‘ ‘I’W l W l’ jl 1 ill ' H ‘II‘ II 121 362 THS. EVER DE :OWA Q C‘é‘iAi‘x-fifi LN 11.122323 1:12;” ‘1: =2 b. -- M. 7/3.. “ ‘ ‘ 37,1? 7“ «"nfv MACE-HSAN 314111211 uhuifisiu t 1‘ 9 1" 7g ‘ 0’” Richam 1.1. .v. 818311.16 £958 TI-!!'S\ ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE IN AN INDUSTRIAL SITUATION BY Richard L. Passine A THESIS Submitted to the College of Science and Arts of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1958 Richard L. Passine 1. ABSTRACT The purpose of this investigation was to determine the effects of supervisory climate, level of jab satisfaction, and of satisfaction with life in general on employees' attitudes toward change in various aspects of their jobs. The inventories employed to assess these variables were adminis- tered non-anonymously to 191 employees of a Michigan furniture manufac« turing company. Thirty three sets of data were incomplete on one or all variables and had to be omitted from the main statistical analysis. The remaining 158 were divided into two groups (A and B) of 79 each by a method of stratified random sampling. Group B was used primarily for the purpose of cross-validating some of the findings derived from data on Group A. The relationships between attitude toward change and the other var- iables under investigation were tested by appropriate parametric statis— tical techniques. The results indicated that workers who are satisfied ‘with their jobs possess a more favorable attitude toward change than workers less satisfied.with their jobs. The results also indicated that workers who perceive change as having taken place in their jobs have a more favorable attitude toward change than.workers who perceived little or no change in their jobs. The initiating structure component of super- visory climate revealed a significant correlation with employees' attitu- des toward change, however, no significant relationship was feund between the consideration aspect of supervisory climate and attitude toward change. Richard L. Passine 2. Little or no relationship was fbund between attitude toward change and the other variables under investigation although significant relation- ships were found between.certain independent variables. The validity coefficients obtained for prediction of attitude to— ward change from combinations of two, three, and four variables were the most significant findings of the study. All multiple coefficients were significantly other than zero. The multiple regression equations for prediction of attitude toward change from several of the independent variables were supported by cross-validation with another group of emp- lqyees. The major overall conclusion to be drawn from the study is that employees' attitudes toward change are essentially multivariate. The specific conclusions made on the basis of the study must be considered tentative in View of the study's limitations, but the findings do indi- cate the feasibility of further research. ACKNWNT The author of this thesis would like to express his sincere thanks to Doctor James S. Karslake, his major professor, whose patient and helpful advice and assistance made this study possible. TABLE I. II. III. LIST OF TABLES page INTERCORRELATION OF THE INDICES EMPLOYED IN THE STUDY...18 PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AND CERTAIN OTHER VARIABLES WHILE HOLDING THE INFLUENCE OF A THIRD VARIABLE CONSTANT......19 MULTIPLE comuTIou COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN ATTITUDE TOWARD manor: AND C(MBINATIONS or Two, THREE, AND FwR VAIMBLBOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOO0.0.0.00000020 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND HIPOTHESES METHOD AND PROCEDURE The Inventories and Scoring Technique The Subjects The Administration Statistical Analysis FINDINGS RESULTS canlENTS DISCUSSION AND C(NCLUSIONS BIBLIOGRAPHI APPENDIX A. SBA Employee Inventory B. Pleishman's Supervisory Behavior Description C. Weitz's Test of General Satisfaction D. The Change Inventory E. Stratified Random Samples of Employees F. Respondent Scores on the Inventories G. Some Formulas hployed in the Study El 16 21 23 25 35 1. INTRODUCTION Management has long been aware, if not convinced, that changes in such things as personnel policy, wage administration, and technology are essential to industrial progress and growth. lanagement is also cogni- zant of the fact that change, be it minor or as revolutionary as automa- tion, has differential effects on the qualitative and/or quantitative aspects of worker serviceability or usefulness. A perusal of the literb ature reveals, however, that the importance of the matter is not parall- elled by intensive investigation into the problem. The plan for the pre- sent study developed as a result of the latter situation. The problem.under study involved selecting a measure designed to assess attitude toward change and investigating the possibility of func- tional relationships between it, as the principal dependent variable, and other aspects of the worker's immediate and general environment. Spe- cifically, the purpose of the study was to determine the effects of superb visory climate, level of job satisfaction, and of attitude toward life in general on employees' attitudes toward change in various aspects of their Jobs. With the exception of the Change measure, a review of the literature led to the selection of inventories that have been used extensively in industrial research. The lack of a commercially available measure de- signed to assess attitude toward change affords some evidence of the dearth of studies on this aspect of American business and industry. BACKGROUND The systematic investigation of employee attitudes is a relatively recent development in American business and industry. Although studies date to the early 1920's comparatively little interest was shown in the measurement of employee attitudes until the early part of lorld‘lar II. At present, though there are a number of studies reported in the liter~ ature, most of them tend to be somewhat contradictory and inconclusive. A variety of studies in the past few decades fortify the contention that caliber of supervision is a critical factor in employee attitudes (6, 8, 12, 18, 19, 20). Evidence is greatest with respect to immediate levels of supervision although higher echelons have been shown to have considerable influence (13, 1h). The human relations aspect of the super- visor's role received its initial emphasis through the writings of such men as Bingham (9) and Hbuser (11) in the late 1920's. At the same time, the series of studies begun at the Hawthorne plant of lestern Electric (22) yielded unexpected but potentially exciting results. Although the Hawthorne studies were primarily intended to assess the effects of varia- tion in specific physical work conditions on productivity, the greater importance of various aspects of employee recognition and of employee- supervisor relationships soon became apparent. Since these early writings and studies, the role of the supervisor has received considerable attention particularly with reference to the human relations aspect of the superb visor's job. The influence of the supervisor on employee job attitudes is an important consideration in many supervisory training programs. 3. Some of the studies in the area of employee attitudes have investi- gated level of job satisfaction as it is related to such variables as age, education, length of service, marital status, and sex. Still others have sought to relate job satisfaction to specific aspects of the work environment and have attempted to determine the relative importance of each. 0! the studies undertaken in this context perhaps the latter are the most noteworthy. In a recent review, Hersberg, Mauser, Peterson, and Capwell (9) report approximately 20 studies in which employees ranked job factors in order of importance to them. The majority of these studies revealed that security, interest (from intrinsic aspects of the job), opportunity for advancement, and appreciation from supervision were con- sidered to be the most important factors related to Job satisfaction or morale. Another group of studies (9) took a different approach in the attempt to determine factors related to 36b attitudes. In this approach workers were asked to indicate what made them.satisfied or disatisfied 'with their Jobs. Compilation of the data from these studies revealed that security was considered the most important factor followed by opportunity for advancement, company and management, and wages. The relative importance of security revealed by these studies is not parallelled by investigation into how the presence or absence of this fac- tor affects other job attitudes. lith particular reference to the present study, an interesting question concerns the extent to which the degree of security a worker feels in his 30b affects his attitude toward change. Does the worker who feels secure in his job perceive change as a threat h. to present security? Does the disatisfied worker perceive change in a more favorable light since it possibly affords the opportunity to increase his level of satisfaction? A perusal of the literature reveals a total absence of investigation into such possibilities. A somewhat neglected aspect of research concerns the extent to which job satisfaction is related to attitude toward life in general. Him (3), and prpock (10) have suggested that Job satisfaction may partially be a function of general or life satisfaction. Another (21), however, holds that it is impossible to separate the two and concludes that one is a measure of the other. Waits (2h) suggests that job satisfaction should be interpreted in terms of some index of general satisfaction. Empirical evi- dence, although scarce, is presented in a few studies. Brayfield, Strate, and Wells (b) have found positive relationships between general and over- all Job satisfaction. Bullock (5) deve10ped criterion questions for job satisfaction that differentiated satisfied from.disatisfied workers. He found that questions relating to how the worker's family and friends per» ceived his Job were highly related to Job satisfaction. Adequate validity information on life or general satisfaction is lacking. To date, no serious attempt has been made to validate a general morale scale against an “out- side” criterion. Investigation into the intercorrelations between attitude toward