.- .....

EMPLOYEE PERCEPTiONS OF THE
SCANLON PLAN

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNNERSITY
ROBERI KEITH GOODMAN
1971

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

    

2: ‘ Q
.- ‘3’
BINDING BY

HDAG a. snue- g

 

 

 

 

BBUK BINDERY INC.
: LIBRARY BINDERS '
. ‘ glimmer. menial; ‘J ‘K

ABSTRACT
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS OF THE
SCANLON PLAN
By

Robert Keith Goodman

This study presents empirical data on how employees
operating within a Scanlon System perceive various features of it,
and also presents empirical data on how specific demographic
variables relate to these perceptions.

Attitudinal and biographic data were obtained by means of a
questionnaire survey administered at twenty -one plant sites of six
Midwestern organizations, which were operating under some form
of the Scanlon Plan.

A cross-validation design was used to establish the follow-
ing results:

1. Certain features of the plan are perceived positively, e. g. ,
its ability to improve a company' s efficiency.

2. Certain features of the plan are perceived negatively, e. g. ,
its intent, in that employees see the plan as a gimmick to

get more out of the workers.

Robert Keith Goodman

3. Employees consistently ordered these features positively
and negatively.

4. Employees from the twenty -one plant sites differed in
favorableness of perceptions toward the various features
of the plan.

5. Employees operating under a system that is consistent with
the intent of the plan are more favorably disposed than
those employees operating under a system which is incon-
sistent with the intent of the plan.

6. Employees at higher levels in the organizational structure
are more favorably disposed to the plan than those at lower
levels.

7. Employees with more than ten years' tenure are more
favorably disposed to the plan than employees with less than
ten years' tenure.

8. Males are more favorably disposed than females.

9. Employees with twelve years of education are less favorably
disposed than those with more or less education.

10. Older employees are more favorably disposed to the plan
than younger employees.
\‘\These findings were related to previous research and sug-

gestions for further research were offered.

EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS OF THE

SCANLON PLAN

By

Robert Keith Goodman

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1971

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The following thesis is but a part of a larger research
project jointly conceived and conducted by the Division of Organi-
zational Research of Michigan State University and member
organizations of the Midwest Scanlon Associates. Through the
efforts of the people within the above organizations, data were
made available from which the thesis was derived.

I am doubly indebted to Drs. Jack Wakeley, Carl Frost,
and Robert Ruh, who not only headed the research team, but also
served on my committee and provided invaluable suggestions and
guidance. A special thanks to my chairman, Dr. Jack Wakeley,
who patiently and selectively encouraged, prodded, and directed me
through the maze of research and writing until the thesis was
complete.

Finally, I wish to express my deep appreciation to my
wife, Edith, and my son, Jonathan, for supplying those elements

that make any endeavor easier: faith, encouragment, and love.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
IN TRODUC TION

An Organizational Goal: Cooperative Effort
Non -Scanlon Approaches

The Scanlon Approach

Problem Definition

ME THOD

Respondent Sample .

Instrument

Data Coding . .

Design of the Analysis of Data .

Specific Questions and Procedure for Analysis

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .
Employee Perceptions of Various Aspects of
the Scanlon Plan .
The Relationship of Demographic Variables
to Perceptions of the Scanlon Plan
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX

A. SCANLON PERCEPTION ITEMS AND
INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECTS

iii

Page

14
15
16
17

25

25
29
54

63

65

APPENDIX Page

B. RECODING OF THE SCANLON PERCEPTION
SCALE AND THE CREATION OF A NEW
VARIABLE: SPPI............ 69
C. DISTRIBUTIONS OF DEMOGRAPHIC
VARIABLES...............72
D. FORMATION OF PRIMARY AND VALIDATION

GROUPS................77

iv

Table

10.

11.

LIST OF TABLES

Summary of t-tests on Individual Items .

Means and Ranks of Items for the Primary
and Validation Groups

Primary Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Plant Site and SPPI

Validation Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Plant Site and SPPI

Primary Group: Plant Site Means and Probability
of F Value for Each Item

Validation Group: Plant Site Means and Probability
of F Value for Each Item

Primary Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Plan Type and SPPI

Validation Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Plan Type and SPPI

Primary and Validation Groups: Plan Type Means
and Probability of F Value for Each Item

Primary Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Hierarchical Level
and SPPI

Validation Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Hierarchical Level
and SPPI

Page

26

28

31

31

32

33

35

35

36

38

38

Table
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.

22.

23.

24.

Primary and Validation Groups: Hierarchical
Level Means and Probability of F Value
for Each Item . . . . . . . .

Primary Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Tenure and SPPI

Validation Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Tenure and SPPI

Primary Group: Tenure Subgroup Means and
Probability of F Value for Each Item .

Validation Group: Tenure Subgroup Means and
Probability of F Value for Each Item .

Primary Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Sex and SPPI

Validation Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Sex and SPPI

Primary and Validation Groups: Sex Means and
Probability of F Value for Each Item .

Primary Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Education and SPPI

Validation Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Education and SPPI

Primary and Validation Groups: Education Subgroup
Means and Probability of F Value for Each

Item

Primary Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Age and SPPI

Validation Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Age and SPPI

vi

Page

39

40

40

42

43

45

45

46

48

48

49

51

51

Table

25.

26.

C1.

C2.

C3.

C4.

C5.

C6.

C7.

Primary and Validation Groups: Age Subgroup
Means and Probability of F Value for
Each Item . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Results

Number of Respondents Classified by Plant Site
(Independent Plans) .

Number of Respondents Classified by Plan Type .

Number of Respondents Classified by Hierarchical
Level .

Number of Respondents Classified by Tenure
Number of Respondents Classified by Sex.
Number of Respondents Classified by Education

Number of Respondents Classified by Age

vii

Page

52

55

73

74

74
75
75
76

76

IN TRODUC T ION

An Organizational Goal: Cooperative Effort

 

Organizations as defined by Etzioni (1966) ". . . are social
units (or human groupings) constructed and reconstructed to seek
specific goals. . . .” (p. 3). To a lesser or greater extent the
achievement of these goals is determined by the coordination of
effort within organizations, because it is only through the coordina -
tion of effort that outcomes are made possible which the individual
would be unable to achieve alone. For this reason, the investigation
of how to best "coordinate efforts” within organizations has been and
still is the focal point for a great deal of time and effort. A variety
of plans, programs, strategies, and formulas have been generated
from this effort; each attempted to solve the problem, or portions
of the problem, and provided mechanisms to coordinate efforts.

The purpose of the present study is to investigate one such
approach, the Scanlon Plan. Specifically, the study reports empiri-
cal information on how employees operating within such a system
perceive it, and also assesses the degree to which employee

characteristics are related to these perceptions.

Non -Scanlon Approaches

 

Other approaches to the coordination of effort within
organizations such as ideal bureaucracy, scientific management,
the scalar principle, principles of management, principal functions,
and span of control (Pugh, 1966) have made tremendous contributions.
Various combinations of these approaches have traditionally prOvided
the solution to the organization problem of developing cooperative
effort.

As each of the above emerged they were slowly absorbed in
whole or part by industry with the result that the "traditional"
approaches, and the mechanisms which operationalize them, have
become firmly ingrained in the fabric of organizational structure.
The industrial subculture in the same manner as other cultures
passed on to succeeding generations the knowledge and practices
which were successful for them. Neophyte managers typically
modelled their predecessors and used the traditional strategies of
management in guiding the organization toward its intended purpose.

Today the typical organization places primary emphasis
on the structural aspects such as who reports to whom, who does
what job, are the jobs designed properly in terms of efficiency and
economy, and so on.(Schein, 1965). Secondary concern is given to

the employee, and even then it is largely in the light of the above.

The emphasis on structural development of organizations has by
design or oversight created an implicit dualistic theory of man
whereby one group, management, is the creative, directing force
totally responsible for the burden of organizational performance
while a second group, the mass of workers, is basiCally hands
whose sole duties are to carry out the directives of management.
The essence of this dualistic theory of man is captured in what
McGregor refersto as Theory X (Schein, 1965):

1. Man is inherently lazy and therefore must be motivated
by outside incentives.

2. Man' s natural goals run counter to those of the organiza-
tion, hence man must be controlled by external forces to
insure his working toward organizational goals.

3. Because of his irrational feelings, man is basically
incapable of self discipline and self control.

4. But, all men are divided roughly into two groups--those
who fit the assumptions outlined above and those Who are
self-motivated, self -controlled, and less dominated by
their feelings. This latter group must assume the manage-
ment responsibilities for all others. (p. 48)

Schein (1965) comments that the greatest danger for an organization
operating under these assumptions is that they tend to be self -
fulfilling. If people are expected to be indifferent, hostile, moti-
vated only by ecOnomic incentives, then managerial strategies used
to deal with them are very likely to train them to behave in pre-
cisely this fashion.

Schein' s emphasis does not deny the basics of organization

su‘bh as: a system of rules and “regulations, a hierarchy of authority,

planning, specialized functions, and so on. These basics permit the
organization to fulfill its stated purpose. The point of contention
arises when these mechanisms are used in dysfunctional ways.
When they become central to the functioning of an organization and
build erroneous assumptions about the nature of man, they may

well detract from far more than they facilitate cooperative effort.

The Scanlon Approach

 

A very different approach to "coordination of effort" was
formulated by Joseph Scanlon in the late thirties. The basis of his
plan was a monistic theory of man which is in sharp contrast to the
dualistic theory of man. He believed that if an organization was to
achieve true efficiency, then everyone in the organization, from the
top to the bottom, must be actively involved. (he believed that "all"
men were basically responsible and, if given the proper circum-
stances, could and would make important contributions to the ultimate
goal of organizational efficiency. Through his plan he attempted to
generate the proper circumstances by creating specific structural
mechanisms which would release the untapped potential lying dormant
within employees:><IHis intentionvwas to build a system which
maximized cooperative effort by focusing the energies of each
organizational member towards the common goal of maximum

organizational efficiency.

