting supervisors in positions where they were not qualified to judge the quality of the OC inspectors' work, and by plac-ing new people in positions as " leads" because, in the opinion of the OC inspectors, the new people would "do what they are told to do -
sign what needs to be signed and get 19 1
- f the NRCs or ICRs cleared away."
A Finally, there is evidence that the OC inspectors may
'% l have paid more attention to these behaviors than the offi-cial company line on how to do inspections, and that they felt that it was more important to rely on what management did rather than simply what management said. This evidence is captured, for . example, in the following quote: "The quality first or whatever you call it sucks - It's CECO working for CECO and all this bullshit reporting hasn't done a damn bit of good. I have not seen one improvement since it s t a r ted."
The material I have just described convinces me that the OC inspectors were aware of a discrepancy between their beliefs about inspections and the company's actions. They g/
(-
S also heard the company stating one position in its official quality assurance policy but saw a very different set of standards being enforced by the behavior of company repre-sentatives. I cannot say for certain, in this case, whether the inspectors behaved consistently with their internal (personal) standards for quality and the company's official position, or if they sacrificed quality for s
quantity. I can say however, based on what has been observed in many other jobs, that when powerful reinforcers are used, such as:
(1) fear of losing a job, (2) thinly veiled threats, (3) the loss of valued overtime, or (4) the appointment to critical positions of people who are not likely to stand up to pressure, actual behavior tends to O
20
O .-:
l shift N in the direction of the reinforcers. Therefore, I'd
! )
be very surprised if the inspection behavior of at least some of the inspectors was not affected by the pressure.
Furthermore, when it did occur, some of the inspectors may not even have been aware of yielding to this pressure.
020:
Have you reviewed testimony by a number of there same inspectors given in depositions a year after the late March and early April meetings, in which testimony the inspectors denied personal performance of inadequate inspection work due to managemer.t pressure?
A20: Yes.
I have reviewed portions of deposition testimony to that ef fect cited by Commonwealth Edison Company in April
/" 1986 brief. However, I question these statements to some
\5l degree.
I can say this without implying that the inspec-tors deliberately altered their opinion. When a person holds strongly to some value, it is difficult to admit, even to himself or herself that he or she has behaved inconsistent with that value. Let me give you a personal example.
As a professor, I believe in high academic stan-dards and my role in maintaining these standards for the University.
I do not believe in compromising these stan-dards due to some personal circumstances of a student.
I will help the student as much as possible to enable him or her to do good work, but at some point the person's wor k must be evaluated against my standard.
/g
(-) Now let us assume that I have a student that I like and 21
respect, whom I also know has had severe personal problems i ,
A during the semester.
J His father has had a heart attack, and the student has had to return home every weekend to help run~ the family business. With this background, I must
~
grade his term paper, which is quite long, with a large
~
o number ~ ~ f opportunities for me to make subjective judg-5Ie~Ntis.!h in such a situation, my psychological background chnFih~ces me that I will probably err in the direction of giving this student the benefit of the doubt and grade him higher than I probably should. However, if you interview me a year later and ask me directly if I gave this student a higher ~ grade, I will pecbably say no. I'll say no because to say yes is so counter to my values tha t I have reprc; sed or never even realized that I was more lenient than I would like to think I am. I see a lot of similarity between my example and the testimony of OC inspectors who are being asked in a deposition regarding their own behavior of doing less than high quality inspections.
There is also the possibility that the inspectors would be more willing to express feelings of supervisory pressure in the protection of a large group in which many are expressing negative events, rather than making public s't a' 't e' 'm e n t s w i t h o u t the security of the group. In a sense, it'is possible that the group condition lowered the thres-hold of willingness to make statements that might be seen as personally threatening. When alone and on the record, the threshold was raised. This situation is not unlike O
22
m what we find with performance evaluations and feedback.
When supervisors have to rate subordinate performance and O(_/
discuss these ratings with subordinates, the data show that these ratings often are more positive than if the same raters are asked to provide these ratings in confidence to researchers who will not share these data with anyone else.
Under the privacy condition, the supervisors feel free to express less positive behaviors than they would do if they had to face the person directly. It is generally accepted that the private ratings are closer to the rater's true feelings than are the public ones. In a sense, the group condition may have acted somewhat like the privacy condi-tion in performance appraisals.
