Individual Features of Weavers’ Productive Work as Related to the Mobility of Nervous Processes

Klimov E.A. (1959). Individual characteristics of the labor activity of multi-stage weavers in connection with the mobility of nervous processes. Questions of Psychology, 2, 66-76

Abstract. Two experimental tests were used for selecting groups of workers’ each servicing a number of looms simultaneously according to the mobility of nervous processes. Their differences in this respect have been studied by the author in relation to individual features of productive activity. As shown by the variation-statistical analysis of the facts obtained a) there is no relationship between productivity and mobility; b) the activities of the „inert” and „mobile” are characterized by certain stable features which are prominent in various situations; c) meanwhile, in some situations, different and even opposite individual features of productive activity may correlate with mobility.

Индивидуальные особенности трудовой деятельности ткачих-многостаночниц в связи с подвижностью нервных процессов

Е. А. Климов ^1,2

¹ Казанский университет, Пермь, Россия

² Пермский пединститут, Пермь, Россия

Резюме. Для отбора групп работниц, обслуживающих несколько станков, с целью изучения подвижности нервных процессов было использовано две экспериментальные пробы. Различия в этом свойстве были изучены автором в связи с индивидуальными особенностями производственной деятельности. Вариационно-статистический анализ полученных фактов показал, что: а) связь между продуктивностью работы и подвижностью отсутствует; б) деятельность «инертных» и «подвижных» работниц характеризуется определенными устойчивыми особенностями, отчетливо проявляющимися в различных ситуациях; в) вместе с тем в некоторых ситуациях с подвижностью могут коррелировать различные и даже противоположные индивидуальные особенности трудовой деятельности.

Ключевые слова: типологические свойства нервных процессов, подвижность, инертность, индивидуальный стиль деятельности, ткачихи-многостаночницы, трудовая деятельность

Introduction

Evgeny Alexandrovich Klimov (1930–2014) was a prominent Russian psychologist, Doctor of Psychology, Professor, and a full member (academician) of the Russian Academy of Education. From 1986 to 2000, he served as the Dean of the Faculty of Psychology at Lomonosov Moscow State University (MSU), and from 1983 to 2002, he headed the Department of Labor Psychology and Engineering Psychology. Klimov was also the President of the Russian Psychological Society (1994–1998) and the Chairman of the Scientific and Methodological Council of the Russian Federation’s Universities’ Psychology Association.

Born on June 11, 1930, in the village of Vyatskie Polyany, Kirov region, he graduated from the Department of Russian Language, Logic, and Psychology at Kazan University in 1953, where he began his scientific career under Professor V.S. Merlin. He defended his Candidate of Sciences dissertation (PhD) on “Individual Characteristics of the Work Activity of Multi-Loom Weavers in Connection with the Mobility of Nervous Processes” in 1959, followed by his doctoral dissertation on “Individual Style of Activity Depending on Typological Properties of the Nervous System” in 1968. He worked at Kazan University, the All-Union Research Institute of Vocational Education in Leningrad, the Herzen Leningrad Pedagogical Institute, and, from 1980, at MSU.

Klimov’s main research areas included labor psychology, differential psychology, the psychology of professions and career guidance, and the history of psychology. He is considered the founder of the theory of individual style of activity. His work demonstrated that work efficiency depends not on forcing a person into an “ideal” standard, but on their forming an individually unique system of methods and techniques aligned with their typological characteristics. This conclusion had profound implications for pedagogy, sports, and vocational training.

Klimov developed a widely recognized four-tier classification of professions (based on the object, goals, tools, and conditions of labor), which became the foundation for many career guidance programs. He also formulated a theory of professional self-determination, viewing it as a dialogical process of an individual choosing their own path. In his textbook “Introduction to Labor Psychology” (1988), he redefined the subject of labor psychology as the study of a person as a subject of labor, identifying key psychological features of the subject of labor’s consciousness (awareness of the social value of work, the necessity of norms, mastery of work tools, and understanding of industrial relations).