Although the plan in reality is a total system, it can be
viewed as three separable but interdependent ingredients: a theory
of man, participation, and equity. The following description of
these components or ingredients of the plan is basically a composite
drawn from a variety of sources: Chamberlain, 1946; Davenport,
1950; Scanlon, 1948; Schultz, 1951; Doud, 1955; Whyte, 1955;
Martucci, 1957; Torbert, 1958: McGregor, 1958; Lesieur, 1958,

1959, 1968; Katz and Kahn, 1966; and Ruh, 1970.

Theory of Man

 

Scanlon as such never explicitly stated a theory of man but
he had a deep and fundamental belief in the worth of the human
individual, in his capacity for growth and learning, in his ability to
contribute with his head as well as his hands to the success of the
company which employs him (McGregor, 1958). With this basic
premise, of the worth of people, Scanlon set about formulating
specific structural aspects of the organization which would allow the
potential in people to be realized.

Unfortunately, when organizations incorporate the plan,
their definition of the plan is frequently limited to the structural
mechanisms and not to the underlying premise. For this reason it

is imperative not only to put the premise in its proper perspective

but also to state more specifically what the basic premise is.

Ideally, it would be very similar to what McGregor (1958) refers

to as Theory Y:

1.

The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as
natural as play or rest. The average human being does not
inherently dislike work. Depending upon controllable con-
ditions, work may be a source of satisfaction (and will be
voluntarily performed) or a source of punishment (and will
be avoided if possible).

External control and the threat of punishment are not the
only means for bringing about effort toward organizational
objectives. Man will exercise self-direction and self-
control in the service of those objectives to which he is
committed.

Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards
associated with their achievement. The most significant
rewards, e. g. the satisfaction of ego and self-actualization
needs, can be direct products of effort directed toward
organizational objectives.

The average human being learns under proper conditions
not only to accept but to seek responsibility. Avoidance

of responsibility, lack of ambition, and emphasis on
security are general consequences of experience, not
inherent human characteristics.

The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of
imagination, ingenuity, and creativity in the solution of
organizational problems is widely, not narrowly distributed
in the population.

Under the conditions of modern industrial life, the intel-
lectual potentialities of the average human being are only
partially utilized.

These assumptions involve sharply different implications

for managerial strategy than do those of Theory X. They are
dynamic rather than static: They indicate the possibility of
human growth and development; they stress the necessity for
selective adaptation rather than for a single absolute form of
control. They are not framed in the least common denominator
of the factory hand, but in terms of a resource which has sub-
stantial potentialities .

Above all, the assumptions of Theory Y point up the fact
that the limits on human collaboration in the organizational
setting are not limits of human nature but of management' 3
ingenuity in discovering how to realize the potential represented
by its human resources . . . Theory Y . . . places the problems
squarely in the lap of management. If employees are lazy,
indifferent, unwilling to take responsibility, intransigent, un-
creative, uncooperative, Theory Y implies that the causes lie
in management's methods of organization and control. (pp. 47 ~48)

Whether the premise is referred to as Theory Y, A Philoso-

phy of Management (McGregor, 1958), Scanlon' 3 Basic Philosophy
(Lesieur et a1. , 1968), or Theory of Man, this component is the
essential foundation for the development of the truly cooperative
system Scanlon had in mind. Without it the other mechanisms of the
plan create systems which are empty shells that "look like" but do
not represent the Scanlon Plan. If an organization is to attain its
potential, management must not only be aware of, but also act to

develop the potential of its people.

A ./

.) » 1.,
Participation t", ,(w

 

Participation, the second component of the plan, is an
extension of the theory of man. If employees have the ability to
make significant contributions to the organization, then mechanisms
which inhibit employee participation must be altered or supplanted
by mechanisms which open up an opportunity for employees to make

contributions to organizational efficiency. Scanlon did not mean

token participation in the form of ”new suggestion boxes, " but

true participation in the form of decentralization whereby decision-
making was pushed down to the very bottom of the organization.
Only through decentralization could the organization hope to tap the
unused resources lying within its physical confines.

The primary mechanism which facilitates the decentraliza-
tion and subsequent participation of employees is a committee
structure. Through the committees, subordinates participate in the
decision-making process along with their superiors.

Committees are set up at two levels within the company:
the departmental and the organizational. The former are generally
referred to as production committees. Each functional department
forms a committee composed of a company representative, usually
the supervisor, and one or more employees elected by his peers.
The number and size of the committees vary with the number and
size of the departments within the company.

The primary functions of the production committees include
(Ruh, 1970): handling of employee suggestions, discussing ways of
increasing the efficiency of the department, and solving current
production problems. They are authorized by the organization to
put into effect any employee suggestions which do not affect other

departments or require substantial outlays of money. Suggestions

with the above restrictions are referred to the screening
committee.

The screening committee sits above the production com-
mittee as a coordinative body composed of an equal number of
representatives from the production committees and top management.
Its functions include: acting on suggestions referred to them from
the production committees; discussing the performance of the total
organization; Specifically identifying problems, discussing bonuses,
bonus distributions, and the reasons for the distributions; and
communicating the substance and outcomes of their discussions to

the total organization.

Equity

Again in a contingency context the third component of the
plan is simply an extension of the first two in that if employees have
the ability to contribute to the organization and if they are allowed to
contribute, then they should also share in the rewards generated
from their efforts. There must be equity within the system in order
to direct and maintain those behaviours which result in the common
goal of increased organizational efficiency. A system of equity is
established through two mechanisms: the Scanlon ratio and bonus

distribution.

10

The ratio defines organizational efficiency and is typically
derived by calculating the ratio of total payroll costs for a particular
time period, and sales value of what was produced by that payroll.
To establish the ratio a time period is chosen that does not disad-
vantage either the employees or the company; the time period and
the ratio generated from this time period reflects, as accurately as
possible, the organization's overall efficiency. This ratio becomes
the standard against which future organizational performance is
compared.

The extent to which the base rate of efficiency is exceeded,
either by increased productivity at the same cost or the same pro-
ductivity at reduced cost, represents increases in organizational
efficiency. Since the ratio was derived from dollar values, any
change in the ratio can be converted back to dollar values; therefore
the increases in efficiency are represented by a specific amount of
money which is termed the bonus pool.

Once the bonus pool is established, the plan also provides
an equitable means of bonus distribution. The first step in the dis-
tribution is to set aside a certain proportion of the bonus pool to
cover any future deficit, i. e. , a time period in which the base rate
is not achieved. This ensures equity for the organization. Once

this reserve has been set aside, the remaining bonus pool is divided

11

between the company and the employees. Splits range between 0 to
60 per cent to the company and 100 to 40 per cent to the employees.
The actual amount received by an individual is a percentage of his
wages or salary for the time period on which the ratio was computed.
For any given bonus period each member of the organization receives
an identical percentage. Wages and salaries differ in relation to an
individual' s contribution to the organization, and the dollar value of
the bonus an individual receives reflects this difference.

At the end of the Scanlon Plan year, if bonus pool reserves
exist, the money is paid out in the same manner as a regular time
period bonus. If at the end of the year there is a deficit balance, the
organization absorbs the deficit and the next year begins with a clean

slate.

Problem Definition

 

The preceding section presents a general and somewhat
idealized overview of what the Scanlon Plan is. Detailed coverage
of the plan and information about practical applications of the plan
can be found in the empirical and case study literature cited above.
However, the literature does not deal with questions of how employees
perceive various aspects of the Scanlon Plan. The literature does
contain testimonials from employees but little, if any, empirical

evidence.

12

This void in the literature seems almost paradoxical in
that the majority, if not all, of the authors cited above imply that
the key to true organizational efficiency lies with the employees;
but they fail to generate any information on this key element.

The purpose of the present study is to present empirical
information on the key ingredient of the Scanlon Plan: the employee.
Specifically, the study will attempt to present empirical data on how
employees perceive various aspects such as participation, com-
mittee efficiency, and the utility. of the plan, and, also, to present
empirical data on how specific demographic variables relate to these
perceptions.

The general and specific questions which guide this study

include the following:

A. How do employees operating within a Scanlon system perceive
it?
1. Do employees perceive various aspects of the plan favorably
or unfavorably?
2. Do employees perceive the various aspects of the plan

differently ?

13

Are demographic variables related to employee perceptions of

the Scanlon Plan?

1.

Do employees operating under independent plans differ in
perceptions of the Scanlon Plan?

Do employees operating under a system that is consistent
with the intent of the plan differ in perceptions from those
employees operating under a system which is inconsistent
with the intent of the plan?

Do employees from different hierarchical levels differ in
perceptions of the Scanlon Plan?

Do employees with different amounts of tenure differ in
perceptions of the plan?

Do males and females differ in perceptions of the plan?

Do employees with different educational backgrounds differ
in perceptions of the plan?

Do employees from various age groups differ in perceptions

of the plan?

ME THOD

This study obtained attitudinal and biographical data from
several hundred people working in Scanlon Plan companies. These
data provided the bases for answering the questions stated in the

previous section.

Respondent Sample

 

The sample used in this study consisted of all employees
who completed the Michigan State University "You and Your Job"
survey questionnaire administered in 1968. The survey covered
twenty -one plant sites of six Midwestern organizations, all of which
were operating under some form of the Scanlon Plan.

Of 4, 162 questionnaires given out, 2, 755 questionnaires
were returned, providing a return rate of 66 per cent. Not all
questionnaires returned were complete. In this study all respondents
who answered an item were included in the analysis of that item.
Thus, the N for each item analyzed varied, and even identical N' 8
might represent different subgroups. This decision resulted from

the belief that using only complete forms (N = 1, 886), or 45 per cent

14

15

of the original population, might seriously restrict the generalizability

of the results.

Instrument

 

The ”You and Your J ob" questionnaire was composed of
both attitudinal and demographic measures, but for the purpose of
the present study only selected portions of each section were used.
The specific attitudinal measure used was the eighteen-item Scanlon
Perception Scale (see Appendix A) and the demographic items were
plant site, age, sex, number of years of education, job level, and

tenure.

Data Coding

 

In order to facilitate the interpretation and analysis of the
data, it was necessary to recode portions of both the attitudinal and
demographic measures.