The issue of lowered threshold and the fact that the OC inspectors may not have admitted to themselves that they were af fected by supervisor pressure lead me to conclude that we should not discount the March and April,1985, statements simply because of the reports from the 1986 depositions.
021: Do you have any recommendations for the Licensing Board with respect to how they might verify conditions of harassment, intimidation and production pressure that occurred at Braidwood at the time under consideration here?
A21: Yes. Two methods lend themselves to verifying past behav-ior, which behavior scientists call " retrospective recon-structions" and " behavior t r ace s." Some combination of O.
\>
23 k
both methods may provide additional data on which to draw a r,_T conclusion about harassment, intimidation and production
'/
~
pressure at Braidwood.
Retrospective reconstructions could be assembled through the use of a questionnaire or survey of OC inspec-tors, supervisors and other relevant persons who worked at Braidwood during the time under investigation. I under-stand that a professional colleague of mine, Dr. Richard Arvey, will address this subject in his testimony in this proceeding.
Behavior traces are objective indicia of behavior tha t
. e are recorded in some f ashion that can be assessed at a later time. From behavior traces we may be able to infer whether or not some behavior occurred at an earlier time.
r^s 3 Absenteeism data is a good example of a behavior trace
(/
which may evidence some adverse influence in the work environment. The quality of actual workmanship is another obvious behavior trace which may evidence work behavior.
On the basis of the evidence I have reviewed regarding Braidwood, I would strongly recommend that a detailed evaluation be performed which may employ some combination of retrospective reconstructions and behavior traces. The data from such an evaluation should provide evidence about whether there was an adverse effect on OA work performance at Braidwood during the time in question.
I O
24
. T 4 , '
1/9 sW7t nnn/ ,
December, 1985 Daniel R. Ilgen Curriculum Vita Address: Department of Psychology (517) 355-7502 or Department of Management (517) 353-5415 Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 Oeerees B.S. (1965) Iowa State University Major: Psycholcgy; Minors: Mathematics & Statistics M.S. (1968) University of Illinois Major: Psychol:gy Ph.D. (1969) University of Illinois *
- Major: Industrial /Crganizational Psychology; Minors: Matheca:1cs & Social Psycholo87 Professienal Experience 7-q 1983-Present John A. Hannah Professor of Organizational Behavior Department
(
N'
) of Psycholcgy and Department of Management, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, 1972-1983 Assistant Professor :: Professor, Department of Psychological Sciences (Area Head cf Industrial / Organizational Psychology, 1977 to 1983), Purdue University, West La f aye t t e , IN 47907.
1978-1979 Visiting Associate Pr:fessor, Department of Management and Organization, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.
1970-1972 Captain, U.S. Army Position: Instructer, Office of Military Psycholegy &
Leadership, U.S. Mili:ary Academy, West Point, New York 10996.
1969-1970 Assistant Professor. Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Urbana, I*. 61801.
Professional Societies Academy of Panagement American Psychological Association--Fellow American Psychological Association-Council of Representatives--elected 1985-1988 Michigan Association of Industrial-?rgani:ational Psychology Midwest Psychological Association Sigma Xi Society of Organizational Behavior--Elected Member of Board 1982 to present.
l j' ) appointed coordinator for Board 1983 to 1985.
\_/
e
. Bibliographie Listings Who's Who Who's Who in the Midwest Committee Appointments A. National / State Level Committees Scientific Affairs Committee of Division 14 of APA, 1974-1975, Reappointed, 1975-1976.
Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Division 14, Executive Committee 1984 to present.
Education and Training Committee of Division 14 of APA,1978-1979,1979-1980, 1981-1982, 1982-1983,1983-1984 (appointed committee chairperson).
American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business, Technical Review Panel for Developmenting Criteria for Schools of Management, Appointed Member, August, 1977 to April, 1978.
American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business, Steering Committee for Accreditation of Business Schools Study. Appointed Member, April, 1978 to December, 1979.
Midwest Academy of Management, Program Committee , 1981-1982. , ,
Academy of Management, Organizational Behavior Division Executive ,
Committee, 1982-1983, 1983-1984 Academy of Management, Organizational Behavior Division, Program Chairman Elect, 1982-1983.
Academy of Management, Organizational Behavior Division, Program Chairperson, 1983-1984.
k- B. Recent University Committee Appointments I/O Psychology Faculty Search Committee (Psychology) 1985-1986 Graduate Programs Committee (School of Business) 1985-1986 Honorary Degree Committee (University) 1985-1986 Editorial Activity A. Associate Editor: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, January, 1984 to present.