change and other aspects of the work and life environment is perhaps the most neglected aspect of employee attitude surveys. Some speculation is found in the literature (3, 16, 22), but empirical evidence is generally S. lacking. lclurry (16) for example, suggests that resistance to change on the part of the workers may partially have its roots in basic anxieties aroused by conditions of the work situation, These include, according to Iclurry, fear of losing the job in the face of a deep seated need for security both in the immediate situation and in outlook for the future. The majority of studies undertaken in this general context have dealt with the psychological effects of change on employees. ‘larrow (15), and 'Walker and.larriote (23) have reported negative reactions to change while others (3, 22) reveal that reaction to change need not always be on the negative side. In a review of owner's and employee's reaction toward tech- nological changes, Barkin (1) suggests that no group intAmerican society is free of the opposition to changes which seemingly have adverse effects on its members and, to protect their modes of life, all groups can be ex- pected to devise special defenses and show resistance to innovation. With— in this frame of reference, investigations have predominantly focused on ways to introduce change so that it will receive maximum acceptance. In this regard, the Hawthorne studies and the "participation concept” are particularly noteworthy. The predominance of relevant research to date suggests that individuals subjected to changing conditions in their jobs will react favorably if the group is informed of the reasons for change and arrives by group decision at both the necessity for change and at an understanding of the ways in which change is to be carried out. fiumgartel (2), in one of the rare studies of relevance to the 6. present investigation, reports that positive relationships were found between all perceived-change items and corresponding attitude items for 650 nonsupervisory personnel in an electric utility company. 7. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of supervisory climate, level of job satisfaction, and of attitude toward life in gen- eral upon employees' attitudes toward change in various aspects of their JObBe HYPOTHESES 1. workers possessing a high degree of job satisfaction will have less favorable attitudes toward change than workers exhibiting a lower degree of job satisfaction. 2. Workers perceiving their immediate supervisor as being high in consideration will have less favorable attitudes toward change than were kers perceiving their immediate supervisor as being low in consideration. 3. werkers perceiving their immediate supervisor as being high in initiating structure will have more favorable attitudes toward change than workers perceiving their immediate supervisor as being low in initiating structure. h. The relationship between job satisfaction and attitude toward change will be significantly greater than the relationship between life satisfaction and attitude toward change. 5. The relationship between job satisfaction and attitude toward change will not be significantly different from the relationship between supervisory consideration and attitude toward change. 6. Attitude toward change is a complex variable. 7. Iultiple predictions of attitude toward change will be supported by cross-validation. 9. METHOD AND PROCEDURE The Inventories end Scorigg Technigue The inventories selected for use in this study were: The Science Research Associates Employee Inventory (Appendix.A); Fleishman's Super- visory Behavior Description (Appendix B); a modified version of‘Ieits's Test of General Satisfaction (Appendix C); and a measure developed by the Labor and Industrial Relations Center of Michigan State Uhiversity to assess employee perceptions of, and attitude toward, changes in the world and.work environment (Appendix D). The Science Research Associates Enployee Inventory (hereafter refer- red to as the SEA or job satisfaction) is composed of 78 items grouped into five broad areas: the job and conditions of work; financial re- wards; personal relations in the company; operating efficiency: and individual satisfaction. These areas in turn are broken down into four» teen categories which the Manual assmmes to contain factors relevant to job satisfaction. A fifteenth category measures the employee's reaction to the inventory, however, the two items comprising this category were deleted in the scoring process leaving a total of 76 items upon which to assess job satisfaction. The items comprising the inventory are arranged in such a way that while category items are not necessarily consecutive thoy are grouped to permit category scoring on the carbon answer pad. However, since the 10. study was concerned.with overball job satisfaction, responses were sum- mated with little regard for category scoring. Of the three possible responses to each item, “Agree," "?,” "Disagree,” only those indicating satisfaction were recorded on the answer pad. ”Agree"—"Disagree' were interchangeable from item to item with respect to indicating satisfaction while a response of "2" to any item was considered to indicate something other than satisfaction. The score for a respondent was the sum of sat- isfied reaponses with the highest possible level of job satisfaction being indicated by a score of 76 in the present study. Fleishman's Supervisory Behavior Description measures two compo- nents of supervisory climate; Consideration (28 items) and Initiating Structure (20 items). Separate scoring keys are provided for each com- ponent. In general, the alternatives to each Consideration item were worded "Always," "Often,” "Occasionally," ”Once in a while," and "Sel- don.” Alternatives were scored h to 0 and O to h depending on the word- ing of the item or statement. A scoring weight of h, be it on the ”Al- ways" or "Seldom” alternative indicated high supervisory consideration. The alternatives and scoring method of the Initiating Structure compo- nent were similar. A score of b on this scale indicated that the super- visor was high in initiating structure. Although the inventory was intended for use with machine scoring answer sheets, respondents in the present study merely encircled the desired alternative to avoid possible confusion and error resulting from 11. unfamilarity'with the method. Responses were consequently hand scored by sumating the weights for each encircled alternative. A score of 112 indicated that the respondent thought his immediate supervisor to possess the highest degree of consideration as measured by the scale. The high- est level of initiating structure was indicated by a score of 80. The measure designed to assess employee perceptions of change and attitude toward perceived change consisted of 28 items- 1h measuring each component. Eleven of the lb perception items referred to specific changes that may have occurred in the respondent's job during the six months imme- diately proceeding the survey. The remaining three items were intended to measure perceptions of change in general. Five alternatives were presented for each perception of change item and, in general, consisted of the following: "Much more now',‘I ”More now,” “No change,‘ ”Less now,‘ and "Much less now.“ Alternatives were scored on a 3-2-1—2-3 basis to give an indication of the amount of perceived change regardless of dir- ection. Respondents placed a check mark next to the desired alternative and the measure was scored by summing the weighted alternative for each item. A score of h2 indicated the largest amount of perceived change while a score of 1h indicated no change. Each of the fourteen perceivedpchange items was followed by an item asking "How Do You Feel About This.‘ These items comprised the attitude toward change measure (hereafter generally referred to as ATC). Each attitude item had the following five alternatives: ”I like it a lot," 12. "I like it," "It makes no difference to me,“ "I dislike it", and l"I dislike it a lot." The scoring‘weight for each alternative was deter- mined by the alternative chosen by the respondent on the immediately preceding perceived-change item. If the respondent perceived more or less change than before and liked it, or no change and disliked it, he received a weight of 2 on the attitude item. If "It makes no difference to me" was checked on the attitude item, the respondent received an item 'weight of one regardless of the chosen alternative on the preceding per- ceived-change item. A weight of zero was given on any attitude item where the respondent perceived more or less change than before and dis- liked it, or no change and liked it. A summated score of 28 indicated the most favorable attitude toward change while the most unfavorable attitude was expressed by a score of zero. leits's Test of General Satisfaction (hereafter referred to as life satisfaction) bears some similarity to the SRA in its use of specific items. Typical items to which respondents could react include local speed limits, food prices, telephone service, advertising methods, etc. However, to make the original measure more suitable to an industrial pop- ulation it was revised by deleting three items and adding seven which touched upon aspects of life lacking in the original form. The new items dealt with religious activity, family, personal health, spare time, and indebtedness. The modified test consisted of hB items each of which could be answered by one of four alternatives: 'satisfied,' Idissatis- fied," "neutral" and ”not applicable“. A respondent's attitude toward 13. life in general was expressed by summing the number of satisfied res- ponses - the method employed by leitz himself. The Subjects The inventories were administered non-anonymously to 191 employees, practically the entire population from executive to hireling, of a small furniture manufacturing company in Michigan. Thirty three respondents were omitted from the main statistical analysis as the result of incomp plete responses on one or all of the measures. The high mortality rate may be attributable to the fact that eight inventories in all, including those relevant to another student's thesis, were administered in one session. The Administration Previous meetings with the executive staff had ironed out details and arranged testing times for the various departments. Accordingly, departmental groups ranging in number from 10 to 25 were administered the inventories in the company's conference room. A brief orientation as to the nature, purpose, and general procedure of the survey preceded each administration. The executive staff was tested first followed by personnel of the foreman category. Upon completion of the latter group administration a briefing session was initiated by the two students working on the study in order to clear up any difficulties that might arise in later adminis- 1h. trations. 