As business office manager of Group HMO, Inc., Dana Smith was responsible for the work of approximately 45 employees, of whom 26 were classified as secretarial or clerical. At the direction of the HMO president, a team of outside systems analysis consultants was contracted to make a time study and work method analysis of Smith's area to improve the efficiency and output of the business office.

The consultants began by observing and recording each detail of the work of the secretarial and clerical staff. After 2 days of preliminary observation, the consultants indicated that they were prepared to begin their time study on the next day.

The next morning, five of the business office employees participating in the study were absent. On the following day, 10 employees were absent. Concerned, Smith sought to find reasons for the absenteeism by calling her absent employees. Each related basically the same story. Each was nervous, tense, and physically tired after being a "guinea pig" during the 2 days of preliminary observation. One told Smith that his physician had advised him to ask for a leave of absence if working conditions were not improved.

Shortly after the telephone calls, the head of the study team told Smith that if there were as many absences on the next day, his team would have to delay the study. He stated that a scientific analysis would be impossible with 10 employees absent. Realizing that she would be held responsible for the failure of the study, Smith was very concerned.

Questions 

What caused the reactions to the study? Could these reactions have been predicted? How? What steps should Smith take to get the study back on track?