AN ANALYSIS OF THE. PERCEIVED
QRGANEZED STRUCTURE AND SOCIOMETRIC

APPLICATION W A REGION

Thesis for Hm Degree of M. A.
WERE-SAN STATE URIVERSETY
.Fack Eberhardt Damson
1965

LIBRARY

1H ESIS

Michigan State
University

 

R.

fig
U

E3

5
0

3

WE E

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF THE PERCEIVED ORGANIZED STRUCTURE
AND SOCIOMETRIC APPLICATION IN A REGION

by Jack Eberhardt Damson

This thesis is concerned with the problem of describing, interpreting,
and evaluating a procedural framework for the planning of development activity
in a specified geographic area. This procedural framework formed the outline
of a research study done on the perceived organized structure and sociometric
application in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The framework consists of the
following five steps:

1. The location and definition of organized interest sectors.

2. The identification of the influential organizations within the
sectors.

3. An indication of the key leadership representing the organized
interest.

4. The location and description of interaction patterns among the
organizations and interest sectors.

5. The validation of the procedure through the actual assistance in
planning development activities.

The first stage of this thesis dealt with the first three steps of the
framework, while the second stage was concerned with the fourth. The fifth
step was considered beyond the scope of the research project but is addressed
in part by this thesis. The two stages were examined with regard to their

theoretic rationale, methodology and findings. The methodologies employed

Jack Eberhardt Damson

were the reputational and sociometric methods, which were subsequently
described in terms of their application in the research project under analysis.
Of primary concern in the third stage of this thesis, was an evaluative
critique and detailed analysis of the research design as presented in the
previous two stages.

The thesis methodology essentially consisted of a comparison of pro-
cedures utilized in the project with those outlined and recommended in the
social science literature. Based on the literature were suggestions for the
strengthening or revision of the research study design.

It was generally concluded that the procedural framework, including the
use of the reputational and sociometric methods, can indeed provide a viable
and operational means for assisting in deve10pment activities and for contri-
bution to organizational knowledge. More specifically, it was demonstrated
that (l) a comprehensive inventory of influential organizations can be obtained
for a specific region, and (2) a sociometric technique can locate noticeable
patterns of interaction among organizations and interest sectors.

Terminating the thesis is an outline of problem areas which require
further refinement and investigation: (1) the identification of a manageable
region for study, (2) a defined procedure for organizational selection and
placement into interest sectors, (3) decisions pertaining to the nature of
organizational representation for the purposes of sociometric information,

(4) the construction of a precise sociometric design, and (5) the validation
of the procedural framework by actual assistance in planning development

activities.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE PERCEIVED ORGANIZED STRUCTURE

AND SOCIOMETRIC APPLICATION IN A REGION

BY

Jack Eberhardt Damson

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Sociology

1965

This thesis
is dedicated to my mother

HELEN EBERHARDT DAMSON (1909-1964)
who was totally committed to the service of others.

Her zest for learning and humanitarian concern has
played no small part in the direction of my life.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A thesis is seldom the product of one individual but is shaped
and guided by the support and efforts of many who may have, unknowingly,
influenced the end result. Two people who have been especially prominent
through their assistance and c00peration are Dr. Robert C. Anderson and
Harry Webb. Dr. Anderson initially provided the opportunity to work
on the project which formed the basis of this thesis and has been
instrumental throughout with his guidance and supervision. Both men
through their enthusiastic dedication to social science and patient

indulgence have contributed to the completion of this work.

******

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWIEDGWNTS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II. FIRST STAGE: THE PERCEIVED ORGANIZED STRUCTURE . . . . .

Theoretic Rationale
Methodology
Description of Results

III. SECOND STAGE: SOCIOMETRIC APPLICATION . . . . . . . . .

Theoretic Rationale
Methodology
Description of Results

IV. THIRD STAGE: CRITIQUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sociometric Application
Introduction
The Sociometric Method and Its Design
Sociometric Choice
Sociometric Scoring
Predictability
Fixed Choice
Multidimensionality
Sociometric Response and Administration
Item Sequence--Fatigue and Psychological Set
Item Content--Semantic Difficulties
Sociometric Transposition: Individual to Organization
Organizational Representation
Organizational Socialization

iii

Page

ii

vii

29

64

TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued

Chapter Page

The Perceived Organized Structure
Introduction
The Reputational Method and Its Application
Theory
Method
Organization Selection and Classification

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Summary of the Thesis
Conclusions

Problems for Future Research

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

iv

Table

10.

11.

12.

LIST OF TABLES

Organization Structure of the Upper Peninsula,
Schedule 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Organization Structure of the Upper Peninsula,
Schedule 1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Organization Structure of the Upper Peninsula,
Interest Area Summary--Forestry . . . . . . . .

Organization Structure of the Upper Peninsula,
Interest Area Summary--Transportation . . . . . . .

Organization Structure of the Upper Peninsula,
Interest Area Summary--Mass Communications . . . . .

Organization Structure of the Upper Peninsula,
Interest Area Summary--Manufacturing . . . . . .

Sociometric Questionnaire--Sociometric Analysis of
Organizations in Michigan's Upper Peninsula,
Schedule 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sociometric Analysis of Organizations in Michigan's Upper

Peninsula--Organizational Listing . . . . . . .

Rank Ordered Sociometric Scores Received and Given

By Selected Organizations in Michigan's Upper Peninsula

in Response to Item 1 . . . . . . . . . . .

Rank Ordered Average Organizational Sociometric Scores
Given and Received by Specified Interest Sectors in

Michigan's Upper Peninsula in Response to Item 1 . . . . .

Rank Ordered Average Organizational Sociometric Scores
Given and Received by Specified Interest Sectors in
Michigan's Upper Peninsula in Response to Item 2 . .

Rank Ordered Average Organizational Sociometric Scores

Given and Received by Geographic Regions of Michigan's

Upper Peninsula in Response to Item 1 . . . . . . .

Page

13

20

25

26

27

28

33

34

40

48

53

57

LIST OF TABLES--Continued

Table Page
13. Rank Ordered Average Organizational Sociometric Scores

Given and Received by Geographic Regions of Michigan's
Upper Peninsula in Response to Item 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

vi

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1. Sociogram Reflecting Perceived High Interaction
Among Interest Sectors in Michigan's Upper Peninsula
in Response to Item 1 . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

2. Sociogram Reflecting Perceived High Interaction
Among Interest Sectors in Michigan's Upper Peninsula

in Response to Item 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

3. Sociogram Reflecting Perceived High Interaction
Among Geographic Regions in Response to Item 1 . . . . . . . 58

4. Sociogram Reflecting Perceived High Interaction
Among Geographic Regions in Response to Item 2 . . . . . . . 58

vii

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Community, regional and national development programs have been the
objects of much concern and discussion in past years. Urban renewal, highway
construction and ”beautification" projects have been among the recent elements
associated with development activities. President Johnson's War on Poverty
has focussed interest on regional deve10pment, e.g. the Appalachia area. Much
has been written pertaining to the deve10pment of emerging nations or develop-
ment on a national scale. Examples here would include any number of newly
emergent African nations and developing South American countries.

These growth activities have threads of commonality running through
them. All are concerned with organization per se in varying degrees of
complexity. All are also concerned with acquiring support and resources.

This most necessarily involves obtaining the support of influentials and the
organizational units they represent. In order to acquire this support,
knowledge of who these leaders are and the nature of the organized structure
they represent must be accessible or available. Considerable effort could be
saved and expended elsewhere, if such information were existing prior to the
initial stages of a development project. If, indeed, pertinent material were
at hand regarding the organized interests and their leadership, growth and
development at any level would be greatly facilitated. A natural extension of
this vieWpoint would be the value of locating and defining the nature of

relationships between and among the organized interests. If it can be

established what kinds of relationships persist among the interest units, the
nature of and extent of the development programs can be more thoroughly planned
and thus enhanced. With this information available, planners would know what
kinds of programs could achieve what degree of success and which constella-
tions of organized interests could be expected to support or Oppose a program.
Logically one could assume that such an analysis could contribute to the
prediction of outcomes of political issues. Miller and Form1 have develOped

a ”theory of issue outcome" which, in certain aspects, is similar to the
project under consideration. The fundamental differences seem to be in the
method of determining relationships between units.

It appears that an outline has formed which contains the basic steps
leading to the attainment of the goal implied above. In actuality there are
two goals, one of which is ancillary. The major goal is the evolvement of a
working procedural framework in order to aid and assist in the planning of
development and growth programs. Associated with this is the consequent
contribution to the general body of organizational and interorganizational
knowledge of such a framework.

The £i£§£_step would appear to involve the location and definition of
interest sectors. Secondly, it is necessary to identify the major or prominent
organizations within these sectors. Thirdly, an indication should be made as
to the key influentials who represent the interest units. The fourth step
would consist of an attempt to locate and describe the interaction patterns
among the organizations and interest sectors. A.£i££h and final step would
then include a validation of this procedure through the actual assistance in

planning development activities.

 

lDelbert C. Miller, "The Prediction of Issue Outcome in Community
Decision Making," Research Studies of the State College of Washington,
25:137-47, June 1957.

Although these five steps appear to structure the situation quite
rigidly, many variables are involved which may influence the methods and
techniques used in the fulfillment of these steps. In respect to this, much
deviation or diversity can be expected to occur in the accomplishment of the
tasks involved. The diversity is often the result of value judgments, time-
space limitations, economic pressures or personality idiosyncracies.

Dr. Robert C. Anderson has initiated a project in which he incorporates
his ideas and procedures concerning the conduction of such a study. Three of
the steps as described above have been carried out, a fourth is partially
completed and the final validation phase awaits trial. It will be the problem
of this thesis to describe this project and to offer an interpretative
critical analysis upon which a decision on the validation phase may rest.

The first stgge (steps 1-3) of this thesis will involve a brief
description of a research study on the perceived organized structure of
Michigan's Upper Peninsula. This description will involve, in essence, a
paraphrasing of the primary features as considered by the project experimenters.
An attempt will be made to avoid evaluative comment on my part at this time.

The primary purpose of this first section will be to simply relate in an
objective manner the study as carried out by Dr. Anderson and his co-workers.

In this way a basis of familiarity will be established so that the forthcoming
analytic discussion can be made meaningful and shared with a common perspective.
A problem of major concern in this section will be the consolidation of the
project without losing or misrepresenting the author's meaning. In respect to
this, much of the description will contain direct quotes where deemed essential,
the inclusion of certain forms which were employed in the study, and a sampling
of the results in table form for illustrative purposes.

The second stage of the thesis will concentrate on the sociometric

 

phase (step 4) of the research study. Since this was the most recent part of
the research project, a secondary task of this thesis has been to develop a
presentation of the sociometric stage along with apprOpriate discussion of the
findings. As with the first stage, this chapter will follow the format of
first presenting the theoretic rationale, the methodology and, finally, the
results.

The third stage of the thesis will contain a critical analysis of the
project. This analysis will be expected to consist of a detailed examination
of the project as described. The thesis methodology at this point will
basically involve the following: A search of the literature is carried on for
material and information which is pertinent to the procedures examined. These
procedures are then compared to and discussed in light of their departure from
or adherence to precedent found in the social science literature. Advantages
and disadvantages,as outlined by social scientists of the basic methods used,
are presented and discussed in terms of their applicability to the research
study. Finally, in conjunction with this critical analysis, evaluative comment
is offered along with some constructive recommendation, where possible, for a
strengthening or revision of certain methodological procedures. Pervading the
analytic discussion is the concern with how adequately the procedures employed
in the research project contribute to the goals as set forth, i.e. a working
framework for development activities and contribution to organizational

knowledge.

CHAPTER II
FIRST STAGE: THE PERCEIVED ORGANIZED STRUCTURE1

Theoretic Rationale

Michigan's Upper Peninsula today, like all of modern society, is a
bureaucratic society; that is, most of its functional requirements are carried
out and controlled by complex organizations. Not only does modern society as
a whole tend to be bureaucratic, the most powerful social units which make up
modern society are bureaucracies.2 Not all of these social units are big and
powerful. In addition to big business, labor and industry,-there are political
parties, school systems, churches, small retail stores, voluntary associations,
etc., which make up a large part of the social web of a geographic region.

It is postulated that organized special-interest groups represent the
basic social units responsible for deve10pment. These, large or small, public
or private, special-interest groups act as deve10pment resource (1) holders,

(2) allocators, and/or (3) receivers or some combination of the above. Such

 

1Most of this chapter is composed of direct quotes from and paraphras-
ing of the works cited, as follows: Robert C. Anderson, Jack E. Damson and
Francis X. Mnlvihill, "The Perceived Organized Structure of Michigan's Upper
Peninsula--A Sociometric Analysis," a paper presented at the 1965 Rural Socio-
‘logical Society Meeting, Edgewater Beach Hotel, Chicago, Illinois; Robert C.
Anderson, "The Perceived Organized Structure of Michigan's Upper Peninsula,"
an unpublished Michigan State University Research Report, 1963; and Robert C.
Anderson and Gerald Connally, "The Perceived Organized Structure of Five
Selected Counties in the Grand Traverse Bay Region of Northwest Michigan," an
unpublished Michigan State University Research Report, 1965.

2Amitai Etzioni, Complex Organizations: A Sociological Reader, p. 257.

organizations are control mechanisms through which pgwggl for deve10pment is
generated and flows. As such, organized special-interest groups of a given
geographic area become basic development resources. They are in a position to
accumulate and control other types of resources necessary to achieve the
deve10pment goals of a given region.

Given, then, is the fact that development resources available to an
area are allocated to and through the informal and formal organized special
interests. But resource allocations or requests can be made only to that
which is known to exist or is perceived by those in a position to allocate or
request resources. If, in an area such as Michigan's Upper Peninsula, an
organized special-interest group is not perceived or recognized by others in
the region, the resources of this group are not generally available or used in
deve10pment efforts for that region. In the research study it is contended
that social systems (organizations) are in themselves basic resources (as is
air, water, iron, trees, etc.); there may be an abundance of them, but if they
are not discovered, perceived, or recognized by others as resources, then they

are not generally available for use in development activities.

 

1In the study, power is viewed as a social rather than an individual
phenomenon--power "not of a man" but on an "organizational" basis. Power is
considered to be derived from and in relationship to organized special-interest
sectors. This conceptualization of power as a system of social relationships,
presupposes in every community of interest a specific ongoing network of stable
subsystems, "social systems” or organizations activated by social, economic,
ethnic, religious, friendship, etc., ties and claims. The actions of these
systems, based on their interests, values, and powers have desirable conse-
quences for their members. That is, they tend to satisfy various human needs
of their members.

For an elaboration of this position, see Robert Presthus, Men At The
Top: A Study in Communiterower, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964;
Richard M. Emerson, "Power-Dependence Relations," American Sociological Review,
27:31-2, January 1962; Alvin L. Bertrand, "The Changing Power Structure in
Agriculture as a Dimension of Agrijustment--A Conceptual Approach to the Study
of Agricultural Power," Projection Papers, ed. James H. COpp, Rural Sociologi-
cal Society, 1964, pp. 20-24.

Social systems or organizations tend to persist over extended time
periods. Organization members do change, but the underlying network of inter-
related interests, power and relations continue. The organized units making
up the special-interest sectors of a given geographic area each possess a major
purpose or raison d'etre. These individual units collectively are linked by
issues of common concern. The units thus become parts of social systems and
subsystems. As specific issues rise and fall, overlapping coalitions of
special-interest groups are formed. Sometimes an organization is cooperating,
and at other times competing, sometimes engaged, at other times not involved
with other organized special-interest groups affected by issue resolvement.
As issues are addressed, some organizations are more powerful or
influential than others. An organization's power ranking will generally vary
with the issue to be solved. Organization involvement and influence in issue
resolvement and/or development depends upon the place a given organization
occupies in the legitimate "relevant order" of the organized community of
interest affected by the issue and/or the development activity.
Organizations are control systems, which for most people represent a
major part of their environment.
Man's life in contemporary society can be characterized largely as one
of organizational memberships. Man commits a major portion of his waking
hours to participation in at least one--and more often several--social
organizations. His motivation, aspirations, his general way of life are
tied inextricably to the organizations of which he is a part-~and even
to some of which he is not.

Organizations tend to be highly elaborated, relatively stable, and explicitly

defined in written as well as perceptual terms. Therefore, when organizations

become the focus for the analysis of development in man's environment, it

 

1Arnold Sherwood Tannenbaum, "Control in Organizations: Individual
Adjustment and Organizational Performance," Administrative Science Quarterly,
7:236-7, September 1962.

becomes a highly stable and predictable environment.

Organizations within a given geographic region or interest sector can
be seen as having a fabric of roles that constitute the structure of the region
or interest sector. Within this structure individual organizations act and
contribute in accordance with role prescriptions or expectations. They perform
and coordinate their activities with each other in accordance with the relation-
ships of their roles to other roles in the structure.1

Weiss and Jacobson point out that within a given organization its
structure can be assumed to remain relatively constant despite changes in per-
sonnel. If a member of a relatively stable organization is replaced, the new
member will ordinarily be expected to reestablish the work relations that the
previous incumbent had maintained with changes only in the more peripheral
contacts. Likewise within a geographic region or community of interests it
can be generally assumed that the structure remains relatively stable. That
if one organization and its role function is replaced, the new organization
will generally be expected to reestablish the work relations maintained by the
replaced organization.

The study was formulated around the postulate that the organized
structure of a geographic region, such as the Upper Peninsula, is made up of
constellations of interdependent interacting social systems, such as:

Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company; Kimberly-Clark Corporation; Clairmont Transfer
Company; Michigan Technological University; City Chamber of Commerce; city,
county and state government units; Upper Peninsula Tourist Association; stores
on main street, etc. All of these large or small organized systems when added

together make up the organized structure of the region. As such they represent

 

1A modification of the assumption made by Robert S. Weiss, Eugene
Jacobson, "A Method for the Analysis of the Structure of Complex Organizations,"
American Sociological Review, 20:661-68, December 1955.

major resource holding, allocating and receiving units for growth and develop-
ment of the region.

Constellations Of many specific organizations performing a wide range
of specialized functions make up what can be called Communities of Interest.
That is to say, for purposes Of the study, their primary activities center
around the specific Interest Sectors Of: (l) Forestry, (2) Agriculture,

(3) Fishing, (4) Mining, (5) Tourism, (6) Manufacturing, (7) Utilities,
(8) Transportation, (9) Communications, (10) Education, and (11) Service.

Each community Of interest is composed of widely diverse and specified
organizations. For example, the Communications community Of interest consists
Of such varied organized units as the Menominee County Journal, White Pine TV
Company, WMUP-TV, WMAB Radio, UP Microwave Corporation, 800 Cable Company, and
Teleprompter Of New York.

It is believed by the experimenters that the organized units composing
each community of interest may affect the development efforts in a region by
taking one of these three courses of action:

1. TO actively organize and support a given development project.

2. To maintain a neutral position in regard to a given deve10pment
project, but by so doing it becomes a potential source of organized
active support or Opposition to the development effort in question.

3. To actively organize Opposition to a given deve10pment project.

Six basic assumptions which compose the primary theoretical features of
the study are outlined. For the purpose of the research study it is assumed
that:

1. Social power is structured.

lO

2. Organizations (social systems),1 not individuals, are the basic
unit of power.

3. As such, organizations rather than individuals form major deve10p-
ment policies and decisions, are influential, are powerful, and
form coalitions to achieve common tasks.

4. The behavior of an organization is reflected in the actions Of its

members who are socialized through and have internalized the germs

 

of the organization.

5. Such members, whether they be classified as "Decision Makers,"
"Influentials," "Organization Leaders," or "Spokesmen," can and do
accurately reflect and transmit their organization's position on
most major issues.

6. Therefore, it is possible and realistic to expect members of a
given organization (key informants) to accurately and reliably
provide descriptive statements about past, present and future
organizational actiOn.

As will be noted, one Of the pervading theoretical notions which is
present in the study is the belief that individual members can accurately
reflect the interests of an organization. This belief is buttressed by the
apparent effectiveness of the socialization process which involves the incul-
cation of organizational values and norms. Most recent community power
studies are, in fact, studies of individuals who are considered to be influen-
tials, decision makers, spokesmen, etc. The individual members are referred

to throughout the research study by these labels, any or all of which are

 

1Charles F. Loomis, Social Systems, New York: D. Van Nostrand Company,
Inc., 1960. See pp. 1-44 for a description Of an explanation of the term
social system and how these interdependent units are integrated to form social
structure.

11

considered appropriate. Commonly used definitions and distinctions of these
terms are as follows:.

1. Decision Makers -- Those who proved to be directly involved in
vital organization and/or community decisions.

2. Tnfluentials or Influential Representatives -- Those who are
nominated as being potentially powerful in organizations and/or
community decisions.

3. Orggnization Leaders or Top Leaders -- Those who hold organiza-
tional offices, such as president, chairman, board member, etc.

4. Spokesmen -- Those who meet the public, represent the organization,
receive publicity but do not necessarily hold any decision-making
power in the organization.

Positional incumbent may refer to any Of the above mentioned who occupy

a formal position within the organizational structure. TOp positional incum-
bent does, however, pertain only to those who reside on the highest structural
level or who maintain an executive status. Key informants and knowledgeable
tOp-level personnel are blanket terms referring to any of the above.

It will be noted that in an examination of the first stage findings
(Tables 2-6)1 that several persons may be nominated as influentials for a par-
ticular organization. It has been stated that it is not one Of the Objectives
of the research study to classify or type the persons nominated into specific
categories. For this reason, they are listed under the general heading "TOp
Leaders."

This section has contained a theoretic rationale including a definition

of terms and the underlying assumptions of the first stage on the perceived

 

1These tables merely represent a selected sample of the summary charts
collected on the organized interests. These charts are meant neither to be
complete nor exhaustive.

12

organized structure. The methodological procedure involved will be the sub-

ject of the presentation in the succeeding section.

Methodology

The primary methodological tool utilized in the first stage of the
research study is a modified reputation-nomination method.1 The use of the
method is based on the premise that an organized power structure exists in
concretely definable terms for any given geographic region. The major goal Of
the'method is the identification and definition of the perceived organized
structure in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. This identification and definition
involves four distinct phases or steps.