Attitudinal Measures:
The Scanlon Perception Scale

 

 

First, within the Scanlon Perception Scale, selected items
were reflected so that all items were of comparable directionality
with the most favorable response coded "5" and least favorable coded

"1. " (See Appendix B, Part 1.)

16

Second, in order to facilitate interpretation, items 128
and 136 were dichotomized. (See Appendix B, Part 2.)

Third, based on the assumption that the scalewas homo-
geneous, a composite measure was created which was an estimate
of favorableness toward, or satisfaction with, the Scanlon Plan.

The resulting measure, which was a mean estimate, was labeled the
Scanlon Plan Perception Index and referred to as SPPI. (See

Appendix B, Part 3.)

Demographic Measures

 

Tables C1-C7 of Appendix C represent the distributions of
demographic variables as they were used in the present study.
Included in each of the tables are the code assigned to each subgroup,
an interpretation of each code (where appropriate), the number of
respondents on the SPPI in each subgroup for both the Primary and
Validation Groups (these groups are defined in the Design section),
and the number of respondents who were omitted because of incom-

plete responses.

Design of the Analysis of Data

 

This study used a systematic exploratory phase and a
validation phase. The primary reasons for the former-were three-

fold: first, the lack of any data, whatsoever, in regard to how

17

employees perceive the plan; second, the lack of any firm "a priori"
hypotheses regarding employee perceptions; and third, a lack of
knowledge about the distributions of data. To a certain extent the
distributions may well limit, if not totally determine, the analysis
techniques used in generating the empirical data.

In order to investigate the distributions and also give
credibility to any results, a cross -validation paradigm was utilized
whereby the entire sample of respondents was divided into two groups:
the Primary Group and the Validation Group. (See Appendix D. )

The Primary Group was not only used in an exploratory fashion to
investigate the distributions of both the attitudinal and demographic
variables but also to subgroup on the demographic variables and test
various analysis methods. It is important to note that all analyses
were completed on the Primary Group before cross -validation was
attempted on the Validation Group. The Validation Group, which
theoretically could be viewed as an independent sample, was used

to separate "spurious" results, due to data manipulation, from "real"

results which reflect true findings.

Specific Questions and Procedures for Analysis

 

The analysis section is portioned into two parts in relation
to the two primary goals of the study: the first part reports empirical

data on how employees operating within a Scanlon System perceive

18

various aspects of it, whereas the second part assesses the degree
to which employee perceptions are related to specific demographic

variables.

A. Employee Perceptions of Various Aspects of the Scanlon Plan

The data base (or dependent variables) used was the indi-
vidual items of the Scanlon Perception Scale. More specifically,
the analysis used only the fifteen Likert-type items and omitted the
three dichotomous items (128, 131, and 136).

Two questions were answered using the above data base:

(1) Do employees perceive the various aspects of the plan
favorably or unfavorably?

(2) Do employees perceive the various aspects of the plan

differently ?

Analysis. -- (1) To answer the first question each item was
tested for significant differences (p < .05) from the "neutral response"
of "3. 00. "

(2) To answer the second question a Spearman Rank Order
correlation (Guilford, 1965) was computed between item means of

the Primary Group and Validation Group.

19

B. The Relationship between Employee Perceptions and Certain
Demographic Variables

 

 

The second part of the study was directed at assessing the,
degree to which certain demographic variables are related to
employee perceptions of the Scanlon Plan. Within this part of the
study the primary data base (or dependent variable) was the SPPI,
which is a mean estimate of overall perceptions toward the plan.
Secondary analyses were also run using individual items as the data

base.

1. Plant Site: Independent Scanlon Systems

 

Since the Scanlon Plan is frequently referred to as an
organizational incentive system, the first analysis was directed at
assessing the degree to which employees operating within independent
Scanlon systems differed in perceptions of the plan. At the time of
the survey, each of the twenty -one sites was operating under its own
individual variation of the plan. Each site had its own committee
structure, ratio, and bonus distribution mechanism. Structurally
each site "had" the Scanlon Plan. Theoretically, the expectations
would be that, since the various sites "have" the plan, there would
be no differences among the sites in overall perceptions of the

Scanlon Plan. Basically, the question was: Do independent Scanlon

20

sites perceive the plan in a similar fashion? (Table C1 of Appendix C

presents the distributions. )

Analysis. -— To test for mean differences among the twenty-
one plant sites, a one -way analysis of variance design was used.
Nineteen separate analyses, using the SPPI and the eighteen individual
items as dependent variables, were run for both the Primary and
Validation Groups.

2. Plant Site: One -Plan, One -Process vs. Multiple -Plan,
One -Process

 

 

The second analysis in regard to plant site was directed
at the question of the compatibility of the existing incentive systems
with the overall intent of the plan.

Within the present sample of plans it was found that the sites
could be separated into two groups: those sites whose plans were
in concert with the intent of the plan (one -plan, one -process), and
those sites whose plans appeared to be in conflict with the intent of
the plan (multiple -plan, one -process). In the latter group, produc-
tion within any given site was in part or, in some instances, totally
dependent upon materials or services from a sister site. These
sites were subunits of one overall process. The basic question was

whether there were different overall perceptions toward the Scanlon

21

Plan between those siteswhose plans were in concert with the intent
of the plan and those sites whose systems appeared in conflict with
the intent of the plan. (The actual distributions are presented in

Table C2 of Appendix C.)

Analysis. -- To test for mean differences between those
employees operating within a one —plan, one -process system and
those employees operating within a multiple —plan, one -process
system, a one —way analysis of variance design was used. Nineteen
separate analyses, using the SPPI and the eighteen individual items
as dependent variables, were run on both the Primary and Validation

Groups.

3. Hierarchical Level

 

The next analysis was directed at assessing whether
employees at different hierarchical levels differed in perceptions of
the plan. Three levels (managerial, supervisory, and rank and file)
were used. (The distributions are presented in Table C3 of Appen-

dix C.)

Analysis. -- To test for mean differences among the three
hierarchical levels, a one -way analysis of variance design was used.

The dependent variables were the SPPI and the eighteen individual

22

items. Nineteen separate analyses were run on the Primary and

Validation Groups.

4. Tenure

Here, the basic question was whether employees with
different amounts of tenure differ in perceptions of the plan. Tenure
was measured in months and subgrouped according to 1 -3, 4-13,
14-25, 26-48, 49-73, 74-121, 122 -181, 182-241, and more than

241 months. (See Table C4 in Appendix C.)

Analysis. --A one -way analysis of variance design was used
to test for mean differences among the nine tenure groups. The
dependent variables were the SPPI and the eighteen individual items
of the Scanlon Perception Scale. Nineteen analyses were run on the

Primary and Validation Groups.

5. Sex

 

The basic question here was whether males and females
differ on perceptions of the Scanlon Plan. (See Table C5 of Appendix C

for the actual distributions.)

Analysis. -- To test for mean differences between males and

females, a one -way analysis of variance design was used. Nineteen

23

separate analyses, using the SPPI and the eighteen individual items
as dependent variables, were run for both the Primary and Validation

Groups .

6. Education

 

The question here was whether employees with different
educational backgrounds differ in perceptions of the Scanlon Plan.
Four levels of education were used: grade eight or less, some high
school, high school graduate, and some college. (See Table C6 of

Appendix C . )

Analysis. —- To test for mean differences among the four
education groups, a one -way analysis of variance design was used.
Nineteen separate analyses, using the SPPI and the eighteen individual
items as dependent variables, were run for both the Primary and

Validation Groups.

7. Age

Do employees from different age groups differ in perceptions
of the Scanlon Plan? In order to answer this specific question, the
employees were subgrouped into the following six age categories:
18-21, 22 -26, 27-33, 34-42, 43-53, and 54-68. (See Table C7 of

Appendix C . )

24

Analysis. -- To test for mean differences among the six
age groups, a one ~way analysis of variance design was used. Nine-
teen separate analyses, using the SPPI and the eighteen individual
items as dependent variables, were run on each of the Primary and
Validation Groups.

The results and brief discussions of these analyses are pre-

sented in the following chapter.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the analyses for each question and a brief
discussion are presented in this section. A general discussion of
the results across all questions will be included in the last chapter.

A. Employee Perceptions of Various Aspects
of the Scanlon Plan

 

 

1. Do employees perceive various aspects of the plan favorably or
unfavorably ?

 

 

Results. -- Table 1 contains the summary data pertaining
to the above question and includes item means and the corresponding
symbols of (+) if the mean was significantly greater than 3. 00, (-)
if the mean was significantly less than 3. 00, and (0) if the meanewas
not significantly different from 3. 00.

Identical patterns of results for both the Primary and
Validation Groups indicated twelve items or aspects (121, 122,
123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 134, 135, 138) were perceived

favorably and three (132, 133, 137) were perceived unfavorably.

,1 Discussion. --Two major conclusions can be drawn from

 

the above results: first, that employees are not neutral about

25

26

Table 1

Summary of t-tests on Individual Items

 

 

 

 

Primary Group Validation Group
Item .
Mean N t Mean N t

121 3.61 1291 (+) 3.63 1289 (+)
122 3. 44 1288 (+) 3. 56 1277 (+)
123 3. 36 1293 (+) 3. 42 1286 (+)
124 3. 77 1285 (+) 3. 78 1283 (+)
125 3.15 1274 (+) 3. 24 1280 (+)
126 3. 47 1293 (+) 3. 50 1291 , (+)
127 3.16 1277 (+) 3. 28 1274 (+)
128

129 3.12 1229 (+) 3.16 1214 (+)
130 3.16 1244 (+) 3. 24 1222 (+)
131

132 2.80 1262 (-) 2.88 1252 (-)
133 2. 81 1278 (-) 2. 83 1275 (-)
134 3. 25 1263 (+) 3. 26 1277 (+)
135 3. 32 1264 (+) 3. 36 1275 (+)
136

137 2. 84 1261 (-) 2. 85 1244 (-)
138 3. 36 1271 (+) 3. 42 1270 (+)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27

various aspects of the plan; in general they tend to respond either
positively or negatively. Second, when an overview of the fifteen
items is taken, employees seem somewhat favorably disposed to

the plan.