'Iithin the following two days practically the entire company *was tested. Administration took place in the absence of management per- sonnel and care was taken to establish an atmosphere of confidence and trust since respondents were required to identify themselves for the pur- pose of another student's thesis. Statistical Analysis The 158 respondents were divided into two groups (A and B) of 79 each by a method of stratified random sampling. Studies of relationship were predominantly based on the reSpondents in Group A. Group B was used primarily for the purpose of cross-validating some of the findings and developments of Group A performance. Throughout the study the assumption was made that the inventories actually measured what they purported to measure. Consequently, in this .frane of reference, when two or more measures are combined to predict the dependent variable (attitude toward change) the multiple correlation be- tween the predictors and dependent variable is said to yield a "validity" coefficient. This is the meaning of the term "validity" when used in this study. In order to examine the relationships between the inventories, pro- duct-moment coefficients of correlation were computed. The relationships investigated by this method were those between the total scores of the respondents on each inventory with every other inventory. The obtained coefficients allowed the computation of partial correlation coefficients 15. as a measure of the relation between one variable and another while holding the influence of a third variable constant. The initial coeffi- cients also permitted the computation of the multiple relationship be- tween the dependent variable and two or’more independent variables si- multaneously. Since the multiple R is related to the intercorrelation of independent variables as well as to their relationship with the depen- dent variable the combined contribution of two, three, and four variables could be assessed. The three and feur variable relationships were de- termined by the Doolittle method. All coefficients of correlation were tested for significance by the method suggested by Guilford (7). The significance of differences between obtained correlation coefficients for data drawn from the same population was tested by McNamar’s method (17). Considering statistical practicality as well as magnitude of rela- tionship, two regression equations were developed on the basis of the obtained multiple correlation coefficients. These regression equations developed on the basis of Group A performance were then applied to in- ventory scores in Group B to predict ATC scores for this group of res- pondents. The Pearsonian correlation between the predicted and observed ATC scores yielded cross validity coefficients for the inventories. The internal consistency of the components comprising the Change measure was computed using the Roulon method. The formula employed in this method gives the reliability of the total test scores, not of the halves, so the Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula was not applied. 16. FINDINGS Table I presents a summary of the results obtained from the corre- lation of each index with every other index employed in the study. Table II presents a sumary of the results obtained from the partial correlation of the ATC index and certain other variables while holding the influence of a third variable constant. Table III presents a summary of the results obtained from the mul- tiple correlation of the ATS index and combinations of two, three, and four variables. The regression equations (based on the 79 cases in Group A) for predicting ATC scores (ATC') from a knowledge of inventory scores in Group B were: 7 ¥ . mum - (-o.ooh)x2 f£(o.108)x3 - (0.665)Xh - 5.33 “01.31; . (0.108)x3 - (0.665)Xh - 6.11. where X2 3 Consideration 13 3 Job Satisfaction Xh = Perceived-Change The Pearsonian correlation between observed ETC scores in Group B and those predicted on the basis of the regression equation employing the three variable predictor combination of consideration, Job satisfac- tion, and perceived-change was: r = 0.580 / or - 0.075. The regression equation in which only job satisfaction and perceived-change were used to predict ATC yielded a cross-validity coefficient of: r = 0.576 f or ~ 0.076. Both coefficients were significantly other than zero beyond the .01 level of confidence. 17. McNamar‘s test for the significance of differences between correla- tion coefficients drawn from the same population yielded a t ratio of 2.h6 between the job satisfaction-ATC and life satisfaction-ATC coeffi- cients. The obtained t ratio was significant beyond the .01 point of confidence. The Obtained t ratio of 1.21 between the consideration-ATC and job satisfaction-ATC correlation coefficients was not significantly other than zero. The internal consistency of the Perceived-Change and ATC components of the Change index were 0.808 and 0.813 respectively. TABLE I 18. INTERCORRELATION OF THE INDICES EMPLOYED IN THE STUDY 11 x2 x3 xh x5 16 11 .10 .28 *1: .5h ** .23 ' -.05 x2 .56 ** -.03 -.1h .15 X3 .11 .13 .29 * X14 .h6 H -.03 IS .18 16 * significant relationship at 5% level ** significant relationship at 1% level X1....Attitude Toward Change X2....Consideration X3....Job Satisfaction Xh....Perceived-Change 25....Initiating Structure 16....Life Satisfaction (one-tailed tests) TABLE II PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN ATC AND CERTAIN OTHER VARIABLES WHILE HOLDING THE INFLUENCE OF A THIRD VARIABLE CONSTANT COMBINATION r STANDARD ERROR 1212.3 -0.006 0.111. 312.1. 0.11.2 0.112 R12. 5 0.11.0 0.112 E73 0.270» 0.106 813.1; 0.2614: 0.10? 1113.5 0.2600 0.107 m 0.5113» 0.081 12111.3 0.529“ 0.082 Rlb.5 0.h99** 0.086 81-572. 0.287 0.108 1215 .3 0.201. 0.111 315.1; -0.ozS 0.111. * significant relationship at 51 level of confidence ** significant relationship at 1% level of confidence X1...ATC 12...Consideration X3...Job Satisfaction Xh...Perceived-Change IS...Initiating Structure 20. TABLE III MULTIPLE CORREIATION COH‘FICIEN’I‘S BETWEEN ATC AND cmmNATIous 0? Two, THREE, AND FOUR VARIABLES ccuBINATIou R STANDARD sauce R1.23 0.287* 0.105 a...» 0.578» 0.076 31.1.5 0.538» 0.082 81.23h 0.580%! 0.077 111.385 0.581" 0.076 31.2316 0.583» 0.077 * significant relationship at 5% level ** significant relationship at 11 level Xl...ATC X2...Consideration X3...Job Satisfaction ' Xh. . .Perceived-Change XS...Initiating Structure 21. RESULTS The analysis of the inventories reveal the following results in terms of the stated hypotheses: Hypothesis 1. The hypothesis that workers possessing a high de- gree of Job satisfaction will have less favorable attitudes toward change than workers exhibiting a lower degree of job satisfaction was found to be untenable. The implied negative relationship between the two variables failed to gain support when the obtained coefficient proved to be significantly greater than zero in the positive direction. Hypothesis 2. The hypothesis that workers perceiving their imme- diate supervisor as being high in consideration will have less favorb able attitudes toward change than workers perceiving their immediate supervisor as being low in consideration was found to be untenable. The negative relationship necessary to support the hypothesis was not real- ized. The obtained coefficient revealed a positive non-significant relationship between the two variables. Hypothesis 3 postulated a positive relationship between initiating structure and attitude toward change. According to the hypothesis, workers perceiving their'immediate supervisor as being high in initiating structure will have more favorable attitudes toward change than workers perceiving their immediate supervisor as being low in initiating struc- ture. This hypothesis was found to be tenable when the obtained corre- lation coefficient between the two variables proved to be significant at the 5% point of confidence. 22. Hypothesis h gained support when the relationship between job sat- isfaction and attitude toward change was found to be significantly greater than the relationship between life satisfaction and attitude toward change. The obtained t ratio between the two coefficients proved to be signifi- cantly other than zero beyond the .01 point of confidence. NeNemar's test for the significance of difference between correla- I tion coefficients drawn from the same population proved the fifth hypo- thesis of the study tenable. No significant difference was found between the coefficient obtained from the correlation of supervisory conSideration and attitude toward change and that obtained from.the correlation of job satisfaction and attitude toward change. Hypothesis 6 was found to be tenable in that all multiple correla— tion coefficients were significantly other'than zero. Employing the regression equations developed on the basis of a two and three variable predictor combination, the predicted.ATC scores corre- lated to a significant and moderately high degree with observed ATC scores in Group B, thus supporting the 7th hypothesis of the study. Cross-validity coefficients were of the same order of magnitude as those of validity. 