The first step consists Of a review of statistical reports and deve10p-
ment studies relating specifically to the Upper Peninsula. The object of this
step is to locate the major sectors of interest groupings. Eleven areas were
defined, among which were Forestry, Mining, Tourism, Agriculture, Business,
Manufacturing, Fishing, Utilities, Transportation, Communication and Government.
This list does not represent an exhaustive nor mutually exclusive classifica-
tion.

The second step included the design Of an Open-ended interview schedule,
which would allow for the nomination of organizations and their influential
representatives indigenous to the defined interest sectors. Nominations were
made by peers in similar positions throughout the interest sectors.

In the interview schedule (Table 1), no attempt was made to limit the

number of organizations and/or influentials nominated. The schedule simply

 

1Floyd Hunter, Community Power Structure, Chapel Hill: University of

North Carolina Press, 1953, p. 297; and TOP Leadership, U.S.A., Chapel Hill:
University Of North Carolina Press, 1959, p. 268. Also, William V. D'Antonio
and Eugene C. Erickson, "The Reputational Technique as a Measure of Community
Power: An Evaluation Based on Comparative and Longitudinal Studies," American
Sociological Review, 27:362-76, June 1962.

13

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 1
ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE OF THE UPPER PENINSULA
SCHEDULE 1
Name Organization Date
_INTEREST AREA A* E** ORGANIZATION TOP LEADERSHIP
FORESTRY
Lumber
Paper
Chemical
Other
MINING
Iron
Copper

Non-metallic

Other

 

TOURISM
Food

Lodging
Recreation

Other

 

AGRICULTURE
Livestock

Cash crop
Cooperative

Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Area code: UP (T), East UP (E), Central UP (C), West UP (W), Michigan (M),Nation (N)
**Educational training and retraining activity (yes) (no).

14

TABLE l--Continued

 

INTEREST gm A* E** ORGANIZATION TOP EQERSLH

 

 

BUSINESS
Service

Retail
Wholesale

Financial &
Advisory

 

MANUFACTURING
Machinery

Food
Fabrics

Other

 

FISHING
Commercial

Processing
Sport

Other

 

UTILITIES
Electric

Telephone
Telegraph

Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Area code: UP (T),East UP (E),Central UP (C),West UP (W),Michigan (M),Nation (N).
**Educational training and retraining activity (yes) (no).

15

TABLE l--Continued

 

INTEREST AREA A* E** ORGANIZATION TOP LEADERSHIP

 

 

TRANSPORTATION
Air

Rail

Water

MOtor

 

COMMMNICATIONS
Newspaper

Radio
Television

Other

 

GOVERNMENT
Legislative

Regulatory
Educational

Service

 

OTHER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Area Code: UP (T),East UP (E),Central UP (C), West UP (W),Michigan (M),Nation (N).
**Educational training and retraining activity (yes) (no).

16

lists the categories along with suggestions as to the possible types of related
organizations within the categories. For example, under the interest area of
utilities are listed the subcategories of electric, telephone, telegraph and
other. This was done to provide a guide for the informants in order to facil-
itate the nominating of the organizations and their tOp leadership. Also
included in this interview schedule are two columns headed by an "AB” and an
”E**." Originally these two designations were constructed to Obtain additional
information on the organizations nominated as to their extent of Operations and
ongoing inservice training. This was soon dropped, however, as the acquisition
of the data proved too cumbersome.

The third step taken in the study design involved the definition Of the
pOpulation to be studied and an extraction Of a sample from this pOpulation.
The population consisted of only "knowledgeable top-level personnel" repre-
senting the organizations composing the interest sectors. A sample of
informants from this population were drawn initially by the County Cooperative
Extension Service Director of each county who was told to select those key
peOple "who were knowledgeable and legitimate representatives or holders of
Operational positions" in the respective interest areas.

The fourth step consisted of interviewing those selected informants in a
systematic county-by-county manner by one interviewer. The informants were
asked to nominate other organizations and leaders believed to be influential
in or among the eleven interest sectors.

The data obtained from the interviews were considered to be additive.
Thus, as new organizations were nominated, they were added to the total
structure. The frequency of nominations was used as a measure Of relative
importance of the organization to the region. The number Of informants inter-

viewed in each county varied, depending upon the situation in each county.

17

More interviews were conducted in counties of greater activities than in the
less diversified, more specialized counties. An estimated minimum of 6 and a
maximum of 12 or an average Of 9 interviews per county seemed to be sufficient
in order to accomplish the survey task in the Upper Peninsula study. Actual
interviews conducted ranged from a low of 4 in Dickinson County to a high of

17 in Marquette County. A total of 139 people were interviewed in 15 counties,
an average sample size Of 9.2 interviews per county. Houghton and Keweenaw
county data are reported together because Of the natural geographic and

economic similarity of these two counties.

Description of Results

The results Of the first stage consist of data summaries in the form of
tables, which are derived from the first three steps as identified in the
introduction. These steps, it will be recalled, involve the identification Of
interest sectors, the major organizations within the sectors and the influen-
tials who represent the interest groups.

The following will represent a description of these first stage findings
as interpreted from the project text. Since a complete replication of the
findings is not necessary here, only a few sample tables will be reproduced.
These tables will be examined and explained briefly, again reserving discussion
and comment until a later section of the thesis.

Table 2 includes a sample of the data accumulated in the systematic
interviewing of Upper Peninsula counties. In this case, Chippewa County is
selected for representation. The listing of the organizations and their key
leaders is the result of the Open-ended nomination technique described previ-
ously. Within each county, interest sectors were delineated along with the
most important organizations and leaders; i.e. those who were nominated two or

more times.

18

Tables 3-6 represent sample summary listings of four selected interest
areas in the Upper Peninsula. The four areas used are Forestry, Transporta-
tion, Mass Communications and Manufacturing. As reproduced here, the tables
are incomplete but do illustrate the form and content of the data compiled.

The findings (Tables 2-6) of the first stage imply a two-dimensional
aspect, that is a vertical and horizontal organized pattern. First of all
there is a horizontal dimension which shows the depth or number of organized
interests within a county, and secondly a vertical pattern which shows the
recognized regional or area scope of activity of a given organized interest in
the Upper Peninsula. In other words, the horizontal pattern shows the number
of organizations, their diversity and their range of activity within the coun-
ties. More specifically a particular interest area, such as Forestry, may
show a strong horizontal dimension through a large number of varied organiza-
tions within a county. The vertical pattern, on the other hand, is reflected
by a hierarchical orientation to regional, state and national organizations Of
the various local branches of the organized interests nominated. This vertical
aspect can be illustrated by such organizations as the Michigan Department of
Conservation, Kimberly-Clark, Inc., and WLUC-TV, all of which have a wide sc0pe
of regional influence plus connections with state and national organizations.

Table 2, which represents the perceived organized structure of Chippewa
County, illustrates the horizontal pattern or the depth of organized units
recognized in each of the eleven interest sectors within the county.

Tables 3-6 illustrate, besides the horizontal aspect, the vertical
dimension through the multi-county nomination of particular organizations
within the interest sectors. Also in these tables is noted the multi-nomination
of an organization through the use of a double X (XX). Single nominations are

represented by a single X (X).

19

The influence of these organizations may be viewed as either positive
or negative. That is the organizations listed are nominated because of the
potential perceived power to affect development activities. This power may be
used either to promote and activate specific deve10pment projects or to suc-
cessfully prevent such activities from occurring. In either case no value
judgment as to the goodness or badness of this implied power is in any way
incorporated into the study. Likewise the data presented in Tables 3-6 do not
measure the amount Of real or potential power held by any specific organization
listed. Rather, the nomination listing simply indicates that the collectivity
of organizations inventoried in each of the eleven interest sectors account
for most of the development power sources perceived to be active in Michigan's
Upper Peninsula.

Operating under the theory that a perceived organized structure can be
identified and defined in a particular geographic region, an inventory of
organizations and their tOp leadership was obtained through the use of a
modified reputation-nomination method. The theory, methodology and findings
of the first stage of the research project have been presented and the first
three steps of the procedural framework outlined in the introduction have been

completed and described.

20

TABLE 2

ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE OF THE UPPER PENINSULA

SCHEDULE 1 SUMMARY

CHIPPEWA COUNTY

FORESTRY (Lumber, Paper, Chemical, Other)

1. Kimberly Clark of Michigan, Inc.*
2. U.S.D.A. Forest Service*

3. Michigan Dept. Of Conservation*
4. Mich. College of Mining & Technology*
5. Mich. State University School of

Forestry Exp. Station*

6. Furlong Logging Co.*

7. Superior Studs*

8. Wood & Brooks CO.*

9. Taylor Lumber*

lO. Barrett Lumber Co.*

11. 75 Club*

12. Connor Lumber Co.

13. Ford MOtor Company

14. Manistique Pulp & Paper Co.

15. Thilmany Pulp & Paper Co.

16. Sawyer-Stall Lumber CO.

17. Goodman Lumber CO.

18. Union Carbide

19. Contractors
20. Industrial Comm. Ext. Comm.
21. Karl Pitko Sawmill
22. Wisconsin Land & Lumber CO.

MINING (Iron, Copper, Non-metallic, Other)

1. Drummond Dolomite, Inc.*

2. Wisconsin Land & Lumber Co.

3. Wood & Brooks CO.

4. Cedarville Limestone CO.

5. AFL-CIO Steel Workers

6. United Mine Workers Union

TOURISM

l. Sault Ste. Marie Chamber of Commerce*
2. U.P. Tourist Assn.*

W. R. Kellett (Pres.),*
R. E. McCraney*
Richard Ruppenthal,* Malcolm McIver
W. Lahmann*
Clayton Wray,* Walter Kepp

Maurice Day*

F. P. Furlong*

W. Parker Arthur*
(Buffalo, N.Y.) Bur Alo
Sprague Taylor*

Fern Barrett*

Clayton Wray*

Mr. Noblet

Frank Hoholik

Peter Noblet

George Tarbox

Harry Rath, Percy Scott,
Sprague Taylor, Lowell Lehman

Richard Burnett

Karl Pitko

(Hermansville, Michigan)

R. L. Miller,* A. w. Mueller (G.M.)* '
(Hermansville, Michigan)
(Buffalo, N.Y.) ’

Tom Bush
Robert Kutz (Cheboygan)

Otis Rightmyer*
Robert Champion,* Alex Goldaid
Ken Slater, Ken Dorman*

 

*Most important organization or leader.

OxOOONONLn-Dw

H

11.
12.
l3.
14.
15.
l6.
17.

21

TABLE 2--Continued

Mission Hill Ski Resort*
Hulbert Boat Tours*
Anchor MOtel*
Caribou Lake Resort*
Iroquois Corp.
DeGraff's Lodge
Long Ship Motel
DetOur & Drummond Island
Chamber of Commerce
Welch Lock Tours
City of Sault Ste. Marie High School
Sault Ste. Marie City Government
Chippewa County Board of Supervisors
Michigan Bear Hunters
Michigan State University
Les Cheneaux Chamber of Commerce

Donald Swartz,* Dr. H. R. Allot
Ken Slater*

Robert Champion*

Kent Hamilton*

Donald Schwartz

Phil DeGraff

Harry Brattin

Wayne Welch, T. C. Caffey

Alex Goldaid
Alex VanLuven
Clare Gunn, Dr. Robert McIntosh

AGRICULTURE (Livestock, Cash Crop, Cooperative, Other)

 

10.
11.
12..

MSU COOp. Ext. Service*
Dairy Farmers*

Trefoil Growers Assn.*
MacInnis Farm & Garden Center*

-Chippewa County Grange*

Escanaba Livestock Auction

Sault Ste. Marie Chamber of Commerce
Rudyard Cooperative

U.S.D.A. Soil Cons. Service
Michigan Milk Producers Assn.
Rudyard Livestock Auction

Cedarville Livestock Company

Karl Larson*

Frank Halcin, Tom Halcin,
J. Vanderstar

Melvin Stahl*

J. O. MacInnis*

William Reynead, George Reynard,
Robert Sutton

Ernest Dunbar

Howard Lightfoot

Neil Ahola

Frank Griffen

Forbes MacDonald
Wilber Rasmussen

BUSINESS (Service, Retail, Wholesale, Financial & Advisory)

\DmNO‘U'l-PLAJNH
O

10.
ll:
12.

Sault Ste. Marie Chamber of Commerce*

First National Bank*

Sault Savings Bank*

Central Savings Bank*

300 Hardware Company*

Group 1 Mich. Bankers Assn.*
Detour Dock Co.*

Cedarville Lions Club
Cedarville Business Men's Assn.
Les Cheneaux Chamber of Commerce
800 Auto Dealers Assn.

U.P. Feed Dealers Assn.

Otis Rightmyer*
Paul Willson,* Donald Finlayson*
Fred K. Shafer*

Walter C. Drevdahl*

Roy Fletcher,* Arnold C. Jorgenson
Donald Finlayson*

Albert Fountain*

Lyle Hudson

Lyle Hudson

Steven Stiling

J. O. MacInnis

 

*Most important organization or leader.

22

TABLE 2--Continued

l3. MacInnis Farm & Garden Center J. O. MacInnis

l4. Chippewa County Coop. Willard Walker

15. Chippewa County Bar Assn. Robert Kline

l6. Sault Credit Bureau Lionel Anderson

17. 800 Machine and Auto Co. Duncan Hollingsworth
l8. Freedman Wholesale Co. David Freedman

MANUFACTURING (Machinery, Food, Fabrics, Other)

 

1. Union Carbide Olefins Corp.* George Tarbox
2. 800 Veneer Co.* Mr. Behling

3. 800 Creamery* ' Reginald Turner
4. Manthei Veneer Co. Manthei Bros.
5. Lock Concrete Products William Brown
6. Chipwood Products of Rudyard

7. Rudyard Cheese Plant

8. Pickford Creamery Burton Jeske

9. $00 Welding Co. Art Fabry

10. Carpenters Union Millard McKiddie
ll. CIO-AFL Tom Bush

12. Dredgemen's Union Wayne Weston*

FISHING (Commercial, Processing, Sport, Other)

1. Brown Fisheries* Tom Brown*

2.7 Tinker Fisheries* Jim Tinker*

3. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service* Peter Drake*

4. 800 Fishermen's Assn. Wayne Weston,* Richard Weston
5. Michigan Fish Producers' Assn. Roy Jensen

6. Sault Ste. Marie Chamber of Commerce

7. Leitz Sport Shop H. Leitz

8. Isaac Walton League Harmon Knop

9. Radcliffe Fisheries

10. Independent Fishermen George Newell, Burton Holmberg

UTILITIES (Electric, Telephone, Telegraph, Other)

. Edison Sault Power Co.* George Larke*
. Cloverland Electric Power Co. REA* Roy Wells, Frank Tallentin
. Much. Bell Telephone CO.* Howard Haight*

General Telephone Co.*

Western Union*

Michigan Gas Co. ' T. K. Horton
Sault Gas CO.

\lO‘U’I-L‘UONI-J
O

 

*Most important organization or leader.

23

TABLE 2--Continued

TRANSPORTATION (Air, Rail, Water, Motor)

H
OOODNO‘U‘IJ-‘UJNH
O.

H
[—1
O

12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

North Central Airlines*

800 Line R. R. Co.*
Clairmont Transfer Co.*
Greyhound Bus CO.*

County Airport

Famous Lock Tours

Welch Lock Tours

Reiss Steamship CO.

Red Arrow Steamship CO.

Rock Port Steamship CO.
Boland & Corneilius S. S. CO.
Detour Dock CO.

Chippewa County Road Commission
Short Transfer CO.

Lock City Transportation CO.
North Star Bus Co.

Cedarville Freight Lines

Herbert Norton

Volney Lutz

Jack Sims

Milo Welch

Robert Thompson

J. P. Fieck (V.P. and G.M.)
Albert Fountain

Harold Short (Bay City)

William Post (Grand Rapids)
Dale Bawks, Raymond Kielbosa

COMMUNICATIONS (Newspaper, Radio, Television, Other)

9.
10.
ll.
12.

The Evening News*

Detroit Free Press*
Detroit News

Weekly Wave (Cedarville)
WSOO Radio*

CJIC Radio*

CKIJ Radio*

CJIC-TV (Canada)*
WWUP-TV*

WTOM-TV (Cheboygan)*
Fetzer Television Co.
300 Cable CO.

George Osborn,* Eugene Sunstrum,
Stanley R. Pratt*

Marty Bradley, Jerry Bradley
Ed Krieger, Russell Staffeld,
Stanley R. Pratt (Pres.)*

Mrs. Hyland

Russell Ramsay, Irv Horton
Donald Galager, Lee Stevens

Mr. Clark

GOVERNMENT (Legislative, Regulatory, Educational, Service, Other)

 

 

l. U.S. Rep.* Victor A. Knox*

2.‘ Michigan Rep.* Clayton Morrison*

3. Chippewa Co. Clerk* Judson Swart*

4. Chippewa Co. Road Comm.* Esra Fountain

5. Sault Ste. Marie Public Schools* Hugh Holloway,* Maurice Strahl

6. Sault Ste. Marie City Assessor* R. O. Gustafson*

7. Sault Ste. Marie City Comm. Roy Linn

8. Chippewa CO. Board of Supervisors Steven Youngs

9. Chippewa Co. Sheriff' Stanley McKee

10. Michigan State Police George Burdett
*Most important organization or leader.

ll.

12.
13.
14.-
15.
16.
17.

18.
19.
20.

24

TABLE 2--Continued

Sault Branch, Michigan College
of Mining and Technology

Detour Public Schools

U.S. Corps of Army Engr.

Sault Industrial Comm.

Sault Industrial Board

Sault Aviation Committee

United Stone & Allied Products
Workers of America -- CIO-AFL

Sault Ste. Marie Planning Comm.

Chippewa County Planning Comm.

Michigan State Employment Service

Mr. Manti
Clifford Aune
Ted Caffey
Allen McLay
Volney Lutz

Robert Kurtz
John McDonald
Donald Howson
Walter Anderson

25

A.Nuanoo Omwwfloomm Osu awnuwz mcowumnwamwuo mo .mOOHOOOMEOOuHuHOB u

NN .mOOHOOGHEOO OHwaHm u

xv

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.oum .Omanoz .a.a
.OHOm Om> .un a.ovusom OHHM NN N NN N NonOOSOOH w
wdxcflz mo owoaaoo Omwfinowz
N HHHE3mm aoxaon
Gown ux< N Hafiz 3mm .moxm sown
Hwaa< uumm xx Amafiwwofiv.oo “ensue xuxo Agnew
mesnonm hmacmum NN chflwonv .muoo OOOHO>
“sense .3 OAOBH< i
.Hmamm .z GLOW .umamm .N.m NN Nom Hammmmnu
@ .oo wOHHOOHm Hoaxom
.oum A.xoa Shoppe
«.mmnm GH>H< x.omcsu .z.¢ N N NN NN .00 women A masm domeOOOO mmsm
xxom uuonnm N NN NN NN NN N .00 HOOBOA xom uuonn<
.Ouo ¥.OOHE£OmHOEEmm
.0 numnowm x.uOOOOh .3.N NN NN NN N N N .00 Hmowamfio 3omnmmmwao
.OOO x.cwo2 I
modumno «.OOHOOZ Houom N N NN NN NN mHOOm pom umEOHmo mo maoxm
1H>Hm OOQEOA xzmnoz O amapoow
.Ouo .nomxovq<
.e sumsem A.mwxw0mmmz .m.n x x xx xx xx : .cmm< muossoum
HOAEHH OHmOOOmHB pom ameSsz
.Ouo .muopamz EH6
.Amumu .Hz «.wumneamm as»; x x xx xx x x x xx .auoo xmuoxmo
.Ouo «.Omfiuoom amfiaawk
wmafio3 .h.N ¥.a0maonamm .<.U NN NN NN NN NN N NN NN NN NN N NN N N .OOH ..nowz mo Numfio NHHOQEHN
.Ouo ¥.Hm£uaomsm OHOSOHN
.Ousouo .m.n A.amsaAoz :zoa_xx xx xx xx xx xx x x xx xx xx xx xx x muA>Amm ummuom emmp
m m m. w. m. m m m m m. n. w m am
@358 28 523 shoe E m .m. a a w. n no. m m m m m. m. Mom
Sawflamoomu ahnmumemoqxv m. .m x m. e m. m. m .w m” w m m. xxammxom
8 A D u 8 .4 D 3 90
o e 1 a O 3 o A u
e a u a u .
T3
.4
mHmmxmaemq mos mmHHzeoo mammxmezx mmNHzxoxo

 

NN<EZDm

m mqmeH

<mm< HmmNMHZH <AszHzmm Nmmmb mmH m6 MNDHUDNHm ZOHH<NHZ<UNO

 

26

A.%uoooo powmwoomm Osu casuHS mOOHumuacmwuo mo .mOoHOmawEOOuHuHOE u NN .mooxumafiaoa OHwOww u NV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amsflamx samuwv Omom amxxnxz x .oo mam umum euuoz
N .00 oowumuuommcmua NOHU NOON
AxOAO xmmv unonm vacuum x x .00 Hammamya Ouoam
N .800 pmom .OO OSOmmflnu
maqu paoahmm N uOHOH>O£U mamaN
hmum Nunom N «NOB mmum
N Oawmsoaaq awn: .m.D
N .00 nomwamua coma<
:Omcmzm snow N .00 waxxooua acmcmsm
Omaomxm .3 OHLOH< N .oOm< .muoxoauH amwwnoxz
NN N Gown: .muoumEmOH
Hmszz pumz N mOHmm whom Hmozoz
OOmHOOO< paoumm N oow>mom uOuoz O0mxopq<
N max; Name wamum
OmEOOHm .H N wawxosxa Omaomum
Eouumhz .Q Hfimz N meuouw a waH>oz m.onum%z
N moawq cm> pONHH<
NN NN NN NN N .00 dowumuuoamamua comao
N .00 uwmamuH .nox21.mH3
N .00 mam Houoz cxoumoznuuoz
N .00 HommomxH oxmomoosm
NN .Oo wawxoauH .moum Ocmaoz
ownooouoom mama NN N N N NN NN N N .00 mom OOOOLNOHU
N .oOm< .muOHmom magnoaous¢
.Oum .OOOHOO:<
unonom ¥.oOmHo wOH>uH NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN N .00 MommOmuH OnoExmeU
m m m. w. m. m w. m m w. n. m m w m
o I. o .3 u. T. u O 1 1 o ,3 3 A n
ANOOOOO Odo Omnu whoa aw i .m. ”w a m m m. m H .m. aw u w. m mam.
emuwamoomu anamumemmuxv w m m. m. w m e m. an m m onaeaxommzexe
O a J a o 3 O A u
m. a u a u .
1
mHmmNmm<mH moa mMHHZDOU memNmHzH QMNHZ<0NO

 

 

 

MN¢Zme

q mgm<a

<mm< meNMHzH «ADmZHzmm NmmmD mmH mo MNDHUDNHm onH<NHz<UNO

 

27

A.%ucsoo powmaoomm oLu LLLOH3 maowumnwamwuo mo .maowumOHEOOuHuaoa

NN .mcowumcwaoa OHwGHm n NV

 

NLOHQZ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OHOLom .NOHQHN .2 mmamh N Monmoqupamxom mocflEocoz
woman Leann NN HOLHOON Nuasoo ooLwEOOOZ
.Ouo .NOHOLom
poxm x.OHOLmo Owuoou NN NN NN NN msmz waxao>m OLE
N uwuw
N OLOLMHH owmowLU
N Omega LOm omeNLU
Owcoz .3 .N NN Hedwucom Om:<.A OLE
NN NN NN N mmoxm ooum ufiouuom OLE
A.Hammmsx
xcmum «.Luxo3 Lama NN NN NN NN N NN N mmmxm NHHOQ mLmLmomm
.Oum .HHOmmDN
Namxm x.oBOA LumaaoN NN NN NN .oo HOLHOON wawcwz OLE
3&3 afiossx xx :29 again
«OHOOE OOOU N NN Houuoaom uo>HN LOHH
.Ouo .uoxone qumq
.HHOmmON Namum .Omwmm poum NN NN NN mBOz Owwuaooz OOHH
odoomm>oz GLOW NN OHOHO: umfimwmom
OLOHumo3 Owuoow NN mBOz OHOHwOLO3
OOmLLOH Ow3pm.mO%oz poo3czq NN OLOHU NHNOQ LoosdouH
tomao3 OGOHH x.omao3 LHOBOM N NN .OU pamuom aowmcouao
33am 38m x 382. $300 diumz
NN m3oz Nuucnoo Monaco
OHOOHOA uumz N NN Luooaou Loom OLE
Ooammw .Hz x.OOHN .3 Lomh NN NN NN ouuoxmo wcflcwz NHHmQ oLH
m m m w m w. w m m w. n m m n m
A358 25 SS 38 5 m .m m a.” w. n w m m m m a m. wow $822528 m2:
emfiemoomu $3333.; m. .m 1 m. e m. m. m cm H w m m
e A a u S 1 3 oo 9 o
O a 1 a O 3 o A u
W: a u 8 u .
1..
mHmmNmn<mq mOH mmHHZDoo mHmMNMHZH QMNHZ<UNO

 

'1

 

 

NN<ZZDm

ll

<mm< HmMNMHzH LAszHzmm Nmmmb mmH mo MNDHUDNHw ZOHH<NHZ<UNO

m ”592.

