5 i A. may or EMPATHIC um ' Am OF THE VALIDQW OF SOME g mp: :09 summon Thom. hr the Dam of M. A. MCHIGAN STATE COLLEGE "Wilfiiam A. Scheflf 1954 I.:;;.. ..,. This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF ElPA‘I‘HIC ABILITY AND OF TIE VALIDITY OF SOME INDICES OF JOB SATISFACTION presented by William A. Schell has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master ef—Ar—ts—degree in—Peyehoirogy /‘~ :" ,0 ¢/// (”fig/Mam :{r IAN/{6% /"" Major professor / Date November 30. 1951+ 0-169 A STUDY OF EMPATHIC ABILITY AND OF THE VALIDITY OF SOME INDICES OF JOB SATISFACTION By William A. Schell AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology Year 1954 I? \m/x/ .f ’ / )—¢/’ I] Approved___ g..-.W__cfi_ii_aw.;£e_-_c ................... Ls“ THEbts WILLIAM A. SCHELL ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to determine the validity of two supposed job-satisfaction questionnaires, and to study certain empathic relationships on the job, using one of them. The questionnaires were administered nonanonymously to 168 employees of a small furniture factory. For the purpose of obtaining data to determine the validity of the job-satisfaction indices, supervis- ors, their subordinate foremen, and workers were asked to fill out the Science Research Associates Employee Inventory, Bullock's Job Satis- faction Scale, and five objective-type criterion questions. For the purpose of obtaining empathy data, the subjects were asked to fill out Bullock's scale as modified by the author for empathic purposes. Fifteen of the respondents were rejected for incomplete sets of data. The respondents were arbitrarily divided into departmentally stratified random samples of 101 subjects (validation sample) and 52 subjects (cross-validation sample). For the validation sample cor- relations were run between performance on: SRA Inventory and a particular pattern of responses to three criterion questions, and also to'a particular pattern of responses to five criterion questions; Bul- lock's Scale and a particular pattern of responses to three criterion WILLIAM A. SCHELL ABSTRACT questions, and also to a particular pattern of reSponses to five cri- terion questions; SRA Inventory and Bullock's scale. The results obtained were verified by the cross-validation sample. The empathic ability of employees was evaluated and the evaluation verified by three procedures: successful proportions, tetrachoric r, and the index of forecasting efficiency. The results of the study indicated that there was reason to assume the respondents to the identified questionnaire gave unbiased answers. Significant relationships were found between the job-satis- faction indices and the criterion questions. A marked relationship was found between the job-satisfaction indices. The findings on both validation and cross validation supported the major hypothesis that empathic ability on the job was a function of personal proximity and echelon status. Within the area of job satisfaction it was found that: Foremen were better empathizers with their coordinates than (a) workers with their foreman, (b) workers with their coordinates, and (c) foremen with their workers. The following findings were tenta- tive: Supervisors were better empathizers with their subordinate foremen than (a) workers with their foremen, (b) workers with their coordinates, and (c) foremen with their workers. A STUDY OF EMPATHIC ABILITY AND OF THE VALIDITY OF SOME INDICES OF JOB SATISFACTION By WILLIAM. A. SCHELL A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF AR TS Department of Psychology 1954 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere thanks to Dr. James S. Karslake, under whose patient supervision, counsel, and deep in— terest this investigation was undertaken and to whom the results are herewith dedicated. The author is also greatly indebted to Dr. Carl F. Frost for his kind guidance, and invaluable assistance in subject procurement. The writer extends his sincere thanks to the furniture com— pany whose interest in human relations research in industry has made this thesis possible. ii 85083 TABLE OF CON TEN TS INTRODUCTION ............................... BACKGROUND ................................ Validation of Job-Satisfaction Indices .............. Empathic Relationships in Job Satisfaction ........... Nonanonymous Attitude Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HYPOTHESES ................................. Validity of the Job-Satisfaction Indices ............. Empathic Relationships in Job Satisfaction ........... PROCEDURE The Measuring Instruments The Administration ........................... The Validation of the Job-Satisfaction Indices The Validation of the Empathic Relationships in Job Satisfaction ........................... Cross Validation ............................. RESULTS .................................... The Validation of the Job-Satisfaction Indices ........ The Validation of the Empathic Relationships in Job Satisfaction ........................... iii 10 11 12 14 16 16 20 The Cross Validation of the Job-Satisfaction Indices . . . . The Cross Validation of Empathic Relationships in Job Satisfaction ........................... CONCLUSIONS ................................ DISCUSSION .................................. The Validity of the Job-Satisfaction Indicies ......... The Empathic Relationships in Job Satisfaction ....... BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................... APPENDIX ................................... iv 28 32 34 34 36 39 41 TABLE II. III. IV. VI. VII . VIII. LIST OF TABLES Distribution of responses to three- and five-question criteria (N = 101) .............. Point biserial correlations between job- satisfaction indices and criterion questions (N = 101) .............................. Comparison of validation groups' empathic ability based on successful proportions and t tests of differences between them ........... Tetrachoric correlations and forecasting efficiencies of the validation groups' e mp athic e stimate s ....................... Cross validation of SRA and Bullock scales through correlation between predicted and observed responses to three- and five-question c rite ria ............................... Cross validation of multiple r's used to predict three— and five-question criteria ........ Comparison of cross-validation groups' empathic ability based on successful pro- portions and t tests of differences between them ........................... Tetrachoric correlations and forecasting efficiencies of the cross-validation groups' empathic e stim ate 5 ....................... Page 17 18 21 23 25 27 29 31 INTRODUCTION This study arose from an interest in job satisfaction and em- pathy. Within the past decade a number of indices have been con- structed to measure workers' job satisfaction. The principal problem of this study was to determine the validity of two supposed job-satis- faction questionnaires, and to study certain empathic relationships on the job using one of these questionnaires. The two job—satisfaction scales used in this study were: SRA. Employee Inventory and Bullock's version of Hoppock's scale (Ap- pendices A and B). These two scales, together with five criterion questions (Appendix E), were used to explore the validity of a num- ber of statements of job satisfaction, and to examine the empathic abilities of employees in a furniture factory. BACKGROUND Validation of Job-Satisfaction Indices In the literature there is confusion and disagreement in the usage of such terms as ”job satisfaction," "industrial morale," and "employee attitude." Blum (1) has attempted to clarify some of these concepts. For the purposes of this study his definitions were found to be acceptable: Job satisfaction is the result of various attitudes the em- ployee holds toward his job, toward related factors, and toward life in general. Industrial morale may be defined as the possession of a feeling, on the part of the employee of being accepted by and belonging to a group of employees through adherence to common goals and confidence in the desirability of these goals. [An] employee attitude can be considered a readiness to act in one way rather than another in connection with specific factors related to a job. The problem of validating a job-satisfaction questionnaire is concerned with establishing certain criteria which can successfully differentiate between satisfied and less satisfied employees on the job. The difficulties presented in selecting or constructing criteria are numerous. Job-satisfaction indices, being attitude tests, have many potential validities and can be validated from many different viewpoints, provided certain requisite assumptions are accepted. Any final determination of a criterion will be a compromise placed on a continuum somewhere between subjectivity and objectivity. Hoppock (10) validated his job-satisfaction scale by the usage of four subjective "self-estimate" criterion questions. Woods' (20) so-called ”Morale" scale, which is really a job-satisfaction index, was "validated" by sixty-eight raters (face validity) employing the Thurstone technique (18). Kerr (11) obtained a