Klimov paid special attention to the history of psychology, reconstructing the development of psychological knowledge about labor in its pre-scientific forms. He supervised dozens of PhD and doctoral dissertations, and his students (e.g., N.S. Pryazhnikov, V.I. Tyutyunnik, O.G. Noskova) continued to develop his ideas.

He was the author of over 300 scientific publications, including textbooks for universities and schools (“Fundamentals of Psychology,” “Psychology”). His contributions were recognized with numerous awards: the Medal “For the Development of Virgin Lands,” the S.L. Rubinstein Prize of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Order of Honor, and the Gold Medal of the Russian Academy of Education “For Achievements in Science.” In 2004, he won the National competition “Golden Psyche” in the nomination “Patriarch of Russian Psychology.”

Evgeny Alexandrovich Klimov passed away on May 31, 2014, in Moscow, leaving behind a powerful scientific school and fundamental works that shaped the development of labor psychology in Russia for decades.

One of the most general and essential tasks inevitably arising when attempting to consciously organize and improve labor activity is the task of optimal active adaptation of the working individual to the objective demands of labor. The practical solution of this task necessitates the development of a series of psychological problems. From a practical standpoint, the question of the nature and extent to which labor activity is determined by stable individual differences between people acquires the greatest importance, since the modern pace of technical progress and the constant renewal of work methods often present the worker with the task of more or less substantial restructuring of their labor activity.

Among the professionally significant and at the same time the most stable individual differences, it is legitimate to include that are determined by the properties of the general type of higher nervous activity. Indeed, properties of the general type, which, as is known, manifest in the dynamic features of activity, should play an essential role in labor activity. On the other hand, these properties can rightly be considered as very stable (Pavlov, 1951, p. 334), although the above does not exclude the possibility of their restructuring within certain limits over a long period of time, which was recognized by I. P. Pavlov himself.

The historical experience of the formation of Russian science has shown that ignoring stable individual characteristics can be presented under a very revolutionary banner while remaining, in essence, a flawed direction in science. Thus, the organizer and director of the Central Institute of Labor (CIT) A. K. Gastev, proceeding from an “ultra-revolutionary” denial of stable individual differences, logically slides into asserting that the organizational approach to a person should not differ qualitatively from the approach applied to a machine-tool.

However, if these stable properties of the general type substantially influence activity characteristics, they must inevitably be taken into account, and here two fundamentally different approaches to solving the issue are possible.

1. If the natural predispositions of the personality are understood as something inflexible, compelling one to always resort to the same methods of action and to manifest the same mental characteristics in a given labor situation, then measures for the selection and sorting of individuals in accordance with the professional standard must be considered logical. Thus, the intended balancing of subjective and objective factors would be achieved by discarding “non-standard” workers. Precisely such an understanding of the nature of individual characteristics is characteristic of bourgeois psychotechnics.
2. If, however, the personality as a whole is understood as a flexible and plastic organization, then the fact of having professionally significant stable psychological characteristics makes the following formulation of the question legitimate. Apparently, thanks to the plasticity of the personality, manifested in the substitution (compensation) of insufficiently developed functions, the modification of professionally typical activity patterns in accordance with the most pronounced individual characteristics, and in other phenomena determining work style, different individuals in the same labor situation may resort to different methods of action depending on their individual characteristics. At the same time, in different labor situations, the same individuals may resort to different methods of action. Meanwhile, the practice of disseminating advanced experience in production is often structured such that the possibility of working differently is excluded, and uniform work methods are imposed on all workers. This latter circumstance with particular urgency prompts the study of the nature of individual characteristics of labor activity.

In this work, carried out under the guidance of Prof. V. S. Merlin, we set ourselves the task of elucidating the role of the mobility of nervous processes in the activity of multi-loom weavers.

The fact that we took into account only one typological property is motivated by the desire to obtain the most comparable diagnostic data, not complicated by a multitude of combinations of various typological properties. The choice of the “inertia–mobility” parameter is determined by the uniqueness of the multi-machine operator’s activity, which places the highest demands on those worker characteristics whose connection with mobility is most probable. At the same time, from all activity indicators, we selected only those which most likely depend on this typological property.