 

28

A.Nuasoo OOHHHOOOO OLu ONLOH3 mOOHuONHOOwHO mo .mOOHuOOHEOOIHuHOS u NN .mOOHuOOHEOO OHwOHm u NV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EHOLONHOm .4 OquOu NN .Oo HOOE OLNLOOZ OLBOA
mwawppwo Eupcsom OOOHEOOOZ
mOaOH mmawoom N .OHOU mOOon .m .A
.>Hm Hmcwfim
NOHOU .N EOHHNNS N .00 moEuOLE NOHOOmquHN
OOmeumHuLo Noah N .muoo Eouumam .n .N
NOHOU quLHON N .ano OOOEOOHO>OQ LOmOOLOOum
assume AH< .EOAaH Assam xx oHO-z<: qu Hagen eonu
nomacmuamx mama xx .ou sHmAOmxms
-snmsxmm Lo .ou .wmz exofiu
xOOOHw EOHHHHB N N A.uz OOHHV wacdom OOOHw
Aoomv xxOLuOE OmHOOU N N .OOH mcwmwao OOMLHOU Load:
N COLL: mquuo3 OHHONOE
Hanan .uz .mOOOLou Bum N N .OOH ..moum mOOOLOU
HOOOOmeOm EON N .OOH EHHOQ umouoamm
«OOHOQ .m LOE NN N .auoo quOmLomHGHOm
OHOHHHOU HHOOODN NN .Oo wcfluoon mOHLnom
HOOOOE..3_.N NN HOOHBOLU 30m mmHHU
mHOLwOOHOm LOOLOON NN .oo pummmow .3 .: OLE
OHOL

nuO>o OHSHOLm .xOOOL OLEHU NN .OOH .mOHHOxmm L30 H50
N .00 HOLEOA LOONOHHM
OOOON EOHHHH3 N .00 HOLEOA OGOON
N .00 HOLEOA mpoo3Luuoz
AH.HHom page ..um .HHom Oman x muossoum umonm AHom
LOGOHHOz pxmktm N .00 HOLEOA 3OH>OLOA

m m m w w m m m m m n m w w m

a I. o .3 u. T. u o 1 1 o no .4 A n

A5550 Odo cmLu Ouoa OH I W. M e m m m m H .m ow u w. m mam.

emnxewoumu awamumemmuav w m m. m. w w e n. .m w m quxpauxmpz<z
O a 1 a O 3 o A u
m. a u a u _
1
mHNmNmndmu mOE mMHEZDoo mEmmNMEzH QmNHz<wmo

 

 

 

 

 

WN¢zsz <mm¢ EmmmmEZH <AszHzmm Nmmmb mNE mo mNDEUDNEm ZOHE<NHZ<UNO

o mgm<E

CHAPTER III
SECOND STAGE: SOCIOMETRIC APPLICATION

Representing the second major stage Of the research project is this
chapter on the sociometric analysis of organizations in the Upper Peninsula.
This particular phase of the study is indicative of the fourth step, viz. the
location and description of interactions among the organized interests of the
prOposed five-step framework. Since this is the most recent part of the
project, it has been a secondary task Of this thesis to deveIOp a presentation
and discussion of this particular step.1 The format of this chapter will pri-
marily consist of explaining and describing the sociometric tool employed, the
procedure involved in its administration and the findings Obtained. Preceding
this discussion, however, will be a theoretic rationale providing a basis for
the use of the method. Evaluative comment will be reserved until a later

portion of the paper.

Theoretic Rationale
Noted by their absence in sociological literature are studies concerning
interorganizational relations. At the same time much emphasis has been placed
on small group and intraorganizational research. Etzioni2 calls sharp atten-
tion to the fact that, while modern society is one of organizations, the

Obvious question of how these organizations interact has not been systemati-

 

1Anderson, Damson and Mulvihill, loc. cit.

2Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organization, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall,
Inc., 1964. '

29

3O

cally explored. We know a great deal about interaction among persons and some-
thing about interaction among groups but surprisingly little about interaction
among organizations.

Probably one of the reasons for this void in interorganizational
research is the sheer bulkiness and large number of relationships to be
accounted for. But now that high-speed computers are available and their
application to sociological theory and research is growing, quantitative tech-
niques such as sociometric analysis of organizational interaction patterns are
now technically feasible.

With the development of sociometric techniques it was almost inevitable
that these devices be applied to the study Of both power and influence in the
local community. Essential sociometric methods for the analysis of organiza-
tional interaction patterns have been worked out. Two specific methodologies
heavily influenced the design of this study. The first was Hunter's1 reputa-
tional method of social analysis and, secondly, Weiss and Jacobson's2 set of
structured concepts and methodology demonstrated a practical approach to the
sociometric analysis of complex structures. While Weiss and Jacobson have
come closer than anyone else in developing and promoting the use of the socio-
metric approach in the analysis of complex organizations, they do not extend
such use beyond intraorganizational activity. It is at this point that the
research study parts with precedent, such as it is, and attempts to apply a
sociometric technique to the study of interorganizational relationships.

The sociometric tool employed in this study was utilized because of a
number of reasons, not the least of which were the facility of administration

and compilation of results.

 

1Hunter, loc. cit.

2Weiss and Jacobson, Op. cit., p. 661.

31

. . . ease and speed of administration and a related lack of expense are
important qualities in an era where much investigation has become so
expensive {hat only the wealthy or well-endowed may hope to compete suc-
cessfully.

Because Of the rather large area encompassing the sample of influential
representatives, the time element and travel factors also influenced the choice
of this technique. Certain other advantages and disadvantages of the socio-
metric technique will be examined more completely in the next chapter dealing
with a constructive critique of the sociometric approach and its utilization
in this project.

The primary purpose behind the employment of the sociometric method, as
implied in preceding paragraphs, is to identify and describe the nature of
relationships between selected organizations and specified interest sectors in
the Upper Peninsula. Although this is the major purpose of the technique, it
was also the main determining factor in the choice of the method. It was
believed that this tool, in view of some of the more obvious advantages as
noted above, could perform an extremely useful function in the description of
interorganizational relations.

It should be recognized here that the use of a sociometric technique to
analyze interorganizational relationships is, in effect, an initiatory attempt
to transpose what has been traditionally a small group--interpersonal approach
to a large scale--interorganizational setting. Due to the recognized efforts
and achievements at the small group level of Operation, and to Weiss and
Jacobson's use of sociometric techniques to analyze the structure of complex
organizations, it was believed that such a technique could provide a useful
means of gaining information at the interorganizational plane.

In simplest terms, a sociometric measure is a means of assessing the
attractions, or attractions and repulsions, within a given group. It

 

1Gardner Lindzey and Edgar Borgatta, Handbook of Social Psychology,
p. 406.

32

usually involves each member of the group privately specifying a number

of other persons in the group with whom he would like to engage in some

particular activity, and, further, a number of persons with whom he would

not like to participate in the activity.1
In essence, the above statement reflects the view that fundamentally what can
be gained through the use of a sociometric measure merely is an indication of
attraction or repulsion among the respondents. However, it was hoped that the
sociometric choices would be made in terms of particular criteria as suggested
in the test questions, and thereby emitting information, through attraction or
repulsion, concerning these variables.

The subjects should be asked to indicate the individuals they choose or

reject in terms of specific criteria. Each sociometric choice or rejec-

tion should be made with a particular activity in mind, and the activity

should be meaningful to the subjects.2

The "specific criteria" upon which organizations would be chosen or
rejected is described briefly below within the context of the test questions
or items developed. The five items (Table 7) devised for the sociometric tool
are constructed in such a way as to gain the following types of information.
The first question attempts primarily to obtain some sort of general knowledge
concerning the interorganizational interaction variable. It does this by ask-
ing the organized interests the general question: What organization does your
organization deal with in carryingggut its business? It is hoped that
reSponses to this query will elicit an overall picture of "normal" or everyday
ongoing interorganizational relations.
The next three questions were constructed primarily to get some idea of

the degree of deference or influence which may be operating among the represen-

tative organizations. Item 2 represents a relatively strong attempt to get at

this influence hierarchy. Item 3 is designed similarly but in a milder form,

 

11b1d., p. 407.

21bid.

33

TABLE 7

SOCIOMETRIC QUESTIONNAIRE

 

Organization

Name Title Date

SOCIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATION IN MICHIGAN'S UPPER PENINSULA, SCHEDULE #1

Item 1.

Item 2.

Item 3.

Item 4.

Item 5.

SUMMER 1964

What organization does your organization deal with in carrying
out its business? '

Rate the following organizations by checking the apprOpriate
column.

1. - frequently

2. - occasionally

3. - never

There are probably times when your organization has sought the
advice of other organizations before making major Operational
decisions.

Rate the following organizations by checking the apprOpriate
column.

1. - have sought their advice.

2. - would like to seek their advice but have not.

3. - would never seek their advice.

Consider the special interest and purpose of your organization.
There are other organizations or group Opinions of your organi-
zation and its Operation that are especially important to your
organization.

Rate the following organizations by checking the apprOpriate
column.

 

 

l. - important as a positive factor in our decision making.
2. - unimportant, doesn't effect our decision making.
3. - important as a negative factor in our decision making.

 

Most organizations secure help from other organized interests
in achieving certain organizational goals.

Rate the following organizations on the basis of help given to
your organization Operations by checking the apprOpriate column.
1. - did

2. - have not but would like them to

3. - would not

From the point of view of your organization, which of the
following organizations are leaders in their respective fields.
Rate the following organizations by checking the appropriate
column.

1. - are

2. - don't know

3. - are not

34

TABLE 8

SOCIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONS IN MICHIGAN'S UPPER PENINSULA
ORGANIZATIONAL LISTING

 

ORGANIZATION

ORGANIZATION

 

Agriculture Stabilization CommiUSDA)

Michigan Education Assn.

 

Ahonen Land & Lumber Company

Milwaukee Road RR CO.

 

American Can Corp.

Michigan State University

 

ARA Area Redevelopment Commission

Michigan Technical University

 

Barrett Lumber Company

Mich. & Wisc. Timber Products Assn.

 

Boards of Supervisors (County)

National Park Service( S Dept Inter)

 

Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (US)

North Central Airlines

 

Calumet & Hecla, Inc.

North Range Mining Co.

 

Celotex Corp.

Northern Michigan University

 

Chambers of Commerce (city)

Ontonagon Valley REA Power Co.

 

Chicago and N.W. RR CO.

Operation Action U.P.

 

City and Village Government

Paper Makers & Paper Workers AFL-CIO

 

CJIC-TV Sault Ste. Marie

Pettibone Mich. Corp.,(Baraga)

 

Clairmont Transfer CO.

Pickands-Mather Mining Co.

 

Cleveland Cliffs Iron CO.

Planning Commission (City & Village)

 

Cliffs-Dow Chemical CO.

Planning Commission (County)

 

Cloverland REA

Potato Growers Assn. (U.P.)

 

Congress;(U.S.)p

Public Schools

 

Conner Lumber and Land CO.

Republican Party (County)

 

Conservation Dept. (Mich.)

Road Commission (County)

 

Coop. Ext. Service (MSU)

Sawyer-Stoll

 

COpper Range CO.

Sheriff (County)

 

Counpy Dairy Herd Imp. Assn.

Soil Conservation Service (USDA)

 

Democratic Party (County)

800 Line

 

Detroit Edison

State Police (Michigan)

 

Drummond Dolomite Inc.

Supt. of Schools (County)

 

Economic Expansion Commission (Mich)

Superior Studs, Inc.

 

Edison Sault Power Co.

Teamsters' Union

 

Escanaba Daily Press

The Daily Mining Gazette

 

Forest Service (USDA)

The EveningpNews

 

F. P. Furlopg Co.

The Mininngournal

 

FORUM

UPCAP

 

General Telephone

U.P. Law Enforcement Assn.

 

GOINC (Gogebic)

U.P. Power Co.

 

Goodman and Mohawk Lumber Co.

U.P. Tourist Assn.

 

Huss Ontonagon Pulp & Paper Co.

U.S. Army Corps of Eng.

 

Inland Lime and Stone Co.

United Steel Workers AFL-CIO

 

Iron Mt. News

University Of Michigan

 

Keweenaw Land Assn. Ltd.

WDBC Radio

 

Kimberly Clark of Michigan

White Pine Copper Corp.

 

Lake Shore Inc. (Iron Mt.)

Wisc. - Mich. Power Co.

 

Lake Spperior & Ishpeming RR

WLUC-TV - Marquette

 

 

 

Legislature (Michigan) WSOO Radio
L. H.8hay,Veneer WTOM TV Cheboygan
Longyear Realty7Co. WMUP TV

 

Manistique Pulp & Paper Co.

Abbott Fox Lumber Co.

 

Mead

M. A. Hanna CO.

 

Michigan Artificial Breeders Assn.

Inland Steel CO.

 

 

Michigan Bell

Oliver Mining Co.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35

and Item 4 perhaps illustrates best a strong attempt to gain a picture of the
influence hierarchy. The last question, Item 5, seeks in a direct manner to
gain information primarily on the status structure among the organizational
interests. The test questions in their original state are indicated in Table 7
along with the test form (Table 8).

In summary, the three variables being looked at are: first, interaction
structures; secondly, deference or influence patterns; and thirdly, status

arrangements.

Methodology

A theoretic rationale along with a discussion of what is hoped to be
gained through the use of a sociometric technique has been presented. This
section will provide a description of the methods and procedures surrounding
the administration of the sociometric tool.

It will be recalled that in the first stage of the research study the
organized interests along with their respective top positional incumbents have
been defined and inventoried in each of the eleven interest sectors. Only
those organizations which received multi-nominations were included in the
sociometric questionnaire. Multi-nominations here refers to those organiza—
tions which received two or more nominations within a minimum of one county
and at least a singular nomination in two or more counties.1 When these con-
ditions were imposed, the total number of organizations selected for the study
was reduced to ninety-eight (Table 8). The sociometric tool was administered
to key informants of these organizations by a single investigator who was

familiar with the area as well as with most of the respondents

 

1In addition some value judgments were made by a panel of judges con-
cerning the inclusion or exclusion of certain organizations before the list
was finalized.

36

contacted.1 These contacts were limited to organizational representatives
residing in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Generally, his procedure in adminis-
tering the test consisted of introducing the project in terms of who originated
it, why it was being done, how the information was to be obtained, and the
possible beneficial results of such a project. No attempt was made to assure
the anonymity of the respondents. The experimenters believed that this would
not be an important influence on the nature of the information received.

The respondents, who were tOp positional incumbents of organizations
nominated, are believed to have become structurally or organizationally social-
ized; i.e., the norms and values of the organization have been internalized to
the extent that these respondents can reliably and accurately represent their
respective organizations.2

Approximately 90% of the respondents were visited by the administrator
personally, the other 10% received the sociometric questionnaire via a secre-
tary or mail. Those who were seen personally, naturally had the Opportunity
to ask questions concerning what may have appeared to be ambiguous phrasing in
the test items. In most cases, the administrator was not present during the
completion of the test form, thus enabling the respondent to fill in the form
at his leisure. The informants were then asked to mail in the questionnaire
upon completion. Followup calls or visits were made to those who had misplaced
the form or were lax in returning it.

The return rate on the ninety-eight sociometric questionnaires was
approximately 80%. Twenty-one, slightly over 20% of the forms, were either

partially completed or not returned. Among the reasons for not returning the

 

1Jack Schwartz, Field Investigator for the project, held previous
connections with Chamber of Commerce programs in the Upper Peninsula. This
may have had an experimental effect on the findings.

2In any event, the respondents were asked to speak for their organiza-
tion, and they agreed to do so.

37

test forms were company policy, change in management, pressing business
matters, etc. The majority of the organized interests were more than willing
to complete the questionnaire and a number expressed pride in being among
those in the influential grouping.

Cross item analysis on Items 1 and 2 were made on sixty-nine, approxi-
mately 70% of the questionnaires. Empty cells on one of either of the items
necessitated this reduction.

As mentioned, the questionnaire consists Of five items to which the
respondents or organizational influentials were asked to reply in one of three
ways. Three alternatives were used because, traditionally, three are recom-
mended so that the polar extremes, i.e. negative and positive, are represented
along with a neutral response choice. For example, the first item reads:

What organization does your organization deal with in carrying out its business?
1. - frequently
2. - occasionally
3. - never
The respondents would then choose the alternative they desire and then place a
check in the apprOpriate column headed by a l, 2 or 3. The check would go
next to each of the other ninety-seven top influential organizations, according
to how they perceived their relations with them. (See the sociometric listing
of organizations - Table 8.) The responses emitted by the subject would, of
course, vary with respect to the content of the individual items on the test
form.

In the data tabulation the ranking of responses was reversed so that a
positive choice would rate 3, the neutral choice 2, and the negative response 1.
The responses Obtained were weighted in the following way so that the computa-

tion would be facilitated:

38

Values
Positive response . . . . . . 9
Neutral response . . . . . . 4
Negative response . . . . . . l
The "weighting" above merely involves the squaring of the 3, 2 and 1
ranking arrangement. The squaring was done to enlarge the range of values, as
it was felt that a distribution based on a l, 2 and 3 scoring system would not
be discriminating enough. The weighting of values was done to magnify the
range of choices. Admittedly, the scoring procedure presents a rather forced
indication of intensity.
The procedures involved in the administration of the sociometric
questionnaire along with a description of its form has been indicated. The

next section will present the results of the second stage, showing the findings

in respect to the procedures just outlined.

Description of Results

The findings described in this section will be entirely from Items 1
and 2 Of the sociometric questionnaire. The primary Objects will be to show
the value of the sociometric method in locating and defining patterns of inter-
action among perceived influential organizations and to illustrate the kinds
of manipulations which can be performed on the data. Presumably these manipu-
lations can be also applied to data from the other items if such analysis is
deemed feasible. Also presented is a description and discussion of the organ-
izational and individual variables which the experimenters selected as being
pertinent to the sociometric survey.

Table 9 represents a listing Of the ninety-eight organizations included

in the study by rank order of sociometric scores given £2 and received from

 

all other organizations in the matrix. The sociometric score represents the

average of values along the individual rows and columns. For example, City

39

and Village Government received a score of 6.46, as shown in the SCORES
RECEIVED column. This score was the highest received of any of the organiza-
tions, hence the number 1 ranking. The SCORE VALUE FREQUENCIES columns refer
to the numbers of 9'3, 4'8 and 1's received or given by a particular organiza-
tion. Under the SCORES GIVEN column is the average of the sociometric scores
given by the particular organized interest. In regard to Item 1, City and
Village Government in their perceived interaction with others Obtained a score
of 4.25, which gives them a ranking of 26th among the ninety-eight
organizations. Then, continuing along the top row of the table, are the value
frequencies which compose the average score.

One fault inherent in the listing of these organizations, as is done in
Table 9, is that by so doing an aura of legitimacy and validity is attributed
to such a representation which may be misleading. The only justifiable
inference which can be made from the table is simply that this listing repre-
sents one aspect of the results, placed in rank order, of the sociometric
survey, given the inadequacies which have been and will be pointed out. Any
other conjectures which are made are just that and merely indicate the types
of implications which can be made from the findings.

It is difficult to attach any significance to the rank discrepancies
which occur, primarily because of the diversity of the organizations involved
and their perception of their role in the community of interests. Rank
discrepancies merely refer to the differential in the rank between the scores
given to and received from the organizations. For example, the rank
discrepancy of the Conservation Department is only 3, while Michigan Bell is 34.