2. Do employees perceive various aspects of the plan differently?

 

Results. -- The data pertaining to this question are pre-
sented in Table 2, which contains the item means and ranks (rank 1
= largest) for both the Primary and Validation Groups. A Spearman
rho of . 98 (p < .01) was obtained using the item ranks from the two

groups.

Discussion. -- From the above analyses it is evident that

 

employees in the present samples not only perceive the various
aspects of the plan differently, but they also consistently order
these differences. More importantly, however, is what they order
differently.

From the data on Tables 1 and 2, it appears that there is
a trichotomy on the general dimension of favorableness toward the
Scanlon Plan. First, there are those items which reflect very
positive attitudes (means > 3. 50) and indicate that the majority. of
employees surveyed "agree" the Scanlon Plan has practical utility
(122, 124) and also "agree" that the plan "encourages them to work

hard" (121).

28

Table 2

Means and Ranks of Items for the Primary and Validation Groups

 

 

 

 

Primary Group Validation Group
Item
Mean Rank Mean Rank
121 3.61 2 3.63 2
122 3.44 4 3.56 3
123 3. 36 5. 5 3. 42 6
124 3.77 1 3. 78 1
125 3.15 11 3.24 10. 5
126 ' 3. 47 3 3. 50 4
127 3.16 9. 5 3.28 8
128
129 3.12 12 3.16 12
130 3.16 9.5 3.24 10.5
131
132 2. 80 15 2. 88 13
133 2.81 14 2.83 15
134 3.25 8 3.26 9
135 3. 32 7 3. 36 7
136
137 2.84 13 2. 85 14
138 3.36 5. 5 3. 43 5

 

 

 

 

 

29

The second group of items, those which were statistically
positive (means greater than 3.00, but less than 3. 50), reflects
a ”lukewarm" endorsement of specific aspects of the plan. Included
are such diverse areas as the value of committees (126, 127, 129,
130), the plan as anfinstrument which helps employees do their jobs
better (134, 135) and increases knowledge about the company (123),
the utility of the plan (138), and lastly the plan as a mechanism for
improving trust and confidence in management (12 5).

The _t_1r_1_1£d_ group of items which reflect mildly unfavorable
attitudes (means less than 3. 00 but greater than 2. 75) implies that the
employees see the intent of the plan as somewhat exploitative (133),
not increasing learning about their jobs (137), and not allowing
sufficient influence over decisions related to their jobs (132). Items
132 and 133 appear to be tapping two of the three components of the
plan, ”participation"‘and "theory of man, ” and indicate that the plan
as seen by the present population is operating at a less than ideal
state.

B. The Relationship of Demographic Variables
to Perceptions of the Scanlon Plan

 

 

Within the second part of the study the basis for analysis
included both a mean estimate of overall "favorableness toward" or

"satisfaction with" the Scanlon Plan: the SPPI, and individual items.

30

In reference to the former, identical alpha estimates of 0. 90 on the
Primary and Validation Groups indicated a high degree of homo-
geneity within the scale and supported the use of a single measure.

In order to facilitate the interpretation of the data in this
section, it is important to note the general format of data presenta-
tion. First, the analysis of variance summary tables for the SPPI
and demographic variable of interest will be presented. Following
these will be the analysis of variance results for the individual items.
Included in the latter table(s) will be all means (item and SPPI)
relevant to the demographic variable of interest.

1. Do employees operating under independent plans differ in per-
ceptions of the Scanlon Plan?

 

 

Results. -- Tables 3 - 6 contain the information necessary to
answer the above. Tables 3 and 4 indicate highly significant dif-
ferences on the SPPI among sites for both the Primary and Valida-
tion Groups. Tables 5 and 6 show similar results when the basis for
the analysis was the individual items. All results were significant

at less than the .0005 level.

Discussion. --From the above, it is apparent that simply

 

having the mechanisms (committee structures, ratio, and bonus

distribution) isn' t sufficient to generate uniform responses from

Table 3

Primary Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Plant Site and SPPI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source d_f MS I:
Plant Site 20 4. 33 10. 27*
Error 1301 . 42
Total 1321

*3 < . 0005
Table 4

Validation Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Plant Site and SPPI

 

 

 

Source 2: MS E
Plant Site 20 3. 98 8. 98*
Error 1303 . 44
Total 1323

 

 

 

 

*2 < . 0005

32

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@259 and no.” mm.” mod and mad mo.” mud cad ww.N «RN an.” and mm.» 3.6 «v6 um.” wmd and mm.” mvd Hmmm
moco.v mm .m 3 .m an .m VN .m cad. cod mad cw.“ vcd vm .N mN.N Na .m an .N pm .m 2 .v on .m 3.." me.” ha .m cm .v 3..” an"
moco.v co.» vw.N mod and and m~.n m>.N cc.»a mm.N om.N and Nbd mm.m wwé mad ové 2.5 med wné pa.» wag.” r:
moco.v :..v mv.v mad mmé omé and. omé 31v and. Nv.v mm.v mmé uni and. mcé 2.6 and. pm.v 22* "mi pmJ mm“
acoo.v and «6.». and and ov.v mmd no.» cw.” cm.» mod ZEN moé nod and 2.6 36 mm...” vod and am.” we.” mm“
mocoV mm.m bu...” pmd mud am.” an.” mm.N om.” mmd mod «EN wad mm.w mu.» Vmé cad mu.” N¢.N and 31m av...” v2
mccoV and va.~ SHN vm.N and oc.m mm.~ 2.»... and bvd mm." mm.~ wo.N vm.m am.~ mod. ma.” vmd wad mo.v co...” man
mooo.v and mad SUN min av.” cm.w- om.~ Nag.” vmd #¢.~ pm.~ om.N wv.~ ow.~ vod ea.” :..~ hm.N and mv.m 25 N2
mocoV wmfi 3 .v mvé and. c~.v owé uni moi wmé mmé ~N€ ~v.v and. 31v mmé owé. 2d. mmfi mvd. «mi uni :3
nooo.v mad and mmé and oc.v mwé .: .m O¢.N and mad wad Va.» pm.n a: .m cud an...” mud and and and an.» own
noocV mm.” w¢.N N¢.N ma.” mp.” mm.n nmé cad ZEN mwfi mpfi and mm.~ an.» em.” Nu.” rm.» and an.” be.» av.” mug
mcoo.v 2.4 wmé and. «34. and and. 006 Obi and. vv.v 31¢ and mm.v and. om.v cwé wmfi Nré SUV mp4 and. an“
nooo.v mad «Hm rm.” ma...” on.” and ow.N cud SUN mud mmfi «$6 and mm.” mad mn.m rmd $5 fin.” 5% «min pm.“
moccV mad and mm.” and and 26 mm.” 2..“ :5 om.N 36 Va.” mm.N and and and CHM mod mo.v «vi and mum
naco.v we.” 2 .m mm.m was and mad .3.” and rm.N and avd cad wa.~ mm.~ pm.” and no." w~..~ 3...” mad um.” mum
mooo.v mod. mwd pad mm.” 9N6 mm.” mm.m or.” mud and mm.m om.» ow.m uni and. ac.” and 2 .m mod Nv.v aw.” $3
moco.v mod Ned mm.” 2.» and an.” mm.m 0N4” .3d 55 and and wad and 2.6 mv.m ow.” Nod mag.” mN.v on...” ”Na
mccoV ~w.m “N6 av." «Nd and mmd and cm.” cad ham "ed and mad and and 22m 2...” mvd “N6 mad mm.” Nun
mooo.v mm.” mv.m wad mm.» ooé mm.N avd omé pm.» mwd pad and an.” mad mcfi mo.” and um." mod. 2.5 pm.” man
I. “N ON mu ma 5 m: m— 3 Ma Nu : S m w p c n v m N n

h we nu 80:

03m Ema

 

 

 

 

SQ: scam— uOm 03a> h .«o bzmnmnoum new $302 vim Edam "anew .38qu

m gawk.

33

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mooo.v pi.» mu.» 3.» on.» 3..» mo.» on.» up.» mo.» mo.» io.» o».» oo.» i».» »m.» an.» on.» no.» or.» im.» hi.» unnamm
mooo.v up.» :1.» mi.» mu.» ooi m».N on.» om.» mo.» mm» «o.» o».» oo.» mm.» mm.» ooi o».» »o.~ »Ni moi in.» ma
mooo.v oo.» om.» om.N or.» ooi mm» mo.» mm.» in.» mu.» 2...» or.» «m.» »o.» «N.» no.» om.N mm» pi.» 5.» io.» n»—
mooo.v omi »mi oii bmi pmi m» i "mi :i «ii mii m»i mmi oii oii «mi »mi pmi um i omi bmi an i m»—
mooo.v Np.» om.» mu.» om.» »»i on.» mi.» on» a».» mm.» »o.» i».» an.» »m.» 2..» »N.» on.» or.» pm.» mu.» um.» m»—
mooo.v um.» m».» o».» »N.» »»i no.» i».» or.» mu.» mo.» rm.» mm.» do.» mu.» mm.» mm.» Nu.» um.» um.» »».» mi.» in:
mooo.v mm.» oi.» opd pm.» oi.» mm:— mm.» 3.» mi.» mm.» on.» Na.» om.N mm.» on.» oo.» «o.» no.» 3..» mo.» oo.» »»n
mooo.v no.» pm.» go.» no.» om.» m».» pm.» ii.» »m.~ im.N pm.» mo.» .3.» oo.» in.» rm.» mm.» mm.» m».» ma.» pm.» N»~
mooo.v nii oNi oui i»i mmi mhi mNi hmi pNi »»i oni Nii ~»i qii «mi mmi m»i vii »mi mmi mii “mu
mooo.v mp.» io.» iod im» oi.» iu.» mo.» 2..» no.» go.» bi.» am.» «6.» 3".» mo.» om.» pm.» m...» »m.» mm.» Ni.» o2
mooo.V N».» mm.» Na.» om.» Oi.» 2.» mo.» ii.N oo.» mm.» oo.» Ha.» oo.» »i.» N».» m».» mm.» mm.» ii.» mp.» mu.» o3
mooo.v Npi omi «mi mii mbi mbi mii o» i Nmi iii Nmi pmi omi imi omi oo.m »mi mpi obi obi »pi mu”
mooo.v »m.» oo.» mm.» mm.» om.» iui No.» 3.» mm.» mm.N rm» mm.» pm.» mm.» mm.» mm.» oo.» o».» mm.» ooi in.» pa
mooo.v im.» in.» Oi.» »».» om.» 2.» am.» mm.» in.» no.» mu.» mp.» »N.» mm.» in.» m»i um.» mm.» mm.» mm.» in.» mg
mooo.v mm.» »».» an.» no.» oo.» mm.» mv.» mi.» »m.N oo.» »o.» No.» N».» on.» or.» «m.» mu.» mm.» moi mm.» mm.» mam
mooo.V ~Ni mm.» mp.» om.» oii om.» pm.» moi mm.» mm.» mp.» on.» mm.» »oi Nui No.» mi.» «N.» mui »»i poi inn
mooo.v a».» mu.» oi.» on.» on.» »m.N mi.» or.» on.» 2.» i».» mi.» in.» um.» mm.» mm.» on.» »o.N :i «ii rm.» »N~
mooo.v op.» mm.» mm.» 5.» mp.» mm.» am.» pm.» on.» oo.» 2.» mm.» mi.» :1.» or.» mii 2..» pm.» »ii :i 2i «an
mooo.v moi mm.» pm.» mp.» oii »m.» um.» oo.» mp.» »».» a».» mu.» »m.» om.» :i in.» mi.» oo.» ooi mm.» no.» :3
In an on on mu 5 mu m— i~ »~ Na 3 on o m b m m i » N a