Method

2.1. Procedure

The research was conducted at a flax mill where multi-loom operation (servicing three and, at most, four heavy looms) is so-called “super-typical,” i.e., not mandatory but depending on the worker’s own initiative. The latter, to a certain extent, guarantees that our subjects possess an active positive attitude towards work.

2.2. Mobility Testing Methods

1. Restructuring of a Visual-Motor Stereotype. The subject was presented with two red and two blue signals, which were lit (with a five-second interval) in the following order: R~1~B~1~B~2~R~2~. Then, after a 10-second pause, the “reset” sound of an electric chronometer was heard, and after another 5 seconds, the presentation of the stereotype of colored stimuli began again. According to preliminary instructions, the subject had to press a bulb as quickly as possible in response to the lighting of the red signal and refrain from pressing in response to the blue signal. After twenty presentations of the stereotype, a new instruction was given, changing the signal meaning of the stimuli to the opposite, and the stereotype was applied another five to ten times. The order of signal presentation remained unchanged.

If the subject, following the change in signal meaning of the stimuli, on average increased the latent time of positive reactions compared to that before the stereotype restructuring^[1], this was regarded as a manifestation of relative inertia. If the subject retained the previous latent time or reduced it without making erroneous presses, this was considered an expression of relative mobility. Accordingly, the first subjects received the diagnosis “inert,” the second — “mobile.” Subjects who reduced latent time after restructuring but made errors, and subjects who did not develop a stereotype (showing erroneous presses in the last trials before restructuring), were considered insufficiently characteristic from the standpoint of the diagnosed typological properties and were not taken into account during data processing.

2. Method of Aftereffect of Conditioned Inhibition (Leites, 1956, p. 182–207). For technical reasons, only the series with a one-second interval between stimuli was used. Depending on the presence or absence of inhibitory aftereffect or positive induction in the first two seconds after the presentation of the conditioned inhibitor, subjects received the diagnosis “inert” or “mobile”.

It should be noted that in experiments using both the first and second methods, our diagnosis reliably refers to one of the basic nervous processes—the inhibitory one—whereas the diagnostic characteristic of excitation of the same name, while not excluded, is still either unaccounted for or not very reliable. However, the main work indicators of the subjects, compared with mobility, are related to the transition from one active activity to another, and this inevitably requires mobility of inhibition, as the preceding activity must be urgently halted. Regarding labor actions, one should remember that coordination processes necessarily imply an active function of inhibition. In this connection, comparing indicators of labor activity with the results of the described laboratory tests seems entirely legitimate to us.

Henceforth, we will, without special reservation in each case, use expressions such as “mobile” and “inert” in relation to our subjects. One should, however, bear in mind the just explained conventionality of these characteristics.

Of the 60 observed multi-loom weavers, 41 individuals provided sufficiently characteristic results for determining mobility in experiments with stereotype restructuring^[2]. Among them, 35 (85%) had diagnoses that coincided according to both methods. Statistical processing of these data by the so-called “four-field” method (Betz, 1923; Pomorsky, 1929–1930, pt. I, p. 236) yields a correlation coefficient r = 0.68 ± 0.09.

N.S. Leites, discussing the method of aftereffect of conditioned inhibition, suggests that it could be an indicator of either balance or mobility. The correlation just noted makes it most probable that the method of aftereffect of conditioned inhibition tests the mobility of nervous processes.

For further analysis, only those subjects were selected who had matching results in the tests according to both methods.

The results of laboratory experiments testing mobility were compared with the results of observing the characteristics of the subjects’ labor activity under workshop conditions.

Based on workplace characteristics, the subjects fall into three groups: 1) servicing four looms (“four”), 2) servicing three looms (“normal triple”), 3) servicing three looms, one of which is significantly removed from the other two (“scattered triple”).

When servicing the workplace, the weaver, performing short and long transitions, moves from loom to loom to carry out various jobs, which we subdivide as follows:

1. A) Preventive Work (actions for warp care performed on a running loom to prevent its prolonged stoppage were counted);
2. B) Urgent Work (actions for servicing a stopped loom to start it as soon as possible).