correlation of 0.25 between his job-satisfaction scale and job-tenure rate. In a sum- mary of validity studies of his job-satisfaction scale, Kerr (11) re- ported many different criteria. Among these criteria were absentee- ism, sociometric status, the empathic ability of craftsmen, and spontaneity of grievances. Brayfield and Rothe (2), using a job- satisfaction scale with some face validity, found a t ratio significant at the 1 percent level between scores on their scale for supposedly satisfied versus dissatisfied groups of subjects. In addition, they found a correlation of 0.92 between scores on their scale and that of Hoppock. Burns, Thurstone, e131. (7), referring to the SRA Em- ployee Inventory, made an appeal for face validity in that inventory results were confirmed by means of ". . . the considered judgments of experienced observers" and ". . . by conducting non-directive interviews.” Bullock (3), using a modified Hoppock scale, endeavored a more systematic validation. A difference in mean scores on this scale significant at the 0.003 percent level of confidence was ob- tained between employee and ex-employee groups of an animal breed- ers' association. The relationship between judges' ratings of satis- faction and scores on the scale was explored, and a comparison made between scores on the scale and responses to each of three criterion questions (Appendix D). Each of these questions was a matter of objective fact rather than subjective opinion or attitude. This scale score-crite rion question relationship found by Bullock was examined further in the present study. Empathic Relationships in Job Satisfaction Recently there has arisen a research interest in the specific problem of investigating the perception of thoughts and feelings of other people, a process which has been termed "empathy." Dymond's (5) work in this field had led to a commonly accepted definition. Em- pathy is ". . . the imaginative transposing of ones self into the think- ing, feeling and acting of another and so structuring the world as he does." Empathy may be differentiated from projection in that projection is the process whereby the individual ascribes his own personal feelings to another. As Hastdorf and Bender (9) have said, "Projection is more autistic and personal than empathy. . . . Em- pathic ability seems more objective, more cognitive, and more truly perceptive of the psychological structure of the other person." Winslow (19), after presenting a questionnaire dealing with attitudinal topics such as religion, American foreign policy, current economic policy, et cetera, found that empathy—wise the opinions of eighty-six pairs of friends yielded an average product-moment cor- relation coefficient of 0.24. Dymond (5) has indicated that closer relations in the home led to higher empathic ability. The Studies in Industrial Empathy, by Remmers and Remmers (l6) and Remmers and Miller (17), have shown that management tends to overestimate labor leaders' scores on the "How Supervise ?" test of psycholog- ically "best" supervisory attitudes, and that labor leaders tend to underestimate management's scores on the test. Libo (13) found that, in a labor-relations attitude questionnaire in which union leaders and management leaders were asked to predict the responses of the other group, the management group predicted with significantly less error than did the union group. From these empathy-attitude studies it has been shown that (a) closer relations yielded higher empathic ability, and (b) while empathic correlations obtained were of a low order, management leaders appeared to be better empathizers than labor leaders. Nonanonymous Attitude Questionnaires Several writers in the field of attitude testing have expressed the belief that attitude questionnaires should be administered anony- mously, as identified respondents may give biased answers (4, 6, 15). However, Hamel and Reif found that ”essentially the same responses to individual items were obtained on an employee attitude scale whether the subject was asked to identify himself or was allowed to remain anonymous'.' (8). In Hamel and Reif's study the questionnaires were given by the staff of a university organization, and further, the sub- jects were repeatedly assured that the questionnaires would be used for confidential research purposes. In this study, since it was nec- essary to identify respondents, it was decided to follow a similar pro- cedure in order to encourage unbiased responses. HYPOTHESES Validity of the Job-Satisfaction Indices It is hypothesized that obtained relationships between responses to either of the two scales under consideration and responses to any of several possible combinations of five criterion questions will sup- port the validity of either or both scales as measures of job satis- faction in so far as the criterion questions are good measures of job satisfaction. Empathic Relationships in Job Satisfaction The major hypothesis with respect to empathy on the job is: Empathic ability is a function of personal proximity and echelon status. Stated more explicitly, this hypothesis becomes: 1. Closer working relationships are more conducive of greater empathy than less-close relationships. 2. A higher echelon work group will have more empathy with their coordinates than a lower echelon work group will have with their coordinate s . PROCEDURE The general procedure used in this study consisted of the ad- ministration of two job-satisfaction questionnaires in order to (a) de- termine the validity of these job-satisfaction indices, and (b) explore certain empathic relationships in this area through the use of one of them. The questionnaires used, the employee sample, and the pro- cedure followed are described further. The Measuring Instruments The Science Research Associates Inventory and Bullock's version of Hoppock's Job Satisfaction Scale were used in this study. The SRA Employee Inventory was composed of seventy-eight items, distributed among fifteen categories (7) which were assumed to measure various aspects of job satisfaction. The categories were: Job Demands (5 items); Working Conditions (6 items); Pay (4 items); Employee Benefits (4 items); Friendliness and Coop- eration of Fellow Employees (4 items); Supervisor-Employee Inter- personal Relations (8 items); Confidence in Management (7 items), Technical Competence of Supervision (6 items); Effectiveness of 9 Administration (5 items); Adequacy of Communication (6 items); Se- curity of Job and Work Relations (7 items); Status and Recognition (6 items); Identification with the Company (4 items); Opportunity for Growth and Advancement (4 items); Reactions to the Inventory (2 items). The items were arranged so that the total category and inventory scores could be obtained from an answer pad without using stencils. There were three possible responses to each item: "Agree," "?," “Disagree." Responses were entered on a separate answer pad. The answer pads were so constructed that, for each item, the response indicating satisfaction was the only one scored. A "?" response was considered the equivalent of indicating dissatis- faction, and not scored. Bullock's Job Satisfaction Scale was composed of ten items requiring evaluations of the employing organization, the job itself, or the respondent's own position in the work group. The afore- mentioned items were a modification of Hoppock's scale. As used by Bullock, the ten items were arranged on a Likert-type scale (14) with five alternative responses offered for each item. The five alternative responses were arbitrarily assigned values of from 1 to 5, with the highest value indicating satisfaction and the lowest value lack of satisfaction; thus the minimum satisfaction score would be 10 and the maximum would be 50. 10 In this study, Bullock's scale (Appendix B) and five criterion questions (Appendix E) were used to differentiate between the satis- fied and less satisfied employees. To each of these five questions there were three alternative responses: "Yes," "?," "No." A "?" response was arbitrarily considered the equivalent of the re- sponse indicating lack of satisfaction. In addition, Bullock's scale was rephrased, changing the personal pronoun so that an employee could answer the questionnaire for another person (Appendix C). The Administration In order to identify the respondents, the questionnaires were administered nonanonymously to 168 employees (almost the entire work force) of a small “furniture factory in Michigan. The question- naires were given departmentally on company time in groups of five to twenty-five employees. For the purpose of obtaining data to de- termine the validity of the job-satisfaction indices, supervisors, their subordinate foremen, and workers were asked to fill out the SRA Employee Inventory, Bullock's Job Satisfaction Scale, and five cri- terion questions (Appendices A, B, E). For the purpose of obtaining empathy data, supervisors were asked to fill out Bullock's modified job satisfaction scale (Appendix C) for one coordinate and three ll subordinate foremen. .Foremen were asked to fill out the modified Scale for one coordinate, their immediate supervisor, and three sub- ordinate workers. Workers were asked to fill out the modified scale for one coordinate and their immediate foreman. The Validation of the Job—Satisfaction Indices Fifteen sets of the respondents' data were rejected for being incomplete. For the validation and cross-validation purposes, the remaining 153 respondents' data were arbitrarily divided into depart- mentally stratified random samples of 101 subjects (validation sam- ple) and 52 subjects (cross-validation sample). A two-for-one selec- tion ratio from each department was maintained where practical. However, certain departments were arbitrarily combined (Appendix F). Using the validation-sample data, correlations were run be- tween performance on: 1. SRA Inventory and a particular pattern of responses to the three criterion questions. 