“Especially in the mines, interactions with supervisors seem to occur within a rigid subordinate relationship concerning workplace safety, and there are complaints about inadequate safety measures and accident risks.” – Adorno et al., 1955

 

An early exploration of workplace climate

Workplace climate is an intangible but vital element of an organization, encompassing the mood, behaviors, and attitudes that shape the daily experiences of workers.

One of the most compelling explorations of workplace climate comes from a 1955 study by Theodor W. Adorno’s Frankfurt Institute for Social Research. Conducted in five gigantic industrial plants of the Mannesmann metal industry company, close to 1200 interviews were conducted and more than 500 workers participated in group discussions. The study looked into the structural and emotional factors influencing workplace climate:

“The ‘climate’ of a workplace is influenced as much by how workers and employees are treated there as by the emotional state they bring with them—if such an emotional state exists independently of specific social conditions at all.”

 

Worker satisfaction and priorities

The Mannesmann study revealed that workers equally prioritize tangible needs and recognition. Among their top concerns were good pay, job security, and recognition for their work. In job satisfaction, financial stability and respect were found to be equally important. While safety measures, personal support, career advancement, and social programs were also valued, they were considered secondary priorities.

 

The centrality of safety

Safety did emerge as a significant concern across Mannesmann's various company sections, but most of all in mining, where workers reported inadequate safety measures and accident prevention systems. The study uncovered a dissonance between safety expectations and realities at the coalface:

“Especially in the mines, interactions with supervisors seem to occur within a rigid subordinate relationship concerning workplace safety, and there are complaints about inadequate safety measures and accident risks.”

Despite these challenges, the role of supervisors in influencing workers’ perceptions of safety and fairness proved critical. Workers’ trust and satisfaction were strongly influenced by how supervisors balanced authority with empathy and respect.

 

The role of supervisors and management

Supervisors played an important role in workers’ day-to-day experiences. Workers appreciated leaders who demonstrated impartiality, respect, acknowledgment of good performance, and human connection. Conversely, harsh communication, favoritism, and a lack of transparency were common sources of dissatisfaction.

While immediate supervisors were seen as approachable, higher management often appeared distant and disconnected from the workers’ realities, further contributing to the perceived gap between the workforce and leadership.

 

Beyond wages

Although wages were a central concern, workers assessed their compensation by incorporating factors such as job responsibilities, comparisons with colleagues, and broader economic considerations such as inflation. Perceptions of fairness and recognition often mattered as much as financial compensation itself.

 

Communication and representation

Effective communication and meaningful representation were essential to worker satisfaction at Mannesmann. Workers valued union representatives and works councils but expressed a desire for greater accessibility and stronger advocacy for their interests.

Large-scale formal meetings were criticized as impersonal and ineffective, with workers preferring smaller, department-level gatherings to address concerns more directly and efficiently.

Twenty-five years later, Dov Zohar (1980) advocated open communication for safety:

"Communication links between workers and management are kept open, enabling a flow of information regarding production as well as safety matters” (Zohar, 1980, p. 97).

 

Modern implications of the Mannesmann Study

Although conducted seven decades ago, the Mannesmann study's findings remain relevant to contemporary workplaces. They underline that a thriving workplace climate requires more than policies and communication infrastructure; genuine commitment to understanding and addressing the human experience is needed.

Three takeaways from the classic study:

• Workers often feel disconnected from higher management, perceiving them as distant and uninvolved in daily realities;
• Workers value supervisors who demonstrate impartiality, acknowledge good performance, maintain respect, and foster meaningful human connections;
• Workers express a strong desire for effective communication and meaningful representation.

 

In the Mannesmann study, workplace safety was an integral part of the study. A quarter of a century later, Dov Zohar wrote in his seminal paper on safety climate that safety should not be treated as an isolated issue but rather as an integral part of the production system, tied to management’s broader control over processes. The Mannesmann-study stressed that:

“The quality of behaviors, such as those that make up the workplace climate, can only be understood in a dynamic relationship to the quality of what is being responded to.”

 

Sources:

Adorno, T.W. (ed., 1955), Betriebsklima – eine industriesoziologische Untersuchung aus dem Ruhrgebiet, Frankfurt am Main: Europäische Verlagsanstalt.

Zohar, D. (1980), “Safety Climate in Industrial Organizations: Theoretical and Applied Implications,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 65, No. 1, pp. 96-102.