Furthermore, transitions can be made for the sole purpose of inspection, not accompanied by executive actions.

The listed types of transitions are subdivided into urgent and non-urgent, depending on whether there are looms idling due to waiting for the worker or not.

While servicing a stopped loom, the weaver must simultaneously “look around” at the other running looms as often as possible to avoid missing breaks, defects, etc. These inspection actions performed in an urgent situation (loom stopped) are hereafter designated by us as “orienting reactions.”

• Indicators

1. Individual Differences in Orienting Activity. Here, the following were taken into account: (a) the “record” frequency of orienting reactions per minute; (b) the “total” or “single” character of these reactions (i.e., whether the weaver glances at all looms in succession or only at one of them, so that at the next distraction from work she glances at another loom, etc.); (c) the number of cases of “record” frequency of orienting reactions observed in a given worker.

The choice of orienting reactions as an activity indicator compared with mobility is based on the assumption that characteristics of attention (frequency of switching) are somehow dependent on the mobility of nervous processes (Bao-Hua, 1958).

2. Individual Differences in the Number of Urgent Jobs per Unit of Time. The necessity to perform urgent jobs requires a rapid transition from one activity to another.
3. Individual Differences in the Number of Preventive Jobs per Unit of Time.
4. Individual Differences in the Ratio of the Number of Long Transitions Performed for: (a) urgent, (b) preventive jobs, as well as quantitative features in the ratio of short and long transitions undertaken for the purpose of inspection.
5. Individual Differences in the Speed and Uniformity of Long Transitions: a) in an urgent situation, b) in a non-urgent situation.
6. Individual Differences in the Speed and Uniformity of Labor Actions for Extracting Threads When Correcting a Defect.

The characteristics of the labor activity of each weaver were established based on continuous records (“photographs”), time-study, and other selective observations. Conversations were conducted with the subjects, in particular aiming to establish what they consider most important in their work. It was clarified what advice they consider necessary to give to novice workers based on their personal experience.

We proceeded from the assumption that characteristics of the general type manifest themselves in the most difficult, tense situations. Therefore, having selected only multi-loom weavers for the study, we, in addition, in a number of cases used the “record method.” Thus, to characterize the frequency of orienting reactions, not the arithmetic mean of ten cases was taken, but the variant with the maximum value. From three hourly “photographs,” one corresponding to the tensest situation (maximum urgent jobs) was chosen for analysis.

To characterize the pace and rhythm of transitions and executive actions, commonly accepted variation-statistical indicators were used.

To ascertain the presence of mutual connection between individual activity indicators, inter-component correlation was conducted (Pomorsky, 1929–1930, pt. II, p. 236, ch.XXII).

[1] For comparison, two presentations of the stereotype immediately before its restructuring were taken on the one hand, and two presentations after the restructuring on the other. The tests were conducted under laboratory conditions directly on the premises of the enterprise (in the physiotherapy room of the first-aid post).

Results

Experimental tests of mobility using both methods yielded the following results (means). The percentage ratio of the maximum mean latent time in one of the first two seconds after the conditioned inhibitor to the latent time of the “background” positive reaction in “mobile” subjects was 90 ± 1.7%. In “inert” subjects, it was 125 ± 2.9%. In the experiments employing the motor stereotype method, the percentage ratio of the mean latent time after the restructuring of the stereotype to the latent time before the restructuring was 94 ± 1.3% for the “mobile” subjects and 122 ± 2.8% for the “inert” subjects.

What are the quantitative relationships between individual characteristics of work activity and the mobility of nervous processes in the groups of “inert” and “mobile” subjects? Based on our data, the following can be established.

Work productivity does not depend on the degree of mobility of nervous processes. The distribution of the selected group of subjects by workplace type and their output indicators are presented in Table 1.

As the table shows, “inert” and “mobile” multi-loom operators do not exhibit significant differences in the quantitative and qualitative indicators of monthly output. However, while achieving equally high results, “inert” and “mobile” workers achieve this through somewhat different means, creating their own individual work style, rather than converging on some “ideal” standard.