2. Bullock's scale and a particular pattern of responses to the three criterion questions. 3. SRA Inventory and a particular pattern of responses to the five criterion questions. 12 4. Bullock's scale and a particular pattern of responses to the five criterion questions. 5. SRA Inventory and Bullock's scale. Regressions equations were derived for predicting SRA Em- ployee Inventory scores from a knowledge of scores on Bullock's scale, and vice versa. In addition, regression equations were de- rived for predicting the selected pattern of response to the three and five criterion questions from a knowledge of scores on the SRA Inventory and/or Bullock's scale. The Validation of the Empathic Relationships in Job Satisfaction Sufficient data were available to make it feasible to explore five possible empathic relationships. These were studies of the cor- relation between: 1. The responses to the Bullock scale (Appendix C) attrib- uted by the foremen to their coordinates and the responses made by the coordinates themselves. 2. The responses to the Bullock scale (Appendix C) attrib- uted by the supervisors to their subordinate foremen and the re- sponses made by the foremen themselves. l3 3. The responses to the Bullock scale (Appendix C) attrib- uted by the workers to their foremen and the responses made by the foremen themselves. 4. The responses to the Bullock scale (Appendix C) attrib- uted by the workers to their coordinates and the responses made by the coordinates themselves. 5. The responses to the Bullock scale (Appendix C) attrib- uted by the foremen to their workers and the responses made by the workers themselves. Three different methods were used to ascertain the extent of these empathic relationships. Using each subject's own question- naire as a criterion, the proportion of successful empathic estimates was computed for the ten questions. For each item there were five response categories in the order of 1 to 5. If A chose 4 and B pre- dicted 4, it was considered a successful estimate, but if B predicted otherwise it was considered unsuccessful. An average proportion of successful and unsuccessful estimates was thus obtained for each of the above groups. The null hypothesis was tested to determine whether the frequency of successful estimates was significantly in excess of chance. A t test was computed of the differences between successful proportions when comparing one group with another. 14 The second method employed was as follows: A 5 x 5 table was prepared for each group, placing a subject's own response and its paired empathic estimate in the appropriate cell. A distribution resulted in which the rows of the table served for the dispersion of the subjects' scores (X axis) and the columns for the dispersion of the predicted empathic estimates (Y axis). The data were artificially reduced to two categories in both X and Y, resulting in a 2 x 2 table. A. tetrachoric correlation coefficient was computed by the cosine-pi formula. The null hypothesis that each group's correlation was not significantly different from zero was tested. Finally, using the same 2 x 2 tables, the forecasting efficiency for each of the five empathic relationships was calculated. Cross Validation In general, the procedures followed in validating the study were employed in the cross validation of it. Where it was appro- priate, a regression equation based upon the validation sample was used in making predictions for the cross-validation sample. This was the case in connection with verifying the validity of the job- satisfaction scales. In cross validating the job-satisfaction scales, predicted values of a pattern of criterion-question responses were 15 correlated with the observed patterns of responses to the criterion questions, and differences in the validation versus the cross-validation coefficients were examined. In cross-validation, the successful pro- portions, tetrachoric correlations, and forecasting efficiency data were computed for the cross-validation sample and compared with the validation sample. RESULTS The Validation of the Job-Satisfaction Indices The Pearsonian correlation coefficient between the SRA Inven- tory scores (X) and Bullock's index scores (Y) was r = 0.740 :I: 0.045. The prediction equations in raw score form were: (A) Y = 0.359X + 19.3; (B) X = 1.53Y - 5.08. Distributions of response to the criterion questions are shown in Table I. In each set of criterion questions, a particular answer _ to each question tends to indicate satisfaction of the respondent with the job; any other response does not. Those responses indicating job satisfaction are called (for convenience) the "correct" responses. The criterion of job satisfaction (or the lack of it) is then (for the purposes of this study) an acceptable "pattern" of responses to the (three or five) criterion questions. Each distribution of response was dichotomized (as indicated in Table l) to permit the computation of point biserial correlation coefficients between the scores on each job-satisfaction scale and each criterion. The point biserial corre- lations between the job-satisfaction scores and the criterion questions are shown in Table II. The t tests of the point biserial correlations l6 17 TABLE I DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES TO THREE— AND FIVE-QUESTION CRITERIA (N = 101) 3-Question Criterion S-Question Criterion P' N P' N 3/3" 63 5/5 23 2/3 29 4/5* 34 1/3 8 3/5 27 0/3 1 2/5 12 1/5 4 0/5 1 —‘ “—1 -_ _‘ P' is the number of "correct" responses expressed as a ratio of the number (three or five) of possible responses. * Dichotomized at this point; subjects below this score con- sidered as less satisfied. Note: The "correct" responses indicating job satisfaction were (for either the three- or five-question type criterion): 11 yes 12 yes 13 no 14 no 15 no See Appendices D and E. 18 TABLE II POINT BISERIAL CORRELATIONS BETWEEN JOB-SATISFACTION INDICES AND CRITERION QUESTION (N = 101) 1 WT 4‘. r“ t ”T Job-Satisfaction 3-Que stion t 5- Que stion t Index C rite rion R atio C rite rion Ratio SRA Inventory ....... 0.417 455* 0.484 5.50%" Bullock's index ....... 0.408 4.45* 0.420 4.61* I r r _ * r significantly other than zero beyond the 0.1 percent level of coliiilidence. 19 were all significantly different from zero at the 0.1.percent level of confidence. The hypothesis that there was a relationship between the job-satisfaction indices and the criterion questions was accepted as tenable, subject to cross-validation support. The regression equations for predicting the three (Y3) and five (Y5) question cri- terion scores from a knowledge of either the SRA Inventory (XS) or Bullock (XB) job-satisfaction scores were: (C) Y3 = 0.020 XS + 1.43 (D) Y3 = 0.040 XB + 0.958 (E) Y5 = 0.039 XS + 1.45 (F) Y5 = 0.069 XB + 0.878 The multiple R's for predicting the three- and five-question criterion scores from a knowledge of both job-satisfaction scale scores were R3 = 0.440 and R5 = 0.493. Both were significantly different from zero beyond the 1_ percent level of confidence. The multiple regression equations derived to predict the three- and five-question criteria from a knowledge of the SRA Inventory scores (XS) and Bullock's index scores (XB) were: 0.013 X + 0.022 X (G) Y3 S B . + .2 0019KS 003XB Y (H) 5 These regression equations (A through H) are employed later in the cross validation of the job-satisfaction indices (see page 24). 2.0 Of interest were the responses to category 15, items 77 and 78, of the SRA Inventory. The mean category score was 1.71, which, when interpreted on the SRA profile sheet (Appendix G), showed a high average acceptance by the validation- sample respondents of the pro- cedure in making this job-satisfaction survey. There is some assur- ance that the responses made by the employees were unbiased by an administrative procedure involving identification of each respondent. The Validation of the Empathic Relationships in Job Satisfaction The ability of various groups of employees to predict the responses of other employees to items on the Bullock verson of Hoppock's scale is shown in Table III. The proportion of successful predictions made was significantly greater than chance at the 0.1 percent level of confidence in every case. The t test of differences in empathic ability of the five groups showed that within the area of job satisfaction the following differences (subject to confirmation by cross validation) were significant: (a) Foremen were better empa- thizers of associate formen than workers were of their foremen. (b) Foremen appeared to have greater empathic ability than workers did when each group endeavored to empathize with its associates. 