much 83m

03m warm

 

 

86: scam .53 38> u no 582282 9:. 6:32 82 «SE 3:20 Su§2>

m 03a“.

34

employees. There are apparently other factors operating within
these individual systems which account for these vast differences in
not only overall favorableness of perceptions toward the operations
of the plan (SPPI), but also favorableness of perceptions about
individual aspects (items).

2. Do employees operatinglnder a one -plan, one -process system

differ in perceptions from those employees operating under a
multiple -plan, one -process system ?

 

 

 

Results. —- Tables 7 and 8 contain the summary data of the
one -way analysis of variances run on the Primary and Validation
Groups. Both tables reveal significantly different (p < . 0005) per-
ceptions between the two groups on the SPPI.

Similar findings were noted when the basis used for the one -way
analysis of variances was the individual items. Table 9 presents the
item and SPPI means as well as the resulting probability for each

individual F for both the Primary and Validation Groups.

Discussion. -- From the above analysis it can be concluded

 

that the employees within the one -plan, one -process system are
more favorably disposed to the Scanlon Plan than those employees

within the multiple -plan, one -process system.

35

Table 7

Primary Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Plan Type and SPPI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source d_f MS _F_‘_
Plan Type 1 44. 91 100. 39*
Error 1320 . 45
Total 132 1

*3 < . 0005
Table 8

Validation Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Plan Type and SPPI

 

 

 

Source if MS _F_
Plan Type 1 30.14 63. 53*
Error 1322 . 47
Total 1323

 

 

 

 

*£< .0005

36

Table 9

Primary and Validation Groups:
Plan Type Means and Probability of F Value for Each Item

 

 

 

 

Primary Group Validation Group
Item Multi Single P of F Multi Single P of F
Plan Plan Plan Plan
121 3.50 3.81 <.0005 3.57 3.74 .016
122 3.21 3.86 <.0005 3.36 3.92 <.0005
123 3.22 3.61 <.0005 3.29 3.66 <.0005
124 3.71 3.86 .013 3.74 3.85 .047
125 3.00 3.41 <.0005 3.07 3.52 <.0005
126 3.29 3.79 <.0005 3.37 3.71 <.0005
127 3.01 3.41 <.0005 3. 18 3.45 <.0005
128 4. 50 4. 70 <. 0005 4. 52 4. 72 <. 0005
129 2.99 3.36 <.0005 3.07 3.30 <.0005
130 2.96 3. 50 <. 0005 3. 11 3. 47 <. 0005
131 4.33 4.48 <.0005 4.34 4. 47 <.0005
132 2.68 3.01 <.0005 2.83 2.97 .032
133 2.64 3.11 <.0005 2.67 3. 11 <.0005
134 3.17 3.40 .001 3.17 3.40 .001
135 3.21 3.52 <.0005 3.30 3.48 .005
136 4. 49 4. 67 <. 0005 4.50 . 4. 68 <. 0005
137 2. 73 3. 03 <. 0005 2. 75 3.02 <. 0005
138 3.17 3.71 <.0005 3.26 3.71 <.0005
SPPI 3. 07 3. 45 <. 0005 3. 13 3. 45 <.0005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

37

3. Do employees from different hierarchical levels differ in
perceptions of the Scanlon Plan?

 

 

Results. -- Tables 10- 12 contain the data pertaining to the
above question. From Tables 10 and 11, which contain the summary
data of the one —way analysis of variances for the Primary and Valida-
tion Groups, it appears that there are significant differences (p <
.0005) on the SPPI among managers, supervisors, and rank-and-
file workers. Similar findings occurred when the three groups were
compared on the individual items. Table 12 presents the correspond-
ing probability of the resulting F statistic found for each item; also

included in Table 12 are the item and SPPI means.

Discussion. -- From Tables 10- 12 two conclusions can be

 

drawn: first, there are significant differences among employees
from different hierarchical levels; and second, there is a linear
pattern in these differences, with managers responding more favor-
ably than supervisors, who in turn respond more favorably than
rank-and-file workers (see Table 12).

4. Do employees with different amounts of tenure differ in percep-
tions of the Scanlon Plan?

 

 

Results. --One -way analysis of variance on the Primary
Group (Table 13) and Validation Group (Table 14) indicated that there
are significant differences on the SPPI among the nine tenure groups

tested.

38

Table 10

Primary Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Hierarchical Level and SPPI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source _d_{ E .1:
H1erarchlcal 2 20. 27 47, 39*
Level
Error 1226 . 43
Total 1228

*£< . 0005
Table 11

Validation Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Hierarchical Level and SPPI

 

 

 

Source 9}: _1YI_§_ .E
H1erarch1cal 2 24. 42 54_ 44*
Level
Error 1237 . 45
Total 1239

 

 

 

 

*£< .0005

39

Table 12

Primary and Validation Groups:
Hierarchical Level Means and Probability of F Value for Each Item

 

 

 

 

 

 

Primary Group Validation Group

Item Hierarchical Level Hierarchical Level

P of F P of F

5 7 9 5 7 9

121 3.66 3.69 3.64 .937 3.64 3.72 3.65 .822
122 4.45 4.23 3.33 <.0005 4.66 4.49 3.41 <.0005
123 4.00 3.75 3.32 <.0005 3.91 3.83 3.38 <.0005
124 4.19 3.93 3.73 <.0005 4.03 3.92 3.76 .025
125 3.70 3.48 3.13 <.0005 3.52 3.64 3.21 <.0005
126 4.26 4.08 3.20 <.0005 4.29 4.30 3.36 <.0005
127 4. 14 3.70 3.09 <.0005 3.90 3.96 3. 19 <.0005
128 4.85 4.78 4. 56 <.0005 4.90 4.78 4.57 <.0005
129 3.47 3.40 3.10 <.0005 3.34 3.29 3.14 .050
130 3.82 3.76 3.08 <.0005 4.09 3.88 3. 14 <.0005
131 4.76 4.61 4. 35 <.0005 4.75 4.68 4.34 <.0005
132 3.33 3. 12 2.76 <.0005 3.41 3. 18 2.84 <.0005
133 3.74 3.18 2.75 <.0005 3.79 3.28 2.72 <.0005
134 3.68 3.29 3.23 .009 3.51 3.46 3.23 .026
135 3.94 3.41 3.30 <.0005 3.88 3.70 3.31 <.0005
136 4.76 4.69 4.55 <.0005 4.84 4. 68 4.54 <.0005
137 3.48 3.07 2.80 <.0005 3.52 3.27 2.77 <.0005
138 4.23 3. 92 3. 30 <.0005 4.05 4.01 3.34 <.0005
SPPI 3.82 3.56 3. 17 <.0005 3.81 3.67 3.18 <.0005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40

Table 13

Primary Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Tenure and SPPI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source d_f; MS E
Tenure 8 2. 81 6.18*
Error 1256 . 46
Total 12 64

*p < . 0005
Table 14

Validation Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Tenure and SPPI

 

 

 

Source _d_f MS E
Tenure 8 2.27 4.77*
Error 1266 . 48
Total 1274

 

 

 

 

*2} .0005

41

Tables 15 and 16, which present the summary data for the
individual items, indicate that differences in overall perceptions
(SPPI) among the tenure groups are item specific. That is, sig-
nificant differences (p < . 05) were found, for both the Primary and
Validation Groups, on items 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 131, 133,

134, 135, 137, and 138, whereas reproducable significant differences

were not found on items 121, 126, 128, 129, 130, 132, and 136.

Discussion. -— The above results indicate there are dif-

 

ferences among the nine tenure subgroups when an overall perceptual
estimate is used: but it appears that when the overall estimate is
reduced to its component parts, then differences appear to be content-
oriented. For example, in regard to such areas as working hard
(121), committees (126, 128, 129, 130), participation (132), and who
benefits from the plan (136), the tenure groups as a whole do not
really differ in perceptions.