This is manifested in the existence of specific individual characteristics of work activity that reliably correlate with mobility in various work situations.

Thus, it was found that “inert” workers typically undertake urgent tasks fewer times per unit of time than “mobile” workers. The absolute number of urgent tasks for “inert” workers on four looms averaged 33 per hour, compared to 43 for “mobile” workers; for workers on three looms, the figures were 27 and 37, respectively. The corresponding correlation coefficient with respect to mobility was 0.68 ± 0.12 for the three-loom group and 0.67 ± 0.16 for the four-loom group.

It should be noted that, all other things being equal, a lower number of urgent tasks implies less machine downtime and is therefore highly desirable (provided it is not achieved at the expense of lengthening each individual task).

At the same time, “inert” workers undertake preventive tasks more frequently. The number of preventive tasks per unit of time (hour) is inversely related to mobility. For three-loom operators, the corresponding correlation coefficient was -0.54 ± 0.16; for four-loom operators, r = -0.60 ± 0.17.

Comparing this finding with the previous one suggests that “inert” workers avoid frequent urgent tasks by allocating a significant portion of their time to preventive work.

For the majority of “inert” workers, the number of long-distance transitions across the workplace for preventive tasks exceeds the number of transitions for urgent tasks. For the majority of “mobile” workers, urgent transitions (for urgent tasks) predominate. The corresponding correlation coefficient with mobility was 0.57 ± 0.15 for three-loom operators and 0.86 ± 0.06 for four-loom operators.

The speed of urgent long-distance transitions did not show a systematic relationship with mobility. The mean speed of long-distance transitions in urgent situations yielded the following correlation coefficients with mobility: +0.08 ± 0.23 for three-loom operators and +0.08 ± 0.29 for four-loom operators. For transitions in non-urgent situations, the analogous coefficients were -0.42 ± 0.19 for three-loom operators and -0.17 ± 0.28 for four-loom operators.

In non-urgent situations, “inert” workers moved somewhat faster on average than “mobile” workers. In urgent situations, this difference diminished to a greater or lesser extent. “Inert” workers appear to avoid the need to significantly alter their transition speed by maintaining a consistently high pace in both urgent and non-urgent situations. Admittedly, both “inert” and “mobile” workers adjusted their speed depending on the urgency and criticality of the situation. However, “inert” workers altered their speed to a lesser extent on average (by 19.7% for three-loom operators and 17% for four-loom operators) compared to “mobile” workers (by 23% and 30%, respectively).

The coefficient of variation (v) was selected as an indicator of the evenness or variability of the pace of transitions. This coefficient represents the percentage ratio of the standard deviation to the arithmetic mean (Pomorsky, 1929–1930, Ch. XVI). It was found that in non-urgent situations, the variability of transition pace was, on average, somewhat lower for “inert” workers (v = 9.5% for three-loom operators, v = 7.5% for four-loom operators) than for “mobile” workers (v = 9.7% and 11.6%, respectively). With the onset of an urgent situation requiring faster movements, the variability of transition pace for “inert” workers generally increased (v = 10% for three-loom operators, v = 9.9% for four-loom operators), whereas for “mobile” workers it decreased (v = 7.9% and 9.6%, respectively). This indicates an increase in the evenness of transitions for “mobile” workers and a decrease for “inert” workers when movements are accelerated. The corresponding correlation coefficient with mobility was 0.49 ± 0.17 for three-loom operators and 0.85 ± 0.08 for four-loom operators.

Actions involving thread removal during defect correction are always performed in a more or less critical situation (with at least one loom idle). The average speed of these actions did not correlate significantly with mobility (r = 0.28 ± 0.27 for three-loom operators, r = 0.51 ± 0.21 for four-loom operators). However, for “inert” workers, the most frequent value (mode) of action speed was typically lower than the central value (median); for “mobile” workers, the mode was more often higher (“faster”) than the median. This described relationship between mode and median yielded a correlation with mobility of r = 0.61 ± 0.18 for three-loom operators and r = 0.85 ± 0.08 for four-loom operators.