21 TABLE III COMPARISON OF VALIDATION GROUPS' EMPATHIC ABILITY BASED ON SUCCESSFUL PROPORTIONS AND t TESTS OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM “— Proportion of Suc- . . t T t B t P ' p cessful Predictions es e ween roportions ( ) Group N P q l 2 3 4 5 l 90 0.578’" 0.422 - 1.02 2.97' 3.12' 3.00' 2 80 0.500* 0.500 - 1.51 1.59 1.63 3 460 0.409"‘ 0.591 - 0.070 0.337 4 840 0.407* 0.593 - 0.312 5 250 0.396* 0.604 - 1 ——_‘—f fl u j N = number of predicted responses. * Successful proportions significantly greater than chance (one correct response out of five, or 20%) at 0.1 percent level of confidence. q = unsuccessful proportions. ' Significant beyond 1 percent level of confidence. Group 1. Foremen's empathic estimates of associate foremen. Group 2. Supervisors' empathic estimates of subordinate foremen. Group 3. Workers' empathic estimates of their foremen. Group 4. Workers' empathic estimates of associate workers. Group 5. Foremen's empathic estimates of their workers. 22 (c) Foremen were better empathizers with their associate foremen than they were with their subordinate workers. Tetrachoric correlations were computed for the five groups in order to explore empathic ability from another point of view. Originally, there were 5 x 5 contingency tables showing the five possible predictions of response (to any item on the Bullock version of Hoppock's scale) along the Y axis and the five possible observed responses along the X axis. The 5 x 5 tables for each group were reduced to 2 x 2 in order to solve for tetrachoric r. The arbitrary divisions were made each way between the fourth and fifth response category. See Table IV. Tetrachoric r's that were significantly other than zero were found for groups 1 and 4. Examining empathic ability from a consideration of tetrachoric r's, foremen and workers successfully empathized with their associates (subject to confirmation by cross validation). Other attempts at empathy by the groups ex- amined here failed. The 2 x 2 contingency tables were then used to compute the index of forecasting efficiency with which each of the employee groups (1 to 5) could predict responses to Bullock job-satisfaction items of fellow employees as indicated in Table IV. Subject to confirmation, (a) foremen apparently predicted Bullock job-satisfaction responses 23 TABLE IV TETRACHORIC CORRELATIONS AND FORECASTING EFFICIENCIES OF THE VALIDATION GROUPS' EMPATHIC ESTIMATES Fore- . casting Group N a b c d r tet. Sigma t, Effi- r tet. Ratio , Ciency (70)” l 90 32 16 14 28 0.500 0.165 3.03' 30.4 2 80 16 8 25 31 0.344 0.184 1.87 14.6 3 460 100 63 160 137 0.119 0.075 1.57 0 4 840 79 86 144 531 0.448 0.067 6.79' 0 5 250 46 74 43 87 0.101 0.089 0.881 0 N = number of empathic estimates. a, b, c, d = obtained cell frequencies. ' = r tet. other than zero beyond 1 percent level of confidence. Group 1. Foremen's empathic estimates of associate foremen. Group 2. Supervisors' empathic estimates of subordinate fore- men. Group 3. Workers' empathic estimates of foremen. Group 4. Workers' empathic estimates of associate workers. Group 5. Foremen's empathic estimates of their workers. rNo. of correct re: iNo. of correct re:- sponses with a sponses without a knowledge of cell - knowledge of cell ** Index of fore- frequencies frequencies casting efficiency = 100 - _ No. of correct responses without a * Schema knowledge of cell frequencies but with Responses La knowledge of row and column totals _ Actually Reported Empathizer's b l a ] Pre diction of R'P—sponse d I C J 24 of their associates with some forecasting efficiency apparently other than zero; and (b) supervisors succeed in empathizing in a similar manner with their subordinate foremen, in that here too the index of forecasting efficiency is greater than zero. The Cross Validation of the Job-Satisfaction Indices The regression equations (A) and (B) were used to predict the job-satisfaction scores of employees in the cross-validation sample. Predicted scores were correlated with actual scores. The correla- tion between the predicted SRA Inventory scores and the actual scores was: r = 0.787 :h 0.053. The correlation between the predicted Bul- lock index scores and the subjects' actual scores was: r = 0.783 :I: 0.054. The t tests of difference between the actual correlations and the original r of 0.740 were not significant. The correlation between the job-satisfaction indices was upheld on cross validation. Either index could be used to predict performance on the other. The regression equations (C), (D), (E), and (F) were used to predict performance of employees in the cross-validation sample on the three- and five-question criteria. These predicted criterion SCOres were correlated with observed criterion scores. The results are summarized in Table V. The correlations between scores 25 TABLE V CROSS VALIDATION OF SRA AND BULLOCK SCALES THROUGH CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RESPONSES TO THREE- AND FIVE-QUESTION CRITERIA Criterion N Correlation Fisher z t Ratio Equivalent .— . 1* : * 3 question 10 rSRA-3 0.417 0.444 . . 0.137'" = t 52 rSRA-3 0.397 0.420 101* = . t' . an3 0 408‘ 0 433 0.463'" 2 = .338" . 2 5 rB_3 0 0 35 S-question 101-:4 r. = 0.484* 0.528 A- SR 5 0.508'" 2 = . ' . 5 rSRA-S 0 413 0 439 101* r = 0.420" 0.447 3'5 0.480'” 2 = 0.348" . 6 5 rB_5 0 3 3 1 * Values taken from Table II. ' Significantly different from zero beyond the 1 percent level of confidence. " Significantly different from zero beyond the 5 percent 1evel of confidence. '" No significant difference between paired Fisher z equiv- alents of the correlations. 9 26 predicted from the SRA Inventory and the actual criterion scores were not significantly different from zero beyond the 1 percent level of confidence. The correlations between scores predicted from the Bullock scale and the actual criterion scores were not significantly different from zero beyond the 5 percent level of con- fidence. The t tests showed that differences between Fisher's z equivalents of the correlations were not significantly different. Thus, the prediction of criterion question scores from a knowledge of the scores of either index was upheld on cross validation. The hypothesis pertaining to relationships between the job-satisfaction indices and the criterion questions was supported. The multiple regression equations (G) and (H) were used to predict the performance of employees in the cross-validation sample on the three- and five-question criteria. These predicted criterion scores were correlated with actual criterion question scores. The results can be found in Table VI. The correlations r3 and r5 of the cross-validation sample between the predicted criterion scores and the actual criterion scores were significantly different from zero at the 1 percent level of confidence. The prediction of criterion question scores from a knowledge of both of the job-satisfaction TABLE VI 27 CROSS VALIDATION OF MULTIPLE R's USED TO PREDICT THREE- AND FIVE-QUESTION CRITERIA criterion N Correlations 3-question 101 R3 = 0.440,: 52 r3 = 0.376* 5'Cluestion 101 R5 = 0_493::= 52 r5 = 0.39324 Fisher's z Equivalent t Ratio 0.471 0.434' 0.395 0.539 0.708' 0.415 * Significantly different from zero at 1 percent level. ' No significant difference between either R3 and r3 or R5 and r5. 28 indices was upheld on cross validation. The hypothesis pertaining to relationships between the job-satisfaction indices and the criterion questions is accepted as highly tenable. To the extent that the cri- terion questions were valid criteria of job satisfaction, the job- satisfaction indices used herein have been validated. The mean category score for category 15, items 77 and 78, was 1.79. This can be interpreted on the SRA profile sheet (Appen- dix G) as a high acceptance by the cross-validation sample respon- dents of administrative procedure in making this job- satisfaction survey. There is then some further assurance that the responses made by both samples of employees were unbiased by an administra- tive procedure requiring identification of each respondent. The Cross Validation of Empathic Relationships in Job Satisfaction Replication, with another (the cross-validation) sample of employ- ees, of the study of empathic ability summarized in Table III resulted in the findings in Table VII. Here again, the proportion of success- fL11 predictions of response to the Bullock version of Hoppock's scale was significantly greater than chance for every group of employees Stuclied. Moreover, the differences in empathic ability between one group and another apparent from Table III were supported in Table VII- 29 TABLE VII COMPARISON OF CROSS-VALIDATION GROUPS' EMPATHIC ABILITY BASED ON SUCCESSFUL PROPORTIONS AND t TESTS OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM —— I u g Proportion of Suc - . . t T t B t ' cessful