Acting Editor: Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, January 1, 1983 - January 6, 1983.
s B. Editorial Boards:
Academy of Management Review, 1982-1984.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1983 present.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1977-1983.
C. Reviewing Activities:
Occasional to frequent reviewer for the following journals or publishers:
Administrative Science Quarterly Academy of Management Journal 2
r
, Cross-Cultural Behavior Human Relations
(N) Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences
\s,/ Journal of Management Studies Journal of Occupational Psychology Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Journal Supplement Abstract Service, APA Perceptual and Motor Skills Professional Psychology Psychological Bulletin National Science Foundation School of Labor and Industrial Relations, Cornell University Publications A. Articles in Refereed Journals:
Humphreys , L. G., Ilgen, D. R., McGrath, D., & Montanelli, R. (1969).
Capitalization on chance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29, 259-271.
Humph re ys , L. G., & Ilgen*, D. R. (1969). Note on a criterion f or the number of common factors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29, 571-578.
Fiedler, F. E., O'Brien, G. E., & Ilgen D. R. (1969). The ef f ects of leadership style upon performance and adjustment in volunteer teams operating in a stressful foreign environment. Human Relations, 22, O 503-514 Ilgen, D. R. (1971). Satisfaction with performance as a function of the initial level of expected performance and the deviation from expectations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 345-361.
Ilgen , D. R., & Hams t ra , B. W. (1972). The ef fect of the expected performance-reported performance difference on satisfaction as a function of the level of reported performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 359-370.
Ilgen, D. R., & Seely, W. (1974). Realistic expectations as an aid to coping with a stressful environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, M(4), 4 52-4 5 6. (Reprinted in D. Osborne & M. Gruneberg (Eds.),
Psychology and Industrial Productivity. MacMillan Press,1980.)
Ilgen, D. R., & 0'Brien, G. E. (1974). Leader-Hember relations in small groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12, 335-350.
Te rborg, J. R., & Ilgen, D. R. (1975). A theoretical approach to sex discrimination in traditionally masculine occupations. Orcanizational Behavior and lluman Performance, 13, 352-376.
O 3
, Ilgen. D. R., & Terborg, J. R. (1975).
Sex discrimination and sex-role stereotypes: Are they synonymous? No! Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 14, 154-157.
Campbell, D. J., & 11 gen, D. R.
(1976). Additive effects of task difficulty and goal setting on subsequent task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61,319-324.
Ilgen, D. R., & Gunn, J. D.
(1976). Affective consequences of disconfirming 100, 245-255. performance expectations. Journal of Social Psychology, Ilgen, D. R., & Fujil, D. S.
(1976). An investigation of the validity of leader behavior descriptions obtained from subordinates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6J,642-651.
Terborg, J. R., Pe ters, L. H., Ilgen, D. R., & Smith, F. (1977).
Validation and organizational correlates of the attitudes toward wocen as managers scale. Academy of Management Journal, 2_0_,89-100.
Ilgen, D. R.
(1977). Attendance behavior: A re-evaluation of Latham and Pursell's conclusions. Journal of Applied Psychology, g,, 230-233. ,
Ilgen D. R., & Hollenback, J. H.
(1977). The role of job satisf action in absence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,19, 148-161. ~
Fisher, C. D., Ilgen, D. ,R., & Hoyer, W. D. (1979). Source credibility, O
5 information favorability, and job offer acceptance. Academy of Panagement Journal. 22,94-103.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6 4_, 349-371. (To be reprinted in L. L. Cucmings and W.
Scott (Eds.), Readings in Organizational Behavior and Human Performance.)
Ilgen, D. R. , & Knowlton, W. A., Jr. (1980).
Performance attributional effects on feedback from superiors. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25,, 441-456.
Dugoni, B. L., & 11 gen, D. R. (1981). Realistic job previews and the adjustment 591. of new employees. Academy of Management Journal, ,2_4,, 4 579-1 Ilgen, D. R., Hobson, C. J., & Dugoni, B. L. (1981, August). Performance
' feedback in organizations: The development of a measure. Journal Supplement Abstract Service. ,
Ilgen, D. R., Nebeker, D. M., & Pritcha rd, R. D. (1981). Expectancy theory measures: An empirical comparison in an experimental simulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 2_8,189- 8 223.