In this case, the coefficient of variation was, on average, approximately the same for both “inert” and “mobile” workers. However, it is noteworthy that the variability of the pace of actions for “inert” workers was relatively higher during their fastest performances, whereas for “mobile” workers, the opposite was true. For instance, when arranging all action time measurements in ascending order and calculating the coefficients of variation separately for the “fast” and “slow” halves of the series, this coefficient for “inert” workers was typically higher in the “fast” half and lower in the “slow” half, while for the majority of “mobile” workers, the pattern was reversed. The correlation coefficient for this feature with mobility was 0.82 ± 0.09 for three-loom operators and 0.85 ± 0.08 for four-loom operators.

Interviews with the subjects revealed that “inert” and “mobile” workers evaluate the role of speed and acceleration in their work differently. “Inert” workers typically believe that rushing leads to poorer work quality. “Mobile” workers, conversely, emphasize the importance of agility. Statistical processing of the material yielded a correlation coefficient with mobility of 0.57 ± 0.15 for three-loom operators and 0.71 ± 0.14 for four-loom operators. “Inert” workers often stressed the particular importance of workplace preparation before the shift begins, stating that while one should not rush, one must “work continuously,” avoid wasting time, and tend to the looms in an orderly fashion. They frequently recounted that when first starting multi-loom operation, they would rush and consequently “become utterly exhausted,” “dash about,” “throw themselves at the looms,” but later realized this was counterproductive. “Mobile” workers typically stated that speed is the main thing in their work (“the faster you move, the faster you get the looms running again”), emphasizing the need to quickly resolve yarn breaks and defects, and to keep up with monitoring the looms.

Alongside the individual work characteristics typical of “mobile” and “inert” workers in various work situations, another group of individual characteristics exists. These also correlate with the degree of mobility of nervous processes, but they are completely different, sometimes even opposite, when working on three versus four looms. This is particularly evident in the features of orienting activity.

Thus, “inert” three-loom operators were distracted from urgent work to inspect other looms less frequently than “mobile” operators. The (unweighted) arithmetic mean of the peak frequency of orienting reactions per minute for three-loom operators was 5.6. “Inert” workers averaged 4.5 orienting reactions per minute, while “mobile” workers averaged 6.8. The correlation coefficient between the mobility diagnosis and the frequency of orienting reactions was 0.75 ± 0.10.

At the same time, “mobile” three-loom operators exhibited a lower number of “peak frequency” orienting reactions compared to “inert” operators. This parameter showed an inverse correlation with mobility: r = -0.60 ± 0.14. Furthermore, for the majority (66%) of “inert” three-loom operators, a predominance of “summative” orienting reactions was observed, whereas for the majority (88%) of “mobile” operators, single reactions predominated. The predominance of “summative” reactions showed a probable (not entirely reliable) inverse correlation with mobility: r = -0.40 ± 0.18.

Completely different individual characteristics of orienting activity in work correlated with mobility among four-loom operators.

“Inert” four-loom operators were distracted from urgent work to inspect other looms more frequently than “mobile” operators. The mean number of peak orienting reactions per minute for four-loom operators was 4.8. “Inert” workers were distracted an average of 5.5 times per minute, while “mobile” workers were distracted 4.2 times per minute. The correlation between the frequency of orienting reactions and mobility was inverse: r = -0.71 ± 0.14.

The number of instances of frequent orienting reactions did not correlate with mobility (r = 0.09 ± 0.28). The predominance of summative or single reactions also showed no notable relationship with mobility (r = 0.01 ± 0.28).

Thus, substantial differences in orienting activity among four-loom operators compared to three-loom operators are readily apparent. It is interesting to note that all the weavers, without a single exception, stated that one should inspect the looms as often as possible.

The absolute number of long-distance transitions undertaken by three-loom operators for loom inspection was approximately the same for “mobile” and “inert” workers, showing no correlation with mobility whatsoever: r = -0.08 ± 0.22. However, when examining the ratio of long to short transitions (within each group), it was found that for the majority (75%) of “inert” three-loom operators, there was a relative predominance of long-distance transitions over short ones, whereas for the majority (75%) of “mobile” operators, the opposite ratio was observed. The predominance of long over short transitions in three-loom operators yielded an inverse probable correlation with mobility: r = -0.42 ± 0.18.