Predictions es e ween Proportions (P) Group ‘ N p q l 2 3 4 5 l 60 0.733* 0.267 — 2.47" 4.94' 5.31' 3.44' 2 70 0.529* 0.471 - 1.69 2.42" 0.489 3 290 0.417* 0.583 - 1.15 1.57 4 420 0.374* 0.626 - 2.61' 5 160 0.494* 0.506 - l L I w _L N = number of predicted responses. * Successful proportions significantly greater than chance (one correct response out of five, or 20%) at the 0.1 percent level. q = unsuccessful proportions. ' Significant beyond 1 percent level. " Significant beyond 5 percent level. Group 1. Foremen's empathic estimates of associate foremen. Group 2. Supervisors' empathic estimates of subordinate fore- Group 3. Workers' empathic estimates of their foremen. Group Workers' empathic estimates of associate workers. Group 5. Foremen's empathic estimates of their workers. A 30 A cross-validation study of empathic ability through the use of tetrachoric correlation coefficients replicating the work done in producing Table IV resulted in Table VIII. This table supports the earlier finding that foremen and workers both succeed in predicting their associates' responses to items on the Bullock version of Hop- pock's scale. From a comparison of Tables IV and VIII, on the basis of the forecasting efficiency data, within the area of job satis- faction the following statements about empathy can be made: 1. Foremen were better empathizers with their associates than (a) workers were with their foremen, (b) foremen were with WM”... {if} their associates, and (c) workers were with their associates. 2. Supervisors were better (and more stable) empathizers of their subordinate foremen than (a) workers with their foremen, (b) workers with their associates, and (c) foremen with their work- ers. The statements about supervisors' empathic abilities were con- sidered tentative because of their lack of confirmation by the suc- cessful proportions and tetrachoric r data. 31 TABLE VIII TETRACHORIC CORRELATIONS AND FORECASTING EFFICIENCIES OF THE CROSS-VALIDATION GROUPS' EMPATHIC ESTIMATES 1 ‘1‘ Fore- . casting S Group N a b c d r tet. igma t, Effi- r tet. Ratio , c1ency (‘70) 1 6O 33 4 10 13 0.742 0.219 3.38' 6.98 2 60 12 6 17 25 0.306 0.200 1.53 19.4 3 290 78 25 115 72 0.258 0.097 2.67' 0 4 420 36 46 62 276 0.457 0.097 4.71' 0 5 160 28 40 23 69 0.284 0.129 2.20" 0 N = number of empathic estimates. a, b, c, d = obtained cell frequencies. ' r tet. other than zero beyond 1 percent level of confidence. " r tet. other than zero beyond 5 percent level of confidence. Group 1. Foremen's empathic estimate of associate foremen. Group 2. Supervisors' empathic estimate of subordinate fore- men. Group 3. Workers' empathic estimate of foremen. Group 4. Workers' empathic estimate of associate workers. Group 5. Foremen's empathic estimate of their workers. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study indicated that there was a high av- erage acceptance of this nonanonymous job-satisfaction survey when administered by a university organization wherein respondents' indi- vidual answers were kept confidential. A marked relationship was found between the job-satisfaction indices of this study. To the extent that the three- and five-question criteria were valid measures of job satisfaction, the job-satisfaction indices used herein have been further validated by the fact that there were substantial relationships between the job-satisfaction indices and the criterion questions. Bul- lock's finding of a significant relationship between the three criterion questions and his job-satisfaction scale was confirmed. The major hypothesis that on-the-job empathic ability was a function of personal proximity and echelon status was supported by the findings. The subordinate hypothesis that closer working rela- tionships are more conducive of greater empathy-than less-close relationships was sustained. Foremen had greater empathy with their coordinates' job satisfaction than with that of their workers' job satisfaction. Foremen were also better empathizers with their 32 33 coordinates' job satisfaction than workers were with their foremen's job satisfaction. Confirmed also was the hypothesis that a higher echelon work group will have more empathy with their coordinates than a lower echelon work group will have with their coordinates. Foremen were better empathizers with their coordinates' job satis- faction than workers were with their coordinates' job satisfaction. The following findings were considered tentative: Supervisors were better empathizers with their subordinate foremen's job satis— faction than workers were with their foremen's job satisfaction. Supervisors were better empathizers with their subordinate fore- men's job satisfaction than workers were with their coordinates' job satisfaction. Supervisors were better empathizers with their sub- ordinate foremen's job satisfaction than foremen were with their worke rs' job satisfaction. DISCUSSION The Validity of the Job-Satisfaction Indicies A high correlation was obtained between Bullock's Job Satis- faction index scores and the SRA Employee Inventory scores: r = 0.740. This was confirmed further by the fact that it was possible to predict either of the index scores of a sample of employees using regression equations derived from the relationships found be- tween the index scores of another sample of employees. As interpreted by the SRA profile sheet (Appendix G), the . high average acceptance of this nonanonymous job-satisfaction survey can be attributed to its method of administration. Hamel and Reif's (8) procedure was followed closely in that the questionnaires were administered by a university organization and written and oral in- structions stressed the fact that the questionnaires would be used for confidential research purposes. In all probability, it can be assumed that the employees of this survey gave truthful and unbiased responses. The hypothesis that there were relationships between the job- satisfaction indices and the criterion questions was accepted as 34 35 tenable. This was indicated by the fact that it was possible to pre- dict the criterion-question scores of a sample of employees from a knowledge of their job-satisfaction scores, by regression equations derived from the relationships between the job-satisfaction indices and the criterion-question scores of another independent sample of employees. The usage of the particular criterion questions should be considered for their effect upon the results. The basic assump- tion behind these criterion questions was that, on the basis of three or five objective experiences, the questions considered as a whole could effectively discriminate between a satisfied and a less satis- fied or dissatisfied employee. To the extent that this assumption was valid, the job-satisfaction indices used herein have been validated by this study. However, it is possible that other objective criterion questions could have been selected and devised that would have better discriminating power between satisfied and less-satisfied employees. It is suggested that such a list of ten or fifteen objective criterion questions of this nature would perhaps be a better job-satisfaction index in themselves, than the presently used attitudinal job-satisfaction indices. Another factor that would have affected the results was the decision to use point biserial r for the correlation of the job- 36 satisfaction indices and the criterion questions. The distributions that were obtained of the criterion-question scores were not normal, and it was arbitrarily assumed that a parent population of furniture firms also would not be normal. However, if the parent population were normal, a biserial r could have been used which would have given higher correlations between the job-satisfaction indices and the criterion questions. In either case the point biserial r was a more conservative estimate of the magnitude of the correlations. The Empathic Relationships in Job Satisfaction It appeared that the groups studied herein had empathy with their own group's and other groups' job satisfaction. This is illus- trated by the successful proportions data of Table III and confirmed by said data of Table VII. All the successful proportions of empathic estimates were significantly greater than chance at the 0.1 percent 1evel of confidence. However, the results of this study could have en“lphasized the fact that part of the successful prediction of another pe1‘son's responses may have been due to projection rather than er*1pathy. The need for a methodology for differentiating between p1.0.1ection and empathy is great, but as yet no successful technique has been devised to cope with this problem. 