Ideally, one might desire the given and received ranks to be similar or
at least bear a close relationship, but Operationally this is obviously not

the case. One interpretation of this discrepancy, as implied above, is the

40

 

 

 

 

 

 

ZOHE<NHZ<UNO NDOE mmon ZOHE<NHZ<GNO E<N3z

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

xH xO mm m OH.O Ox Hm Hx Ox ms.e OOHHOH Oumum
mm mm mm Hm oH.¢ ON Hm Nx Ox m¢.¢ .NOHOHO>NOD Oumum cmwaOHz
Ox OO Ox ox O0.0 Ox xx xx mx O0.0 OOH>HOO aoxmamuxm O>Humxmaooo pm:
xx xx Hx xx x0.0 ameaqu Oo xumHo xHAOOaHx
mH om On m Om.O om mH xx Hx mm.q .osH .mxonm Ome
xx xx Ox ox mm.e mmmnwaoo .m.a
HN on ON ON xw.¢ OOOHHHON auOumOsLuuoz OwOOHLU
Hx Om xO O xm.m xx aH om OH H0.0 Hmeusox waHaHx may
Hm xx OH ca o¢.m OH mm Ox xH ma.e anHmmHasoo Omox xuasoo
OH an OO O wO.m Ox xx om OH mo.m .oo Hmsox .x .2
xx mm xx Ox m0.0 xx nx mx OH so.n .oo coHH OOOHHO OemHO>OHO
xx xx Hm mx ne.e xx Ox ox OH HH.O OmoHHme maHH oom
OH mm Ox mH Oo.m OHoOH>AOa=m Oo msxaom xucsoo
xx Ox Hm xH OH.O xHHOAO>Hca HOOHaOomx cOOHOOHz
x Ox OO H mH.x aH Ox Hm HH mx.m OOOHN NHHOO mnmcmumm
xe Ox Ox mm mO.m xH ax om oH om.m .oO Amxmamxx AcostmHO
mx ea om OH OO.¢ OH xx Hm m mm.m OOH>HOO Hmmuom xnms
on Hx Ox Om ax.m OH on om O Om.n OAOHmHmHmOH ammHaOHz
x Ox OH mH Hm.e xH wx Hm x xm.m xHmeO>Hes :meLOHz exonuuoz
xH Ox Om O mm.n OHOOLom OHHLON
OH xx Om O mm.n OOOHHAH< meuamo Huxoz
mm Ox Om xH Ox.s HH om mm O xm.n moxmasoo Oo HOOOOHO
mm OO OH xx OO.m OH ox as m oo.O .oo mcoaamHOH HHOO :OOHOOHz
O HO mm m mm.m ON ON me xx xm.O OOOEOHOOOQ OOHOO>HOOOOU
xO Ox on Ox mx.O HH Hx Os H O0.0 Osmaaum>ou OOOHHH> O xOHo
m.N m.¢ m.m NOON OO>H0 m.H m.¢ m.m NOON O.OON coxumxfiamwuo
mOxoom mOuoom
OONOOOOUOHN mOfioaOavOuN
OONO> Ouoom OOHO> Ouoom

:wmwNZHmDm mEH EDO UZHENN<U ZH NEH3 A<mn

"a ZNEH OE

mmzommmN zH <ADmZHzmm Nmmmb m.z¢UHmUHZ zH monE<NHz<wNO GHEomamm
Em zm>HU nz< Qm>HmumN mMNOUm UHNEMZCHUOm A<ZGHE<NHZ<UNO QNNMQNO NZ<N

m

NHN<E

 

41

 

 

 

 

 

Ox OH O xx xx.H Ox Ox xH OO xx.x OOOOOHOOOOO coOOOossx OOOOOOOZ
mm mm ma mm mm.m NOOOEOU OwOON HOONOU
ox Ox HO OH x0.0 OO xx OH xO Ox.x Omoumex OaHerOOH O uoxumxsx OxOH
HO xO OH xx OO.x Ox Ox xH HO xx.x xamerO HOOEOH O OOOH OOOOOO
Ox Ox Ox OH Ox.O Ox xx xH OO xO.x Osmz OOOOO>O OOH
Ox xx Ox xx Hx.O Ox xx OH xO xO.x OOHOOxeeOO moxxamxxm OHsoaooO OOOxOuxz
xx Ox OH OO xO.x xamxaoo OOxaHz HO>HHo
Ox xx xH xO OO.x OOOOOOOOO Oo Oxuou xsu< .O.=
OO xx OH xO OO.x Ox xx OH OO OO.x sexumuoxuoo Ommz
OO ox xH OO HO.x Ox xx OH OO OO.x xamxaou magma .O .z
Ox Ox OH OO OO.x OOOONOO OOHaHz xHHOO OOH
xx xx Ox Ox Ox.O HO xH OH xO xO.x xamxaou umaox OOOOOOOx-cHanoOH3
xx Ox xx xx x0.0 xx xx xH xO OO.x xaxxsoo HOOOO OOOHOH
xx xO xx xx OH.O Ox Ox OH HO xO.x AOOOO OOAOOOOOOOOEOO OsmaonO>OOOO OOAO
xO xO xH xO xx.x xx Ox OH OO Ox.x .oax .OHOOO O HmesHOO
OO Ox OH OO Ox.x xx Ox OH xx OO.x xamerO OOoxHme Omox omxxmstz
O xx xO x x0.0 xx xx xH Ox xx.x OOOOOOOOOOO Oxxxaox .O.=
Ox OH OO x xO.O Hx xx OH xx Ox.x Ozmz OHOOaaox couH
OO xx Ox Ox xO.x xx xx xH Ox xx.x anxmmxeaoo OOHOOOHO xuasoo
xx Ox Ox ox HH.O xx xx OH Ox H0.0 OOOOOOOZ Oo xOxOOO>HaO
xO xx x OO Ox.x xx xx ox Ox Ho.O OcoOOOHeeOO OOOOOOHO OOOHHO> O quo
xx Ox Ox Ox Ox.O Hx Ox xH xx xO.O coxumuoxxoo xOOoHOo
OO OH xx OO Ox.x xx Ox xH xx HH.O OHOOOOO Oo OOOOOOOOOHOOOOO xuaaou
OO xO OH Ox OO.x xx Ox xH Hx HH.O xx-OOHz
xx xH xH xO xx.x Ox xx OH ox OH.O OOOHOOOO xussoo
xO Ox xH HO OO.x xx Ox xx xx xx.O xamxaoo Hwas: Oox OOOOOO
xO xx Hx Ox Ox.x xx Ox Hx Ox xx.O anxaoo HOoHeOOo soO-OOOxHO
Ox Ox Hx xx xx.O .m.= OOOO0< aoxumxmxo
Ox Ox Hx Ox Ox.O OOOOO
m .H m .OV m .m xcmm de/HU m .H m .O m .m xcmm U . DOM cowumNHc—meO
mOuoom mOHoom
OOxOcOOOOuN OOOOOOOOOMN

OONO> Ouoom

 

 

 

OONO> Oxoom

 

 

 

 

LOOONOLOUunm NAN<E

 

42

 

 

OO x ox xO xx.x OO Hx O xO Ox.x OOOOO> xOOO .O .H
xO OH O xO OO.x Osmxsoo anHusx .x .O
xO xH OH OO Hx.x HO xH O HO HO.x Omx OOOHOO>OHO
OO ox x xO Ox.x OO xH oH 0O xO.x xamxaoo OOOOOH HOOHOOO
xx xH x xx Ox.H OO Hx x xx xO.x OmummoxuoocH .OOOOO uoxxmxax
xO Ox O xO xO.x OO Hx x Ox xO.x coOOOxooOOO OaOeOouoan 3OH .x.:.
OO xH Ox xx Ox.x xO xH O xx xO.x xamxaoo OOHOOO OOOOO Ouuoz
Hx Hx Ox OH O0.0 OO Ox O Ox xO.x xamxaoo OOHOOO OOOanoH
Hx Ox Ox Hx O0.0 xO xx O Ox Ox.x OOOOOxoxuoo OOOOOOOO OOOOHOOOO
OO Ox O xO xO.x OO Hx x Ox Ox.x xamxaoo anux Oam Oaxa OcOHaH
xO HH xH xx Ox.x xamxaou umsox OHOOO aoOHOO
xO xH HH xx HO.x aoOOOxoxuoO :OO OOOOOOOO
xO xH xH Hx xO.x oHo-HO< Oxmxxoz HOOOO OOOOOO
OO Hx Hx HO Ox.x OO Hx OH Ox OO.x xpxox
ox xx Ox xH O0.0 HO xx O xO Hx.x .OOH .aoxOOHooOOO OOOO smammsmx
NO xx NH we HO.x NOONEOU HOOON O NHON OowOOOuOo OOON
xx OH xO HH x0.0 OO Ox O xO Ox.x xuxmx oxumuooemn
OO Ox O xO Ox.x OO OH xH OO Ox.x xcxxaoo OOOaOH stOox OOO aOeOoow
HO xH xH OO xx.x xO xx OH OO Ox.x xamxaoo xmxmx O stx Osxxuanmz
xO OH xH OO OO.x xO xx OH OO Ox.x xuumx amoxHOaxOO
OO xx OH xO Ox.x OO xH xH xO HO.x sexumxoxxou xmxxoo OOOO Ouxnz
Ox OO xx xH O0.0 OO Ox xH xO OO.x xamxaoo Oaxaxz umOOO2-OOOOOOHx
xx ox O Ox xO.x xO xx HH HO xO.x xamxaou HOOEOO O OOOO “cacao
OO xx xH OO Ox.x OO Ox OH OO OO.x maoaxOHOx HOOOOOO
xx HH xH OO HO.x HO xx xH xO xH.x oxcmx oxns
xx x x Hx xO.x Ox xx HH OO xx.x .OOOO OOoaOoxx HOOOOO axxcouxx3-:OOxOOOz
Ox xx x xO xx.x OOO>OOO NOON .Humz xoOxmuax Oo .Oxma .O.=
Ox xH OH OO xx.x OO xx xH OO Ox.x HHoOO-qu3OO
xx OO Ox OH O0.0 HO xx xH OO Ox.x Oox>xOO aoOOO>xOano onx OOOO
O.H m.O m.m NOON OO>OU O.H m.O m.¢ NOON O.OON OOHOONHOOwuo
OOxoom OOuoom

 

 

mOxoOOOvOHN
OOHO> Ouoom

 

 

 

 

OOxoOOOOOON
OOHO> Ouoom

 

 

 

 

LOOOHOOOUuam mAm<E

 

43

 

 

 

 

 

xO Ox O OO Ox.x OO x x Ox xO.H OOOOOOOOO xx-Ooxz
Ox o x Ox Ox.H OO x x xx xO.H OOOOOOOO HOHOOOOHHO aOOxOoxz
xx x H xx OH.H xO x O Ox Ox.H HOO Oumxuoz xmxmm O OHONOO OOOOO
xO ox O xO Ox.x HO xH x Ox xx.H OOOOOOOOOOO uOmEo>oxxaH OOOO OOOOO xuanoo
xO Ox x xO xO.x xO OH x Ox OO.H noxsn .OHOOOEOOO
OO x O Ox HO.H OO xH O xx xO.H OmumxoxuooaH .Ouxston Oeoaasxn
Hx OH O OO xx.x OO OH x xx xx.H Ooxmmxeaoo coxOmOxHxOOOO OOOOHOOOOOO
HO HO O HO xx.x OO OH x Hx xx.H OHsz .OOO OHOOO xx-OHxO
Ox xx O OO xO.x xO OH x ox Ox.H OOO xOHHO> OOOOOOOOO
OO Ox O OO HO.x HO x O xO xx.H xx-xszz

mm «N N mm OO.x OOOOON OOOHOOO

xO xH x xO xx.x OzHou
OO HH H Ox xO.H OO OH x OO Ox.x coxumxooOOO .Oxmaoxu oHOuox .x.a
OO Ox O xO HO.x xO xH O OO Ox.x OOOOOOOOO HOxoanaoo Oo OOOHOO
O xx Ox O xx.O OO OH x OO xx.x OOOOO ooO3
O.H 0.0 O_m NOON OO>HU O.H O.O O.m NOON O.OON OOOOONHOOwHo

OOHoom mOuoom

OOxoOOOvaN OOwoOOOvOuN

OOHO> Ouoom

 

 

 

OOHO> Ouoom

 

 

 

 

LOOOOOOOUIIm MAN<E

 

44

fact that organizations perceive their role relationships with other organiza-
tions in a different light than do the other organized interests with them.
This is to say that an organizational role may be of a diffuse vis-a-vis
specific type in which the organized interest perceives itself as dependent
upon and affected by manyxorganizations. In such a case, its ranking on
perceived interaction with Others would conceivably be quite high. 0n the
other hand, this high ranking would not necessarily see its equivalent in the
computation of rankings 21 other organizations, primarily because the partic-
ular organized interest may be perceived as having only a secondary influence
or effect on the everyday Operations of the organization. Certainly this
explanation cannot account for all of the rank discrepancies, but it may
contribute to the understanding of some of them.

With regard to the two rankings, it is felt that the ranking derived
from scores received is the more reliable indicator of an organization's
standing in relation to the others. This is so largely as a result of the
accumulated scores given an organization by the 80-plus interests which rated
their interaction with it. The ranking derived solely from the scores given
by any particular organization is obviously not as valuable in the overall
picture.

"Of the first twelve (organizations listed in the table), it should be
noted that only four--a telephone company, an airline, a newspaper and a
railway--are profit corporations."1 This is an interesting observation and
one which is supported in an indirect way by Linton Freeman in a study which
compares several approaches to the difficulty of identifying leaders in a

community:

 

1From the notes of Jack Schwartz, field investigator for the project,
September 3, 1964.

45

The most active individual participants are typically government
personnel--as a class, professional participants in community affairs
should be government officials and employees or full-time professional
executives of nongovernmental agencies formally and primarily committed
to intervention in community affairs.
This statement by Freeman provides, at least partially, an explanation for the
proliferation of service- and education-related organizations among the highly
ranked. Naturally, on an item whose main purpose is to gain a broad index of
interaction patterns, those types of organizations whose raison d'etre is to
serve and meet the needs of others will be perceived as being interests with
which there is high interaction. There is a matter of visibility, too, as
many of the organized interests within the tOp-ranked are extremely active and
affect many facets of everyday life.

A project which encompasses the entire Upper Peninsula of Michigan and
nearly one hundred of the most influential organizations necessarily involves
certain problems of technique. This is with particular regard to the diverse—
ness of the organizations and the influential respondents involved. First of
all, the organized interests are obviously heterogenous not only in structure
but in function. There are eleven interest sectors specified within which the
organizations are again quite diverse. Quite naturally it can be expected
because of the lack of similarity among the organizations that the data
received will reflect many different organizational attitudes and positions.
Not only this, but, as will be discussed, the individual respondents also
mirror divergent attitudes and perspectives by virtue of their position within
the organizations. Therefore, it seems as though we have two major areas or

categories of variables or influences which should be recognized in viewing

and understanding the results of this project.

 

1Linton Freeman, Thomas J. Fararo, Warner Bloomberg, Jr., and Morris H.
Sunshine, "Locating Leaders in Local Communities: A Comparison of Some Alter-
native Approaches," American Sociological Review, 28:791-8, October 1963.

46

The first broad category of variables would include those associated
with the organization per se. That is, those factors, such as size, ownership
or leadership, location, structure and function, which are indigenous to any
organization and which would affect, to some degree, the reactions of its per-
sonnel to questioning from the outside. The second broad category of variables
influencing responses would be those surrounding the personnel themselves.

For example, the position of the person in the organizational hierarchy, the
duties, powers and responsibilities which accrue as a result of that position,
and the environmental and psychological factors peculiar to the individual
would all be variables which, again, may affect to some degree the responses
of that person to questions regarding the organization.

Most probably these variables are not independent of one another and it
would be illogical to consider each one in isolation as to its effect. There-
fore, all must be recognized as contributing in some way to the whole and
thereby cannot be fully understood out of the context of the complete scheme.
Thus, when hierarchical position or organizational ownership is discussed,
this is not meant to imply that the other variables are not important or
recognized; it is meant merely to suggest that in terms of this project certain
variables have more relevance than others.

In respect to the final sampling of the ninety-eight perceived
influential organizations, certain of the "organizational variables" are looked
at in the context of responses to Item 1 on the sociometric questionnaire. The
variables examined in this study have to do with the Primary Opgapization
Interest (Utilities, Mining, Tourism, Education, Communications, etc.),
Organization Control (Labor, Government, Entrepreneur, or Corporation), and
the Geographic Area of Operation (West, Central, East, etc.).

The organizational variable which proved the most interesting and

47

fruitful was, as one might expect, the primary interest factor. The computer
is programmed to separate the organizations according to primary interest
grouping or interest sector, and by analyzing the subsequent matrix can offer
some implications concerning inter and intra sector relationships.

The sociogram presented in Figure 1 reflects the perceived interaction
among the interest sectors in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The method of
deriving this sociogram involved the following. For the eleven specified
interest sectors (Mining, Forestry, Service, etc.) sociometric scores were
obtained of the perceived interaction (Item 1) between the organized interests
composing them. Two sets of scores were obtained--one denoting the sociometric
score an interest sector received from all others and one containing the socio-
metric score giygg to all other interest sectors (Table 10).

An arbitrary distinction was made concerning the sociometric scores
listed. It was decided that scores received or given above the 4.00 level
would be considered indicative of "high interaction." This level was chosen
because of the nature of the scoring system. The highest average score
possible is 9.00, the lowest 1.00, and a neutral response 4.00. Therefore,
an organized sector which gave or received an average score above 4.00 would
imply that enough "nines" were in that particular distribution to raise the
average score over the neutral (4.00) level, thus intimating a more positive
interacting relationship.

This criterion was applied to the data and projected in sociogram form.
Each sociometric bond reflects what can be called a perceived high interaction
relationship. Reciprocal relationships are represented by double bonds.
Sociometric values of the bonds (Figure 1) give some measure of interaction
activity between sectors. Value scores presented in each circle represent the

interaction scores among the organizations comprising that specific interest

48

0m.~ v_OOHoom u OOOOOOm OOOOOOOH wOHOOOxOOOH 304
u OHOOOOm OOOOOOOH wauOOxOuOH OOHOOZ

OO.x MooO

v mOxoom

00.0 M.OOHoom n OHOOOOm OOOOOOOH wOHuOOHOuOH LwON
OO>OOOON wOuoom u OOEOHOU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.00.m u 00.x OwOON Oxoom ONLHOOON OO>H0 OOxoom ".mzoN
nn.m mH.N ON.N Hm.m mm.m mm.m Hm.m Em.m nm.m Em.m O0.0 0m.O LO>HOOON
HOOOE
Em.N mE.H mx.m HN.N Hw.N wO.H Em.H wo.H mm.H mc.N EH.O Hm.H OHOOHOOHHw<
HO.N 00.0 mx.H mm.m xH.m mN.N mH.N 0w.H 0m.N nH.N om.m mH.O waLmHN
mN.m 00.m Ho.m HN.N H0.0 ww.H EH.N 00.N wo.m No.O xx.O Ox.m OOOH>HOm
0O.m mN.H mH.H wn.N 0O.N mH.m 00.0 om.O 00.~ m0.m OO.m Hm.m wOHHOOOOwOOOz
mO.m 00.H 0m.H 0m.N aN.N 0w.m mO.m Hm.n mm.m Hm.N 0H.m Nw.m EHOOOHON
mm.m OH.N HH.H OH.m ow.~ 0H.m E0.m 0m.N aN.N Hm.m wx.m no.0 wOOOHE
mx.m 0m.~ mx.H 0H.m xo.m Ex.m wx.m 0O.m mH.O ow.m Hw.m mH.m OOHOOHOOD
Hm.m mm.m mH.O mm.~ H0.0 OE.N mn.~ mo.~ nN.o mw.O 00.x mo.m OOHOOOOON
ma.m 00.H 0H.N 0N.m mo.~ mO.m mm.N mo.m 0m.m mx.m N0.m Om.n OOOOOOHOOOOOHE
00.0 mH.N mH.m mH.O mO.m n0.m m0.m O0.N mo.m wm.n om.n 0m.O OOHOOOOOOEEOU
No.9 00.0 mx.m EH.n xH.x mw.n mN.O 0m.n 00.m mw.x OO.w wm.w EOOHOOE
m. mu m. Ow m m m M m .oO N m m
A 3. S 1 I. m u 1 u n 1 n B
a e u. I. T. I. a n 1 A O u
u TL I. o I. n u S I. I. I. e S
u n 1. u on 1. B S o 1. d
on T. I. .1. 1 a m a I. 0
m w m ,A m s m M mNOEUNm
a m. m. w 3553
u on “w
u
:wmmMZHmDm mEH HDO UZHNNN<U ZH ZHH3 A<mm ZOHE<NHZ¢GNO NOON mMOQ ZOHE¢NH
IZ<GNO E<Z3= "H_ZMEH OE Mmzommmm ZH <ADmZHzmm MmmmD m.Z¢OHmUHZ ZH meEumm EmMNMEZH

QNHEHUNNw EN mm>HmumN 924 zm>HU mmNOOm UHNEmEOHUOm A<ZOHE<NHZ<UNO NU<NN>< QNNNQNO NZ<N

0H NAN<E

 

49

sector.
There are precedents for this type of sociometric presentation including

1 use of an illustrative method to picture the choice pattern of

Hunter's
leaders. An attempt is made here to reflect the number of bonds given or
received in terms of circle size. The three largest circles consist of the
Transportation, Tourism and Education sectors, while the more isolated sectors,
Fishing and Agriculture, are represented by the smaller circles.

This picture of interaction among organizations distinguishes two rather
interesting constellations. On a general interacting criterion, it appears as
though Service, Communication and Education form a tight reciprocating bloc
with few strong ties with other organized interest sectors.

A second major constellation consists of the Mining, Transportation,
Manufacturing and Forestry sectors. The linkage is similar in form to the
chain-like communication net of Bavelas.2 Th this case, the Transportation
and Manufacturing sectors occupy positions of "relative centrality." The
Transportation sector also occupies a central nonreciprocated position with
four other interest sectors--Communications, Fishing, Utilities and Tourism.
Agriculture is reciprocally linked only to the Education sector. Relatively
speaking, the Fishing sector is isolated from any reciprocal attachments and
thereby lies on the periphery of interaction activity.