23. COMMENTS It is entirely possible that the findings of this investigation were specific to the industrial sample used. Contradictory results might occur from the study of another sample of the parent population, or the findings might vary from industry to industry. This is some- what likely with respect to the utilization of the Consideration compo- nent of Fleishman's Supervisory Behavior Description. An examination of the scoring distribution on this measure revealed that 80% of the sample employed in this study fell within the range of 70 to 1014. This restriction in response variability may have affected the obtained cor- relations between supervisory consideration and the other variables in- vestigated. According to Guilford (7), a coefficient is always relative to the kind of population sampled with the size of the r being dependent on the variability of measured values in the correlated sample. Every- thing else being equal, therefore, the greatsr the variability the higher will be the correlation. An additional factor which should be considered in the interpreta— tion of the results of this study concerns the homogeneity of the sample used. The biographical information blank employed as a variable for the purpose of another student's thesis revealed that approximately 901 of the esployees were of the same racial stock, attended the same church, and sent their children to the same school. In addition, the great majority lived in the same small city and had worked for the company a 21;. number of years. In view of this, radically different results from those of the present study might be found in the utilization of a more heterogeneous sample. Another aspect of the study that deserves mention concerns its non-anonymity. Although extreme care was taken to assure the workers that their names would be seen only by the two students working on the study and used solely for research purposes, the possibility exists that identification influenced the results. The SEA, White, and Change inventories appear fairly "neutral? with respect to the respondent's committing himself. The supervisory climate measure, however, may have caused some skepticism concerning the possible consequences of being identified with one's reaponses. To eliminate the possible influence of such a factor the suggestion is made that future research of this nature be kept as anonymous as possible. The results of this study are in no way meant to represent the final word on the relationships of the variables concerned. An analysis based on more extensive data would certainly be desirable in substan- tiating some of the findings of this study and in determining relation- ships which may have been obscured by the limitations of the study. 25. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION From a general observation of the conditions under which the study was made, it may be that the failure to support a number of the hypo- theses was due to the nature of the sample and techniques rather than to inadequacies of the hypotheses. Keeping within the realm of the findings, however, the major overall conclusion to be drawn from the investigation is that employees' attitudes toward change are essentially multivariate and any attempt to determine functional relationships be- tween this attitude and other variables is best achieved by taking a multivariate approach. The specific conclusions to be made on the basis of the findings must be considered tentative in view of the study's limi- tations, but the findings do indicate the feasibility of further research. The findings indicate that a high level of Job satisfaction is asso- ciated with the acceptance of change in a favorable manner. This conclu- sion is based on the obtained correlation between job satisfaction and ATC. Although low, the significant relationship between these variables permits the inference that Job satisfaction possibly entails the willing- ness on the part of the worker to accept change as part of his job. This finding is in direct opposition to the stated hypothesis that workers possessing a high level of job satisfaction would have less favorable attitudes toward change than workers exhibiting a lesser degree of job satisfaction. The rationale underlying the fomuhtion of this hypothesis involved the contention that workers who are satisfied with their Jobs 26. wish to maintain the status quo and perceive change as a threat to present satisfaction. Dissatisfied workers, it was assumed, are not content with the present situation and perceive change in a more fav- orable light since it possibly affords the opportunity to better their present status or, at least, poses no threat to existing conditions. The rationale proved fallible when the obtained coefficient between Job satisfaction and ATC'was significantly in the positive direction. The second hypothesis was one that implied a negative relationship between a favorable impression of supervisory consideration and ATC. It was assumed that workers perceiving their immediate supervisor as being high in consideration would have less favorable attitudes toward change than workers perceiving their immediate supervisor as being low in consideration. The rationale underlying this hypothesis is similar to the rationale behind the preceding hypothesis. The studies cited in the Background Section of this study reveal that caliber of supervision is a critical factor in employee job attitudes. Consequently, it was felt that supervisory consideration possibly plays the largest functional role in determining level of job satisfaction. If, therefore, a negative relationship exists between job satisfaction and KTC, the correlation between an important functional determinant of job satisfaction should possess the same relationship with ATC. The non-significant obtained positive correlation between supervisory consideration and ATC reveals, however, that the hypothesis and underlying rationale are untenable. 27. Hypothesis 3 postulated a positive relationship between initiating structure and ATC. According to the hypothesis, workers perceiving their immediate supervisor as being high in initiating structure would have more favorable attitudes toward change than workers perceiving their immediate supervisor as being low in initiating structure. The rationale underlying the formulation of this hypothesis focused on the idea that consideration and initiating structure are two distinct and mutually exclusive aspects of supervisory climate. That is, a supervisor could not possess both qualities simultaneously to any significant degree. The obtained correlation between these aspects of supervisory climate {-0.139), although non-significant, presents some support to this con- ’ tention. It seems reasonable to assume that the supervisor whose rela- tionship with subordinates is characterized by mutual trust, friendliness, respect, and a certain warmth has a different effect on employees' atti- tudes toward change than the supervisor whose relationship with subor- dinates is impersonal and wellpdefined. This is the rationale behind the formulation of contradictory hypotheses concerning the consideration and initiating structure components of supervisory climate. In terms of the findings, the significant obtained positive correlation between initiating structure and NTC renders the third hypothesis of the study tenable. The possible reason for the obtained relationship is presented in the following discussion. 28. An examination of’Table I reveals that perceived-change is the most valid predictor of ATC. The moderate correlation between these two variables is consistent with the findings of Baumgartel (2) and offers possibly the most worthwhile area of future research. On the basis of the obtained relationship the inference is made that workers who are conscious of change having taken place have a more favorable attitude toward change. Unfortunately, no check was made as to the reason for said consciousness but the obtained correlation between ini- tiating structure and perceived-change permits some remote speculation. It seems reasonable to assume that the supervisor who tends to define the role which he expects each member of his group to assume, and endea- vors to establish well defined patterns of organization, channels of communication, and ways of getting the Job done is in tum making his subordinates conscious of the day to day occurrences in the work environ- ment. This consciousness may in turn have the remote effect on the worker of feeling that he is in some way participating in the changes that affect him. This brings into consideration one of the most widely discussed factors which has been used to account for the difference be- tween groups which welcome change and groups which do not. This factor is the degree to which the group participates in the planning and execu- tion of the change. The verified effectiveness of this concept in paving _ the way for the favorable acceptance of change possibly accounts, indirectly, for the finding of the present study. Further research along the lines of this study should certainly employ a measure designed to assess the 29. extent to which employees participate in planning the changes that affect them. The lack of such knowledge in the present study renders any inference in this context predominantly Speculative. The verification of hypothesis h leads to the conclusion that a favorable attitude toward change is more a function of employees' sat- isfaction with their overall work environment than their level of general life satisfaction. This conclusion, considering at all times the assumed validity of the indices, is based on the obtained significant difference in correlation between ATC and job satisfaction as opposed to the relationship between ATC and life satisfaction. The support for this hypothesis must be viewed in light of the possible fallacy of the inventories employed to assess the variables under investigation. The ERA and ATC indices were composed of items pertaining to specific aspects of the job environment. The fact that both assessed attitude toward features in the same context may have accounted for the obtained corre- lation between the two. leitz's Test of General Satisfaction, on the other hand, dealt with aspects of the nonawork environment. Hypothesis 5 stated that the relationship between job satisfaction and ATC would not be significantly different from the relationship be- tween supervisory consideration and ATC. The rationale behind the for- mulation of this hypothesis centered around the contention that job satis- faction is essentially situationally bound with supervisory climate playing the largest functional role. Consequently, it was felt that the relationship between job satisfaction and another variable would not 30. differ significantly from the relationship between supervisory consider- ation and the same variable. The test for the significance of differences between correlation coefficients drawn from the same population revealed that the two coefficients did not differ significantly. This finding proves the stated hypothesis tenable. On the basis of the support of hypothesis 6 it is reasonably safe to assume that employees' attitudes toward change are essentially multi- variate. All multiple correlation coefficients were significantly other than zero with the numerical value of the coefficients generally increas- ing each time more variables were brought into the predictor combination. That employees' attitudes toward change are multivariate is evidenced by a perusal of Table I. Perceived~change, job satisfaction, and initiat- ing structure were the only variables that correlated significantly with ATC; the latter variable being just within the limits of significance. In view of the significance of all the obtained multiple R's it is pro- bable that the variables included in this study show relationship to ATC primarily by virtue of their intercorrelations. At first thought it would seem that a variable which correlates zero with ATC should have no value in predicting the attitude. The thought is correct to the extent that each variable alon§:has no value in predicting ATC but, when combined with others with which it correlates, the variable may add to prediction. The implications of this, considering the findings of the present investi— gation, focus on the idea that a multivariate approach to the concept of employees' attitudes toward change may possibly yield the most fruitful results. 