O 4
1
-.-._ - .___.,__._.___. _-- ._ m - - , _ _ , _ . , - .- , . . . - ,
,..-,-,-,-.-..w. _. -
4 Ilgen. D. R., Mitchell, T. R.,
performers:
& Frede rickson, J. W. (1981). Poor Supervisors' and subordina tes' responses. _ Organizational B_ehavior and Human Performance, E,- 386-410.
Taylor, M. S., & llgen, D. R. (1981).
decisions. Academy of ManagementSex discrimtnation in placement Journal, 24, 859-865.
Ilgen, D. R., Pe terson, R. B.. ,Ma rtin, B., & Boeshen, D.
(1981). Superior and subordinate reactions to performance appraisal sessions.
Organizational Bebavior and Human Performance, g, 311-330.
Weiss, H. M., Ilgen, D. ,R., & Sha rbaugh, M. E.
(1982). Ef fects of life and job stress on information search behaviors in organizations.
Jourr.al of Applied Psychology, 61,60-66.
Ilgen, D. R., & Moore, C. F.
reliability and dimensionality (1983). When of the reason f ails: A comment on the WAMS.
Journal, 26, 535-540. Academy of Management Ilgen, D. R., & Fa v e ro , .J. L.
(1985). Methodological limitations of social psychological literatures for the understanding of performance appraissl processes.
Academy of Management Review, 10,, 311-321. *
- Ilgen. D. R.i & Wiggins, A. (in press). The passage of time: A neglected factor in the goal setting performance-feedback sequence. Revista Interamericana de Psychologia Occupacional.
s Wei s s , H. M., & 11 gen. D. R.
(in press). Routinized behavior in organizations. Journal of Behavioral Economics.
B. Books:
Naylor, J. C., P.it chard, R. D. 6 Il gen, D. R.
, behavior in organizations. . New York: (1980). A theory of Academic Press.
McCormick, E. J., & Ilgen, D. R.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. (1980). Industrial psychology (7th ed.).
McCormick, E. J., & Ilgen, D. R. ()985). Industrial and organizatienal psychology (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-liall, llgen, D. R., & Barnes-Farrell, J. 3.
evaluation. Booklet in Modules in (1984). Performance planning and management edited by F. Kast and J.
Rosensweig. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
C. Book Chapters:
Ilgen, D. R., & Feldman, J. M.
(1963). Performance appraisal: A process approadh. In B. M. Stav & L, L. Ccmmings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior.(Vol. 5). Greenwich, CT: JAI ' Press.
I Ilgen, D. R.
(1983). Cender issues in performance appraisal: A discussion of O' Leary & Hacsen. In F. J. Landy, S. Zedeck, & J.
Cleveland (Eds.), Performance appraisal. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5 i.__._________
, Naylor, J. C., Pritchard, R. D., & Ilgen. D. R. (1980). A sequential view of behavior and motivation. In K. D. Duncan, M. M. Gruneberg, & D.
p d Allis (Eds.), Changes in working life. Sussex, England: John Wiley
& Sons Limited.
Naylor, J. C., & Ilgen, D. R. (1984). Goal setting: A theoretical analysis of a motivational technology. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 6). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Taylor, M. S., Fisher, C. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1984). Individuals' reactions to performance feedback in organizations: A control theory perspective. In K. Rowland & J. Ferris (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management (Vol. 2). Creenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ilgen, D. R. (1985). Laboratory research: A question of when, not if. .
In E. A. Locke (Ed.), The generalizability of laboratory experiments:
An inductive survey. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Cocipany.
Ilgen, D. R., & Youtz, M. (1986). Factors af fecting the evaluation and development of minorities in organizations. In K. M. Rowland 6.G. R.
Ferris (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management Volume 4 Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
- Ilgen, D. R. (in press). Small groups in an individualistic world.
_ Interfaces in Psychology, Volume V. Lubock, TX: Texas Tech University Press.
p)
(
Ilgen, D. R. (in press). Small groups and teams in work organizations:
Barriers to successful use. In R. S. Schuler & S. A. Youngblood (Eds.), Readings in Personnel and Human Resource Management (3rd ed.).
'D. Encyclopedia Chapters:
- a. Industrial Psychology. Encyclopedia of Psychology, New York: Wiley, 1984
- b. Performance Evaluation. Encyclopedia of Psychology, New York: Wiley, 1984 E. Book Reviews:
Ilgen, D. R. (1979). Job-related stress. [ Review of Stress at work).