On the remaining twelve items which tap such areas as the
utility of the plan (122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 134, 135, 137, and 138),
the intent of the plan (133), and the desire to serve on a committee
(131), there are differential perceptions among the tenure groups.
More important than "differences" is the pattern of responses of
the various subgroups. By referring to Tables 15 and 16 it is

apparent that the differences found across all subgroups are largely

42

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

»ooo.v Nb.» o».» »».» iu .» ifi.» »N.» 5.» ma.» »H.» HAHnHm
mooo.v »g i am.» mi.» mm.» »».» m».» im.» N».» p».» m»H
»oo. b».» ca.» Hm.» mm.» 2..» mm.» mm.» mp.» rm.» r2
»oo . up i »m i am i N» i ii i a» i mm i in i mm i mm;
»oo. om.» ii.» mm.» 5.» on.» mm.» mm.» N».» 3..» m»H
»»o. :..» H».» »i.» Hm.» »N.» Hm.» om.» »N.» »H.» we
»oo. o».» mm.» »».N mm.» mm.» mm.» mm.» or.» mm.» »»H
own. mo.» mp.» mm.» mm.» mm.» film.» mm.» or.» mp.» N2
»oo . Ni i on i mm i »v i mi .v m» i m» i mm i i» i H2
»ooo.v Hm.» mo.» o».» 5.» mm.» rm.» mm.» »o.» »m.» o»H
mooo.v mi.» »N.» »H.» 2w.» ao.» no.» mm.» mm.» mm.» mmH
Hoo . mu i N» i fim i o» i Hm i am i N.» i mm i »N. i »NH
»ooo.v »o.» ow.» om.» io.» NH.» im.» NH.» no.» NH.» rNH
moo. oai »».» ow.» o».» an.» »m.» bi.» mm.» mi.» mmH
»ooo.v iv.» o».» ow.» mm.» »m.» 2.» 2.» Wm.» mm.» mNH
mooo.v m»i moi am.» mm.» mm.» in.» mm.» pm.» »i.» «NH
mooo.v NHi mi.» mm.» mH.» »».» ow.» pm.» 2.» ma.» »2
»ooo.v mmi »m.» mu.» om.» »i.» »».» »i.» am.» 3.» NNH
»mH. mm.» mm.» v».» or.» mm.» om.» im.» ow.» ii.» HNH
oo» 0H» 9.: m» om m» »H m N
.m m0 m EBH

 

Ana—moss 93:65

 

 

 

m.— 3an.

So”: seam no.“ 953w b m0 hfidnwnoum was made»: aspumobm cannon“. "macaw humanism

43

 

 

mooo.v mm.» mi.» m».» m».» mm.» om.» m».» m».» iH.» Hmnmm
mooo.v mm.» Hm.» mp.» »H.» »i.» oi.» Hm.» ii.» mm.» m»H
“Ho. is.» mo.» oH.» mp.» Hm.» pm.» im.» om.» mm.» pmfi.
poH. pm.i mm.i »m.i »m.i mm.i »m.i mm.i »m.i mm.i m»H
iHo. mm.» mm.» m».» ifi.» Ni.» i».» mm.» »».» i».» mm»
moo. mm.» mi.» mi.» Ho.» mm.» mm.» H».» flu.» »a.» imfl
mooo.v mm.» mm.» »o.» mp.» mm.» mp.» Np.» mm.» mm.» »»H
o»m. mo.» »o.» io.» Hp.» »m.» »m.» »m.» »m.» Hm.» N»H
mmo. mi.i Hi.i im.i Ni.i Hi.i m».i mm.i mm.i i».i ~»H
»HH. mi.» m».» Hm.» mH.» mm.» o».» H».» ma.» io.» o»H
om». mm.» mm.» NH.» mo.» ma.» ma.» m».» pa.» mo.» mmH
moo. im.i mm.i »m.i om.i mm.i mm.i im.i mm.i Hp.i mNH
moo. mm.» »m.» oi.» pH.» H».» »a.» mi.» i».» mm.» pmH
pmi. mm.» mp.» Hm.» pi.» pi.» mi.» »m.» ii.» »i.» mmH
mooo.v om.» om.» oi.» mm.» HH.» HH.» ii.» m».» mm.» mm»
mooo.v mo.i mo.i mm.» Hm.» mm.» ip.» mm.» mm.» mi.» imH
mooo.v mp.» mm.» mm.» m».» pi.» oi.» i».» mm.» ma.» »NH
mooo.v mH.i mo.i oH.i »».» mm.» mm.» mi.» mm.» »o.» NNH
mpg. om.» om.» ip.» mi.» mp.» mm.» mm.» mp.» mi.» HNH
oo» on omH mm om m» ma m N
m m0 & Emu:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35:35 cannon”.

 

 

 

Emu; zoom no.“ 633w .m mo bfiwnmnoum was 9.562 msonmnsm opsqoB

mH 2nt

"macaw :onpfigw

44

due to differences between those employees with less than 150 months'
tenure and those with more than 150 months' tenure. It appears

there is little difference among those groups with less than 150 months'
(approximately ten years) tenure; but then there appears a sharp
increase in favorableness toward specific aspects of the plan. It is
also interesting to note that those employees with the most tenure

(over twenty years) appear to be most favorably disposed.

5. Do males and females differ in perceptions of the Scanlon Plan?

 

Results. -- The differences between males and females were
explored first on the SPPI with one away analysis of variance.

Tables 17 and 18 present the respective summaries for the Primary
and Validation Groups; both indicate significantly different (p < . 0005)
responses for males and females.

Table 19 presents the summary data for the analysis of
variance on individual items and indicates that differential percep-
tions on the SPPI are due to specific items. Statistically significant
(p < .05) differences were found on items 122, 123, 124, 126, 127,
131, and 138 for both the Primary and Validation Groups, while
reproducible significant differences were not found on the remaining

ten items.

45

Table 17

Primary Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Sex and SPPI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source d_f MS E
Sex 1 11.90 25.27*
Error 1318 . 47
Total 1319
*£< . 0005
Table 18

Validation Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Sex and SPPI

 

 

 

Source 11: MS E
Sex 1 7. 58 15. 43*
Error 1321 .49
Total 1322

 

 

 

 

*3 < . 0005

46

Table 1 9

Primary and Validation Groups:
Sex Means and Probability of F Value for Each Item

 

 

 

 

Primary Group Validation Group

Item _

Male Female P of F Male Female P of F
121 3.61 3.61 .894 3.59 3.68 .161
122 3.54 3.34 .009 3.70 3.41 <.0005
123 3.48 3.24 <.0005 3.49 3.35 .036
124 3.96 3.57 <.0005 3.89 3.64 <.0005
125 3.20 3.10 .110 3.23 3.25 .786
126 3.59 3.34 .001 3.62 3.35 <.0005
127 3. 32 2. 98 <. 0005 3. 44 3. 10 <. 0005
128 4.60 4.55 . 120 4.61 4.58 .264
129 3.18 3.06 .019 3.15 3.16 .874
130 3.29 3.02 <.0005 3.30 3. 17 .064
131 4. 51 4. 26 <.0005 4. 51 4.26 <.0005
132 2.92 2.68 <.0005 2.95 2.81 .026
133 2.81 2.81 .901 2.87 2.79 .221
134 3.31 3.19 .063 3.27 3.24 .703
135 3.39 3.26 .040 3.39 3.33 .387
136 4.55 4.56 .770 4.57 4. 55 .386
137 2.90 2.78 .066 2.91 2.77 .022
138 3.54 3. 19 <.0005 3.55 3.29 <.0005
SPPI 3. 30 3.11 <. 0005 3. 32 3. 17 <. 0005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

47

Discussion. -- From the above results it is apparent that

 

males perceive the plan more favorably than females when an
overall measure is used. At first glance, this overall difference
appears to be the results of specific items, but a closer look at the
individual means (Table 19) reveals that sex differences, for both
the Primary and Validation Groups, occur on every item with the
sole exception of item 121.. Although differences between the means
for males and females are not significant for all items, the pattern
of differences is consistent with males responding more favorably
than females.

6. Do employees with different educational bac‘kgrounds differ in
perceptions of the Scanlon Plan?

 

 

Results. --Tables 20 and 21 present the summaries of the
one -way analysis of variances for the Primary and Validation Groups.
Both analyses indicate that there are significant differences (p < .01)
on the SPPI among the four educational groups.

Table 22, which contains the summary data for the analysis
on the individual items, indicates that differences on the SPPI are
largely due to specific items (125, 126, 128, 130, 131, 133, 137).
Analyses on these items indicated significant differences (p < .05)
for both the Primary and Validation Groups. Reproducible signifi-
cant differences among the four groups were not found on the remain-

ing eleven items.

48

Table 20

Primary Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Education and SPPI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source d_f MS _I_i‘_
Education 3 1. 93 4. 02*
Error 1257 . 48
Total 1260

*p = .007
Table 21

Validation Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Education and SPPI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source d_f MS _F_
Education 3 2. 23 4. 46*
Error 1256 . 50
Total 1259

* = . 004

49

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ioo. m».» pa.» m».» »».» poo. m».» »H.» m».» m».» Hmmm
»oo. mm.» »».» p».» mm.» i»H. »i.» p».» mi.» m».» mmfi
ofio. »m.» »p.» mm.» mm.» moo. mp.» »p.» »m.» mo.» pm»
»po. mm.i »m.i om.i mm.i mmo. im.i im.i »m.i mm.i m»H
mp». H».» m».» ii.» ii.» pp». i».» m».» m».» ii.» m»H
mm». o».» »».» m».» »».» opH. ma.» o».» m».» »».» imfi
mooo.v pH.» mm.» im.» om.» moo. mo.» »p.» mp.» »m.» »»H
mp». »m.» pm.» im.» mp.» m»». »m.» ip.» pm.» ip.» »»H
mooo.v pm.i Hi.i »».i »».i mooo.v mm.i m».i i».i m».i Hma
»oo. mm.» mm.» m».» i».» mooo.v mi.» io.» »».» »».» oma
iHo. m».» mo.» pH.» »».» HpH. iH.» po.» H».» »H.» m»H
mooo.v .Hp.i »m.i mm.i »m.i mooo.v »p.i »m.i mm.i mm.i m»H
mm». m».» »».» p».» Hi.» Hio. m».» po.» p».» mo.» p»H
mooo.v om.» m».» mi.» »m.» mooo.v mp.» m».» »m.» m».» m»~
»oo. oH.» mH.» m».» Hi.» »Ho. mm.» »o.» »».» i».» m»H
»io. pm.» mp.» om.» mm.» opH. Hp.» »p.» mm.» mm.» i»H
moo. i».» m».» mi.» pm.» pmo. oi.» m».» p».» mm.» »»a
mooo.v »m.» oi.» mm.» mp.» .moH. mm.» p».» oi.» Hm.» »»H
»mo. pi.» »m.» pm.» mp.» mooo.v m».» pm.» mp.» mm.» H»H
im »a 0H m im »a om m

ammo.m .mmo.m

Amumowv zofimospm Amuwmmc cofimospm 53H

 

 

 

macaw coflmpfimxr

 

Q5050 magnum

 

 

 

»» 3nt

88A Scam so.“ 0355 .m mo bflfimnoum paw 5.:me asoumnzm cofimoapm
"masopU nofimpfim> mam anagram

50

Discussion. -- From the above it is apparent that employees

 

with different educational backgrounds do differin perceptions of the
Scanlon Plan, but the exact nature of these differences is not as
clear as previous demographic variables investigated. According
to the means of items 125, 126, 128, 130, 133, 137, and the SPPI
(see Table 22), there is an apparent curvilinear relationship, with
those employees who have twelve years of education generally

responding more unfavorably than the other three groups. Basically,

 

the other three groups responded similarly.