31. With the exception of the initiating structure-ATC correlation, Table II reveals that partialling out the influence of a third variable does little to affect the initial correlation coefficients between ATC and certain independent variables. In the case of the initiating structure-NTC correlation, however, the initial coefficient of 0.229 dropped to -0.02S when the influence of perceived-change was held con- stant. This indicates that initiating structure as such has little bearing on employees' attitudes toward change, but only by virtue of its association with perceived-change does it show any relationship at all. Table II also reveals that 30b satisfaction and perceived-change 'were significantly related to ATC even when the influence of the other independent variables were partialled out one by one. On this basis it might be inferred that job satisfaction and perceived—change are fairly autonomous with respect to their relationship with employees' attitudes toward change. To t he extent that the perceived-change-ATC and job satisfaction-ATC correlation coefficients were not affected by holding the influence of other independent variables constant the contention is certainly plausible. However, Table III shows that the coefficients obtained from correlating ATC with two, three, and four variable predic- tor combinations yield a closer estimate of employees' attitudes toward change. When the intercorrelations of the independent variables are considered as well as their relationship to the dependent variable, the predictive situation is enhanced. 32. Employing Group A alone in this study could have capitalized on chance errors within the particular sample and caused spuriously high validity coefficients. In order to investigate this possibility a cross- validation check was undertaken. The 7th hypothesis of the study stated that multiple predictions of ATC would be supported by cross—validation. This hypothesis was tested by developing two multiple regression equations. One regression equation was developed on the basis of the obtained cor- relation between ATC and the two variable predictor combination of 30b satisfaction and perceived—change. The second multiple regression equa- tion was developed on the basis of the obtained multiple R between ATC, supervisory consideration, job satisfaction, and perceived-change. The optimal weights achieved in these regression equations yielded predicted RIC scores that correlated to a significant and equally high degree with observed NTC scores in Group B. This finding reduces the probability that the validity coefficients found in Group A were spuriously high as the result of chance errors within the sample. The significant cross— validity coefficients support the 7th hypothesis of the study and fortify the inferences and conclusions made on the basis of Group A.performance with reference to the multivariate nature of employees‘ attitudes toward change. The cross-validity coefficient based on the regression equation that employed the two variable predictor combination of job satisfaction and perceived-change differed slightly (0.00h) from the cross-validity coeffi- cient obtained from.the three variable combination of consideration, job 33. satisfaction, and perceived-change. On the basis of this finding, the contention that supervisory consideration has little bearing on emp- loyees' attitudes toward change is definitely strengthened. The addition of the consideration variable into the predictive situation yields scarcely enough additional accuracy of prediction to justify its inclu- sion in the multiple regression equation. The obtained correlation between perceived-change and ATC may be due to the possibility that perceived-change is merely an essential component of overall attitude toward change, or that one is a measure of the other. If such is the case, it enhances the suggestion that future attempts to investigate employees' attitudes toward change should begin with the development, refinement, and validation of a Change measure. In summary, the findings of this investigation indicate the following: 1. Workers who possess a high degree of job satisfaction have more favorable attitudes toward change than workers exhibiting a lesser degree of Job satisfaction. 2. workers perceiving their immediate supervisor as being high in initiating structure have more favorable attitudes toward change than ‘workers perceiving their immediate supervisor as being low in initiating structure. 3. 'lorkers who are conscious of change having taken place have 3h. more favorable attitudes toward change than workers perceiving little or no change in their jobs. 1;. A number of independent variables show relationship to attitude toward change only by virtue of their intercorrelation with valid pre- dictors. — . 5. Attitude toward change is a complex variable. 6. The I'validity" of predicting attitude toward change from mea- sures of Job satisfaction and perceived-change is comparable to validity coefficients that characterize mamr other paper and pencil tests on which comparatiwa more work has been done. 1. 35. BIBLIOGRAPHY Barkin, 8., "Human and Social Impact of Technical Change," In Proceedings 9_f Third Annual Meetigg, Industrial Relations Research Association, 111.: Industrial Relations Research Association, 1950, 112-2?. Baumgartel, H. 'An Analysis of the Validity of a Perceived—Change Measure,‘I Amer. chhologist, 1951;, _9_, 328. Slum, LL. Industrial P3 010 and its Foundations, (Rev. ed.) New Iorszfirper, 19 . Brayfield, A., Hells, R.V., and Strate, 11.1., 'Interrelationships Along Measures of Job Satisfaction and General Satisfaction,‘ :10 Eenad $222110]... 1957, b]. (N0. ’4) 201-2050 mllock, R.P., Social Factors Related _tg Job Satisfaction. Colum- bus, (Mic. The Bureau of fiancee-Research, The ado State Univmtsity, 1952. Disney, rm. 'Duployee Turnover is Costly,” Personnel 1., 19514, 33, 97-100. Guilford, J.P., Fundamental Statistics E P holo and Education, (Second Edition} flew York: icGraw—Rill, 7350. Rabbe, 3., ”Job Attitudes of Life Insurance Agents,“ ,1. App . Hersberg, F., Mauser, 8., Peterson, R., and Gapwell, D., £92 Atti- tudes: Review of Research E Qinion, Psychol. Service of Pittsburgh, 1957-: Hoppock, 8., gab. Satisfaction, New Iork: Harper, 1935. Rouser, J.D., lhat trig glazes Thinks, Cambridge, lass., Harvard University Press, 19 7. Jackson, J., “The Effects of Changing the Leadership of Small Iork Groups,” Hun. Relat., 1953, 9, 25-bit. Joiner, F.H., 'llaking Euployees Iork lore Interesting,“ Personnel, 1953, 29. 309. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2h. 36. llann, F. C. and Dent, J. , "The Supervisor: llember of Two Organisa- tional Families,” Harv. £93. £91., 1951;, _3_2 No. 6), 103-112. Harrow, A. , "Human Factors in Production," Personnel, 19139, 25, BhI-Bhge .— llcllurry, R.)I., "The Problem of Resistance to Change in Industry," 9.. £22.- iqglmlu 19M. 11, 589-93. IleNemar, Q., thological Statigtics, New York: Wiley, 191.9. Nagle, B.F. ”Productivity, hployee Attitude and Supervisor Sen- sitivity,” Personnel, 1951;, 1, 219-233. Felts, D. , ”The Effects of Supervisory Attitudes and Practices on hployee Satisfaction," Amer. chholgglstg, 19,49 , 1,, 283-631;. Pfiffner, J.l., “The Effective Supervisor," Personnel, 1955, 3;, 530-5110. Roe, Anne, The. Psychology 2f OccupationsJ New Iork: Iiley, 1956. Roetblisberger, F.J. and Dickson, I.J., Hana enent and the Iorker, Cambridge, lass. : Harvard unwraTtyJPx-o“‘s§,‘f9‘h77‘ "“— Ialker, H. and Harriett, R.A., 'A Stew of Some Attitudes of Fac- tory Iork,‘ Occup. Psychol., Lond., 1951, 2):, 181-89. Isits, J., ”A Neglected Concept in the Study of Job Satisfaction,“ Personnel, 1952, _5_, 201-05. m1! A Sears Employe In ven tory Your company would like to know what you think about your job, your pay, your boss, and the company in general. This Inventory is designed to help you tell us your ideas and opinions quickly and easily without signing your name. This booklet contains a number of statements. All you have to do is to mark a cross by each statement to show how you feel. It is easy to do and you can be completely frank in your answers. Purpose of the Inventory i. Read each statement carefully and decide how you feel about it. A You will agree with some statements, and you will disagree with others. You may be undecided about some. To help you express your opinion, three possible answers have been placed beside each statement: How to fill in the Inventory. AGREE ? DISME I would rather work in a large city than in a small town ................................. D D D Choose the answer most like your own opinion and mark a cross in the box under it. For example: This person feels he wants to work in a large city: AGREE ? DISAGIEE I would rather work in a large city than in a small town ................................. X [:1 E] This person wants to work in a small town: Mm , mm 1 would rather work in a large city than in a small town ................................. D [:1 E This person can’t decide between