Among four-loom operators, the number of long-distance inspection transitions was higher for “mobile” workers (averaging 20) compared to “inert” workers (averaging 10). This relationship showed a weak positive correlation with mobility (r = 0.35 ± 0.25). At the same time, in 100% of cases, “inert” four-loom operators showed a predominance of short inspection transitions, whereas 53% of “mobile” four-loom operators showed a predominance of long ones. The predominance of long over short inspection transitions in four-loom operators yielded a positive probable correlation with mobility (r = 0.52 ± 0.21). (Recall that for three-loom operators, the relationship of the characteristics just described to mobility was directly opposite).

The indicators of work activity identified above, which demonstrated a reliable statistical correlation with mobility, are not merely a set of disparate elements but form a cohesive entity characterizing a work style. This is evidenced by the satisfactory magnitude of the “intra-complex” coefficients (Pomorsky, 1929–1930, Part II, Ch. XXII). For three-loom operators, this coefficient, representing the average of 28 inter-component correlation coefficients, was 0.50. For four-loom operators, based on 22 coefficients, it was 0.52.

On the other hand, these complexes do not represent a standard pattern uniformly inherent in all “inert” or all “mobile” workers. Within the group of “inert” workers, as well as among the “mobile” ones, individual differences are, in turn, observed. This is indirectly suggested, among other things, by the relatively modest magnitude of the intra-complex coefficient. However, an examination of these individual differences falls outside the scope of the present study.

Discussion

Since the productivity levels of “inert” and “mobile” workers are nearly identical, the individual characteristics of their work activities cannot be attributed to differing attitudes toward work. Consequently, the statistical correlation of these characteristics with differences in mobility indicates that they are determined by the properties of the general type of nervous system. However, this determination of work style by typological properties manifests itself differently depending on the nature of the objective conditions of the activity. This explains why workers of the same type may exhibit opposite features in their work if they operate under substantially different objective conditions.

The relatively infrequent orienting reactions observed in “inert” workers managing three looms appear to be successfully compensated by: (1) a higher number of instances of the most frequent orienting reactions; (2) a slight predominance of cumulative reactions over single ones; and (3) a slight predominance of distant transitions for inspection over close ones. It should be noted that the workers are not fully conscious of these subtleties in structuring their own orienting activity.

The environment at a multi-loom weaver’s workplace, being highly dynamic, constantly poses the “threat” of urgent tasks and associated downtime. In this context, “mobile” workers see their main task as quickly dealing with these urgent jobs, which their maneuverability enables them to do. In contrast, “inert” workers prefer to shield themselves from such work “surges” by paying increased attention to preventive maintenance. At the same time, “mobile” workers, relying on their quickness, often underestimate the importance of preventive work. These differences are, to some extent, reflected in the workers’ verbal reports about their activities.

The decrease in the smoothness of movements as their speed increases in “inert” workers is apparently explained by a less successful restructuring of the motor stereotype, necessitated by the acceleration. “Inert” weavers report that when they hurry, “everything falls out of their hands” and their “hands shake,” while mobile workers say, “hands race by themselves” and “speed is the main thing.”

As observed, “inert” workers typically strive to work at a consistently high pace, even in non-urgent situations, trying to avoid sudden accelerations or “surges” in work. But why, then, is the frequency of orienting reactions higher in “inert” four-loom weavers than in their “mobile” counterparts? First, it should be noted that the frequency of orienting reactions in four-loom weavers is generally lower than in three-loom weavers. This is apparently because working on four looms places relatively higher demands on executive functions: it is more efficient to “do more” than to “watch more”. Therefore, “mobile” workers shift the focus of their work to their inherent relatively high motor capabilities—maneuverability and quickness; they spend less time “watching” the looms and more time making inspection rounds. For “inert” four-loom weavers, frequent orienting reactions begin to play a compensatory role (alongside the predominance of close inspection rounds), thereby partially relieving them of the need to exhibit the maneuverability and quickness that are not characteristic of them.