Another general distinction which can be made, although not perfectly
represented, is the overall nature of the organizations in the two constella-

tions. The triad of Service, Education and Communication seems to be more

public service-oriented as opposed to the profit-making goals of the Fishing,

 

1Hunter, op. cit., p. 69.

2Alex Bavelas as examined in Robert T. Golembiewski, The Small Gropp,
pp. 94-97, and Michael S. Olmsted, The Small Group, pp. 102-04.

50

OH

Hsox OO OO.x

OOH OOOOOEBOU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3
mm ”w .c. «v
u 96 0.5 9b “O
2 O,
OO.x. Ox.O
OOHOOOOON OO.w
C. .7
A .E .0
A. .
O. o
v
x0.0
OOO>OOm

00.m
EOHHOOE

exam O

mO.m
HOOOOON

:mmmmszDm mEH E00 wzHENN<U 2H NEHz A<mn
ZOHE<NHz<QNO NDOE mmom ZOHE<NHZ<0N0 E433: .H ZmEH 0E MmzommmN .OAszHzmm Nmmm:
m.z<UHNUHZ zH mNOEUNm EmmNmEzH QZQZ< onEo<NmEZH NUHN Qm>Hmonm UZHEUNAENN_Z<NUOH00m

H NNDDHN

0H.m
wOHOHz

Om.m
OOHOOOHOOOOO

1.x:
OH.O “w o.
OOOOOHO : r.

O .
O.x

O0.0
OHHOOOOmO z
OO.O
xO.O

51

Mining, Transportation, Utilities, Manufacturing, and Forestry interest sectors.
The Tourism sector seems to provide a linking-pin function1 between the public
service- and profit-oriented interest sectors.

Before too much importance is attributed to the Tourism sector, it is
necessary to point out here that Tourism is represented by only one organization
and that is the Upper Peninsula Tourist Association. In way of understanding
its apparent perceived high interaction rates with the other composite interest
sectors, one might speculate that its promotional and public relation goals
would dictate such an outer-directed role.

The organizations composing the eleven specified interest areas are
distributed in this manner:

No. of Organizations
Interest Sector Represented

Forestry
Agriculture
Fishing
Mining
Tourism
Manufacturing
Utilities
Transportation
Communications
Education
Service

Other

H

\Ol to 1a rd
mHomWOO‘O‘HHH-F‘CD

Ideally, from a statistical standpoint, a uniform distribution with
perhaps eight to twelve organizations in each sector might be desired; but
nonetheless, these are the organizations perceived as most influential in the
Upper Peninsula and, quite possibly, a sample twice as large would contain
organizations in relatively the same prOportion. For purposes of interpreta-

tion, however, the number of organized interests within each sector is

 

1Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Management, pp. 113-15.

52

important as it may contribute to the understanding of the data. One must
keep in mind, however, that certain sectors, though relatively "under-
represented," still contain one or more organizations which are perceived as
among the most influential in the Upper Peninsula and by virtue of that fact
must not be discounted or underestimated in their scope of activity or sphere
of effectiveness.

The sociogram, as indicated in Figure 2, reflects the perceived inter-
action among interest sectors when Item 2 (Table 11) was used. Note that one
tight reciprocating constellation emerges. It includes the Service, Education,
Communication and Tourism interest sectors. This bloc is fundamentally the
same as that which appeared in Item 1, with the only exception being that of
Tourism. A second nonreciprocating interaction bloc is also detectable which
includes the above-mentioned tight reciprocal constellation plus the Mining,
Transportation, Utility, and Agriculture interest sectors. Two relatively
isolated sectors emerge--those of Manufacturing and Fishing. Several sectors
appear to be isolated to the extent that they do not perceive themselves as
seeking advice or counsel from any interest area including themselves. These
areas are Transportation, Manufacturing, Fishing, Agriculture.

It is interesting to note that the organizations which formed the public
service-oriented triad in Item 1 now reach out to profit-making interest sec-
tors for advice and counsel. This interaction is, in general, not reciprocated
by the profit-making interest sectors. It is also interesting to see that the
Tourism sector enjoys more reciprocal interaction with both profit and service
type interest sectors than it did in Figure l, where normal business dealing
was the test.

A second major organizational control exercised on the data was the

Geggraphical Region of Operation. This control was so designed to classify

53

 

 

 

 

0m.~ v mOxoom u OOOOOOm OOOHOOOH wOHuOOuOuOH BOA
0m.N Mdo.O. v OOuoom u OOOOOOm uOOuOuOH wOOuOOHOuOH OOOOOS
oo.O M 3.8% .1. 338m OOOHOOOH 933333 waN
oUQK/HQUQM meOUW " WEEDHOU
ooom l OOoH mwcmm UHOUW GHQHWWOAH oHHO>HU WNHOUW " mzom
mO.m NN.N m©.N aw.N Om.N no.m nw.N ON.m ON.O mw.m mm.m mm.d UO>HOOOM
HOOOE
OO.H OO. OO.H OO.H oo.a OO.H OO.H OO.H OO.H OO.H OO.H OO.H wawzwwm
Hm.N OO.H Om.H mm.H Om.H N©.N wo.m wH.N w©.N OO.H ©N.M ow.a OOEHOHHOQOOOHH
mm.N mN.H wo.m mm.H mm.a mn.H OO.N ©O.N ma.N MN.H Hm.H Nm.m OHDHHSUfiHw<
HN.N OO.H ©O.H O®.H O©.N mm.N mm.N ©©.m m©.N mo.N mm.m mN.m wawuduommdfimz
OO.m OO.H mm.H mw.H ON.m mH.m OH.N HO.N ©O.M mn.H OH.O 0m.m wfiwfiwz
NH.M MO.H om.H m©.H ow.H mm.m O®.m Om.O O©.m n0.0 mm.m mo.m huummhom
Ow.m mm.H m©.N om.N oo.m wm.m wH.m Om.m m0.0 mm.O am.O OH.O OOHHHHHHD
NH.O mm.N MH.O mn.O H©.N mH.m Oo.m OO.N 0N.m mn.m m©.m On.m OOENOUDUM
M0.0 ©M.O m0.m On.O ®H.m mm.N mo.m mN.m OH.O H©.n Nm.O MO.© OUH>HOm
O0.0 wm.m NN.O wO.m O0.0 Ow.N mn.N mH.m mO.m wm.m HH.O no.0 OOHUOUEODEEOU
mH.© OO.H oo.m mm.w mm.n oo.m mo.n mH.m mm.© oo.m mw.m mm.m EOHHSOH
O. O O. x. O m m x O O O O O
A .4 s 1 m I. u u 1 M n e n
a B U. I. T. I. n a 1 u o
u T. m. m m n... am m: w n. m... .m. w mNOEumm
on T. n. I. o 1 a m o I.
m 9 W m .A H m HmMMMHZH
I 14 I Du
a I. I. 3
O u T...
u 8 O
u

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:.mZOHmHomm A<ZCHE¢NNNO NOH<z UZHN<E mNommm monE<NHz<UNO

NMNEO N0 NUH>Q< NNE ENGDOm mdm ZOHE<NHZNGNO NDOE zmm3 mmZHE EAN<NONN

 

MN< NNNNE: "N ZNEH 0E MmzommmN zH OADmZHzmm NmmmD m.z<UHNUHZ ZH mNOEUmm EmmNmEZH
QNHNHUmmm Em QN>HNUMN 02¢ zm>HU mmNoom UHNENEOHUOm A<ZOHE<NHZ<UNO NU<NN>< mmNmQNO NZ<N

NH NAN<E

 

54

0H

 

wq.m
cowuwuwaaaao. . oo.m
0.. ooq 333:
A. '
\ i‘ ‘ 2
pm.
¢m.m
cowumosvm ‘

 

 

 

oo.m mH.m
. - wa GA
Emwusoe co m H .z
w a.
. N. u
5 N.
v:
flax?
4W x. v ”W0“!
. «I
a «ma
~ ofiumunommdm.H
0H m No.¢

mow>uwm
mafia an:
.5 om.q
9 on u mmuo
m . u m

:.monmHUMQ A¢ZOHH<Mmmo MOHdZ QZHM<S mmommm mZOHH<NHz<QMO
mmmHO mo muH>Q< mmH HmUDOm mdm ZOHH<NHZ<UMO MDOM zmm3 mmZHH Nam<momm mm<
mmmmH: .N SMHH OH mamzommmm .<AszHzmm mmmmb m.z<UHmDHE ho mmoaomm HmmmmHzH
UZQZ< 924 szHHS onH<NHz<wmo ho ZOHHUdeHzH mem QM>HMUMMm GZHHUmqmmm Z¢MUOHUOm

N mmeHm

55

the organizations according to their geographic base of operation. The six
geographical areas distinguished are the Egg; (Gogebic, Ontonagon, Baraga,
Iron, Houghton, and Keweenaw counties), Central (Marquette, Menominee, Delta,
Dickinson and Alger counties), East (Schoolcraft, Luce, Chippewa and Mackinac
counties), West Central, East Central and All U.P.

This variable is somewhat more difficult to analyze as it is not as
clearly defined as the others may be. For example, the geographical base
variable runs into such problems as how to deal with organizations whose sphere
of influence extends into more than one designated area. This variable was
originally introduced in order to see whether organizations would cluster
together on a geographic basis. However, as mentioned, the nature of many of
the selected organizations make it difficult for the experimenter to sort them
into clear-cut geographic sectors. One way to objectify this procedure would
have been to strictly limit the respective organizations to an arbitrarily
defined area on the basis of address alone without subjectively attempting to
identify a ”sphere of influence." The attempt to define these sectors is made
more awkward by the use of political or county boundaries rather than some more
"logical" criteria. Implied above is the essential problem of being able to
assign a geographic area to many of these organizations who influence is
extensive and which may, in fact, spread to the whole of the U.P. In an
attempt to alleviate this difficulty, the category "All Upper Peninsula” was
developed to include many higher level government agencies, certain large
economic corporations, several utilities, etc.

This category soon enlarged to such an extent that any meaning which
these geographic areas could convey may have become severely restricted. Two
other geographical categories also were designed by the experimenters to c0pe

with the "extent of influence” problem. The East Central and West Central

56

areas include those counties in both sections within which certain organiza-
tions Operate extensively. These organizations, though they may reside in one
of the three main sections, carry out a good proportion of their activities in
two of these areas.

Tables 12 and 13 contain the sociometric data as concerns the designated
geographic areas with regard to Items 1 and 2.

Figures 3 and 4 show in sociogram form the perceived interaction among
the organizations as classified on the basis of a geographical criterion.
Figure 3 represents this control as it applies to the responses to Item 1;
Figure 4 reflects data from Item 2. These figures contrast sharply with
Figures 1 and 2, not only because of the paucity of high perceived interaction
but also because of the lack of reciprocal choice bonds.

Possible reasons for this could include the conjecture that a geograph-
ical control is simply not important or necessary to the understanding of
interorganizational behavior in the Upper Peninsula or that, with regard to
this study, the basis used to designate the geographic areas is inadequate.
Quite concefiwably a combination of the above has influenced the results to a
degree. On the other side of the coin, however, is the notion that this
control proved so strong that geographical sectors are indeed shown to be
relatively autonomous-nonintegrative areas of activity.

In any event, a couple of trends seem particularly evident. The East
sector on both items is completely isolated from any perceived activity. The
Central and West Central areas, primarily in Figure 3, are represented by
unreciprocated bonds with other geographic regions. Ostensibly the trend in
organizational interaction appears to lead toward the central portion of the
Upper Peninsula.

When Item 2 is introduced some of the high interaction.bonds disappear,

57

 

 

 

 

 

 

oo.m u oo.H mwcmn muoom manwmmom
om.N v mouoom n mnouomm umououcH wowuomnoucH 304
on.N M.oo.¢ v mmuoom u muouomm
ummHmuOH wcfiuomumuaH Guava:
oo.¢uN mouoom n muouoom umououaH wafluOOHOOOH swam
Oo>wooom muoow u mnasaoo
ao>Ho ouoom u m3om
mq.m wH.N mm.m mo.m ma.m 5m.m mm.m vo>woomm
HmuOH
0H.N No.N m¢.H «m.N mo.H q¢.N nm.~ ummm
NH.m mq.H mo.m mm.N ao.q mo.m mo.m Hmuuaoo umo3
mm.m oo.H ow.m oo.N m~.¢ NN.m mm.m Hmuucoo ummm
mm.m mo.m qw.~ OH.m qm.m mH.¢ ma.q .m.D HH<
do.m NN.H No.q wo.m mn.¢ mo.m an.m umo3
¢¢.q 0H.N oo.~ om.m mm.m om.n Nw.m Hmuuaou
nu_¢ fl. flown Mu GUM” V. no
Mm. w m...” m mm H m
mph. .4 n1 3 D) D n ZOHUMM
e e . e OHmm<muomw
T. T. .d T.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

om.m v mouoom u muouoom ummuoucH mcfiuomuouaH BOA
om.N _M oo.¢ .v mouoom u muouoom
umououaH mcwuomuouaH cmwvoz
oo.¢ M. mouoom u muouomm umoumuaH wawuomuouaH swam
wo>flooom muoom n mcasaoo
ao>flo ouoom n mBOm
mm.m om.~ om.N om.~ ¢N.m mw.m ¢o.¢ wo>wooom
HmuoH
mN.N mm.m oq.m Hm.H mo.m cm.m Rm.m ummm
Hq.m om.H mm.N mm.q nm.¢ om.m ¢©.N Hmuocou ummm
o¢.m Hm.N mm.N Hw.N mH.m 5w.m qm.m .m.D HH<
H©.m oo.H qN.m wm.¢ qo.q H¢.m qo.¢ umo3
mm.m m~.H mm.N Nn.m qN.n o~.m 0H.q Hmuuooo umoz
mo.¢ mo.N qw.~ om.~ mm.m mq.¢ o¢.m kuucou
9L 3 33 M. 3M V D
Mm. w mm m mm H m
99 3 3.4 .4 n3 fl 3 mMOHUMm
uI m e . m $53.5
T. T. .d T.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:.mZOHmHOMQ A<ZOHH<MmmO m0m<z
UZHM<E mmommm monflfiNHz<Umo Mmmfio mo

MUH>Q< mmH HmeOm m<m ZOHH¢NHZ<GMO MDON
zmmz mmZHH Mnm<mOMm mm< mmmmH:

"N ZmHH

OH mmzommmm zH <AszHzmm mmmmb m.z<meUHz mo
monUmm UHmm¢MUOmU Wm Qm>Hmomm Qz< zm>Hw mmmoom
UHMHMEOHUOm A<ZOHH<NHZ<UMO mo<¢m>< QMMMQMO MZ<M

ma mqm<H

HDO UZHMMMfiO ZH mHHB A¢mm

:wmmMZHmDm mHH

ZOHH¢NHZ<UMO MDOM mmon ZOHH¢NH
"H SMHH OH mmzommmm zH

Igmo H.433:

<ADmZHzmm mmmmm m.z<UHmUdz mo monwmm
UHmm<moomw Wm Qm>Hmomm Qz< zm>Hw mmmoom
UHMHMEOHUOm A<ZOHH<NHZ¢UMO m0<dm>< QMMMQMO Mz<m

NH mAm¢H

 

58

FIGURE 3

SOCIOGRAM REFLECTING PERCEIVED HIGH INTERACTION AMONG GEOGRAPHIC
REGIONS IN MICHIGAN'S UPPER PENINSULA. RESPONSE TO ITEM 1,
"WHAT ORGANIZATION DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION DEAL WITH IN
CARRYING OUT ITS BUSINESS?"

  
    
   
   

Central
5.24

FIGURE 4

SOCIOGRAM REFLECTING PERCEIVED HIGH INTERACTION AMONG GEOGRAPHIC
‘REGIONS IN MICHIGANKS UPPER PENINSULA. RESPONSE TO ITEM 2,
"THERE ARE PROBABLY TIMES WHEN YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS
SOUGHT THE ADVICE OF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS BEFORE
MAKING MAJOR OPERATIONAL DECISIONS."

   
   
   

  

West
Central
4.09

Central
5.82

59

perhaps pointing out the reluctance of certain localized areas to seek advice
or counsel. The noticeably high rate of interaction and consultation within
several of the geographic areas support the obvious lack of perceived activity
with other sectors of the Upper Peninsula. One might speculate that a regional
area, such as the Upper Peninsula, in need of a viable deve10pment program
would reflect just such a pattern of noninteracting areas. A tight reciprocal
bond appears between the All U.P. sector and the Central area. This bond was
not present with regard to Item 1.

In summary, the sociograms depicting the perceived interaction relation-
ships among the interest sectors and geographic regions in the Upper Peninsula
are admittedly incomplete and an abstraction of reality. However, their usage
has reflected new insights about interorganization interaction patterns in
Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

The final organizational variable which was examined, and only cursorily
in the study, is that dealing with Organizational Control. This variable is
considered to have nine aspects by the experimenters. These aspects concern
the nature of the organizational control: Labor, Local Government, County
Government, Michigan Government, U.S. Government, Entrepreneur (local), Entre-
preneur (foreign to the U.P.), Corporation (local), and Corporation (foreign).
The local and foreign designations refer to ownership whether it be within or
outside of the Upper Peninsula. The distribution of this variable looks like

this:

60

 

 

Number of

Control of Organization Organizations
Labor 3
Local Government 3
County Government 5
Michigan Government 14
U.S. Government 8
Entrepreneur (local) 2
Entrepreneur (foreign) O
Corporation (local) 25
Corporation (foreign) gg

Total 98

As with the other controls, this one aroused the curiosity of the
experimenters in respect to the possible patterns of interorganizational
interaction which may occur. The matrix formed, however, did not indicate any
noticeable concentrations of high or low interacting responses.

Approximately 30% of the organizations are linked with some level of
the government. Nearly 65% of the interests are profit-making or economic
organizations. A conceivably higher rate of interaction among the governmental
or tax-supported institutions is not supported by this data. Neither is there
support for conjectures about high interaction rates among the economic insti-
tutions or between local and/or foreign-controlled organizations. In short,
observation of the matrix discourages any further attempts at analysis of the
data and might point to the possibility that such a variable may not be of
worthwhile importance in future studies of a similar nature.

Stated at the beginning of this chapter was reference to the two major
categorical divisions of variables associated with this study. These were
organizational and personnel variables. Three organizational variables were
defined in this study and discussed above. -Of the three, the Primary Organ-

ization Interest variable proved the most valuable and interesting. The

 

usefulness of this variable has been at least partially demonstrated by some

of the manipulations performed on the sociometric data.

61

The second broad category distinguished has to do with the individual or
personnel variables and encompasses a whole list of psychological variables.
Obviously not all of the personnel variables can or should be examined. The
only individual variable examined in light of the sociometric data received in
the study is that dealing with the Position‘of Respondents. This variable was
coded in the following manner by the experimenters: A "l" was given to a
respondent who was considered by the experimentersdto be a Top Upper Peninsula
Executive; a "2” was given to those respondents who were Not Top Upper Penin-
sula Executives; a "3" was given to those questionnaires filled out by a
Committee.

This control, which theoretically could prove extremely interesting,
falls apart in its execution. In essence there are only two major classifica-
tions--"Top" executive and "Not Top" executive--as only one organization fell
under the "Committee" classification. Given the belief that in this case a
minimal condition for reasonable results would be a homogenous selection of
respondents, this distribution does not pass the test. The "Top" and "Not Top"
executives are evenly divided while the "Committee" in actuality consisted of
two tOp management officials who collaborated in filling out the questionnaire.
The distribution of the respondents with regard to the three distinctions

breaks down as follows:

 

 

Number of

Organizational Variable Respondents
Top U.P. Executive 41
Not Top U.P. Executive 39
Committee _I
81

Again, the 81 refers to the number of organization representatives out of a
possible 98 who responded to Item 1. The distribution of "Top" executives is

composed of district, regional and general managers, presidents, vice presi-

62

dents and owners, whereas the "Not Top" category consists of supervisors,
executive secretaries, sales managers, public relations men, office managers,
etC.

The matrix, organized in respect to the three designations of the
respondent position variable, emits no observable significant interaction pat-
terns. This is to say that there is no apparent difference in the way the
"Top" executives perceive interactions with organizations and the manner in
which the "Not Top" executives perceive interaction--and there is no logical
reason why this should show up in this matrix. The argument that is being
presented here is that the perceptions of a "TOp" and a "Not TOp" executive
from the same organization will have a tendency to vary and this type of
comparison cannot be made with this data.

This chapter contained a theoretic rationale, methodology and descrip-
tion of the findings from the second stage of a research study on the perceived
influential organizations in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. MOst of the data
presented in this section is derived from Items 1 and 2 of the sociometric
questionnaire and is illustrated in the form of appropriate tables and figures.
The variables examined in the sociometric analysis are organizational (interest
category, control and geographic base) and individual (organizational position).
The most interesting and potentially productive variable seems to be the one
concerning organizational interest sectors. One of the more important findings
indicated points out the distinctive patterns of interaction regarding what
are referred to as public service- and profit-oriented organizations. The most
valuable contribution of the second stage of the research project is the loca-
tion and definition of interaction patterns through the use of the sociometric
technique and an exploration of the ways in which the data may be manipulated.

The next chapter will consist of an evaluative critique of the research

63

project including a detailed examination of the sociometric and reputational

methods.

CHAPTER IV
THIRD STAGE: CRITIQUE
Sociometric Application

Introduction

The purpose of the present chapter is to evaluate the research project
as outlined in the previous two chapters. The order of the evaluation will be
to examine, first, the sociometric application and, secondly, the perceived
organized structure in terms of the theory and procedures employed.

Before an analytic discussion is to begin concerning the sociometric
technique used in the project, perhaps an indication of the two major areas to
be covered should be presented.

The first area concerns the use of the sociometric method per se and
its specific application in the research project. Actually two points are
detected here, but the nature of the evaluative discussion requires their com-
bined treatment. That is, even though some general critical points are noted
about the sociometric method per se, they are examined in terms of their
relevance to the research design. Specific questions which arise that will be
addressed in the ensuing section include: Is the sociometric method an
accepted and viable means of gaining information? What are some Of the general
problems inherent in the use of the technique? What specific difficulties are
contingent to its use in this particular research study? In other words, with
regard to the employment of the sociometric method in the project, what speci-

fic technical problems are associated with it? A second part of this query

64

65

might include an examination of the alternative ways in which those technical
problems could be avoided or minimized.