a large city and a small town: A.,, , mm,“ I would rather work in a large city than in a small town ................................. El 8 Cl There are no “right” answers and no “wrong” answers. It is your own, honest opinion that we want. This is not a test Do not spend too much time on any one statement. If you cannot decide about a statement, mark the “?” box, and go on to the next statement. Some of the statements may not be worded exactly the way you would like them. However, answer them the best way you can. Be sure to mark every statement. Leave no blanks. Mark only one answer for each statement. If you make a mistake, do NOT erase your mark. Put a circle around the cross inside the box like this a , and mark a cross in the correct box. Work rapidly but answer all statements I Do not make any marks in this booklet. Do not sign your name on the Answer Pad. Be sure to fill in the blanks for general information on the back of the AnsWer Pad. This information will be used only to make the results more meaningful. It will not be used to find out which Answer Pad is yours. Please turn now to the back of the Answer Pad and fill: in the general information. General information I . . ] Check to see that you have marked every statement. If you think anything Wll l: ! sit or! on you ave rm 1 has been left out, or if there is any special thing that is worrying you about your work, please write or print your cements in the space provided on the Answer Pad. When you are finished, remove the Answer Pad from the booklet and drop your Answer Pad in the box. Go on to the next page Make no marks on these pages! I l. The hours of work here are O.K ................................................................. 2. Management does everything possible to prevent accidents in our work ......... . ..................... 3. Management is doing its best to give us good working conditions .................................... 4. In my opinion, the pay here is lower than in other companies. ...................................... 5. They should do a better job of handling pay matters here ........................................... 6. I understand what the company benefit program provides for employees .............................. 7. The people I work with help each other out when someone falls behind or gets in a tight spot ........... 8. My boss is too interested in his own success to care about the needs of employees ..................... 9. My boss is always breathingldown our necks; he watches us too closely .............................. 10. My boss gives us credit and praise for work well done .............................................. 11. Management here does everything it can to see that employees get a fair break on the job ............... 12. If I have a complaint to make, I feel free to talk to someone up-the-line .............................. 13. My boss sees that employees are properly trained for their jobs ...................................... 14. My boss sees that we have the things we need to do our jobs ........................................ 15. Management here is really trying to build the organization and make it successful ...................... 16. Management here sees to it that there is cooperation between departments ............................ / 17. Management tells employees about company plans and developments. ............................... j 18. They encourage us to make suggestions for improvements here ...................................... 19. I am often bothered by sudden speed-ups or unexpected slack periods in my work .......... » ........... 20. Changes are made here With little regard for the welfare of employees ................................ 21. Compared with other employees, we get very little attention from management ........................ 22. Sometimes I feel that my job counts for very little in this organization ................................ 23. The longer you work for this company the more you feel you belong ................................. 24. I have a great deal of interest in this company and its future. ....................................... 25. I have little opportunity to use my abilities in this organization ...................................... 26. There are plenty of good jobs here for those who want to get ahead ................................. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 41. 42. 43. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. Do not mark in booklet! 2 I often feel worn out and tired on my job ............................. They expect too much work from us around here ...................... Poor working conditions keep me from doing my best in my work ..... t. For my kind of job, the working conditions are OK ................... I’m paid fairly compared with other employees ........................ Compared with other companies, employee benefits here are good ....... A few of the people I work with think they run the place ......... : ..... The people I work with get along well together ........................ My boss has always been fair in his dealings with me .................. . My boss gets employees to work together as a team ................... . I have confidence in the fairness and honesty of management ........... . Management here is really interested in the welfare of employees ........ Most of the higher-ups are friendly toward employees ................. . My boss keeps putting things off; he just lets things ride ................ My boss lets us know exactly what is expected of us ................... Management fails to give clear-cut orders and instructions ............. . I know how my job fits in with other work in this organization ......... . . Management keeps us in the dark about things we ought to know ....... Long service really means something in this organization ............... You can get fired around here without much cause ..................... I can be sure of my job as long as I do good work ..................... I have plenty of freedom on the job to use my own judgment ........... Everybody in this organization tries to boss us around ................. I really feel part of this organization ................................. The people who get promotions around here usually deserve them ....... I can learn a great deal on my present job ................ , ............ Go on_to_the_n31t_ page __ ,il.’ 53. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 61. 62. 63. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78'. 0) My job is often dull and monotonous .......................... . There is too much pressure on my job ......................... Some of the working conditions here are annoying ............... l have the right equipment to do my work ...................... My pay is enough to live on comfortably ....................... I’m satisfied with the way employee benefits are handled here ................................................ The company’s employee benefit program is OK ................ . The people I work with are very friendly ....................... My boss really tries to get our ideas about things ................ My boss ought to be friendlier toward employees ................ My boss lives up to his promises .............................. . Management here has a very good personnel policy .............. Management ignores our suggestions and complaints ............. My boss knows very little about his job ........................ My boss has the work well organized .......................... This company operates efficiently and smoothly ................. Management really knows its job .............................. They have a poor way of handling employee complaints here. .................. . ........ , ........................... You can say what you think around here ....................... You always know where you stand with this company ............ When layoffs are necessary, they are handled fairly .............. I am very much underpaid for the work that I do ............... I’m really doing something worthwhile in my job ................ I’m proud to work for this company ........................... Filling in this Inventory is a good way to let management know what employees think ....................... I think some 800d may come out of filling in an Inventory like this one ....................................... Go on to the next page Write your comments in the space provided on the back of the Answer Pad. 4 Do not mark the spaces in this column unless you are told to do so. HNSWL'H PAD for the 88}! Employee Inventory FORM AH Prepared by The Employee Attitude Research Group, The Industrial Relations Center of the University of Chicago Published by SCIENCE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC, 57 West Grand Avenue, Chicago 10. Illinois. Copyright, l95l, by Industrial Relations Center, University of Chicago. All rights reserved. Copyright under the International Copyright Union. Printed in U.S.A. Patent Pending. Please use number 7-1582 when reordering this answer pad. AGREE 7 DISAGREE UUU AGREE .7 DISAGREE UUU AGREE 7 DISAGREE U U U ——-————-————-———l AU?“ 7 DISAGREE UUU AGREE ? DISAGREE UUU AGREE 7 DISAGREE UUU s———.._. -_._.__.fil AGREE .7 DISAGREE UUU ._...- _ ...... ._____.____._ _ AGREE 7 DISAGREE l..___._. - H - __.__ AGREE 7 DISAGREE UUU L_. U __.__- AGREE 7 DISAGREE E] U U L.” ml AGREE 7 DISAGREE UUU AGREE 7 DISAGREE UUU ) a a m m ) 6'3 2 m m U U 3 7 DISAGREE 7 DISAGREE 7 DISAGREE UU DISAGREE UU 7 DlSAGREE UU 7 DISAGREE UU DISAGREE UU 7 DISAGREE UU 2 msacnrt UU 7 DISAGREE UU .7 DISAGREE 7 DISAGREE .7 DISAGREE UU 7 DISAGREE UU .7 OISAGREE 7 DISAGREE UU 7 DISAGREE UU 7 DISAGREE UU 7 DISAGREE 7 DISAGREE UU 7 DISAGREE 7 DISAGREE UU ? DISAGREE 7 DISAGREE UU 7 DISAGREE UU 7 DISAGREE UU ) O :p I"! M > C) :0 m m U D D :3 m F‘ U U 7 OISAGfEE U U 7 DISAGREE U U 7 DlSAGREE U U 7 DISAGREE U U .7 DISAGREE U U .7 DISAGREE U U 7 DISAGREE U U .7 DISAGREE U U 7 DISAGREE UU .7 DISAGREE ‘ UU 7 DISAGREE UU .7 DISAGREE UU .7 DISAGREE 7 DISAGREE UU .7 DISAGREE U U 7 DISAGREE U U' 7 DISAGREE U U 7 DISAGREE U U 7~ DISAGREE U U 7 DISAGREE UU .7 D ISAGREE 7 DISAGREE UU ? DISAGREE UU .7 DISAGREE 7 DISAGREE 7 DISAGREE' UU ) C: an m m U 1 l 7 ' DISAGREE 7 DISAGREE UU DISAGREE UU 7 DISAGREE UU .7 DISAGREE UU 7 DIS AGREE '.’ DISAGREE OISAGREE UU. DISAGRIE UU 7 DISAGREE 7 DISAGREE UU 7 DISAGREE UU .7 DISAGREE 7 DISAGRIE UU .7 DISAGREE UU 7 DISAGREE UU 7 DISAGREE 7 DISAGREE .7 DISAGREE UU ? DISAGREE ' UU 7 DISACiREE U U .7 DISAGREE U U 7 UlSAGREE U U 7 DISAGREE UU 7 DISACREF 7 DISAGREE UU I n n I. 'l I . 2 n u '3 29 55 ‘ 30 II .55 5 31 57 III e 32 5: IV 1 33 '59 V a u so 9 as A 61 to as VI 52 u :7 ‘ 63 - I l2 as " 64 VII 7 I: a 65 - .1 14 w 55 . a L 'VIII IS 41 s: is u or IX 57 l 43 a l X 18 u to ES ‘5 71 Eu 4: I 12 XI L2? 91 n 22 u L n 27 49 X” 75 2d 7 u n XIII ..' s ' .1 4t ‘ :7‘ — ——— xrv XV ---* 26 52 n - . ANSWER SHEET 7’ . DISAGREE .7 AGREE UUU N DISAGREE 7 AGREE II DISAGREE 7 AGREE UUU I2 DISAGREE 7 AGREE UUU 33 DISAGREE 7 AGREE UUU M DISAGREE 7 AGREE '5 DISAGREE 7 AGREE UUU “ DISAGREE 7 AGREE DUE] I? DISAGREE 7 AGREE UUU ll DISAGREE 7 AGREE I! DISAGREE 7 AGREE UUU 90 DISAGREE ? AGREE General Information '- GROU P 2. DAE ] 4. - ] DEC]. “.7 CATEGORY ‘ a . ll . .\. \ .. - O ‘ b A - s" O . t r: . r . ‘_ .‘v‘ I \ k '; _ H.» . - ~ 3...": as? 'c *3." - v7.9. ‘ 47.- ...._‘ ’cg-.. Please Do not write in this space. " If. 1 - ‘ 4“ a; ,4; 2‘ - To remerstnsQer' j. J, .i - ANDRE SUPERVISORY BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION 0 (l1 8 7 Instructions: In response to each of the following statements, encircle the alternative which best describes how often your immediate supervisor does what that item says. For Example: If your immediate supervisor always insists that people in his work group wear safety glasses you would indicate this in answer to the question as £0110“. EXAMPLE: HE INSISTS THAT PEOPIE IN HIS GROUP l-TEAR SAFETY GLASSES. i 1. alwafi) 2. often 3. occasionally I... seldom 5. never Now, encircle the alternatives that best reflect how often your immediate supervi- sors behave as described in each of the following statements: **************a-seseer-e-xrn-xe:**********ee%*****%* 1. HE Is EASY '10 UNDERSTAND. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally 1;. seldom 5. never 2. HE ENCOURAGE OVERTIME WORK. 1. a great 2. fairly 3. to some 1;. comparatively 5. not at deal much degree little all 3. HE TRIES OUT HIS NEW IDEAS. 1. often 2. fairly 3. occasionally l4. once in 5. very seldom much a while It. HE BACKS UP WHAT PEOPLE IN HIS WORK GROUP no. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally 1;. seldom 5. never 5. HE CRITICIZES POOR WORK. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally 1;. seldom 5-. never 6. HEDFMANDSMORE THANWE GANDO. 1. often 2. fairly 3. occasionally 1;. once in 5. very seldom much a while 7. HE REFUSES TO GIVE IN WHEN PEOPLE IN THE hORK GROUP DISAGREE WITH HIM. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally l4. seldom 5. never 8. RE EXPRESSFS APPRECIATIW WHEN ONE CF US DOES A GOOD JOB. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally li.‘ seldom 5. never 9. HE INSISTS THAT PEOPLE UNDER HIM FOLLOW STANDARD WAYS OF DOING THINCB IN EVERY DETAIL. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally 1;. seldom 5. never lO. HE HELPS PEDPLE IN Iill-IE WORK GROUP WITH THEIR PERSCNAL PROBLEMS. 1. often 2. fairly 3. occasionally 1;. once in 5. very seldom often a while 11. IE IS SLOW TO ACCEPT NEW IDEAS. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally 1;. seldom 5. never 12. HE IS FRIENDLY AND CAN BE EASILY APPROACHED. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally l4. seldom 5. never 13. 1h. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2h. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. HE GETS THE APPROVAL OF THE WORK CROUP ON IMPORTANT MATTERS BEFORE GOING AHEAD. never not at all never not at never never very seldom not at all never very seldom 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally I... seldom 5. HE REISTS CHANGES IN WAYS OF DOING THINGS. l. a great 2. fairly 3. to some ’4. comparatively 5. deal much degree little IE ASSIG‘IS PEOPLE UNDER HIM TO PARTICULAR TASKS. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally 1;. seldom 5. HE STRESSFS BEING AHEAD OF CCA‘EPETING INDRK GROUPS. 1. a great 2. fairly 3. to some "-17 h. comparatively 5. deal much degree little HE CRITICIZFS A SPECIFIC ACT RATHER THAN A PAR'HGIUtR INDIVIDUAL. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally 1:. seldom 5. HE LETS OTHERS DO THEIR WORK THE WAY THEY THINK BEST. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally h. seldom S. HE DOES PERSONAL FAVORS FOR THE MEN UNDER HIM. 1. often 2. fairly 3. occasionally 1;. once in S. HE EMPHASIZFS MEETING OF DEADLINES . 1. a great 2. fairly 3. to some h. comparatively 5. deal much degree little HE SEES THAT A WCBKER IS REWARDED FOR A JOB IffEIL DONE. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally I4. seldom 5. IE TREATS PEDPIE UNDIE HIM WITHOUT CONSIDERED THEIR FEEIHGS. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally 1;. once in 5. a while HE INSIS'IS THAT HE BE INFORMED ON DECISIONS IEADE BY THE PEOPLE UNDER HIM. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally 1;. seldom S. HE OFFERS NEW APPROAGIES TO PROBLEMS. 1. often 2. fairly 3. occasionally 1;. once in 5. often a while HE TREATS ALL INORKERS UNDER HIM AS HIS EQUAIS. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally )4. seldom 5. IE IS WILLING TO MAKE CHANGE. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally 1;. seldom 5. HE ASKS SLEEP! PEOPLE TO GET MORE DWE. 1. often 2. fairly 3. occasionally 14. once in 5. often a while HE CRITICIZES PEOPIE UNDER Hm IN FRONT OF 0mm. 1. often 2. fairly 3. occasionally )4. once in 5. often a while IE STRESSES THE IML'ORTANCE OF HIGH MORALE AMONG THEE UNDER HIN. l. a great 2. fairly 3. to some 14. comparatively 5. deal much degree little never very seldom never never very seldom very seldom not at all rd 1" .— IN I,’ ¢~l 35. ‘4' l ‘ l 30. 31. 32. 33. 3h. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. ho. 142. 1:3. 1:5. HE TALKS ABOUT HOW MUCH SHOULD BE DONE. l. a great 2. fairly 3. to some 1;. comparatively 5. not at deal much degree little . all HE "REES" THE PERSON WHO MAKES A MISTAKE. 1. often 2. fairly 3. occasionally h. once in 5. very seldom often a while HE WAITS FOR PEOPLE UNDER HIM TO PUSH NET'T IDEAS BEFORE HE DOES. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally h. seldom 5. never HE RUIES WITH AN IRON HAND. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally )4. seldom 5. never HE TRIES TO KEEP THE Mm UNDER HIM IN GOOD STANDING WITH THOSE IN HIGHER AUTHCBITY. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally ’4. seldom 5. never IE REJECTS SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGES. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally 1;. seldom 5. never HE CHANGE THE DUTIES OF PEOPLE UNDER HIM WITHOUT FIRST TALKING IT OVER WITH THEM. 1. often 2. fairly 3. occasionally 1;. once in 5. very seldom often a while HE DECIDFS IN DETAIL WHAT SHALL BE DONE AND HOW IT SHALL BE DEE. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally ’4. seldom 5. never HE SEES TO IT THAT PEDPIE UNDER HIM ARE WORKING UP TO THEIR LIMITS. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally )4. seldom 5. never HE STANIB UP FOR PEOPLE UNDER HIM EVEN THOUCH'I IT MAKES HIM UNPOPULAR. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally h. seldom 5. never HE MAKES THOSE UNDER HIM FEEL AT EASE WHEN TALKING WITH HIM. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally )4. seldom 5. never HE PUTS SUGGESTIONS THAT ARE MADE BY THE MEN UNDER HIM INTO OPERATION. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally ’4. seldm 5. never HE REFUSES 'IO EXPLAIN HIS ACTIONS. 1. often 2. fairly 3. occasionally 1;. once in 5. very seldon: oftm a while HE MASIZES THE AMOUNT OF WORK. 1. a great 2. fairly 3. to some 14. comparatively 5. not at deal much degree little all IE ASKS FOR SACRIFICES FROM HIS PEN FOR THE GOOD OF THE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT. 1. often 2. fairly 3. occasionally 1;. once in 5. very seld-:.x often a while IE ACTS WITHOUT CONSULTING TIE MEN UNDER HD‘i FIRST. . 1. often 2. fairly 3. occasionally 14. once in 5. very seldom often a while 5“» 1:6. HE "NEEDLE" PEOPIE UNDER HIM FOR GREATER EFFORT. 1. a great 2. fairly 3. to some h. comparatively deal much degree little 1170 HE INSISTS THAT EVERYTI'ED‘IG BE DONE HIS WAY. 1. always 2. often 3. occasionally 1;. seldom I48. HE ENCOURAGE SIDW-WCBJCING PEOPLE TO GREATER EFFORT. 1. often 2. fairly 3. occasionally )4. once in often a while So not at all so never 5. very seldom APPENDIX C -13.. OPIIVLION INVENTORY Instructions: Indicate by drawing a circle around the appropriate letter at the right whether you are satisfied, dissatisfied, or neutral concerning the items listed below. EmmH-J: Peanutbuttersandwiches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .@ If you are more satisfied than dissatisfied encircle the "S". If you are more dissatisfied than satisfied encircle the "D". If you are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied encircle the "N". If an item does not apply draw a line through allflhree letters. Circle only one letter for each item. U 15. 17 o 18. 19. 20 s 21. Thecityinwhiohyoulive...o...o.......... S ’Ihehouseorapartmentwhereyoulive..e..e..o.o.. S Theareaofthedtywhereyoulive.....c...9.40...S Thehighsohoolyouattendedo....o.ooo..¢.... S Theclimatewhereyoulivec..o.........a...NS Themofiesbeingproduced”..o.............. S Localpoliticelsituationooeoooo...'....ooeoos Nationalpoliticalsituationoo................S Ourforeignpolicy..o....................S Yourlastjob.........e......o.o......S Foodprices.....ooooc........el.......S Today'sautomobilesoooe..o.......o..ooo..S Opportunitiestogetahead.to.o..........e....S Localnewspapers...o................... S Automobile:prices....o...........o.....o3 Thelastsui-tyouinought....o...o.ooo...0....5 The «amount of time you have for recreation . e . o e o . o s . S Yourlastboss..o....................o S Thechurchyouattend....oo....o.oo.......S Immatnameeceocooooeeooocoocoocooccos UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU Thepeopleyouknow....o.o..o..o..........S ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ 22. 23. 2h. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3h. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. kc. bl. b2. 1:3. 1m. 145. hé. h7. Sums .12“. Radioprograms....o...................S Televisionprogramsoo........oo........o.S Localspeedlimits....................e..S Thewaypeopledrive............o.....