The only other item which indicated significant differences
among the four groups deviated from the above pattern. This was
item 131, which taps the desire or interest to be a member of a
committee. A linear relationship was found in that the more educa-
tion, the greater the possibility of a "yes" response.

7. Do employees of different age groups differ in perceptions of
the Scanlon Plan? ‘

 

 

Results. --Data from Tables 23 and 24 reveal that there
are significantly different (p < .0005) responses on the SPPI among
the six age groups.

Table 25, which represents the results of one -way analysis
of variances on each of the items, indicates that the. differences in

overall perceptions are a function of specific items. Items on which

51

Table 23

Primary Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Age and SPPI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source d_f MS I:
Age 5 3. 58 7. 87*
Error 1234 . 46
Total 1239
*_p_ < . 0005
Table 24

Validation Group: Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship of Age and SPPI

 

 

 

Source _c_l_f_ MS 5
Age 5 3. 09 6. 51*
Error 1256 . 48
Total 1261

 

 

 

 

*_p_ < . 0005

52

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mooo.v i.» m».» i».» 3.» o».» po.» mooo.v mi.» »».» m».» p».» 3.» mo.» Hmmm
m»o. »m.» mi.» mm.» p».» »i.» o».» »oo. op.» p».» m».» »m.» m».» mm.» mm:
»oo. oo.» »o.» »o.» op.» Hp.» op.» mmo. 2.» mm.» mm.» im.» »p.» mp.» pma
Hmo. »m.i »m.i mm.i mm.i im.i »m.i mHo. pm.i mm.i mm.i pm .i mi .i mm.i mmn
»mH. mm.» mi.» m».» i».» »».» i».» »mo. mm.» »».» m».» p».» o».» i».» mmfi
o»». m».» »».» »».» »».» o».» 3.» i3. om.» m».» ma.» m».» m».» i.» ima
mooo.v mo.» mo.» mm.» »m.» »p.» »p.» Hoo. mo.» »m.» »o.» ip.» mm.» »m.» »»H
m»m. Hm.» am.» im.» m.» »m.» mm.» m2. »m.» mm.» mp.» »m.» i».» mm.» »»H
mooo.v m».i m».i iii mi .i »i.i i».i ,mooo.v m».i m».i om .i Hmi m».i m».i H»H
moo. p».» m».» p».» »».» p».» »m.» mooo.v mi.» p».» i».» i».» i.» pp.» o2
m»H. m».» pH.» mm.» 3.» ma.» mo.» »»o. m».» »H.» »m.» mo.» io.» »».» m»H
mmi. mm.i Hmi Hmi pm .i mm.i mm.i p»». Hmi mm.i mm.i mm .i im.i »m.i m»H
ipo. »i.» 0i.» i.» p».» H».» 3.» iHo. mi.» i».» »H.» m».» 3.» oo.» p»H
»io. Hm.» ii.» »m.» Hm.» pm.» m».» pmo. om.» m».» om.» Hp.» »».» »i.» m2
mooo.v pm.» »i.» m».» io.» mo.» »».» mooo.v mm.» o».» o».» mo.» mm.» 3.» mmfi
mooo.v mm.» mm.» mm.» mm.» pm.» mm.» mooo.v mm.i Hm.» pm.» »m.» om.» m».» i»H
mooo.v mp.» »m.» pm.» m».» p».» mo.» mooo.v mm.» »i.» »m.» oi.» mo.» 3.» »»H
mooo.v pm.» pm.» »m.» i.» »».» mm.» mooo.v »Hi mm.» mm.» mi.» 3.» pm.» »»a
»oo. mm.» mm.» mm.» Hm.» mm.» om.» , mpo. mm.» pm.» »m.» »m.» Hm.» mm.» Hg
mm pi m» o» i» ma mm pi m» o» i» mH

boom boom

mQSOLO mm< mmaoaU om< Emu:

 

 

 

@5020 20383.? >

 

350.50 mudgum

 

 

 

Emu: zoom no.“ mgw> .m mo 523820an mam mamo2Q50hmnsm mm<

8.98.20 nomampflmxw mam hpmgpm

m » 3nt

53

there were significantly different responses (p < .05), for both the
Primary and Validation Groups, are 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 130,
131, 137, and 138. Reproducible significant differences were not

found on the remaining eight items.

Discussion. -- From the above results on the SPPI and

 

items 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 130, 137, and 138, it appears that
older employees respond more favorably than younger employees.

A comparison of the means on Table 25 clearly evidences this linear
trend.

The sole exception to this linear pattern of responses across
age groups is item 131, which assesses the predisposition of
employees to become committee members. On this item there
appears to be a‘ curvilinear relationship whereby older (54-68) and
younger (18-21) employees indicate less of a tendency to want to be
committee representatives than those employees from the 22 -53 age

bracket.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Table 26 presents a capsule summary of the major
questions asked and the conclusions reached in the present study
of the Scanlon Plan. Although the conclusions are limited to the
organizations surveyed, they may well have validity in other
Scanlon systems.

The answer to the three specific questions of Part A imply
that the Scanlon Plan, as perceived by the employees working under
it, is a real multidimensional factor within the organizations
surveyed. Employees are not neutral about the plan. They con-
sistently perceive some aspects positively and others negatively.
They make consistent judgments about which aspects work well and
which work poorly. For the total scale, twelve aspects were per-
ceived positively and only three negatively. Thus it appears that,
overall, employees are favorably disposed to the plan. They appear

to be very favorable toward the plan as an alternative to a "union"

 

system, and as a system for improving the financial positions of

the companies. Employees are mildly favorable toward the plan

 

as a vehicle for increasing knowledge about the company, increasing

54

55

Table 2 6

Summary of Results

How do employees perceive various aspects of the Scanlon Plan?

 

1. Are specific aspects perceived positively? . . . . . Yes
2. Are specific aspects perceived negatively? . . . . . Yes
3. Are these aspects consistently ordered? . . . . . . Yes

Are demographic variables related to these perceptions?

 

1. Do employees operating under independent plans
differ in perceptions of the Scanlon Plan? . . . . . . Yes

2. When the plans are classified as consistent or
inconsistent with the "intent" of the plan, are

there differential perceptions? . . . . . . . . . . . Yes

3. Is hierarchical level related to perceptions of
theplan?.....................Yes

4. Is tenure related to perceptions of the plan? . . . . . Yes*

5. Are there male -female differences in perceptions

ofthe plan?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes
6. Is education related to perceptions of the plan? . . . Yes*
7. Is age related to perceptions of the plan? . . . . . . Yes*

*Relationships are weaker or less evident.

56

trust in management, increasing organizational efficiency,
incorporating employee suggestions, and helping employees do

their jobs better. Employees are slightly negative about the extent

 

to which the plan allows them to really influence decisions which
affect their jobs, provides them with an opportunity to learn more
about their jobs, and is used by management as a way to "get more
out of the workers. "

These findings indicate that the plan does have practical
utility as an organizational system and that the mechanics of the
plan (e.g. , suggestions and committees) are functioning fairly well.
However, the underlying intent of the plan, at least as the employees
see it, appears to be a gimmick for increasing efficiency rather
than a system which releases the potential of the employees. This
latter statement is further evidenced by the fact that the employees
do not see themselves as really participating within the system.

Overall, the data indicate that the plan is working, but at
a less than ideal state.

Part B of the study clearly evidenced the fact that employees'
perceptions are related to demographic variables; specifically the
study has shown that:

1. Employees operating under independent plans differ in
perceptions.

57

2. Employees operating under a system that is consistent
with the intent of the plan are more favorably disposed
than those employees operating under a system which is
inconsistent with the intent of the plan.

3. Employees at higher levels in the organizational structure
are more favorably disposed to the plan than those at lower
levels.

4. Employees with more than ten years' tenure are more
favorably disposed to the plan than employees with less
than ten years' .

5. Males are more favorably disposed than females.
6. Employees who have twelve years of education are less

favorably disposed than those employees with more or less
education.

 

7. Older employees are more favorably disposed to the plan
than younger employees.

The data obtained on independent plans indicate that simply
having the mechanisms of the plan does not ensure similar or
favorable responses from the employees. Obviously there are other
factors operating within these sites which account for these differ-
ences in perceptions. One explanation for the different responses
would be to attribute them to the different contextual variables which
impinge on any given site, e. g. different production problems,
markets, and processes. But it is equally, if not more, likely that
these differences in perceptions reflect very different management

strategies being used within the various sites.

58

If it is true, as McGregor implies, that employee behavior
is a result of managerial strategies, then it is only a short step to
inferring the same with attitudes.