37 The hypothesis that within the area of job satisfaction empathy was a function of personal proximity and echelon status was accepted as tenable. The results of the three procedures to evaluate empathic ability indicated that both of these factors were operative. The secondary hypothesis that closer working relationships were more conducive of greater empathy than less-close relationships was sus- tained. Foremen were better empathizers of their associate foremen's job satisfaction than they were of their workers' job satisfaction. Moreover, foremen were better empathizers of their associate fore- men's job satisfaction than workers were of their foremen's job satisfaction. Confirmed further was the hypothesis that a higher echelon group will have more empathy with their associates than a lower echelon group with its associates. This was corroborated by the finding that foremen were better empathizers with their a'SSociate foremen's job satisfaction than workers were with their associate workers' job satisfaction. Of interest are the tentative findings wherein supervisors were better empathizers with their subordinate foremen than (a) workers With their foremen's, (b) workers with their associates', and (c) ftDrernen with their workers' job satisfaction. These particular re- lationships were sustained only by the forecasting-efficiency data. 38 Of interest is the first relationship which could generate the hypothe- sis that superiors to a group had greater empathy with that group than subordinates of the group. Of importance was the usage of tetrachoric r to determine the strength of the empathic estimates. The obtained data were such that the only possibility of estimating correlation was by this coef- ficient. The data were attenuated in that there were five categories. Three of the groups had truncated distributions, and all of the distri- butions were skewed to the highly satisfied side. When the data for the groups were dichotomized between the fourth and fifth category response some of the marginal proportions were low. A dichotomi- zation between any other category responses would have created zero cell frequencies. All other coefficients of correlation were rejected because of these conditions and r tet. was computed. In spite of these difficulties r tet. in the cross-validation data of Table VIII confirmed the findings of the successful proportions data in Tables III and VII. However, its failures in the validation data of Table IV are probably due to the low number of estimates particularly for groups 1 and 2. The lack of stability of the forecasting efficiency 0f group 1 may also be due to the insufficient N's of both the vali- dation and cross-validation groups. The tentative supervisory findings may have been confirmed further if the N's for group 2 had been greater. l. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. BIBLIOGRAPHY Blum, M. L. Industrial Psycholgy and its Sogi_a1 Foundations. New York: Harper and Bros., 1949, 77. Brayfield, A. H., and H. F. Rothe. An index of job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psych_p__l_., 1951, 35, 307-311. Bullock, R. P. Social factors related to job satisfagtign. Co- lumbus, Ohio, The Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, The Ohio State Univer- sity. Research Monograph No. 70, 1952. Corey, S. M. Signed vs unsigned attitude questionnaires. J_. Educ. Psychol., 1937, 28, 144-148. Dymond, R. F. A scale for the measurement of empathic ability. ngnsult. Psychol., 1949, 13, 127-133. Fisher, R. P. Signed versus unsigned personal questionnaires. J. Appl. Psychgl., 1946, 30, 220-225. General Manual for the Employee Inventory (Third Edition). Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1952. Hamel, L., and H. G. Reif. Should attitude questionnaires be signed? Personnel Psychol., 1952, 5, 87-91. Hastdorf, A. H., and I. E. Bender. A caution respecting the measurement of empathic ability. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psy- chol., 152, 47, supplement, 574-576. Hoppock, R. Job Satisfaction. New York: Harper and Bros., 1935, 152. Kerr, W. A. On validity and reliability of the job satisfaction tear ballot. J. Appl. Psychol” 1948, 32, 275-281. 39 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. l7. l8. 19. 20. 40 _ Summary of validity studies of the tear ballot. lie};- _s_onne1 Psychol., 1952, 5, 105-113. Libo, L. M. Attitudegrediction in labor relations, Stanford, California, Studies in Industrial Relations, No. 10, 1948. Likert, R. A. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch..P_sychol., 1932, No. 140. Olson, W. C. The waiver of signatures in personal data re- ports. J. Appl. Psychol., 1936, 20, 442-450. Remmers, H. H., and L. J. Remmers. Studies in Industrial Empathy 1. Labor leaders attitudes towards industrial supervision and their estimate of management's attitudes. Personnel Psychol” 1949, 2, 427-436. Remmers, H. H., and F. G. Miller. Studies in Industrial Em- pathy II. Managements attitude toward industrial super- vision and their estimates of labor attitudes. 1353539133531 1333151121., 1950, 3, 33-40. Thurstone, L. L., and E. J. Chave. The Measurement__gf_A_t_t_i£l_i_<_i_g. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929. Winslow, C. N. A study of the extent of agreement between friends opinions and their ability to estimate the opinions of each other. J. Soc. Psychgli, 1937, 8, 433-442. Woods, W. A. Employee attitudes and their relation to morale. J. Appl. Psychol., 1944, 28, 285-301. APPENDIX 41 APPENDIX A SBA Employee In men 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 In?“ 1‘" if Read each statement carefully and decide how you feel about it. 4 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 'fi: YES.“ I AGREE 7 DISABIEE I would rather work in a large city than in a small town ................................. 1:] 1:] 1:] 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 DISAGREE I would rather work in a large city than in a small town ................................. E (j I] This person wants to work in a small town: “I“ , WW I would rather work in a large city than in a small town ................................. [:1 [I E This person can’t decide between a large city and a small town: , mm,“ I would rather work in a large city than in a small town ................................. [:1 E [:1 This is not a “i There are no right answers and no wrong answers. It 18 your own, honest opinion that we want. Work rapidly; f“ . , .5 xi: '??? .--- ”-3.- ;_ Do not spend too much time on any one statement. r . ~ 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. ‘6 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. Check to see that you have marked every statement. If you think anything has been left out, or if there is any special thing that is worrying you about your work, please write or print your comments in the space provided on the Answer Pad. When you arefinished, remove the Answer Pad from the booklet and drop your Answer Pad in the ballot box. Go on to the next page 10. ll. 12. 13. l4. l8. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Make no marks on these pages! 1 . The hours of work here are OK ................................................................. . Management does everything possible to prevent accidents in our work ......... . ..................... . Management is doing its best to give us good working conditions .................................... In my opinion, the pay here is lower than in other companies. ...................................... . They should do a better job of handling pay matters here ........................................... . I understand what the company benefit program provides for employees .............................. . The people I work with help each other out when someone falls behind or gets in a tight spot ........... . My boss is too interested in his own success to care about the needs of employees ..................... My boss is always breathing/down our necks; he watches us too closely .............................. My boss gives us credit and praise for work well done .............................................. Management here does everything it can to see that employees get a fair break on the job ............... If I have a complaint to make, I feel free to talk to someone up-the-line .............................. My boss sees that employees are properly trained for their jobs ...................................... My boss sees that we have the things we need to do our jobs ........................................ . Management here is really trying to build the organization and make it successful ...................... . Management here sees to it that there is cooperation between departments ............................ Management tells employees about company plans and developments ................................ They encourage us to make suggestions for improvements here ...................................... I am often bothered by sudden speed-ups or unexpected slack periods in my work ..................... Changes are made here With little regard for the welfare of employees ................................ Compared with other employees, we get very little attention from management ........................ Sometimes I feel that my job counts for very little in this organization ................................ The longer you work for this company the more you feel you belong ................................. I have a great deal of interest in this company and its future ........................................ I have little opportunity to use my abilities in this organization ...................................... There are plenty of good jobs here for those who want to get ahead ................................ :27. 28. 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 ....................... 29. Poor working conditions keep me from doing my best in my work ........ 3.1. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 41. 42. 43. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. . 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 .................... . . . . i . Atlixenext, Go on to the nextgpag -- exrlixauexgli: 3 W101) is often dull and monotonous ........................... i; There is too much pressure on my job. .' ........................ gages-01116 of the working conditions here are annoying ................ .‘., . I have the right equipment to do my work ....................... ”I T . My pay is enough to live on comfortably ........................ f’34-.1’m satisfied with the way employee benefits are handled here ................................................. :2 {LT he company’s employee benefit program is O.K ................. :‘1 The people I work with are very friendly ........................ ': If: My. boss really tries to get our ideas about things ................. 7'37. y boss ought to be friendlier toward employees ................. V -.-My boss lives up to his promises ............................... P's I (c 1“ .- d Qj'M'ana’gement here has a very good personnel policy ............... 35:3; Management ignores our suggestions and complaints .............. My boss knows very little about his job ......................... ".wMy boss has the work well organized ........................... .. or This company operates efiiciently and smoothly ......... - ......... Ag- ' j ,lMa‘nagement really knows its job ............................... i ’73 They have a poor way of handling employee complaints ‘. here ........................................................ Viv-You can say what you think around here ........................ 5%.? YOU always know where you stand with this company ............ t \ '73} fflien- layoffs are necessary, they are handled fairly ............... J Mam very much underpaid for the work that I do ............... --.{,". , . . . . I- .lffntreally doing something worthwhile m my 101) ................ ‘4. ”36:- ‘I’m proud to work for this company ........................... _ _ ‘ . 'ng- in this Inventory 18 a good way to let 3?... ‘ a gement know what employees think ..................... . . ’35:: a some good may come out of filling in an “64%; ry like this one ..................................... 3.0 on to the next}??? Write your comments in the space provided on the back of the Answer Pad. ‘ $2110 you are told to do 30'. 111411219. 5 ‘5‘. a 1.. ff ~‘I' J.‘ 1 11111: unless: [:1 END 7 DISABREE DC] AGREE MSAGREE C] [:II AGREE DISAGREE E] De AGREE DISAGREE E] De ANSWER PAD for the SBA Employee In ventery 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 IO. 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 thin answer pad. AGREE DISAGREE C] D~. AGRE E DISAGREE [:J. as AGREE ? DlSAGREE D AGREE ? DISAGREE El AGREE 2 DISAGREE [:l amt! D lSAGREE DE] 1 DISAGREE 4': '-::'.‘3'T;~.~. _.‘y..., .jr r“~111sM. .. ' 'AGREE ‘ Cl AGREE DE D 1} D D- E} D D- [:1 1:1~ [1 1:} D 1:]~ D D- D- E} D EJ~U~ [:1 AGREE mm AGREE DEE] AGREE DE DE DE El AGREE E] AGREE C] AGREE [:1 ~ AGREE Cl AGREE AGREE Cl AGREE E] AGREE E] 3" CI OISAHEE El - DISAGREE Cl C] DISAGREE El DIGAGREE E] ET B, [:1 DISAGREE Cl (”MORE [3 DISAGREE [3 DISAGREE 1:] DIGAGREE E] DISAGREE E] DISAGREE [:1 01:11am [3 DISAGREE ' [3 015m: Drum mucus: El 013110112: 013mm [3 DlSAGREE ' DISAGREE E] DlSAGREE DEE] acute ' AGREE AGREE [:1 AGREE C17 AGREE Cl AGREE . V D AGREE C] AGREE D AGREE 1:1 I é.’-I t?) .-'1.i;' ‘ 'I. I . . .‘ . . . I Q ' ‘ _ ‘.1. . ‘ . ‘C . .. .' _ 01,“. ‘ .'."... a. M! V ‘ . ~ ‘ J 1 . ‘C 1 - 0 V o o... , I u I 1 .‘ - 01311111156 .1 i 0' . I u ‘ 1 l I V v . - \ V 0 . . muons: : ' DISMREE‘ suit mm: . " D D: - ‘ '. 'A ’ 'I .‘.- , 1 ' . , - 11131191126 .11.. Ell v“. I ”"33“ ":3 ' ."E‘J" 1:. 1:11.151" 1” ° W): 1’ ’ [‘3 L\" ' {P 4;? ‘-fi~.&"’“§ Please write your comments here. Do not write in this space. To remove Answer Pad, HELPER Your name APPENDIX B 47 The following statements will help you to describe how you feel about your job. Think about your experience while working on the job and check those statements which most accurately and hon- estly answer these questions. _‘———---————--‘-————‘-. 1. Place a check mark in front of the statement which best how good a job you have. _____A . The ___B . The ____C . The .___D . The E The job is an excellent one, very much above the job is a fairly good one. job is only average. job is not as good as average in this kind of job is a very poor one, very much below the 2. Place a check mark in front of the statement which best your feelings about your job. ____A. I ____B. I ___c. 1 ___D. 1 E. 1 am am am am am very satisfied and happy on this job. fairly well satisfied on this job. tells average. work. average. describes neither satisfied nor dissatisfied--it is just average. a little dissatisfied on this job. very dissatisfied and unhappy on this job. 3. Check one of the following statements to show how much of the time you are satisfied with your job. Most of the time. A good deal of the time. C. About half the time. D. Occasionally. E. Seldom. 4. Place a check mark in front of the statement which best tells what kind of an organization it is to work for. __A. It is an excellent organization to work for--one of the best organizations I know of. ___B. It is a good organization to work for but not one of the best. 48 It is only an average organization to work for. Many others are just as good. It is below average as an organization to work for. Many others are better. It is probably one of the poorest organizations to work for that I know of. Place a check mark in front of the statement which best tells how your feelings compare with those of other people you know. I dislike my‘job much more than most people dislike theirs. I dislike my job more than most people dislike theirs. I like my job about as well as most people like theirs. I like my job better than most people like theirs. I like my job much better than most people like theirs. Place a check mark in front of the statement which best tells how you feel about the work you do on your job. The work I do is very unpleasant. I dislike it. The work I do is not pleasant. The work is just about average. I don't have any feeling about whether it is pleasant or not. The work is pleasant and enjoyable. The work is very enjoyable. I very much like to do the work called for on this job. Check one of the following which best describes any general conditions which affect your work or comfort on this job. -——A . —~———B . ___C . __D . ___E . General working conditions are very bad. General working conditions are poor--not so good as the average for this kind of job. General working conditions are about average, neither good nor bad. In general, working conditions are good, better than average. General working conditions are very good, much better than average for this kind of job. 10. 49 Check one of the following statements which best tells how you feel about changing your job. __A. I would quit this job at once if I had anything else to do. ___B. I would take almost any other job in which I could earn as much as I am earning here. C. This job is as good as the average and I would just as soon have it as any other job but would change jobs if I could make more money. D. I am not eager to change jobs but would do so if I could make more money. E. I do not want to change jobs even for more money be- cause this is a good one. Suppose you had a very good friend who is looking for a job in your line of work and you know of a vacancy in this organi- zation which your friend is well qualified to fill. Would you: A. Recommend this job as a good one to apply for? B. Recommend this job but caution your friend about its shortcomings ? C. Tell your friend about the vacancy but not anything else, then let him decide whether to apply or not? D. Tell your friend about the vacancy but suggest that he or she look for other vacancies elsewhere before applying? E. Try to discourage your friend from applying by telling the bad things about the job? On the line below, place a check mark to show how well satisfied you are with this job. You may place your mark anywhere on the line either above one of the statements or between them. i I I l I Completely More lbout half More Completely dissatisfied dissatisfied and half satisfied satisfied than than satisfied dissatisfied 50 APPENDIX C Your name The following statements will help you to describe how your associate, your superior, your subordinate feels about his job. Think about his experience while working on the job and check those state- ments which tell how you think h__e_ would answer these questions. My is Now check for whom you are answering these statements: Associate ( ) My Superior ( ) My Subordinate ( ) His full name Place a check mark in front of the statement which best tells how good a job he has. His job is an excellent one, very much above the average. His job is a fairly good one. C. His job is only average. D His job is not as good as average in this kind of work. __E. His job is a very poor one, very much below the average. Place a check mark in front of the statement which best describes his feelings about his job. A. He is very satisfied and happy on his job. -__B. He is fairly well satisfied on his job. C. He is neither satisfied nor dissatisfied--it is just average. D. He is a little dissatisfied on his job. E He is very dissatisfied and unhappy on his job. Check one of the following statements to show how much of the time he is satisfied with his job. __A. Most of the time. _____B. A good deal of the time. C. About half the time. D. Occasionally. E Seldom. 