A second major area focusses on the question: can the sociometric

 

approach be applied to an organizational setting and still maintain its effec-
tiveness? This is in view of a long tradition of its use within small group
and primary group settings. A step included in this transition from small
groups to large organizational structures is the assumption that influential
representatives participating in the sociometric study accurately reflect
their organizational base. In a different sense, can the information Obtained
from the individual representatives be attributed to their respective organiza-
tions in any meaningful sense? Also, associated with this interesting problem
is the question of who is in the best position to represent an organized
interest. In other words, are there hierarchical incumbents who by virtue of
their positions within the organization have become adequately socialized so
that they can accurately represent organizational values and goals? If there
are certain positions peculiarly suited to this, who are they and where are
they? What is this concept of organizational socialization and is it meaning—
ful? Are certain hierarchical strata more amenable to this phenomenon than

others?
The Sociometric Method and Its Design

Socidmetric Choice

Robert Golembiewskil has stated that there are at least three substan-
tial difficulties concerning the use of the sociometric technique in group
study. First, there is the problem raised of what sociometric choice concep-

tually "is. Second, there seems to be a similar difficulty on the Operational

 

1Robert T. Golembiewski, The Small Group, pp. 110-17.

66

level concerning the location of or quantification of sociometric choice.
Finally, the predictive aspect of sociometric choice with regard to certain
group goals is hindered by poor research design and "conceptual imprecision."

It has been thought previously by some, e.g. Lindzey, that sociometric
choice merely involves the attraction or repulsion of persons for each other.
However, it has been found that at least two dimensions may be Operating with
regard to sociometric choice on a particular variable. These two dimensions
are "affectional" and "instrumental." Related to these dimensions are the
aspects of public and private choice, which involves the question of locus of
sociometric choice. This is to say that private choice would reflect socio-
metric selection on the basis of an interpersonal type of feeling, whereas
public choice would involve the taking into account of one's recognition of his
role within the relevant group or groups. In sum, affectional and instrumental
dimensions plus public and private considerations influence sociometric response.
Recognition of these factors is necessary not only so that test design may be
"tightened” but also so that results may be interpreted more adequately.

With reference to the items used on the sociometric questionnaire, it
may be difficult to verify a unidimensionality. For example, Item 1 and indeed
all of the other items, theoretically at least, are supposed to evoke responses
apprOpriate to an instrumental-public dimension. However, there is no guarantee
that this is the case, as certain individual responses would indicate. It will
be recalled that Item 1 reads: What organization does your organization deal
with in carrying out its business? It is apparent that in certain instances
either this question was very loosely interpreted or the item itself is Open
to question as to clarity and/or intent. In the first case it seems as though
the affeCtional dimension or a private-interpersonal criterion influenced

sociometric choice. In other words, business dealings for some might include

67

a public relations-social interaction type of consideration. It is conceivable
that the exchange of opinion over a meal at the meeting of a service club would
cOnstitute "business dealings" in a general sort of way for certain influentials.
In the second case as to the item's clarity and intent, the sentence
was designed first of all to gain a general view of organizational interaction;
however, this interaction was supposedly to reflect responses in accord with an
instrumental-public dimension, and insofar as this is accomplished, the item
could be considered valid. But, as has been intimated, no certainty exists
that this indeed happened; in fact, evidence seems to point to the contrary.
Item 1, in the generality of its intent, appears to have sacrified strength
in tightness of construction and therefore presents a dubious preface to the

interpretation of its results.

Sociometric Scoring

A second difficulty involved with the use of the sociometric technique,
as outlined by Golembiewski, is the lack of refinement at the operational
level. Essentially this refers to those studies which sum equally weighted
attraction values to arrive at a sociometric rank. The problem arising here
being one of whether the scores given can be meaningfully combined in view of
the variable individual motivations and degree of choice intensity Operating.
An associated difficulty would concern the seeming necessity of taking into
account the relative sociometric standing of the choice makers themselves in
the weighting of their respective scores. Obviously neither of these diffi-
culties have been adequately dealt with, although a partial solution has been
suggested to the effect that a deriving of a ranking agreement score, i.e..

1

the degree to which the ranking of the group members are in agreement, rather

than a choice total might be more effective and convincing.

 

lIbid., p. 115.

68

In relation to the project sociometrical design, the above mentioned
problems are also reflected. In other words, there is little in the scoring
procedure to permit any valid discussion of intensity of sociometric choice.
Mary Northway also recognizes the difficulty involved with choice intensity
and sociometric scoring:

The possibility is that the sociometric test itself will not provide an
answer to the problem of personal intensity in human relations. This
will have to be investigated through other measures. One attempt to take
this factor of difference in intensity into account was to give weights
of say 5, 3, l to a first, second or third choice. This was criticized
as being arbitrary . . . it must be remembered, however, that to consider
each choice statistically equivalent, in terms of psychological factors
is in itself an arbitrary decision.
Even though the subjects were given a choice of alternatives to utilize, these
still are inadequate in their inference of motivational strength. The alterna-
tives included a positive, negative and neutral response, representing a fixed
choice and thereby emitting a paucity of important information concerning
intensity. The scores given or received by the organizational interests are
weighted equally regardless of group sociometric standing; i.e., the relative
importance of the individual decision maker is not taken into account in the
derivation of scores. This seems to be a circular type of argument in that
this relative importance is based in most cases upon a sociometric rank of
some kind. Criswell continues the discussion in this vein and mentions a
possible solution:
Another scoring problem concerns the possible predictive usefulness of
choices received not only by the individual himself but by those who
choose him. Possibly it is better to receive two choices from individ-
uals who are themselves well chosen than to receive six choices from
isolates. One solution to this problem is a scoring method recently
completed by Leo Katz, in which an individual's status measure takes

into account not only the number of choices he receives but also the
choice status of each individual who chooses him, the status of each

 

1Mary C. Northway, A Primer of Sociometry, p. 14.

69

who chooses these in turn, etc.1

Predictability of Sociometry

A third problem associated with the use of the sociometric approach,
as seen by Golembiewski, is that of predictability, particularly concerning
the productivity or effectiveness of sociometrically self-chosen groups.
Simply because a group is sociometrically self-selected does not mean that it
will of necessity form a functional effective unit. The implication is, of
course, in most studies that reciprocal sociometric selection means Optimum
performance in groups, and this is not necessarily the case. Therefore in
studies such as the one involving the organized structure in the Upper Penin-
sula, a pattern of reciprocal sociometric choice will not automatically imply
a viable working relationship. Why this is so was partially explained by the
previous discussion on the apparent vagueness of an operational and conceptual
perception of "sociometric choice."

The problem which confronts us, however, is that even if patterns of
sociometric choice are located, what do they mean in terms of the ultimate
goal, i.e. the development and growth of a geographic area? In other words,
even though it appears as if certain sociometric channels have been identified,
this is not a necessary reason to believe that these arrangements will be
effective in the initiation and implementation of a development program. This
speculation is particularly made in reference to the first item which was
designed to indicate an overall interaction pattern. As may be recalled, the
item was phrased in terms of a business interaction criteria which, in fact,

may have little relationship with the kinds of COOperative behavior necessary

 

1Joan H. Criswell, "Sociometric Measurement: Some Practical Advantages
and New Developments," Sociometry and the Science of Man, J. L. Moreno, ed.,
New York: Beacon House, 1956, p. 389.

70

in a growth program. No guarantee exists which would assure that those organ-
izations which are perceived as having a high degree of interaction on a busi-
ness level would maintain or permit such relations in a service Operation such
as the one implied. Certainly it will be recognized that business relation-
ships are necessary before any regional or community development is to take
place; however, these relationships do not compose the type of interactions
necessary in situations where nonbusiness considerations are utilized. One of
the problems involved then, and perhaps the most crucial one, is that of the
apparently untenable position of criterial transpgsition. This is to say that
it seems extremely difficult to generalize or transpose a sociometric pattern
derived from a "business" interaction criteria to a situation requiring a
COOperative-service relationship. Likewise with the four remaining items,
three of which are constructed to gain a picture of some sort of influence
hierarchy and one which attempts a look at a status structure, what is the
feasibility of relating the information gained to the central aim of the
project, particularly when, as explained, the types of criterial situations
involved are diverse? One of the central aspects pertaining to a project of
this nature is the construction of test items so that problems of this nature
do not appear. In other words, there is a necessity of designing test items
so that they closely supplement or simulate situations similar or identical
to those concomitant with the central objective. Insofar as this is accom-
plished, the information thus obtained is amenable and relevant to generaliza-
tion about the primary aim. The further removed the test items become from
the locus of inquiry, the less applicability and hence validity the data so
obtained would have.

Although the sociometric results may in themselves not be the prime

determinants of a growth planning program, they may provide the initial

71

information necessary to give such a program a healthy beginning. One can't
say that the sociometric patterns identified, because of the reasons discussed
above, will lead to a viable deve10pment program, but one can say that this
sociometric survey could affect or influence the nature of such a program.

All that is really obtained through the use of this sociometric technique is

a general, albeit loose, indication of an interaction pattern among organiza-
tions and does not in itself lead to statements of a tight conclusive nature.
This modified view of the use of the sociometric findings in this project is

a realistic one and one which takes into account the limitations of the design.

Fixed Choice

Michael S. Olmstead1 offers several objections to or criticisms of the
sociometric method which are appropriate and supplementary to this discussion.
As I have stated in a preceding paragraph, the sociometric tool used in the
project presents the subject with a fixed choice situation; i.e., the informant
is required to select one of the three alternatives available even though
neither one may adequately express his true feelings. "Even when a respondent
has a clear Opinion, a fixed-alternative question may not give an adequate
representation of it because none of the choices corresponds exactly to his

"2 The choice alter-

position, or because they do not allow for qualification.
natives were constructed in such a way as to elicit either a positive, negative
or neutral response. This is substantially the point which Olmstead makes when

he remarks: "This restriction is wonderfully convenient from the point of view

of the investigator but leaves much to be desired as a method of apprehending

 

1Michael S. Olmstead, The Small Group, p. 95-99.

2Claire Selltiz et al., Research Methods in Social Relations, p. 260.

72

l Selltiz et a1. comment: "The closed question

the complexities of reality."
has the advantage of focusing the respondent's attention on the dimension of
the problem in which the investigator is interested; by the same token, it
does not provide information about the respondent's own formulation of the
issue, the frame of reference in which he perceives it, the factors that are
salient for him, the motivations that underlie his Opinions."2 In essence
then, the fixed choice situation,even though statistically and economically
convenient, really provides little in-depth information on dynamic ongoing
group processes. Ideally an open-ended technique of some kind would be pre-
ferred; however, this is hardly a practical alternative in face of the computa-
tive, economic and temporal problems involved. Selltiz et al. suggest what
might be a solution to the difficulty by intimating a mixture of the two
methods, i.e. the open and closed questionnaires. "For many purposes, a com-
bination of Open and closed questions is most efficient; an interview or ques-
tionnaire need not consist entirely of one type or the other."3 They go on to
suggest the using of an intensive, freer interview with a subsample of the
population to discover the probable range of responses and types of
interpretations given the question wording. After this initiatory sort of
procedure, then more meaningful questions can be developed.

A more immediate practical solution to the difficulty could be the
extension of the number of choices. A broadening of the choice alternatives
to five would enable the selector to more accurately express his feelings or

opinions thereby increasing the preciseness of the entire tool. This would

provide only a minimal answer to the problem, however.

 

1Michael S. Olmstead, op. cit., p. 98.

2Selltiz et al., Op. cit., p. 262.

31bid., p. 263.

73

Multidimensionality

Another criticism or, rather, limitation which Olmstead points out is
that sociometric data is not a picture of what is but of what is said to be.
The data obtained from the test are, after all, only a recording of what indi-
viduals claim to be the situation and it may, in fact, not be the actual case.
"It (the sociometric test) records only what pe0ple say (write) and has the
virtues and limitations of any such subjective data."1

Criswell looks at this aspect a little deeper and in a way not unrelated
to Golembiewski's plea for recognition of multidimensionality in sociometric
choice. "Sociometric measures have often failed to distinguish between the
elements in choice which are contributed by the official requirements of the
communication network (the formal), the individual's adaption to these require-
ments (the actual), and the way he would like to adapt to the requirements
(the desired)."2

One design as mentioned by Criswell and Golembiewski which represents
an attempt to examine this limiting factor is the Multi-Relational Sociometric

3 The MSS tries to locate and

Survey of Tannenbaum, Massarik, and Weschler.
identify four structural networks besides the prescribed or formal one sup-
posedly operating within a given situation. The four types of information

were obtained from the following questions:

1. The perceived: Who is supposed to give you directions (or orders) in
your work?

2. The actual: Who actually gives you directions (or orders) in your
work?

 

11bid., p. 98.

2Joan H. Criswell, Sociometry and the Science of Man, p. 386.

3Robert Tannenbaum, et al., Leadership and Organization: A Behavioral
Science Approach, pp. 346-70.

 

74
3. The desired: If it were up to you to decide, whom would you choose
to give you directions (or orders) in your work?

4. The rejected: Whom would you least want to give you directions
(or orders) in your work?1

A thorough examination of this particular method seems unnecessary here
as the question arises concerning the applicability of the M38 to the project
under discussion. There is only a connection in a very general instructive
way because the goals and Operational milieu of the two studies are quite dif-
ferent. As Tannenbaum et al. point out, the M88 is concerned with the measure-
ment of interpersonal variables associated with organizational effectiveness
and has its parturition in the context of the theoretical distinctions between
formal and informal organization. The instructive connection between the
sociometric tools utilized seem to be one of simply recognizing that other
dimensions of structure may or should operate within the context of the socio-
metric questionnaire. In other words, it appears reasonable to expect either
an attempt on the part of the experimenter at a unidimensionality or an
identification and specification of the structural elements to be tapped. In
reference to the project under examination, theoretically this represents a
unidimensional attempt to get at the perceived interorganizational relations,
not the prescribed, actual, desired, or the rejected. The perceived aspect
may, in fact, be the only dimension which one can obtain from a sociometric
questionnaire, because in a sense, regardless of how you label your structural
categories, it is still the perception of the individual which determines or
influences his responses.

In summary, it is necessary to realize in regard to the above discus-
sion that several dimensions may be Operating in the situation. Whether these

dimensions can be specifically identified and controlled is questionable, but

 

11bid., p. 350.

75

at least they may have some influence or effect on the design of the socio-
metric instrument. For example, and this will be discussed later, the wording
in certain portions of this sociometric questionnaire confuses the perceived
with the desired and rejected dimensions. Under the circumstances it is impos-
sible to calculate the effect of such confusion, but regardless of this, the
logical necessipy for consistency i2 content and purppse seems clearly

indicated.

Sociometric Response and Administration

A third and not uncommon criticism, which, as Olmstead mentions, is
related to the previous limitation, is that the information received from the
sociometric device is composed of conscious opinions given to an outsider.
Because of this, the data Obtained may be misleading, incomplete or a delib-
erate attempt to conceal or protect actual opinions or attitudes. This might
seem especially important in the situation where the sociometric approach is
utilized primarily as a psychological device in the traditional MOreno sense.
However, this does not imply that this limitation would not be germane to the
technique as it has been utilized in this study. Indeed, this particular type
of approach used in an organizational setting has to be used with extreme tact
and sensitivity. This is to say that organizations, especially economic inter-
ests, are suspicious and often hesitant to submit to questioning concerning
their relations with other organized structures. In the process of administer-
ing the sociometric questionnaire, it was noted by the interviewer that "several
respondents were at least aware of the possibility of anti-trust implications

H]-

to their answers. Because of this, the wording of the questionnaire has to

be apprOpriate and sufficiently neutral so as not to provoke any undue

 

1From the nOtes of Jack Schwartz, field investigator, September 1964.

76

antagonism. As a result, the test items are often ambiguous and lacking in
precision. It would be difficult to speculate upon the degree to which the
findings are influenced by the lack of item content clarity. The imposed
conservative style of wording may have relinquished the opportunity to gain
some real insight into the sphere of organizational relations. As implied,
however, the item phrasing may have inhibited certain respondents from answer-
ing in a "truthful" manner. A closer look at the item content will be offered
in another part of this section.

Since a certain amount of distortion is present in any type of social
data, the only thing which one can do is to design the tool in the most precise
meaningful way possible. It is then necessary to identify conceivable inter—
vening variables, interpret and explain the possible ways in which they may
have influenced the data. The simplicity of the sociometric approach seems to
be deceivingly susceptible to the pitfalls of social research. Selltiz et al.
warn us that "despite the use of administration . . . the analysis of socio-
metric data is frequently more complex than we anticipate."1

Another limitation prevalent in the use of the sociometric method is the
tendency to confer undue importance upon it and the data gained. A complete
dependence upon sociometric data is unwarranted. It should be supplemented by
other information and, if possible, by other testing procedures. A total
reliance upon the sociometric findings in this project would yield in some
instances an ambiguous and seemingly senseless pattern. For example, the
extremely high degree of interaction between two ostensibly unrelated organiza-
tions was explained by the fact that the president of one was a member of the
board of directors of the other. The data alone do not show or emit this kind

of information, which, undoubtedly, is necessary to a complete understanding.

 

lSelltiz et al., op. cit., p. 269.

77

To digress once more to the possible dimensions of a sociometric situa-
tion, it is perhaps unrealistic to ask that total reliance should be placed on
perceived information as obtained through the sociometric questionnaire. The
supplementation of this information by actual fact and observation among other

techniques would be most helpful in establishing a tight useful method.

Item Sequence--Fatigue and Psychological Set

Since this sociometric instrument is a type of modified questionnaire,
some of the same considerations which are involved with the Operation of
attitudinal questionnaires are applicable here. One of these considerations
would include the notion of question sequence. As this term is used by Cannel
and Kahn, it refers to the arrangement of questions so that they make the most
sense to the respondent. They feel that "a well—designed questionnaire facili-
tates the easy progress of the respondent from item to item and often leads
him to anticipate the next question because it seems to him the logical tOpic

"1 This is the kind of consideration which may be of importance

to discuss.
particularly to an opinion survey but may not have a significant bearing on

the kinds of questions utilized in this project. This is to say that the items
are of a type which do not require a change in the frame of reference nor are
they of a type which would be enhanced by a sequential gradation from general-
ity to specificity. Therefore, the sense in which the concept "question
sequence" will be employed here refers to the randomization or rotation of the
items as they are administered to the respondents. It is believed that a
variation in the order of the items may have produced a noticeable change in

the responses given. As noted above, after the first item a number of the

respondents lapsed into a kind of psychological set and caused the choice of

 

1Charles F. Cannel and Robert L. Kahn, "The Collection of Data by Inter-
viewing," Research Methods in the Behavioral Sciences, Leon Festinger and
Daniel Katz (eds.), New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1953, p. 348.

78

alternatives to become less discriminating. If the sequence of the questions
were varied as they were administered to the respondents this kind of phenomenon
may have been "canceled out" to a certain extent. Given the length of and the
peculiar nature of the test form, the variation of the question sequence quite
possibly could have contributed some to the strength of the device. As it is
now, the first item may be the only one which will yield useful information.
Actually, the source of the problem lies not only in the failure to vary the
item order but also rests with the nature of the form itself in that it is con-
ducive to mental tediousness. The question of item sequence is still pertinent,
however, and would reduce the possible effect of psychological set and fatigue
plus other influences which may, unknowingly, be built in or are situational.
This same observation could apply to the sociometric listing of the organiza-

tions, as their rotation might minimize any Operating "set" effect.

Item Content--Semantic Difficulties

Briefly touched on in Chapter III were some of the reasons why this
type and form of research device, i.e. the sociometric questionnaire, was
employed. It might be beneficial to again look at some of these reasons and
consider them in the context of constructive criticism. Fundamentally the
reasons are outlined by Selltiz et al. in their discussion of advantages in
the use of the questionnaire. Some of these reasons are the following: The
questionnaire is less expensive, involves less skill in its administration,
can be mailed or handed to respondents with a minimum of explanation, and it
is possible to cover a wide area and obtain information from more peOple by
means of the questionnaire.

The impersonal nature of a questionnaire--its standardized wording, its
standardized order of questions, its standardized instructions for

79
recording responses--insures some uniformity from one measurement
situation to another.

Certainly all of the above notions were taken into consideration in the
choice of this particular method. However, contingent with these pragmatic
advantages are drawbacks which ought to be recognized here and should be taken
into account and in surveying the project. Implied by Selltiz as a disadvan-
tage is the differential perception of the respondents with regard to the item
content. Despite the supposed uniformity of the items and the forms, each
individual seems to have a peculiar interpretation of the item phrasing. When,
in fact, the questions do contain wording which could cause confusion and
interpretative problems, the situation is doubly endangered.

From a psychological point of view, however, this uniformity may be more
apparent than real; a question with standardized wording may have diverse
meanings for different pe0ple, may be comprehensible to some and incom-
prehensible to others.

As we have seen, hierarchical position within the organizational struc-
ture would appear to have an effect upon the way questions are interpreted.
The life chances and life style of personnel within the organizations plus the
socializing effect of the organization itself has determined or influenced
greatly the perspective and manner in which meaning is attributed to the
phrasing employed in the tool such as the one used. As Selltiz points out,
even though such a technique can help focus the attention of the respondents
upon a particular dimension of the problem interested in, there is no means by
which information can be obtained concerning the respondent's motivation,
logic, or frame of reference used in formalizing his choices on the sociometric

test.

In the succeeding paragraphs, time will be taken to examine the five

 

1Selltiz et al., loc. cit., p. 239.

2Ibid.

80

questions or statements utilized in the sociometric tool and point out where
inadequate or ambiguous wording may have affected the responses. Separated
from criterial problems, fixed alternative objections, and all of those diffi-
culties previously discussed, the items will be considered in terms of their
own worth as adequate research devices.

Item 1: What organization does your organization deal with in
carrying out its business?

1. - frequently

2. - occasionally

3. - never
This appears to be a simply worded, straightforward item, but may, in fact,
cause various interpretations of its content. For example, what does "carrying
out its business" mean? Does this imply certain necessary and important func-
tions of the organization or does it refer to secondary casual interaction
among the interests? Perhaps some designation should have been made here with
regard to the kind of "business" implied. For example, suppose the phrase
"carrying out its important business" were substituted? The chance for vari-
able interpretation would still be present but minimized, in that part of the
ambiguity would be eliminated.