Contemporary Psychology, E , 804-805.
Ilgen, D. R. (1977). Theory with caution: A Primer of Industrial-Organizational Psychology. [ Review of Essentials of Industrial and Organizational Psychology). Contemporary Psychology, E, 317-318.
Ilgen, D. R. (1974). [ Review of Recruitment and selection of typists and secretaries]. Personnel Psychology, 27, 265-268.
l 11 gen, D. R. (1974). [ Review of Psychology applied to work and life (5th ed.)). Personnel Psychology, E(3), 380-383.
O i
6 l
1
. Ilgen D. R. (1986). [ Review of Absenteeism by P. S. Goodman & R. S.
Adkin (Eds.)]. In Journal of Occupational Behavior.
i Presentations A. Invited Colloquia / Presentations to University Audiences: '
Loyola University, Chicago, April, 1975 University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, November, 1976 University of Maryland, November, 1977 University of Texas at Dallas, October, 1978 University of Washington, January, 1979 University of Oregon, May, 1979 University of South Carolina, October, 1979 Ohio State University, January, 1981 University of Cincinnati, June, 1981 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, February, 1983 Purdue University, March, 1983 Carnegie-Mellon University, April, 1984 Pennsylvania State University, May, 1984 Loyola University, Chicago, October, 1984 Concordia University, Montreal, January, 1985 , ,,
Rice University, Houston, March, 1985.
Michigan State University, May, 1985 (Department of Psychology)
Michigan State University, Nove=ber, 1985 (Department of Management)
University of Michigan, November, 1985 University of Illinois, February, 1986
() B. Special Presentations:
Rotary, Lafayette, IN, February, 1976 Center for Creative Leadership Conference on Feedback, Washington, DC, November, 1977 Scientist-Practitioner Conference, Old Dominion University, April, 1980 Of fice of Naval Research Conference on Minorities in high tech industries, Pensacola, FL, February,1984 Michigan Association of Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Southfield, MI, May 1984 Human Resource Management Group, Personnel Testing Council of Southern California, Newport Beach, CA, November, 1984 Commencement address; Michigan State University, March, 1985 Health Care Promotion, Keynote Speaker, Michigan State University, May, 1985 Human Resource / Personnel Management Graduate Student Consortium, Academy of Management, San Diego, CA, August, 1985 American Society for Training and Development, Michigan Chapter, October, 1985 Interfaces in Psychology Symposium sponsored by the Department of Psychology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, October, 1985 C. Convention Papers and/or Symposia Presentations:
Ilgen, D. R., & 0'Brien, G. E. (1968). Task organization ef fects on interpersonal atmosphere in small groups. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwest Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
(}
7
O'Brien, C. E., & Ilgen, D. R. (1968). Ef fects of organizational g-wg structure upon small group creativity. Proceedings of the 76th s ,j Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. 2, 553-554 Ilgen, D. R., & Hams tra , B. W. (1971, April). Expected performance and 1 satisfaction with performance. Psychology in the Air Force. l Symposium conducted at the Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO.
Terborg, J. R., & Ilgen, D. R. (1974, August). Access and treatment i I
discrimination against women in masculine occupations. Paper presented at the 83rd annual convention of the American Psychological 4 Associatior., New Orleans, LA.
Ilgen, D. R. (1975, April). The influence of expectation and beliefs on the motivation and adjustment of new members of military organizations. Paper presented at a conference for the study of the
" Social Psychology of Military Service," University of Chicago.
Campbell, D. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (1976, May). Role perception accuracy as moderators of the relationship between motivation and performance.
Paper presented at the Midwest Psychological Association meeting,
- Chicago, IL.
I Fisher, C. D., Pritcha rd, R. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1977). Extrinsic reward, personal causality, feelings of competence, and intrinsic motivation.
Paper presented at the 86th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
Ilgen, D. R., & Dugoni, B. L. (1977, August). Psychological implications of realistic job previews on the adjustment of new organizational members. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Orlando, FL.
. Ilgen, D. R., Camphell, D. J., Peters, L. H., 6 Dugoni, B. L. (1977, May).
Individual differences in perceptions of exercise requirements:
Implications for Assessment Center data used for career development.
Paper presented at the Fifth International Congress on Assessment Center Method, Washington, DC.
Ilgen, D. R. (1978, May). New developments in goal setting research.
Symposium conducted at the Thirty-Eighth annual meeting of the Academy of Management, New York City, NY.