It appears that both “inert” and “mobile” workers plan, structure, and organize their work activities in any given environment, taking their individual characteristics into account.

Thus, it can be said that the type of higher nervous activity is associated not with individual indicators, the “atoms” of activity, but with the general style of work in a given work situation (see, in this context, Oshanin, 1957).

Some of our observations indicate that an individual work style (e.g., of an “inert” four-loom weaver) is not formed easily and is sometimes accompanied by prolonged searching. Apparently, these searches do not always lead to success. This is indirectly supported by the fact that throughout the entire period of data collection, the percentage of “inert” workers among four-loom weavers consistently remained at a noticeably lower level than among three-loom weavers, where the work was relatively less intense (see also Table 1). Thus, in cases where we do not consciously intervene in the vocational training process to cultivate an appropriate work style in each individual, we are forced to acknowledge the occurrence of a spontaneous natural selection of workers for multi-loom operation. It seems that the main goal of Soviet labor psychology is not so much professional selection as it is to eliminate the very fact of such selection by rationalizing the training process.

In our view, the presented material allows us to outline some paths for the individualization of vocational training, pointing to different ways workers can balance themselves with external conditions of activity, depending on the characteristics of their general type of higher nervous activity (Teplov, 1955, 1956).

Conclusions

1. The productivity level of work activity, as reflected in the percentage of output norm fulfillment, does not depend on the mobility of nervous processes.
2. There exist certain individual characteristics in the work activity of weavers that are sufficiently stable for “inert” or “mobile” workers and manifest themselves across different work situations.
3. In different work situations, substantially different or even directly opposite individual characteristics of work activity may correlate with mobility.

References

1. Bao-Hua, Y. (1958). Individualnye razlichiya kozhno-galvanicheskoy reaktsii u cheloveka [Individual differences of the galvanic skin response in humans]. Doklady Akademii Pedagogicheskikh Nauk RSFSR, 1.
2. Betz, V. (1923). Problema korrelyatsii v psikhologii [The problem of correlation in psychology]. Moscow.
3. Gastev, A. K. (1927). Ustanovka proizvodstva metodom TsIT [Production setup using the Central Institute of Labor method]. Moscow.
4. Leites, N. S. (1956). K voprosu o tipologicheskikh razlichiyakh v posledeystvii vozbuditelnogo i tormoznogo protsessov [On the question of typological differences in the aftereffect of excitatory and inhibitory processes]. In B. M. Teplov (Ed.), Tipologicheskie osobennosti vysshey nervnoy deyatelnosti cheloveka. Izdatel’stvo Akademii Pedagogicheskikh Nauk RSFSR.
5. Oshanin, D. A. (1957). K voprosu o variativnosti vspomogatelnogo vremeni pri rabote na metallorezhushchikh stankakh [On the question of variability of auxiliary time when working on metal-cutting machines]. Doklady Akademii Pedagogicheskikh Nauk RSFSR, 4.
6. Pavlov, I. P. (1951). Polnoe sobranie sochineniy (2nd ed., Vol. 3, Pt. 2). Moscow-Leningrad.
7. Pomorsky, Yu. L. (1929–1930). Variatsionnaya statistika [Variational statistics] (Vols. 1–2). Leningrad.
8. Popesku-Nevyanu, P. G. (1954). Opyt issledovaniya tipovykh osobennostey vysshey nervnoy deyatelnosti cheloveka [An attempt at researching typical features of human higher nervous activity]. Uchenye zapiski LGU. Seriya filosofskikh nauk, 185(6).
9. Teplov, B. M. (1955). O ponyatiyakh slabosti i inertnosti nervnoy sistemy [On the concepts of weakness and inertness of the nervous system]. Voprosy psikhologii, 1.
10. Teplov, B. M. (1956). Nekotorye voprosy izucheniya obshchikh tipov vysshey nervnoy deyatelnosti cheloveka i zhivotnykh [Some questions in the study of general types of higher nervous activity in humans and animals]. In B. M. Teplov (Ed.),