If the item refers to ppy_business interaction, how valuable is the
data received? Intimated in the alternatives available is the belief that the
importance of the interaction will be implied by the response choice, i.e.
frequently, occasionally and never. Again this may not necessarily be the
case, as frequency of interaction does not always indicate the significance of
the business transacted. What is meant by frequent or occasional business
dealings? Does frequent imply once a month, twice a year, or three times
a week? Obviously these alternatives were not and cannot be perceived uniform-
ly by the respondents. Perhaps the choice of words for the alternatives was

unfortunate and might have been remedied by specifying the rate of interaction,

81

e.g. twice a month, twice a year, etc.

The word "deal" in the item might also emit dubious connotations and
thereby cause unfavorable reaction among the respondents. "Deal" has too
often been associated with extralegal or illegal operations and could imply
concealed activity through irregular channels. Replacement with the term
"interact" may have alleviated this difficulty.

In summary, even though the analysis of this item content may seem
picayunish it is a necessary task and could perform a vital role in future
studies along similar lines. Wording of questions to insure a maximum of
response uniformity is no small problem and involves much study.

Item 2, like its predecessor, runs into semantic difficulties. The
item reads:

Item 2: There are probably times when your organization has

sought the advice of other organizations before making

major Operational decisions.

1. - have sought their advice

2. - would like to seek their advice but have not

3. - would never seek their advice
The major problem inherent in this item lies with the phrase "has sought the
advice of." Expressed by various organizational representatives, as noted by
the test administrator, was the feeling that a positive response (alternative 1)
to this statement would be an admission of weakness on the part of the organ-
ization or the individual himself. "Sought" or "seek" implies to some a degree
of obsequiousness or submissiveness which is distasteful to the image of a pro-
gressive and aggressive organization. In other words, there is a superior-
inferior relationship connotated here which may alienate the respondents and
affect his answers. An item which would eliminate this inference would be more

conducive to better response. A conceivable substitution for this phrase might

be "has consulted with other organizations...." This does minimize the

82

positional intimation and introduce a coequal atmosphere.

The phrase "making major Operational decisions" is liable to a wide
range of interpretation especially in regard to the variety of organizations
represented. That is, a major Operational decision as viewed by Inland Steel
Company officials is substantially of a different nature than that faced by the
Potato Growers Association. There is really no getting around the problem of
interpretation with regard to this phrase, but at least, unlike the previous
item, a decision was made as to the degree of importance in which the Opera-
tional decision is to be considered.

Alternative 2 of Item 2--”would like to seek their advice but have not”
--is not consistent with the other choices in that it appears to tap a "desired"
dimension rather than the perceived actual dimension upon which the device is
based. More apprOpriately, can an organizational representative state what an
organization would likg to do? The term or word as it is used attributes more
reality to the organization as an organic unit than is warranted. In any event
the deletion of the affect laden "like" would lend more consistency to the
alternatives. The use of the word "never" in the third alternative is regret-
ful and only serves to muddle the situation. Many peOple, particularly
conservative executives, are hesitant to use the word never. The employment
of the word "not" as a replacement could tighten up this aspect of the item.

A possible restatement of Item 2 taking into account the above analysis
could include the following:

There are probably times when your organization has
consulted with other organizations before making major
operational decisions.

1. - have consulted with them

2. - would consult with them but have not

3. - would not consult with them

Item 3 is stated in the following manner:

83

Item 3: Consider the special interest and purpose of your
organization. There are other organizations or group
opinions of your organization and its operation that
are especially important to your organization.

1. - important as a positive factor in our decision making
2. - unimportant, doesn't effect our decision making
3. - important as a npgative factor in our decision making

 

 

This item, as compared to the previous one, concerns itself with group Opinion
as Opposed to advice. There does not seem to be any appreciable qualitative
difference in the fundamental aim of the items in that both attempt to get at
an influence hierarchy. In this respect, this item and Item 4 could be deemed
redundant.

The major part of Item 3 which appears as though it could cause some
confusion is alternative 3, i.e. "important as a negative factor in our
decision making." This alternative purports to imply a situation in which the
respondent organization considers other organizations as competitors for
mutually desired resources, and in that respect are important as a "negative
factor" in their decision making. The test administrator has mentioned that
many respondents "scrupulously" avoided the use of this "negative response."
This, he claims, was particularly the case with those organizations which were
more exposed to public opinion.

Item 4: Most organizations secure help from other organized
interests in achieving certain organizational goals.

1. - did
2. - have not but would like them to
3. a would not
As in Item 2, the phrasing is such as to imply a superior-inferior
relationship. The words "secure help" are particularly indicative of this.
The test administrator has noted from the comments received by several

organizational representatives that the items "seemed loaded in that they

seem to feel that indicating they had gotten advice or help was an admission

84

of a weakness in their own ability."

Also, the same difficulty is again present in the alternative listing
with regard to the word "like." This is an affect-laden term and is
technically out of place in this particular test.

Item 5: From the point of view of your organization, which of the
following organizations are leaders in their respective
fields.

1. r are
2. - don't know
3. - are not

This item is by far the most ambiguous and confusing of the entire
group. In the first place, the respondents were not given any idea of a cate-
gorical reference so that a judgment could be made in the relative leadership
gradation among the organized interests. In other words, on what basis could
these interests be rated as leaders? How applicable is this item to such
organizations as the Michigan Legislature, County Superintendents of Schools,
Upper Peninsula Tourist Association, etc.? With regard to The Mining Journal,
is this organization rated on its leadership in a geographic area, in respect
to other Upper Peninsula newspapers, in the communications sector as a whole
or within the entire range of economic organizations listed? As the test
administrator himself points out, it is very difficult to evaluate a government
agency which has no competition as to whether or not it is a leader in its
respective field.

The objective of this item was to gain a look at the status structure
which may be prevalent among the organizations. This is to say an attempt was
made to see if the organizations would rank each other in terms of conferral
of prestige. A quick glance over the raw data would subsume any hOpes of

reaching that aim. Many of the respondents were nondiscriminatory in the

choice of alternatives, i.e. consistently chose either alternative 1 or 2

85

throughout the list. Very few respondents recognized any organized interests
which were pp; leaders in their respective fields; either they thought that
they were or they used the "don't know" response.

In short, the nature of the item does not lend itself to prOper inter-
pretation in light of the stated objective. Because of this difficulty, it
was decided by the experimenter to forego any extensive analysis through the
use of the computer or any other techniques.

This subsection dealt with the nature of the sociometric method per se
and the difficulties inherent in its application to the research project.
Problem areas which are recognized by authorities in the field were examined
in regard to the projectat hand. Finally, specific technical problems
relating to the sociometric design employed were discussed and several recom-
mendations were suggested concerning the improvement of the instrument.

The forthcoming section will concentrate on the theoretical problem of
being able to transpose an interpersonal sociometric method to an interorgan-

izational milieu.
Sociometricplransposition: gIndividual to Organization

Organizational Representation

One of the underlying notions of the experimenter influencing the choice
of the sociometric technique is the belief that this method which has been
utilized many times in small group situations can be viably transposed to an
organizational milieu. In other words, the sociometric approach which has
been employed in determining interactive relations within many types of social
groupings is now being applied to the organizational realm. This transposition
to the organizational level involves the belief that the respondents do in fact

accurately reflect organizational behavior. Thus while many of the merits of

86

such an approach are transferred so are many of the faults, and these may
indeed be magnified in the process and even new problems evolved. So it
appears that one of the primary concerns here rests with the permissibility of
generalizing a small scale technique to a large scale setting. This becomes
especially poignant when controversy regarding the technique at a lower level
has not yet and may never be resolved.

In Chapter II, it will be recalled that a number of assumptions were
listed which formed the underpinning theoretical framework of the research
project. Several of these assumptions have particular relevance to the present
discussion:1

1. The behavior of an organization is reflected in the actions of its

members who are socialized through and have internalized the norms
of the organization.

 

2. Such members, whether they be classified as "Influentials," "Organ-
ization Leaders," or "Spokesmen," can and do accurately reflect and
transmit their organization's position on most major issues.

3. Therefore, it is possible and realistic to expect that members of a
given organization can accurately and reliably provide descriptive
statements about past, present, and future organizational action.

It is believed by the experimenter that generally anyone who is a
member of an organization regardless of hierarchical position can, as the
assumptions indicate, accurately provide descriptive statements about organiza-
tional behavior. Implied, however, and as shown in the Operationalizing of
the beliefs, is the feeling that personnel above a certain hierarchical cut-off
point are in a better position to indicate or reflect organizational behavior

than are those incumbents of lower position. Where in the structural arrange-

ment the "cut-off" line is, is not specifically delineated. Assumption number

 

1The other three assumptions listed in Chapter II will not be examined
in this thesis. The reasons for this include the fact that some of their
important implications will be discussed in conjunction with the above enumer-
ated assumptions, and also it is believed that the examination of the assump-
tions singly will not contribute significantly to the overall understanding
of the project.

87

two intimates the types of personnel which would fall above this line. These
titles or labels still indicate a rather wide range of personnel and thereby

do not clarify certain problems which arise. For example, the designation
”spokesman" could refer to the public relations man, a secretary, an assistant
to an executive, or the executive himself-~in other words, peOple from many
organizational levels. Frankly, the primary purpose here in this discussion is
to convey the belief that where a person resides in the organizational hierar-
chy does make a difference, in terms of his reactions concerning the organized
interest. Because it makes a difference, studies utilizing organizational
personnel must either (a) be selective in their choice of organizational repre-
sentatives or (b) make certain that an adequate population of incumbents from
multiple hierarchical strata is obtained. Since the sc0pe of the study pre-
cludes any reasonable fulfillment of the latter, it seems as though the former
should have been adhered to firmly. In way of explanation, alternative ”a"
stated above simply means that the experimenters should have attempted to
obtain a population of respondents with relatively homogenous job descriptions.
This, however, was not done in the administration of the sociometric
questionnaire. It is obvious from looking through the actual questionnaire
forms that the respondents did not represent a homogenous sampling. This is

to say that the sampling does not consist of all presidents, or all managers,
or all public relations men, but instead is composed of a mixture of respondents
of whom only minimal effort was made to categorize in terms of actual
responsibility or position. This, it would seem, should be a necessary step

or procedure in the deve10pment of a "strong" research design. It is realized
that the procedure employed was dictated by and consistent with the theoretic
assumptions; it is hoped that the subsequent appraisal may affect some modifi-

cation of these beliefs.

88

Robert A. Gordon recognizes the differential perspective which accrues
to hierarchical incumbents, particularly owners vis-a-vis professional managers.

Professional executives do not necessarily react to business situations
in the same way as owner-managers. The personal attributes, background,
and training of the salaried manager are likely to differ from those of
the owner-entrepreneur of an earlier day or of most owner-managers oper-
ating in the modern industrial scene.

Gordon goes on to point out how the respective environmental milieu of the
professional manager and owner entrepreneur may affect their actions.

. . . tOp management in the large corporation must also deal with direc-
tors and with important outside groups. The "institutional environment"
of the salaried executive, therefore, differs from that of the owner-
entrepreneur, particularly of the small concern. In many companies, of
course, the role of the nonofficer director is a minimal one. But where
the influence or leadership of directors is important, the resulting
business decisions may well reflect an undue degree of financial caution.
On occasion, they may well reflect interests outside the business, which
particular directors wish to further.

’Therefore, applying this to the respondents in the study, one can readily see
how the varying environmental conditions surrounding the tOp executives in
certain organizations as Opposed to the cOnditions operating at the same level
could have a very noticeable effect on their respective responses.
Peter Rossi looks at this same phenomenon and provides a supporting
view or interpretation of it:
At the higher level of decision-making, roles vary widely in: First, the
’ higher the prestige of the office, the more the decision-maker will be
able to act independently. Secondly, decision-maker roles in organiza-
tions which have an independent financial base are less vulnerable than
those in organizations dependent upon support controlled by other persons

or organizations.... Finally, decision-makers may derive independence
from their basis of tenure.

 

1Robert A. Gordon, "Leadership in the Large Corporation," Social Organ-
ization and Behavior: A Readergin General Sociglogy, Richard L. Simpson and
Ida Harper Simpson (eds.), New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964, p. 172.

 

21bid.

3Peter H. Rossi, "Community Decision Making," Administrative Science
Quarterly, 1:415-43, March 1957.

89

The first and third statements of Rossi, in particular, are relevant here in
that they support the argument that a differential perspective exists among
varying levels of incumbents. Amount of prestige, financial base and tenure
are all influencing factors in the manner in which the positional incumbents
reflect organizational behavior.

R. H. Hall reports another factor which could affect the responses of
organizational representatives:

Varying degrees of bureaucratization would certainly have concomitant
effects on other organizational phenomena, such as participants behavior,
effectiveness of goal-attaining endeavors, and relations with the
external environment, both in terms of individuals and other organiza-
tions.
Therefore, in organizations manifesting varying degrees of bureaucratization,
"who answers" for the organization can be a crucial element.

The role expectations indigenous to positions within the organizational
hierarchy have a definite influence in shaping and molding the perspective of
the role incumbent. The duties, responsibilities, goals, and problems of a
position can reinforce, enlarge or alter the behavioral patterns contingent
with that position.

We agree with March and Simon, therefore, that, given the basic dilemmas,
the intensity with which each role occupant develops a special point of
view and then persists in adhering to it may depend on the goals of his
position, and the extent to which his attention and communication intake
have been focused and limited through that position.2

The essential point which should be emphasized is simply that the hier-
archical position of one within an organizational structure influences his

perspectives in.regard to attitudes concerning organizational direction. The

extent to which the lack of control over this positional variable has influenced

 

1Richard H. Hall, "Intra-Organizational Structural Variation: Application
of the Bureaucratic MOdel," Administrative Science Quarterly, 7:307, Dec. 1962.

2Henry A. Landsberger, "The Horizontal Dimension in Bureaucracy,"
Administrative Science Quarterly, 6:326, Dec. 1961

90

the data is a debatable point. The primary concern here is, however, that
this is one questionable aspect of the project which could have been eliminated
through a more careful research design. It seems that it would be advantageous
to future studies of a similar nature, to incorporate the administration of the
sociometric questionnaire to either incumbents of similar hierarchical position
or stratum or to deliver the form to several members within or from varied
levels. Ideally the latter alternative would be desirable not only because it
would provide a broader base for organizational representation but also because
it would tend to modify extreme responses given by any one individual. The use
of this alternative, however, would necessarily involve the belief that the
incumbents at several levels could accurately reflect and transmit their organ-
ization's position on most major issues. A modification of this view would be
the utilization of incumbents of several positions within the ppper management
1232;. Presumably, as stated before, members of the top management level who
are more intimately associated with the decision-making procedures can more
accurately transmit information concerning organizational position. Therefore,
if there is multiple representation from the upper management level, the socio-
metric data received regarding interorganizational relationships would be
enhanced and strengthened. Perhaps an average of the sociometric values could
be obtained, thus providing a more accurate representation of organizational
behavior than would a single score. Economically and temporally this method
may not be feasible, but from many other standpoints it is certainly desirable.
The use of a stratified sample, and the term is used in a descriptive
vis-a-vis technical sense, in which the organizational representatives are all
incumbents of similar position, might be economically expedient but limited
insofar as the kinds of useful information which could be obtained. For
example, if only the public relations men from the various organizations were

polled concerning organizational issues, this would hardly constitute a valid

91

basis for generalizations about the organizations as a whole. The only thing
that could be done is to restrict comment and generalization to that specific
pOpulation and, hence, limit the scope of the study considerably. Likewise,
in the project under examination, only one respondent acting as a representa-
tive of an entire organization does not form a tight foundation from which to
generalize about organizational relationships. In this case, one cannot even
say that the Opinions of a particular level of people are reflected, as the
respondents are from many positions within the organizations. Thus it appears
on this basis alone the value of the data received in this study might be
severely limited.
One of the basic problems which underlies the preceding discussion and
to some extent has influenced the procedures used concerns the tendency to see
the organization as an organic unity:
One analyst has noted the "error in anthrOpomorphism" in constructing a
model of the corporation simply in the image of individual man. Organi-
zation theory view the enterprise as made up of many participants, such
as suppliers, the many categories of employees, executives, dealers, and
stockholders.... It does not possess a single mind, "conscience," or set
of motivations as does an individual for it is, in an organization theory
model, a coalition of many individuals and groups.

If the organization did indeed possess a "single mind" then perhaps one repre-

sentative could accurately reflect its "behavior.” However, the organization

is, as was mentioned, a coalition of groups and individuals and therefore does

not make itself easily amenable to singular representation.

Organizational Socialization
Inextricably associated with the problem of differential perspective,

as it is manifested by organizational representatives, is the concept of organ-

 

1Harold L. Johnson, "Alternative Views of Big Business Goals and
Purposes," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
343:7, September 1962.

92

izational socialization. In an introductory statement preceding the sociometric
critique, this concept is mentioned in conjunction with the problem of locating
within the organizational hierarchy those incumbents who are "adequately"
socialized and, consequently, could reflect organizational behavior. The
question was then asked whether certain positions carry with them or require

a higher degree of socialization than do others. If certain positions or
levels of positions do require relatively more socialization, this would have
considerable influence on the value of the data obtained in this study and the
design of future studies. This would be especially helpful in respect to the
number and kinds of respondents selected to receive the questionnaire and also
to the interpretation of the results.

The area of socialization is relatively untapped insofar as it concerns
complex organizations. Few sociologists have concerned themselves with this
specific subject area but have concentrated primarily on socialization in
general--as Talcott Parsons, who offers us his definition of socialization as
”the acquisition of the requisite orientation for satisfactory functioning in

n]-

a role. Etzioni simplifies and narrows this somewhat sophisticated version

by stating that "the study of organizational socialization, like that of com-

munication, is concerned with the processes by which the beliefs, norms, and

”2

perspectives are brought into line with those of the organization. William

Evan also focuses our attention on organizational socialization and on the
formal organization as a prime medium for this process:
One of the principal agencies of "adult socialization" in industrial
society is the formal organization. In all such organizations there are

various procedures for socializing new members to the particular goals,
norms, attitudes, and values. These procedures may vary considerably

 

1Talcott Parsons, The Social System, p. 265.

2Amitai Etzioni, An Analysis of Complex Organizations, p. 142.

 

93

depending on the size, goals, functions, institutional context, and other
characteristics of the organization. For instance it is probably true
that the larger the organization, the more formal its procedures for
socializing its members.

As implied above, there are many variables connected with this phenome-
non, most of which have yet to be examined in empirical terms. However, as
with many abstract concepts, it is often easier to talk about them theoretical-
ly than it is to specify and objectify them. Etzioni admits that it is
difficult to assess the amount of socialization which would be required by an
organization for an individual to function effectively. One way which is
postulated for measuring this would be to determine the amount of formal,
informal, or "in-service" education necessary to fulfill the job expectations.
Even this measure, as Etzioni points out, does not indicate to what extent the
organization can control the socialization process for its own needs. This is
because the socializing agents, which may be outside of the organization
(university, church, service groups, etc.) or within (lower level participants),
are less subject to direction by the organization than are the top level
office holders. The point is that incumbents of different positions and levels
within the organizational structure have been exposed to varying degrees and
types of socialization processes and therefore manifest differential perspec-
tives and outlooks when asked to react to questioning concerning organizational
policy.

Along this vein, Pellegrin and Coates comment on the position of the
executive, especially a professional manager, with regard to representing the

organization:

As an agent of his corporation, the executive is cautious in his public
pronouncements. His superiors expect him to keep in mind company

 

1William M. Evan, "Peer-group Interaction and Organizational Socializa-
tion: A Study of Employee Turnover," American Sociological Review, 28:436,
June 1963.

94

policies and interests, and he knows that he should emphasize at Oppor-
tune moments a firm conviction that what is good for the corporation is
good for the community.1
Incumbents of lower positions might not feel this same kind of pressure in
representing the organization and therefore may differ in the nature of
response given.
Almost without exception, the men chosen to represent the corporation are
high level executives with lengthy service. They have demonstrated time
and again that they are familiar with corporation policies and that they
can be relied upon to do a good job of representing the company and its
interests. They will express Opinions on any subject which indicate that
they cherish the "prOper" social values.
Implied in this statement is the feeling that only the tOp level executives
with "lengthy service" have sufficiently internalized organizational values
and can therefore adequately represent the corporation in public affairs. If
either factor, a tOp level position or long service, is missing in the organi-
zational representatives utilized in a research project, the data subsequently
obtained must be seriously questioned. Both of these qualities were assumed
to be associated with the organizational representatives to whom the socio-
metric questionnaire was administered, but they were not specifically controlled.
Since the term organizational socialization is nebulous, its use as an
important rubric in a research study spawns many problems. Obviously any body
of organizational representatives will be socialized, but how and to what
degree is variable. Simply assuming that members can accurately reflect their
organization is not enough; perhaps the application of the criteria, position

and length of service can provide a beginning step in screening out "socialized"

organizational members.

 

1Roland J. Pellegrin and Charles H. Coates, "Absentee-Owned Corporations
and Community Power Structure," American Journal of Sociology, 61:417, March
1956.

21bid., p. 416.

95

This subsection began with a listing of several assumptions which pro-
vided a theoretic base for the methods employed in the research study. The
subsequent discussion centered primarily around two problem areas, organiza-
tional representation and organizational socialization, both of which were
concerned with the transposition of an individual technique to an organization-
al setting. Organizational representation was examined with regard to who
should be selected to reflect organization policy and to the differential
perspectives peculiar to the positional incumbents. Organizational social-
ization was discussed in terms of its conceptual meaning and the possible
influence on organizational representatives.

The final section of this critique involves an evaluation of the first
stage on the perceived organized structure. The format will be one of
discussing the reputational method, its application and the related area of

organizational selection and classification.

The Perceived Organized Structure

Introduction

The first stage of the project involved the definition of organized
interest sectors along with the identification of the perceived influential
organizations composing them. It is to these general areas that this section
is devoted.

The identification of organizations involved the use of the reputational
method, which will be examined first in regard to several theoretical consider-
ations, and secondly in respect to its actual application in the research
study. Closely connected with the use of the reputational method is the
definition of interest sectors and the prOper placement and classification of

organizations within them. This general subject area will be examined in the

96

second part of this section.