¢.o.S Thewaylocaltrafficishandled................S Yourpresentjob..eooooo.......e........S Advertisingmethods.....................oS The way'you were raised a e o o o e o o s o o o o o e o c o e c S Telephone service 0 o o o s o o e o o o o o o o o c o o e e o o 31 Incometax......9.........o..........S Publiotransportation............o.oe.c..oS General public attitude toward voting . . . o a . . . . . . . . S Theschoolyourchildisattending.o.o...........S Restaurantfood...eo...a...............s SBlSBtaJCocccceoeooeooooeocoeceoeooos Women'sclothingstyles...o.o...o......o.oo3 Yourselfoooeoooeooocoeoceooooccoosoos Theamountoftimespentwithyourfamily... eoeeesocs Popularmusiooc.....¢................aS Bookcensorship....oo......o.....¢.....8 Moviecensorshipo..oo..........o......o.S The religious training of your children . . e s e . e . . . . . S Yourtelephonenmnber...».............;.eoS Yourfamily.....oo.oo...cco..........S 'Ihethoughtoflifeafterdeath.......oo.o..e..oS Installmentbuyingo.oooooo....oo.........S Yourpersonalhealth..eooo.oon...o.....oooS SumD SumN SumDA ———- Inc-nun..- *0. a—u-I-I— E! 2: t1 t5 t1 t1 t1 t3 E? Ci :1 t1 t1 t1 t1 t1 t1 :1 C1 :1 t1 t1 t1 t3 t) hi t5 t! C! zzzzzzzzzzzz‘zzzzzzzzzzz OI 1-2 APPENDIX D CHANGE INVENTORY 00 THROUGH THESE QUESTICNS QUICKLY. CHOOSE THE ONE ANSWER THAT calm CLCBEST 1'0 THE IA! THAT Ya} FEEL. PLACE A CIECK [ARK (9/) IN TIE SPACE Ill FROM CF mm CHOICE. PHASE TH TO um EVER! QUESTION. 1. 3. Check the one statement that best describes the rate at which changes are taking place in the world today. __1. —2. 3. h. :5. lush more rapidly than before. Somewhat more rapidly than before. At about the same rate as before. Somewhat less rapidly than before. Much less rapidly than before. How do you feel about this? ____1. ___2. 3. :5- I like it very much. I like it. It makes no difference to no. I dislike it. I dislike it very much. Are the chances that a machine will cause you to do different work on your Job greater or less than for most Jobs in the conpam? ___1. ____2. 3. :1» 5. Inch greater than for nest jobs. Somewhat greater than for most Jobs. Greater than some, less than others. Somewhat less than for nest Jobs. lush less than for most Jobs. How do you feel about this? ”I. “2. 3. _..5- I like it very such. I like it. It makes no difference to me. I dislike it. I dislike it very much. S. In general, he! nuch change takes place from tine to tires in the way you do your present job? 6. “I. ____2. 3. .1“ :5 lush nore change than for nest Jobs. Bassinet nore change than for nest Jobs. About the same amount of change as for nest jobs. Bassinet less change than for nest jobs. A lot less change than for nest jobs. How do you feel about this? ____1. ___2. 3. _ O .5- I like it very much. I like it. It makes no difference to Inc. I dislike it. I dislike it very nuch. IIBTRUCTIONS: The hours I work on my Job...... ___ Ch the next page you will find a list of statenents about aspects of your job. You are asked to answer two questions about each aspect. ”Has this aspect of your job changed in the last six nenths?‘ (Question 'A‘), and “How do you feel about this change (or lack of change) in this aspect of your Job?" (Question '3'). 1. If you had the same lob here six. months egg, compare the way your Job is now with the way it was six nonths ago. 2. g 123 has} _a_ different ‘12}; here six months ago, cen— pare your present job with the job you had—51x nonths ago. 3. If you haven't ggrked here _a_t_._ least six months, indicate arw changes which have occurred In your job since you came to work here. $13: Suppose the statement had to do with hours of work. you are working nere hours now (”A”) and don't like it (”B“), you would check the spaces like this: QUESTION "A. QUESTION '3' How has this aspect of your How do you feel about this job changed in the past six change (or lack of change) months? in your Job? nuch much like dis- more more no less less a don't dis- like now ‘now change now no! lot like care like a let \/ and a 9d 8‘0 fifl a.fl0fi OMHH eAHH e amp r «new usewiwa Aeummae we need new eases» sane asses deem so» on no: nmn xOHBmHDG 33338.net no goes 2:. . no: mesa erman accused Nae aeennena Id nee ummumm _nee no: uneH on one! one! nos- Saw. eon use» we aoeeee edge ese_nem adr ZOHHmMDO eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 9°“ Reagan “ e» neauoweua new message m! eeeeeeeeeeeeee 90” E no H00.“ H.huahseee we panels 0:9 eeeeeeeeeeeeee U—uflfiaflfifld I.“ anon.bl neagn_oo ecumee one eeeeeeeeee 5.0“ ? P “.23.” eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Don a “0 e88: Se... no page... one . eeeeeeeeeeeee 90” E :0 #0” H schnaphease we assess one eeeeeeeeeeeee goo 0‘” “OH new an no sequence!“ can eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee xOHO’ i no seen one ue>o Hoaeeee hr oooooooooooo 30¢. E S GOG—ha nee hashsooe no cosmos can eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 3.0“. E “O vendeuea anon.«e unease can . eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee “IMO. P ea hveaner He unease one .HH .OH 4 .4 manuawaiam mummy mo and” mom ems 924 ads mEOHaMHac murmz< APPENDIX E STRATIFIED RANDOM SAMPLES OF HPLOIEES Department Total Group Group N A B Cabinet 19 9 10 Dinensien fill 10 5 5 Executive 8: Super. 17 9 8 Finish & lachine 15 8 7 Foreman 11 S 6 liscellaneous 12 6 6 Moulded Plastics 18 9 9 Office 1).; 7 7 Sales 9 h 5 Shipping 1, 2 2 Technical Center 5 3 2 Trining 7 h Upholstery 1? 8 9 Totals................ 158 79 79 APPENDIX F RESPONDENI' SCCRES GROUP A GROUP B ~“*~*~*flu 153 73 88 50 22 158 100 56 57 3h 156 79* 30 h? 15 152; 83 h2. 12 25 15 155 80 1.1 1:8 25 21 160 33 kl 17 30 158 76 30 57 17 8 162 so as 20 38 16h 98 38 ha 28 13 1b 2b 1h 8 7 165 102' 31 53 19 6 1 71 h2 h2 35 17 15 82 h3 h8 29 22 17 72' 36 62 26 11 21 83 h8 66 29 22 18 9h 39 63 22 18 22 88 - 57 66 36 2h 20 7O hh 53 27 18 29 7h hB 50 2h 18 25 90 37 53 26 19 3o 80 29 65 28 16 27 7h 39 6o 21 It 178 91 51 69 32 22 181 71 88 h6 25 21 179 85 31 7b 3b 2h 182 89 kt 59 27 1b 185 86 26 58 19 27 18h 1st 37 7o 19 h 187 79 ha 58 28 20 186 88 35 67 2o 12 ho 83 31 S2 16 5 205 90 31 75 19 11h 77 39 57 28 26 65 9h 36 Sh 17 th 96 h6 h6 30 19 35 81 25 7h 16 hl 66 29 60 27 22 76 112 51 76 18 1h? 93 35 hl 2h 18 1&8 72 36 25 17 us 81 83 69 2h 20 b6 93 39 58 27 90 55 38 to 19 17 67 65 39 SS 22 133 88 S1 63 27 20 68 58 kt 59 18 1&3 67 he 28 26 19 150 69 hl 32 27 H g r O N 3" U H N H Si \O Q ‘0 U \n 3' U1 N O SmfiSm erwo 75 76 us 58 28 23 1th 95 Sh 68 28 97 69 56 Sh 25 15 1h7 90 So 68 16 86 723 h1 6s 18 8 111 90 35 68 19 106 75 31 72: 30 22 118 91 36 61 17 15 110 87 39 S9 26 21 119 72 5h 67 2h 18 112 78 25 39 22 16 167 88 30 21 20 13 113 78 to 53 22 lb 168 9h 85 70 2h 16 117 96 82 75 20 h 169 76 22 us 28 16 SBNSS 0200? A GROUP 3 Sub. 0011 LS. 521 9.0 110 Sub. CON 1.5. 5111 9.0 ATC 170 70 87 39 35 12 175 85 82; 57 36 26 201 79 85 55 28 18 176 73 87 88 21 13 82 71 83 66 31 26 36 60 80 36 20 17 83 6o 28 32 28 20 88 86 86 52 38 26 " 89 68 39 63 23 16 28 75 35 89 38 18 71 53 88 28 32 10 183 73 86 27 23 5 69 76 83 80 23 8 70 67 87 52 23 18 123 75 50 69 26 25 121 76 88 58 23 15 126 75 88 88 26 18 128 75 88 85 21 9 129 93 28 68 20 2' 131 71 86 53 21 17 130 76 81 88 29 22 181 91 30 62 22 9 132 89 88 58 23 18 186 88 28 31 20 11 138 88 38 52 28 16 71300 88 30 16 20 10 139 76 82 58 28 12 33 72 36 27 18 16 72 88 80 88 38 20 122 98 27 66 20 1 80 82 28 37 19 26 73 73 36 26 28 ' 10 83 97 36 55 25 18 77 62 38 51 23 16 98 69 33 28 22 12 78 73 30 57 22 10 100 100 28 52 20 8 79 79 80 59 22 6 102 81 33 38 21 9 81 88 39 72 18 5 107 78 33 88 22 10 96 86 88 29 20 1 115 60 37 38 20 15 103 83 81 88 21 13 120 80 82 38 19 3 108 88 39 88 22 22 90 108 29 53 31 23 101 76 88 39 22 16 98 78 33 58 30 13 56 85 88 71 22 21 171 36 89 81 28 18 61 89 21 56 21 18 173 67 50 51 28 25 95 102 28 58 23 12 177 72 53 55 19 12 108 87 88 37 23 18 189 68 29 19 15 3 172 82: 86 63 23 18 203 76 82 36 28 23 178 83 88 58 22 15 37 82' 30 88 19 9 202 91 80 60 18 5 39 76 82 81 25 17 38 72 35 81 23 16 60 72 38 85 25 11 88 85 83 58 16 2 62 102 52 68 26 18 58 88 88 68 28 16 88 86 38 68 23 6 55 51 23 86 29 8 GROUP A 0200?} Sub. CON 1.3. SR8 P-C ATC Sub. CON 1.3. SBA 2.0 no 7311213 1331 OF GENERAL SATISFACTION (Correlated with.Total N - Group AfB) 1921.29.21. 22122216 211.213.2113 222122216 322.29 1 80 82 26 81 27 116 29 158 28 2 30 83 31 82‘ 37 117 33 157 33 3 29 88 35 83 29 118 27 158 26 8 23 85 38 88 33 119 38 159 18 5 30 86 29 85 32 120 31 160 25 6 19 87 11 86 33 121 21 161 31 7 26 89 27 '87 26 122 30 163 21 8 20 50 29 88 36 123 33 168 25 9 28 51 25 89 26 125 29 165 25 1O 26 52 19 90 29 126 28 A300 31 13 37 53 20 91 37 127 83 1308 36 18 23 58 32 92 29 128 20 167 33 15 38 55 30 93 30 129 31 168 38 16 37 56 39 98 30 130 23 169 13 17 37 58 83 95 29 131 30 170 22 18 33 59 27 96 35 132 37 171 27 21 36 60 88 97 27 133 33 172 27 22 30 62 36 98 38 138 33 173 86 23 35 63 17 99 8 135 32 178 32 28 32 68 32 100 82 137 82 175 29 25 28 65 27 101 30 138 33 176 23 26 33 66 32 102 26 139 38 177 28 27 30 67 38 103 33 180 25 178 23 28 30 68 38 108 27 181 31 179 38 29 23 69 29 105 20 182 38 181 26 30 39 70 36 107 33 183 32 182 22 32 6 71 38 108 36 188 38 183 25 33 19 72 28 109 37 185 27 188 28 38 29 73 30 110 33 186 28 185 23 35 36 78 33 ' 111 37 187 37 186 28 36 25 75 83 112 25 189 82 187 28 37 18 76 82 113 27 150 25 189 18 39 30 78 30 118 32 152 83 202 20 80 38 79 37 115 29 153 32 203 20 208 87 205 80 1. APPENDIX G SOME FORMULAS EMPLOYED IN7PHE STUDY MoNemar's test for the significance of differences between correla- tion coefficients drawn from the same population. The correlation for comparing r12 and r13 is given 8y: r12r13 = r23 - r12r13 (1 - 2‘23 - r12 - £713 2r12rl3r23) 2 (1 - FEST—‘51 - 3) Presumably, according to Icuemar (l7), rrr as obtained in the above formula'will be equal to r s as required in the following formula for the standard error of a difference between 2 coeffi- cients: . 0’21-223 f{“2rfi Conversion of 112 and r13 into corresponding Fisher's s coeffi- cients are provided in the Tables Section of neat statistical books. The t ratio of the difference betseen s's to its stan- dard error is as follows: t = 51 - :2 :53! - 25 The Raulon Method of Estimating rtt° R r 'I 1 - cfttac> tt s‘t wherecr’txgs ¢£J7N In the case of the ATC component of the Change measure, for example, ’tt is estimated as follows: a‘w- 1351 8 a. .133 8 .55 6 t = 85.76 '-'- 1- 355 .. .8 ’“ 115—76"” 13 8008! use om" ROUMWQPWNEP“ "781178318181! Mn [1 81187811811818?!”