Taylor, M. S., 6 Ilgen, D. R. (1979, August). Employees' reactions to male and female managers: Is there a difference? Paper presented at the 39th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, CA.
Ilgen, D. R. (1980, June). A process model for the effects of feedback of the feedback recipient. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Institute for Management Sciences, Honolulu, HI.
8
Taylor, M. S., & Ilgen, D. R. (1980, August). An investigation of initial placement decisions made aboutwomen in traditionally male O occupations. Paper presented at the 40th annual Academy of Management meeting, Detroit, MI.
Martin, B. A., Ilgen, D. R., Peterson, R., & Boeschen, D.
(1981 May).
Reactions of supervisors and their subordinates to performance appraisal sessions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Psychological Association, Detroit, MI.
Ilgen, D. R. (1981, April). Matching rating scales for performance 1 l
feedback to recipient characteristics. Feedback implications for 1 rating scale design. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Midwest Academy of Management, Chicago, IL.
Ilgen, D. R. (1981, August). The individual's contribution to the productivity problem: A realistic view. Productivity. Symposium conducted at the 41st Academy of Management meeting, San Diego, CA.
Ilgen, D. R. (1981, October). Habit in behaviors in organizations.
Paper presented at the annual =eeting of the Society for Organizational Benavior, Chicago, IL. .
Ilgen, D. R. (1981, November). Sex and sex-role effects on performance appraisal. Presented as discussant at conference on Performance Appraisal, Dallas, TX.
Ilgen D. R. (1982, March). The = acro-micro interface in organizational O behavior. Symposium condue:ed at the Midwest Academy of Management meeting, Columbus, CH.
Landy, F. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (1952, Augus t). Performance appraisal and feedback. Workshop presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Ilgen, D. R. (1982, July). Triegering information search in organizational members. Workshop presented at the 20th International Congress of Applied Psychology, Edinburgh, Scotland.
! Ilgen, D. R. (1982, August). A cerson perception view of performance
' appraisal: Some methodolecical issues. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, t
DC. I Moore, C. F., & Ilgen, D. R. (1983, May). Goal setting and feedback l
effects on proof ready performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
Ilgen, D. R. (1983, August). A control theory integration of performance goal and performance feedback research. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, TX.
Ilgen, D. R. (1984, April). Current issues in performance appraisal.
Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Midwest Academy of Management, South Bend, IN.
4 9
,.,-,nr, , ,, - - . , , , , , , n- , - - - . - - - - - - - , - . - - . - - - - - , - ,e w w -
.:_T. ._; --
. Ilgen, D. R. (1984, October). Good theory and good practice: Have we misinterpreted Iewin? Society of Organizational Behavior annual
() meetings. Berkeley, CA:
Ilgen, D. R. , & Wiggins, A. (1985, July). The passage of time: A neglected factor in the goal setting-to-performance-to-feedback sequence. Presented as part of a symposium on goal setting at the XX Interamerican Congress of Psychology, Caracus, Venesuela.
Other Reports (Not Refereed)
A. Technical Reports:
11 gen, D. R. (1966). Fall 1965 norms of the American College Test Battery for University of Illinois f reshmen at Urbana (Tech. Rep. No. 66-2).
Urbana: University of Illinois, Office of Admissions and Records.
Ilgen, D. R. (1966). High school indices used as predictors of college success. Urbana: University of Illinois, Of fice of Admissions and records.
Fiedler, F. E., O'Brien, G. E., Ilgen D. R. (1967). The ef fect of ,
leadership style upon performance and adjustment in terms operating in a stressful foreign environment (Rep. No. 24). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Ef fectiveness Laboratory.
Ilgen, D. R. , & 0'Brien, G. E. (1968). The effects of task organization and member compatibility on leader-member relations in small groups (Tech. Rep. No. 58). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Ef fectiveness Research Laboratory.
Ilgen, D. R. , Seeley, W., & Eggert, R. (1971). Expectations and NCB resignations (Tech. Rep. No. 71-2). Office of Military Psychology and Leadership, USCC, West Point, NY.
Ilgen D. R., & Schmitt, N. (1971). Evaluation of the third class' sponsor program (Tech. Rep. No. 71-4). Office of Military and Leadership, USCC, West Point, NY.