51 Place a check mark in front of the statement which best tells what he thinks of this company as a place to work. He thinks it is an excellent organization to work for-- one of the best organizations he knows of. He thinks it is a good organization to work for but not one of the best. He thinks it is only an average organization to work for. Many others are just as good. He thinks it is below average as an organization to work for. Many others are better. He thinks it is probably one of the poorest organizations to work for that he knows of. Place a check mark in front of the statement which best tells how his feelings compare with those of other people he knows. He dislikes his job much more than most people dislike theirs. He dislikes his job more than most people dislike theirs. He likes his job about as well as most people like theirs. He likes his job better than most people like theirs. He likes his job much better than most people like theirs. Place a check mark in front of the statement which best tells how he feels about the work he does on his job. The work he does is very unpleasant. He dislikes it. The work he does is not pleasant. The work is just about average. He doesn't have any feeling about whether it is pleasant or not. The work is pleasant and enjoyable. The work is very enjoyable. He very much likes to do the work called for on his job. ‘ Check one of the following which best describes any general conditions which affect his work or comfort on the job. His general working conditions are very bad. His general working conditions are poor--not so good as the average for this kind of job. His general working conditions are about average, neither good nor bad. In general, his working conditions are good, better than average. His general working conditions are very good, much better than average for this kind of job. 10. 52 Check one of the following statements which best tells how he feels about changing his job. He would quit this job at once if he had anything else to do. He would take almost any other job in which he could earn as much as he is earning here. His job is as good as the average and he would just as soon have it as any other. He is not eager to change jobs but he would do so if he could make more money. He does not want to change jobs even for more money because this is a good one. Suppose he had a very good friend who is looking for a job in his line of work and he knows of a vacancy in this organization which his friend is well qualified to fill. Would he: Recommend this job as a good one to apply for? Recommend this job but caution his friend about its short- comings? Tell his friend about the vacancy but not anything else, then let him decide whether to apply or not? Tell his friend about the vacancy but suggest that he or she look for other vacancies elsewhere before applying? Try to discourage his friend from applying by telling him the bad things about the job? On the line below, place a check mark to Show how well satis— fied he is with his job. You may place your mark anywhere on the line above one of the statements or between them. I I I I —Comp1etely More About half More _—Completely dissatisfied dissatisfied and half satisfied satisfied than than satisfied dissatisfied Yes Yes Yes 53 APPENDIX D Draw a circle around ”Yes" if your answer is ”yes,” or a circle around "No" if your answer is "no.” If you don't know or are not sure draw a circle around the question mark. Circle only one answer for each question. ? No 11. Since working here, have you had any pay raise or promotion? ? No 12. Have you ever recommended this organization or a job with this organization to one of your friends? ? No 13. Since working here, have you registered with an employment agency or applied for a job with any other organization? 54 APPENDIX E The next five questions may be answered in the following way: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Draw a circle around "Yes" if your answer is ”yes," or a circle around "No" if your answer is ”no." If you don't know or are not sure draw a circle around the question mark. Circle only one answer for each question. ? No 11. 12. l3. 14. 15. Since working here, have you had any pay raise or promotion? Have you ever recommended this organization or a job with this organization to one of your friends? Since working here, have you registered with an employment agency or applied for a job with any other organization? Since working here, have you had any grievance in connection with your job? Have you ever tried to transfer to another job or department? 55 APPENDIX E BREAKDOWN BY DEPARTMENTS OF THE STRATIFIED RANDOM SAMPLES OF EMPLOYEES Total Validation Cross-Validation Department or Echelon (11:3) 5327111311: N saTspéf N Supervisors .......... 5 3 Z Foremen ............ 15 9 6 Office .............. 21 15 6 Finish and trim ....... 25 17 8 Veneer............. 12 8 4 Molded plywood . . . . . . . 12 8 4 Machine ............. 16 10 6 Cabinet and coordinating . Z4 15 8 Shipping and misc. ..... 9 7 Z Upholste ring .......... 15 9 6 FORT oi SURVEY RESULTS on the SRA EMPLOYEE INVENTORY THlRo ED111011 OCTOE ER 1952 pony APPENDIX G Group(s) Periled ..-r in Group Date of Survey .‘. 1 \1111 VERY LOW | AVERAGE I HIGH I VERY HIGH \1 \11 .1 -1 .1 ‘1 g ‘ -1 -s‘ 311 .15 41,1 45' 51,1 55 (.311 65 7.11 75 811 85 911 1.1591» 9/ 9.8 99 I I l I I 1 I I 1‘ 1.35 1.80 2.58 3.00 3.30 3.52 3.80 4.08 4.33 [.1013 Demands 1.54 1.90 2.81 3.10 3.36 3.60 3.86 4.22 4.40 1.67 2.32 2.92 3.21 3.42 3.71 3.95 L428 4.49 I 139 1 99 2 92 I 3 45 3.78 419 4 53 4 94 I 5 26 II—Workmg 1.63 2.10 3.15 I 3.57 3.92 4.29 4.64 5.12 5.35 Condmons 1 82 2 60 3 30 3 69 4.05 4 41 4 78 5 18 5 45 I I I .22 .43 .72 1 01 1 29 1 58 1.83 2 21 2 75 III—Pay .30 .50 .81 I 1.10 1.35 1.66 1.92 2,53 2,35 .38 .64 .91 1.20 1.47 1.76 2.03 2.64 3.05 L .78 1.07 1.83 I 2.32 2.69 2.94 3.19 3.50 3.75 W— EmPIOYCC 87 1.16 2 02 1 2 45 2 78 3 04 3.28 3 65 3 79 Benefits I .98 1.55 2.19 2.58 2.88 3.11 3.37 3.71 3.85 V—Friendliness & 1.45 1.82 2.34 2.61 2.82 3.00 3.21 3.43 3.55 Cooperation of 1.62 1.90 2.44 2.68 2.88 3.05 3.29 3.56 3.71 FCIIOW Employees 1.74 2.17 2.52 2.75 2.93 3.13 3.36 3.60 3.76 VI ~Supervi50r- 2.24 2.86 3.96 4.61 5.13 5.56 6.04 6.63 7.06 Employee 2 52 3 00 4 18 4 75 5 31 5 74 6 22 6 9o 7 15 Interpersonal I - 2.71 3.63 4.42 4 92 5 44 5 89 6.42 6 96 7 24 Relatlons 2 1 ‘ ‘ . 1.59 2.13 3.13 I 3.72 4.17 4.68 5.22 5 77 6.21 VII—Conhdence 1n ‘ Mamgemcnt I 1 87 2.28 3 44 I 3 88 4 35 4 85 5.40 6 07 6 30 C I 2 02 2 76 3.64 4.00 4 51 5 01 5 58 612 6 44 k r l VIII—Technical 1.87 2.55 3.21 I 3.65 3.97 4.30 4.60 4.97 5.28 Competence 2.19 2.63 3.39 I 3.76 4.09 4.43 4.69 5.20 5.36 Of SUPCFVISIOU 2.43 3.01 3.50 3.87 4.16 4.51 4.81 5.23 5.37 I IX—EII‘eCtivencss 1.02 1.58 2.09 2.47 2.88 3.24 3.60 4.03 4.35 of 1.33 1.65 2.24 2.61 3.00 3.36 3.72 4.24 4.39 Admmtstrutmn 1.50 1.39 2.35 2.75 3.12 3.48 3.86 4.29 4.48 g L 140 187 2 49 3 02 3.39 3 79 4 25 4 73 510 X—Adequacy of CommuniC'mon 1 59 1 96 2 71 3 16 3 51 3.94 4 38 4 99 5 13 1.75 2.27 2.87 3.27 3.65 4.10 4.51 5.05 5.36 g I _ 173 216 287 326 367 401 439 503 551 KI~Secur1ty Of JOb 1 9o 2 27 3 09 3 42 3 79 4 12 4 59 5 38 5 72 . I . 1nd Work Rclzttlons 2 07 2 60 317 3 56 3.90 4 23 4 80 5 44 s 93 219 2 51 3 03 3 50 3.84 410 4 41 4 82 5 20 XII—Status and Recognition 2 34 2.59 3.22 3 64 3.94 4.21 4.52 5.05 5.33 2 44 3 82 3 36 3 72 4.03 4 26 4 66 5 13 5 48 q _ 137 168 212 2 52 2.89 312 3 33 3 58 3 77 (III—Identmcatlon 1 49 1 76 2 26 2 64 2 98 3 19 3 41 3 69 3 81 With the Company ' 161 196 2 41 2 78 3 06 3.26 3 51 3 74 3 88 (IV—Opportunity .92 1.19 1.61 . 2.01 2.30 2.56 2.88 3.21 3.43 for Growth & 1.03 1.25 1.76 2.10 2.39 2.65 2.97 3.35 3 47 Advancement 1.18 1.46 1.89 2.21 2.48 2.77 3.08 3.40 3.57 23.20 29.25 37.05 41.80 45.60 50.25 54.95 58.90 62.72 Total — Inventory as a Whole 27.05 30.44 38.40 43.40 46.95 51.30 55.70 61.00 63.85 28.10 34.70 39.90 45.00 48.60 52.85 57.00 J61.95 65.20 7 . 1 15 1 27 1 45 1 55 1.62 1.69 1 77 1 88 I 1.96 XV — Reacttons 9 t0 the Inventory PIRII \IIII 80 BS :- \1\ll I ‘. 1 I 1 11.1 1‘3 .411 .85 .313 3‘5 41') 45 S11 55 ”53h“! by Science Res-:57? -‘.;sociattss, inc., 5? ‘.‘.’. Grand Ave., Chicago 10, Copyright Under International Copyright Union. Printed in U.S.A. Plan-z me “3'1 ."--‘.‘ 1"”“IIJ 1111 1.61.11 yqq “N. ~ J 1141117 .1961 «k _ .4451 _x A 114“ 1 ‘1 1 54...... \0 La "1 , an», ‘ )— t-J uyA|!._,- ’— f .