In way of review, the initial body of nominators contacted were the
County Cooperative Extension Service Directors. They were given the form as
shown on pages 13-15, and using this were asked to select key people to be
interviewed. These key people were described as those who are knowledgeable
and legitimate representatives or holders of operational positions in the
various influential organized interests found in that county. These represen-
tatives who were interviewed systematically, county by county by one inter-
viewer, were asked, using the same type of interview schedule, to nominate
influential organizations and their top leadership in the eleven interest areas.
Then, as stated previously, those organizations receiving multi-nominations

were placed on the sociometric questionnaire.

The Repptational Method and Its Application

Theory
The reputational or power attribution method has come under fire by cer-

tain social scientists, viz. Nelson Polsby, Robert Dahl, and Raymond Wolfinger,
within the past five or six years primarily because those using the technique
were attributing undue weight and importance to it.

It can be argued that the reputational method should be regarded as merely

a systematic first step in studying a city's political system rather than

a comprehensive technique for discovering the distribution of power.
Despite the incongruous context of the above quote, the substance of it is
quite relevant. The reputational method is seen as a first step in the study

of the organized structure of the Upper Peninsula--and nothing more. It is

not regarded as a primary means for gaining some form of a power distribution

 

1Raymond Wolfinger, "Reputation and Reality in the Study of Community
Power," Administrative Science Quarterly, 15:637, October 1960.

97

but merely to obtain an overview of the perceived influential organizations in
the Upper Peninsula.
Most of the reputational researchers, by their failure to specify scopes
in soliciting reputations for influence, assume that the power of their
leader-nominees is equal for all issues; some researchers specifically
state that they are concerned with a "general" category of community
leadership.
Recognized by the experimenters is the fact that individuals and organizations
will mobilize differentially around issues. However, since organizations are
generally perpetuated and remain relatively stable with regard to resources,
it is felt that some sort of general index can be obtained of the nominated
influential organizations.

Peter Rossi2

also discusses the use of the reputational method and
questions whether issue outcomes are actually "heavily affected" by those indi-
viduals nominated on the basis of reputation. He goes on to mention that Katz
and Lazarsfeld have shown that the "persons who actually influenced specific
Opinion changes are likely to be very different from persons designated as
potential sources of influence."

One major aspect which should be remembered here is that this project
attempts to deal with organizations rather than with individuals and, as such,
is concerned with patterns of relatively stable relationships with its sur-
rounding environment. This is to say that in any particular area the listing
of the major influential organizations will remain relatively unchanged over
time; whereas, the influence of any one individual will tend to fluctuate over

any particular time span. Therefore, in regard to any regional development

activity, those organizations perceived as influential, as shown in a listing

 

11616., p. 638.

2Peter H. Rossi, "Community Decision Making," Administrative Science
Quarterly, 1:429, March 1957.

98

obtained from the use of the reputational method, are most likely to affect

the success of such a program. As implied previously, the types of activities
and issues involved will determine which and what types of organizations will
participate most actively. Granted then, the influence of any one organization
-will vary according to the issue at stake. This fact is recognized by the
experimenters who do not pretend to set up any hard and fast hierarchy of

influential organizations.

Method

Other criticisms which are directed at the reputational method center
around the nature of the procedure used in gaining information. For example,
certain directions given the nominators may contain words of an ambiguous,
confusing nature and would then be subject to a variety of interpretations.
The instructions given, whether received orally or in written form, may lack
clarity and not satisfactorily outline the task. The experimenter in the
research project under analysis used both oral and written means to explain
the nature of the participation expected. The verbal contact with the COOper-
ative Extension Service Directors was made at a general meeting, at which time
effort was made to solicit support with regard to the project as a whole and
their contribution to it. Written instructions were sent to each director
with additional description of the project. In general, it appears as though
the directions and the nature of the overall study were well defined and rela-
tively free of ambiguity.

Some studies utilizing the reputational method designate limits on the
number of individuals which can be nominated, thus lowering the effectiveness
of the method in the eyes of some critics. In the instructional letter to the
Extension Service Directors, it was suggested that a sample of six to eleven

per county would be sufficient in most cases. Presumably their "six to eleven"

 

99

designation was arrived at primarily because of the limited time available for
interviewing those nominated. It is unfortunate, although expedient, that this
restriction had to be used; however, it seems to imply that perhaps the number
of county units involved are unwieldy and that a project of this scale is too
ambitious. No numerical limits were imposed on the number of organizations
which could be nominated by those initially selected by the Extension Service
Directors; however, as will be discussed, certain guides were indicated which
helped channel the nomination process.

In commenting on the nominational interview schedule (Table 1), it
should be noted that the experimenters felt that the inclusion of subheadings
under the interest areas would elicit a more exhaustive and accurate accounting
of the influential organizations than would a totally undirected method. It
was found by the investigators in a prior test trial using an undirected tech-
nique that the responses received were incomplete, particularly in the breadth
of the organizations nominated. On the other hand, a guided approach as
employed here could have the undesirable side effect of causing the nominators
to name organizations corresponding to the subheadings, regardless of whether
they are actually influential in area activities. This effect would be some-
what lessened or eliminated by the multi-nomination condition imposed for the
sociometric listing of influential organizations in that the less important
organizations would be deleted.

In conjunction with this, it might be well to recognize the "built-in"
bias of the body of nominators who were, as stated, the County COOperative
Extension Service Directors in the Upper Peninsula. One can assume, perhaps,
without benefit of a personnel profile, that these fourteen directors share a
certain similarity in training, job requirements, etc., and because of this

might well be inclined to over-select or under-select organizations in partic-

 

100

ular interest areas. It is also quite possible that the nature of their
positions would restrict their knowledge of organizations in certain areas and
thereby lead to ignorance of influentials in some interest sectors. Despite
the conceivable deficiencies which may have been Operating, the subsequent
interviewing of the organizational representatives nominated probably would
have nullified or at least modified these defects--this is to say, modified to
the extent that any further information obtained was considered additive and
included in the total pool of data on the perceived organized structure.

Floyd Hunter,1

in his Atlanta study, selected his initial informants
from four major community groups--business, government, civic associations and
society activities. These informants were then asked to list persons "presumed
to have power in community affairs." Although there are numerous differences2
between the Hunter study and the one under discussion, one of these differences
is pointed out here relating to the nature of the initial group of informants
selected. In the one instance, these informants represented four major commu-
nity groups, and in the other, a single homogenous grouping of nominators were
employed. Given the vast difference in the amount of resources (money, time,
personnel, etc.) available in the respective studies, one can easily see that

a project encompassing the entire Upper Peninsula would run into serious
logistic and economic difficulties if it utilized a group of initial informants
similar to those of Hunter. Conceivably, the lack of sophistication in the
first phase of this project may have bypassed certain accepted operating pro-

cedures without seriously endangering the results obtained. In fact, there

may be something said for the use of a homogenous grouping of nominators, par-

 

1Floyd Hunter, op. cit., pp. 11-12.

sz0 major differences being that in this study emphasis is placed on
the organization, not the individual, and the fact that the nomination pro-
cedure is an additive, not a reductive process.

 

lOl

ticularly on a regional scale, who are intimately acquainted with their baili-
wick and committed to a conscientious job of reporting. In any event, the
selection of the initial informants in this study is of minor importance but

is necessary in any evaluating attempt of the project as a whole.

Organization Selection and Classification

A major difficulty associated with the reputational method in the
research project is the limiting, selecting and classifying of organizations.
Since it is a problem which affects both stages of the research project, its
implications on the sociometric application will also be presented below.

The experimenters in the project decided to include in the final socio-
metric listing, second stage, only those organizations which were nominated at
least twice within a county and at least once by two or more counties. This
is an arbitrary decision, of course, on their part, and no absolute certainty
exists that this criterion manages to select those organizations which are
indeed the most influential. For example, the imposition of this criterion
eliminates the possibility that an organization which is extremely influential
within one county, e.g. a bank, or that an organization which spreads its
influence throughout the Upper Peninsula but is not concentrated in one place,
e.g. county bar associations, from appearing on the final listing included in
the sociometric questionnaire. This seems unfair. One possible solution to
this difficulty would be to include any organization in the final pOpulation
which receives a multi-nomination from one as well as several counties.

It is difficult to suggest a solution to this problem because no matter
what is decided some organizations will be eliminated from a final listing.
Apparently the experimenters believed that the organizations which should be
selected for the sociometric form should exhibit both depth and breadth in

their nominations--depth, meaning a multi-nomination within at least one

 

102

county, and breadth, at least a single nomination from two or more other
counties. Ostensibly this criteria does seem reasonable if applied consistent-
1y.

This same criticism, i.e. the exclusion of certain organizations, could
be directed at the interest area categories themselves, which contain, on the
surface at least, no provision for religious, professional or service organiza-
tions. A casual examination of the interest areas listed could lead to a hasty
conclusion as to the apparent incompleteness of the sectors. A more thorough
look at the numerous organizations included under the headings will support
the fact that almost all organizations of any size and stature in the Upper
Peninsula were nominated and listed in the inventory. The three types of
organizations mentioned above (religious, service and professional) were
included under the "catch-all" classification of Government. It is interesting
to note that these three seemingly important areas of social organization did
not meet the test as influential factors in Upper Peninsula activity. The pri-
mary reason for this seems to be that these organizations are composed of many
localized autonomous groups and are, therefore, ineffective and unimportant as
effectively functioning regional units; consequently, they do not appear on
the final sociometric listing of influential organizations.

The impression has been given that the experimenters applied the admis-
sion criterion objectively and fairly to those organizations who qualified for
the sociometric listing. This is, unfortunately, not true, as more than a few
organizations were deleted from the final population. The reasons for so doing
are diverse, but none are methodologically justifiable. One of the primary
reasons implied by the researchers is that certain organizations, taking into
account the nature of their Operations and other ancillary factors, were simply

not relevant to the influential grouping. Perhaps this reason was deemed

 

103

economically and even technologically expedient at the time, but a strictly
analytic view of the situation would question the judgment of the experimenters
at this point.

A comparison of interest areas on the interview schedule with those
used in the sociometric phase of the study will reveal two changes which took
place. The Government and Business interest areas are replaced by Service and
Education. The Business sector collapsed because there were not enough organ-
izations which were multiply nominated to warrant the continuance of that area.
The Government interest area proved to be too inclusive, so it was divided into
the Service and Education sectors. Included in the Service area are most of
the government-related agencies, while the Education sector is composed
entirely of education-related organizations. This ex post facto rearrangement
of interest categories may be questionable but serves to point out the flexi-
bility of what is admittedly an eXploratory research study.

The problem of the prOper placement of the interests within the cate-
gories plagued the experimenters throughout the project. This was especially
true of those organizations (primarily public-service oriented) which could
rightfully be placed in several of the interest areas. There was no objectively
defined criteria to follow in the placement of organizations, hence the diffi-
culty in the interpretation of the findings on the basis of interest sectors.
The problem of placement arises as soon as categories are defined because they
are not mutually exclusive.

Possible answers to this problem might include the collapsing of cate-
gories into two inclusive classifications, such as public-private or profit-
nonprofit. At the other extreme, categories could be so specified so that
little question would exist as to the prOper placement of an organization.

Both of these solutions seem to suffer from the same basic defectt—neither

 

104

would be of real value in the understanding of interorganizational relations,
the one because it is too inclusive, the other because it is too specified.
Another solution to the problem has been suggested by a similar study
done in the Grand Traverse Bay Region of Northwest Michigan.1 The nominations
of the organizational representatives (as selected by the County Extension
Service Directors) were categorized as to the interest sector in which they
were perceived as being influential. In other words, organized interests,
such as the Farm Bureau, Chamber of Commerce, USDA Soil Conservation Service,
etc., are often perceived as being influential in different interest areas by

different respondents. The frequency of times they were nominated in a partic-

 

ular interest sector was recorded.

If this same technique had been employed in the Upper Peninsula, the
problem of organization placement might have been eliminated simply by placing
the interest into the sector in which it was perceived by the most nominators
as being influential. If this could have been done, the design would have
been tightened and an objective criterion would have existed as standard
procedure for organizational placement.

In this brief section discussing the reputational method and organiza-
tional classification, several aspects of this initial phase of the study have
been brought to light and examined. Perhaps the most cautious way to evaluate
the utilization of the reputational method in this project would be to quote
Wolfinger, as he says that it is merely ". . . the elaborate variant of the
older procedure of asking insiders--reporters, politicians--for a quick run-
down on the local big shots in order to identify potentially useful interview-

"2

ees. This is essentially what the experimenters hOped to accomplish, and

 

1Anderson and Connally, loc. cit.

2Wolfinger, op. cit., p. 637.

105

did to a great extent, given the limitations involved. As soon as the
researchers attribute more importance to the method and the results than has
been stated--particularly in regard to a power ranking based on this informa-
tion alone--then many of the criticisms which have been leveled at the
technique become applicable.

Even though the reputational method provides a tried technique for the
identification of influentials, it also imposes a limitation on the kinds of
generalizations and implications which can be inferred from the results. The
reputational method, as it is employed in the project, does not restrict the
types, size, or number of organizations which can be nominated. Because of
this, the experimenters are required to classify, limit and select, all calling
for arbitrary decisions which can contribute to the weakening of the study as
a whole. However, as has been pointed out, judgments have to be made and no
research study is immune. The employment of the technique in this project is
done admirably and with few modifications seems to have potential in the loca-

tion of influential organizations in future similar projects.

 

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary of the Thesis

The major effort in the preceding chapters has been concentrated on
three tasks--those of describing, interppeting and constructively criticizing.
These three analytic aspects have been applied to a research project concern-
ing the perceived organized structure of a specific geographic region and the
utilization of a sociometric design on selected organized interests within the
structure.

Five steps were contained in the original research project which com-
posed a procedural framework for furthering attempts to aid in the planning of
growth and development programs:

1. The location and definition of organized interest sectors.
2. The identification of the influential organizations within the sectors.

3. An indication of the key leadership representing the organized
interests.

4. The location and description of interaction patterns among the
organizations and interest sectors.

5. The validation of the procedure through actual assistance in planning
development programs.

The fifth step was considered beyond the scope of the research project
but may, to some extent, be influenced by the analysis presented in this thesis.
The first three steps composed the first stage of this thesis, while the fourth

was the primary concern of the second stage. Both stages were discussed in

106

 

107

terms of their theoretic base, the methodology employed and the findings

obtained. The third stag; of the thesis contained an evaluative critique of

 

the preceding stages along with appropriate recommendations pertaining to the
strengthening of the research design. The method utilized in this critique
consiSted of a comparison and application of procedures and critical comment

found in social science literature to the procedural design of the research

project. FF

Conclusions

Generally, this thesis was involved with contributing, through a com-

 

prehensive analysis, to the culmination of two goals--i.e. the design of an E.
Operational framework for assistance in deve10pment activity and the further-
ance of organizational and interorganizational research.

To the extent that the use of the reputation and sociometric methods are
perceived as adequate means for obtaining information concerning organizations,
and to the extent that the procedures employed represent exploratory and
demonstratory efforts, it is believed that a valuable contribution has been
made to the study of organizations and interorganizational relationships.

It is believed that it has been demonstrated that an extensive inventory
of influential organizations can be produced for a geographic region. Further-
more, the reputational method has proven itself to be a useful means for
evolving this listing of perceived influential organizations and their key
leadership. However, some of the limitations concerning the reputational
method and its application are noted: (1) the belief that undue importance is
attributed to the method as a means for identifying a power hierarchy, (2) the
question of whether the method actually does locate influentials, (3) the Open
versus "guided" technique for obtaining nominations, and (4) the selection of

an initial body of nominators. Connected closely with the discussion of the

108

reputational method was the area of organization selection and classification.
The problems examined under this heading were: (1) a numerical criteria for
the nomination and selection of influential organizations, (2) difficulty in
defining interest categories, and (3) the prOper placement of interests within
the categories.

The application of a sociometric design to the study of organizational
relations is vulnerable to defects, but, despite this, the method has demon-
strated its utility and presents great potential to the area of interorganiza-
tional analysis. For example, noticeable patterns of interaction among
organizations and interest sectors were located through use of the method.
Also noted were reciprocating blocs of interest sectors, particularly in regard
to a public service- or profit-oriented criterion. The areas in which the
sociometric method and its application in the research project require.further
study and refinement are the following: (1) conceptual meaning of sociometric
choice, (2) sociometric scoring, (3) predictability of sociometric selection,
(4) fixed choice, (5) multidimensionality, (6) item sequence-~fatigue and
psychological set, and (7) item content-~semantic difficulties. Associated
with these problem areas is the question of being able to transpose the socio-
metric method from an individual to an organizational setting. Examined in
this general area were the difficulties of who actually represents the organ-
ization and to what extent socialization processes have influenced their
response.

The enumerated points outlined in the above two paragraphs were con-
tained in the critique of the research project and represent areas of the
research design which require strengthening and/or revision. A pioneering
effort is nearly always subject to problems and deficiencies, insofar as this

effort is seen in the broad view as providing a workable framework for future

 

109

organizational studies and contributing to the general body of organization
and interorganizational knowledge, then the goals of the project have been

fulfilled.

Problems for Future Research

Major difficulties which will face future research studies will include
the definition of a manageable region or area for examination, a clear-cut
procedure for organizational selection and placement into interest sectors,
and decisions as to the nature of organizational representation for the pur-
poses of sociometric information. It is also evident that serious effort
should be placed on the pretesting of such a design.

Since the ultimate goal is an Operational procedural framework to aid
in the planning of growth and deve10pment activities, the essential problem
becomes one of following through on such a research design to see if, in fact,
it will provide a valuable basis for deve10pment programs. When this is
accomplished, then and only then will the project be seen as complete in the

true sense .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Robert C. "The Perceived Organized Structure of Michigan's Upper
Peninsula," an unpublished Michigan State University Research Report,
1963.

Anderson, Robert C., Damson, Jack E., and Mulvihill, Francis X. "The Per-
ceived Organized Structure of Michigan's Upper Peninsula--A Sociometric
Analysis," a paper presented at the 1965 Rural Sociological Society
Meeting, Edgewater Beach Hotel, Chicago, Illinois.

Anderson, Robert C., and Connally, Gerald. "The Perceived Organized Structure
of Five Selected Counties in the Grand Traverse Bay Region of Northwest
Michigan," an unpublished Michigan State University Research Report,
1965.

Bertrand, Alvin L. "The Changing Power Structure in Agriculture as a Dimen-
sion of Agrijustment--A Conceptual Approach to the Study of Agricul-
tural Power," Projection Papers, James H. Copp (ed.), Rural Socio-
logical Society, 1964.

Cannel, Charles F., and Kahn, Robert L. "The Collection of Data Interviewing,"
Research Methods in the Behavioral Sciences, Leon Festinger and Daniel
Katz (eds.), New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1953.

Criswell, Joan H. "Sociometric Measurement: Some Practical Advantages,"
Sociometry and the Science of Man, J. L. MOreno (ed.), New York:
Beacon House, 1956.

D'Antonio, William, and Erickson, Eugene C. "The Reputational Technique as a
Measure of Community Power: An Evaluation Based on Comparative and
Longitudinal Studies," American Sociological Review, Vol. 27, June 1962,
pp. 362-76.

Emerson, Richard M. "Power-Dependence Relations," American Sociological
Review, Vol. 27, January 1962, pp. 31-41.

Etzioni, Amitai. Complex Organizations: A Sociological Reader, New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964.

Etzioni, Amitai. Modern Organization, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc.,
1964.

Etzioni, Amitai. An Analysis of Complex organizations, New York: The Free
Press of Glencoe, 1961.

110

111

Evan, William M. "Peer-group Interaction and Organizational Socialization:
A Study of Employee Turnover," AmericangSociological Review, Vol. 28,
June 1963, pp. 436-40.

Golembiewski, Robert T. The Small Group, Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1962. ‘

Gordon, Robert A. "Leadership in the Large Corporation," Social Organization
and Behayior: A Reader in General Sociology, Richard L. Simpson and
Ida Harper Simpson (eds.), New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964.

Hall, Richard H. "Intra-Organizational Structural Variation: Application of H
the Bureaucratic Model," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 7,
December 1962, pp. 245-308.

Hunter, Floyd. Community Power Structure, Chapel Hill: University of North —
Carolina Press, 1959.

Hunter, Floyd. ToppLeadership,,U.S.A., Chapel Hill: University of North _
Carolina Press, 1959. ‘ Q

 

Johnson, Harold L. "Alternative Views of Big Business Goals and Purposes,"
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
Vol. 343, September 1962, pp. 1-9.

Landsberger, Henry A. "The Horizontal Dimension in Bureaucracy," Administra-
tive Science anrterly, Vol. 6, December 1961, pp. 299-332.

Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management, New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., 1961.
T

Lindzey, Gardner, and Borgatta, Edgar. Handbook of Social Psychology, Reading,
Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1954.

Loomis, Charles F. Social Systems, New York: D. VanNostrand Company, Inc.,
1960.

Miller, Delbert C. "The Prediction Of Issue Outcome in Community Decision-
Making," Research Studies of the State College of Washington, Vol. 25,
June 1957, pp. 137-47.

Northway, Mary C. A Primer of Sociometry, Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1952.

Olmstead, Michael S. The Small Group, New York: Random House, 1965.

Parsons, Talcott. The Social System, New York: The Free Press of Glencoe,
1951.

Pellegrin, Roland J., and Coates, Charles H. "Absentee-Owned Corporations and
Community Power Structure," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 61,
March 1956, pp. 413-19.

112

Presthus, Robert. Men at theylop: A Study in Communipy Power, New York:
Oxford University Press, 1964.

Rossi, Peter H. "Community Decision Making," Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 1, March 1957, pp. 415-43.

Selltiz, Claire, Johoda, Marie, Deutsch, Morton, and Cook, Stuart W. Research
Methods in Social Relations, New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc.,
1959.

Tannenbaum, Arnold Sherwood. "Control in Organizations: Individual Adjust-
ment and Organizational Performance," Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 7, September 1962, pp. 236-57.

Tannenbaum, Robert, Weschler, Irving R., and Massarik, Fred. Leadership and
Organization: AgBehavioral Science Approach, New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., 1961.

Weiss, Robert S., and Jacobson, Eugene. "A Method for the Analysis of
Structure of Complex Organizations," American Sociological Review,
Vol. 20, December 1955, pp. 661-68.

Wolfinger, Raymond E. "Reputation and Reality in the Study of Community
Power," American Sociological Review, Vol. 25, October 1960, pp. 636-44.

 

I AN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

llll Iflllllllflll I

3 1293 3070 8 19

MICH G