Ilgen, D. R., Peters, L. H., Fisher, C. D., & Campbell, D. J. (1976, April). The development and change of work-related perceptions relevant to motivation (Tech. Rep. No. 2). West Lafayette, IN:
Purdue University, Cepartment of Psychological Sciences.
Ilgen, D. R., Pe te rs, L. H., & Campbell, D. J. (1976, April). A systematic study of the sources and ef fects of work expectations:
Final report (Tech. Rep. No. 4). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Department of Psychological Sciences.
Il gen,' D. R., & Pe te rs , L. H. (1975). Boundary conditions and operationalizations of expectancy theory variables (Tech. Rep. No.
3). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Department of Psychological Sciences.
10
'e i
I Ilgen. D. R., Campbell, D. J., Pe ters, L. H., & Fisher, C. D. (1975, December). Work role perceotions: Their affective and behavioral
' O consequences (Tech. Rep. No. 5). West Lafayette, IN:
University, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue Ilgen. D. R., Campbell, D. J., Peters, L. H., & Fisher, C. D. (1976, March). Sources and effects of work perceptions (Tech. Rep. No. 1).
West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Department of Psychological Sciences.
Ilgen, D. R., Campbell, D. J., & Pe ters, L. H. (1976, April). Individual 3 and situational contributions to work role perceptions (Tech. Rep. No. l 3). West Lafayette. IN: Purdue University, Department of I Psychological Sciences.
Ilgen, D. R. (1975, August). The psychological impact of realistic job reviews (Tech. Rep. No. 2). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
Department of Psychological Sciences.
Ilgen, D. R. (1976). Scientifi: Affairs Committee's criterion development study. The Industrial /Orranizational Psychologist, 13,(3), 27.
, Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & aylor, M. S. (1977. February).
Performance feedback: A review of its psychological and behavioral effects (Tech. Rep. No. 1). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Department of Psychological Sciences.
Dugoni, B. L., & Ilgen, D. R. (*.978, July). Realistic job previews and O the adjustment of new emplevees (Tech. Rep. No. 5). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Department of Psychological Sciences.
Ilgen, D. R., Mat te, W. E., Fisher, C. D., Dugoni, B. L., & Taylor, M. S.
(1978, September). The antecedents and consequences of performance 2
feedback in organizations. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Department of Psychological Sciences.
Ilgen , D. R., Dugoni, B. L., & Ma t t e , W. E. (1978, September). Effects of performance feedback in orranizational settings (Tech. Rep. No. 3).
West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Department of Psychological Sciences.
Ilgen, D. R., & Knowlton, W. A. (1979, June). Performance attributional effects on feedback from subordinates (Tech. Rep. No. 79-1). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Department of Psychological Sciences.
Ilgen, D. R., Mitchell, T. R., i Frederickson, J. W. (1980, March).
Poor performers: Supervisors' and subordinates' responses (Tech. Rep.
No. 1). West La f ayet te, IN: Purdue University, Department of Psychological Sciences.
Ilgen, D. R., Hobson, C. J., & Ougoni, B. L. (1980. September).
Performance feedback in orranizations: The development of a measure (Tech. Rep. No. 2 ). West ufayette, IN: Purdue University, Department O of Psychological Sciences.
11
..e e .
1 1
, Weiss, H. M., Ilgen, D. R., & Sharbaugh, M. E. (1981, January). Effects of life and job stress on infor=ation search behaviors of O organizational members (Tech. Rep. No. 7). West Laf aye tte, IN:
Purdue University, Department of Psychological Sciences.
Favero, J. L., & Ilgen, D. R. (1983). The effects of ratee characteristics on rater performance appraisal behavior (Tech. Rep.
No. 83-5). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Departments of Psychology & Management.
Ilgen, D. R., & Moore, C. F. (1983). Performance feedback effect under vaeying conditions of goals, feedback type, and choice (Tech. Rep.
No. 83-6). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Departments of Psychology & Management.
Ilgen, D. R., & Youtz, M. (1984). Factors affecting the evaluation and development of minorities in organizations (Tech. Rep. No. 84-3).
East Lansing: Michigan State University, Departments of Psychology &
Management.
Ilgen, D. R. (1985). Laboratory research: A question of when, not if (Tech. Rep. No. 85-1). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Departments of Psychology & Management. ,
11 gen, D. R., & Wiggins, A. (1985). The passage of time: A neglected factor in the goal setting-to performance-to-feedback sequence (Tech.
Rep. No. 85-3). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Departments of Psycholog/ & Management.
Ostroff, C., & Ilgen, D. R. (1985). The relationship between cognitive categories of raters and rating-accuracy (Tech. Rep. No. 85-4). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Departments of Psychology &
Management.
Ostroff, C., & Ilgen, D. R. (1985). The ef fects of training on raters' accuracy and cognitive categories (Tech. Rep. No. 85-5). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Departments of Psychology &
Management.
B. Reports Prepared for Organizational Use Only:
Ilgen. D. R., & Hollenback, H. J. (1975, August). Absenteeism and turnover as af fected by job satisfaction and pressure for attendance in a sample of Purdue University clerical workers. Report prepared for the Department of Personnel Administration, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Baxter Laboratories. (1976). Factors related to job satisfaction, performance, and commitment to the organization among engineers at Bax t e r/Tra v e ra l. Deerfield, IL: Ilgen, D. R. , Campbell, D. J.,
Fisher, C. D., Pe ters, L. H., & Schneider, W. J.
Delco-Remy. (1978, September). Reports about and reactions to performance feedback at Delco-Remy. Anderson, IN: Ilgen, D. R.,
i Mat te, W. E., & Dugoni, B. L.
12 l
l
.~.-
Simpson Timber Company. (1980, September). Evaluation of the performance planning and appraisal system at Simpson Timber Company. Seattle, WA:
O 113en, D. R., Pe terson, R. D., Martin, B., 6 Boeshen, D.
l Favero, J. L., Pavur, E., & Ilgen, D. R. (1983). The development and I test of a performance appraisal instrument for custodians at Purdue University. Report prepared for Purdue University West Lafayette, IN.
Recent Consultation Michigan Bell Telephone Company General Motors Corporation Grants Received
- 0ffice of Naval Research, September, 1983 - August, 1986 Office of Naval Research, June, 1982 - August, 1983
- Army Research Institute, September 1, 1978 - August 31, 1982
- Purdue Research Foundation, David Ross XR, August, 1981 - July,1982
- Army Research Institute, July 1, 1976 - June 30, 1978
- *Purdue Research Foundation, David Ross XR, June 1,1976 - May 31,1977 ,
- Army Research Institute, December 1, 1975 - May 31, 1976
- Army Research Institute, January 1, 1974 - December 31, 1975
- Purdue Research Foundation, David Ross XR, June 1,1973 - May 31,1975
- Purdue Research Foundation, David Ross XR, Summer, 1973
- 0niversity of Illinois Research Board, September,1969 - June,1970
() _______________ =
- Indicates that he was the sole Principal Investigator.
I O
13
. L.
i ;
I O
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COINISSION BEFDRE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
) I COMM0lWEALTH EDISON COMPA!E ) Docket Nos. 50-456
) 50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served copies of the Testimony of Daniel R. Ilgen (On Rorem QC Inspector Harassment Contention) on each party listed on the attached Service List by having said copies placed in envelopes, properly addressed and postaged (first class), and deposited in the U.S. mail at 109 North
Dearborn,
Chicago, Illinois 60602, on this 25th day of April, 1986; except that counsel for Edison Mr. Miller was served by personal delivery, and l 1
Judge Herbert Grossman and counsel for the NRC Staff Mr. s Treby were all served via Federal Ex .
l
)
O i
. As
. BRAIDWOOD SERVICE LIST
, Herbert Grossman, Esq. Michael I. Miller, Esq.
,s'~-)x Chairman and Administrative Judge Peter Thornton, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Isham, Lincoln & Beale U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Three First National Plaza Washington D.C. 20555 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Richard F. Cole Docketing & Service Section Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washingtcn D.C. 20555 Washington D.C. 20555 A. Dixon Callihan C. Allen Bock, Esq.
Administrative Judge P.O. Box 342 102 Oak Lane Urbana, Illinois 61801 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Bridget Little Rorem Stuart Treby, Esq. 117 North Linden Street NRC Staff Counsel Essex, Illinois 60935 U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission 7335 Old Georgetown Road Thomas J. Gordon, Esq.
- Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Waller, Evans & Gordon 2503 South Neil Joseph Gallo, Esq. Champaign, Illinois 61820 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1150 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Lorraine Creek I~')
\/
Suite 1100 Route 1, Box 182 Washington D.C. 20036 Mantono, Illinois 60950 Region III Office of Inspection &
Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 I
Atomic Safety and Licensing l Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington D.C. 20555 l
l