Within the present study, evidence for the impact of different
strategies on attitudes was noted from the results of the analysis
which compared the one ~plan, one -process group of sites with the
multiple-plan, one -process group of sites. It was found that
employees within the former group, whose systems were in concert
with the intent of the plan, were far more favorably disposed to the
plan than those employees within the latter system. The fact that
there are two systems suggests different strategies in implementing
the plan which implies differences in the understanding by manage-
ment of what the plan is. If the implementation of the plan can be
considered representative of management's concept of the plan, then
in all probability there are also differences in the implementation
and application of other more central tenets of the plan--specifically,
participation and the operationalization of the theory of man.

Unfortunately, with the present data the issue cannot be
resolved, but the above does indicate where future research may be
most productive, and that is to investigate the various strategies

being used within the sites surveyed.

59

In regard to the last five findings (3-7), it is interesting
to note that the same demographic variables appear to hold similar
relationships when other attitudinal measures are used with non-
Scanlon employees. For example, Porter 3211. (1965) concluded
from a literature review on hierarchical level that the evidence
shows that perceived job and need satisfaction increase not only from
rank and file positions to management positions but also from lower
management positions to middle- and upper-level management. This
is precisely the relationship found in the present study.

In regard to tenure, job satisfaction literature indicates
somewhat similar relationships. Specifically, Hull £11.: (1942)
found that job satisfaction rises to a peak before the end of the first
year, hits a low between the fifth and eighth years, and rises steadily
until the twentieth year. Although this exact relationship was not
found in the present study, the trend of steadily rising attitudes for
those employees with more than ten years' tenure seems to indicate
some similarities to Hull' s findings.

In the present study males respond more favorably than
females. Again similar findings have been recorded in other studies
and imply that male-female differences in perceptual measures
appear to be a function of the work itself. Bass (1962) states that

studies suggest that women at all age levels are more interaction-
oriented while men are more task -oriented. As a whole, women

60

prefer to work in groups, to converse, to have social opportunities;
. . they also put a premium on cleanliness and pleasant sur-
roundings. (p. 422)
Since the majority of employees surveyed were working in
"older factories” on "line jobs" where social interaction would be
minimized, the results of the present study appear very much in
concert with Bass' 8 observations.
Literature in regard to education implies that controlling
on job and wage levels, the more education an employee had the less
satisfied he was with his pay and promotional opportunities (Singh
335$ , 1966). Hinrichs (1966) found similarresults in a studywhich
investigated the perceptions of salary increments. Specifically,
he noted that college educated employees have significantly higher
expectations and are less satisfied with similar salary increases
than non -college graduates. Although the curvilinear relationship
found in the present study appears to contradict the above, the results
could be compatible with the existing literature since the previous
studies controlled on job level, whereas job level was not controlled
in the present study.
Literature in regard to age implies that overall satisfaction
of employees appears lowest among younger workers (20—29) and

climbs thereafter (Berge, 1947). In general, a similar trend was

observed in the present study.

61

The similarities of the correlative relationships found in
the present study and previous research seem to imply that Scanlon
employees respond in a similar manner to employees in non -Scanlon
companies. It appears that specific demographic variables (age,
education, sex, tenure, and job level) are inherently related to
organizationally related attitude measures. But what the above does
not tell us is whether the relationships have the same strength with
Scanlon and non -Scanlon employees. Theoretically, one expectation
would be that the plan would ameliorate, if not eliminate, the dif -
ferences between various levels of the demographic variables. For
example, if the plan is functioning at an ideal state, then hierarchical
differences would be greatly reduced. The basis for this argument
stems from the intent of the plan to redefine the roles of all the
members of the organization by redistributing responsibility and
decision -making more equitably at lower levels, thereby creating
an overall sense of partnership among the participants. The dif-
ferential perceptions between managers and workers might indicate
that traditional dualistic roles are still prevalent.

The above explanation asks the basic question of whether
the organizations surveyed really "have" the Scanlon Plan. It is
clear that they have the "mechanisms": the committees, the ratio,

and bonus distribution. Further, the results of this study show

62

acknowledgment of the mechanisms and favorable attitudes toward
them, and acknowledgment of the practical utility of the plan; but the
results also indicate that the intent is not being fulfilled. To derive
a clear answer to the question requires the establishment of whether
they have the other essential ingredient of the plan: the theory of
man. It is the operationalization of this fundamental element of the
plan which determines whether a given organization "has" the plan.
Future research would be most fruitful if focused on those
behaviors or managerial strategies within organizations which are
more or less consistent with the basic tenets of the plan. In order
to pursue the above necessitates the removal of the essence of the
plan (the theory of man) from the realm of the philosopher to the
domain 0f the behavioral scientist. What is needed is a model which
differentiates between this component as concept and the application
of- this component. Because the concept as applied is 291 an approach,
a philosophy, or even a theory. Rather, it is a set of behaviors (or
strategy) which reflect(s) a given approach, philosophy, or theory.
Until adequate, objectives measures are derived of these behaviors
(or strategies), we simply are left to guess at which organizations

really "have" the Scanlon Plan.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bass, B. M. , and Dunteman, G. Behaviors in groups as a function
of self -, interaction, and task orientation. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psycholog, 1963, g, 419-428.

 

 

Benge, E. J ., and Copell, D. F. Employee morale survey. Modern
Management, 1947, 1, 19-22.

 

Chamberlain, J. Everyman a capitalist. Life, 1946, December 23,
93 -94.

Davenport, R. W. Enterprise for everyman. Fortune, 1950, g,
55.

Doud, E. M. The Scanlon Plan. Management Record, 1955, K,
236-239.

 

Etzioni, A. Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-
Hall, 1964.

 

Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psycholcgy and Education.
New York: McGraw -Hill, 1965. I

 

Hinrichs, J. R. Correlates of employee evaluations of pay increases.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1969, 53, 481-489.

 

Hull, R. L., and Kolstad, A. Morale on the job. In G. Watson,
Civilian Morale. New York: Reynal and Hitchcock, 1942,
362 -364.

 

Katz, D. , and Kahn, R. L. The Social Psychology of Organization.
New York: Wiley, 1966, 380-388.

 

Lesieur, F. G. The Scanlon Plan. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1958.

 

63

64

Lesieur, F. G.‘, and Puckett, E. S. The Scanlon Plan-~past,
present and future. Industrial Relations Research Asso-
ciation Proceedings, 1968, December, 71-80.

 

 

Martucci, N. L. A. Productivity and incentive pay. Management
Record, ‘1957, _1_9_, 346 -349.

 

McGregor, D. The Scanlon Plan through a psychologist' 8 eyes. In
F. Lesieur, The Scanlon Plan. Cambridge: MIT Press,
1958, 89-99.

 

Porter, L. W., and Lawler, E. E. Properties of organization
structure in relation to job attitudes and job behavior.
Psychological Bulletin, 1965, _6_4, 23-51.

 

Pugh, D. S. Modern organization theory: a psychological and
sociological study. Psycholgical Bulletin, 1966, _6_§,
235-251. '

 

Ruh, R. The Scanlon Plan. Unpublished manuscript: Michigan
State University, 1970.

Scanlon, J. N. Profit-sharing under collective bargaining: three
case studies. Industrial Labor Relations Review, 1948,
2, 58-7 5.

 

Schein, E. H. Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall, 1965.

 

Schultz, G. P. Worker participation on production problems, a
discussion of the Scanlon Plan. Personnel, 1951, 38,
20 1 -2 1 1 .

 

Singh, T. N. , and Baumgartel, H. Background factors in airline
mechanics' work motivation. Journal of Applied Psycholog_y_,
1966, _5_(_)_, 357-359.

 

Torbert, F. Making incentives work. Harvard Business Review,
1959, 21, 81-92.

 

Weinimont, P. F. Intrinsic and extrinsic factors in job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 5—0, 41-50.

 

Whyte, W. F. Money and Motivation: An Analysis of Incentives in
Industry. New York: Harper, 1955.

 

APPE NDICE S

APPENDIX A

SCANLON PERCEPTION ITEMS AND

INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECTS

The questions on the following pages deal with many
different aspects of you and your job.

The questions are asked in different ways so you should
read each one carefully. While reading through the questions,
please remember that there are no right or wrong answers. For
each question or statement, you should choose the answer which best
describes your opinion or your judgment on the subject. The best

answer is your own opinion or judgment.

65

121.

122.

123.

124.

125.

126.

127.

128.

66

The Scanlon Plan encourages me to work hard.
1 2 3 4 5
I disagree I disagree I' m I agree I agree
strongly somewhat undecided somewhat strongly

Workers would be just as well off here if we had a union and
not the Scanlon Plan.
1 2 3 4 5
I disagree I disagree I'm I agree I agree
strongly somewhat undecided somewhat strongly

The Scanlon Plan helps me learn more about the whole company.
1 2 3 4 5
I disagree I disagree I' m I agree I agree
strongly somewhat undecided somewhat strongly

The Scanlon Plan has helped this company' 3 financial position.
1 2 3 4 5
I disagree I disagree I' m I agree I agree
strongly somewhat undecided somewhat strongly

The Scanlon Plan increases my trust and confidence in manage-
ment.
1 2 3 4 5
I disagree I disagree I' m I agree I agree
strongly somewhat undecided somewhat strongly

It's not really worth the trouble to offer suggestions to the
production and screening committees.
1 2 3 4 5
I disagree I disagree I' m I agree I agree
strongly somewhat undecided somewhat strongly

How much is it worth your effort to think up and offer suggestions
to the screening committees?
1 2 3 4 5
very much much some little very little

How do you decide who to vote for when the representatives to

the production and screening committees are elected?

I. I vote for the man who can best "stand upto" the management.

2. I vote for the man who will do the best job of improving
company efficiency.

3. Ivote for whomever-wants the job.

4. I don' t give much thought to whom I vote for.

5 I vote for whomever has not yet had the job.

129.

130.

131.

132.

133.

134.

135.

136.

67

How effective are the Scanlon Plan production and screening
committees in improving company efficiency?
1 2 3 4 5
not at all not very somewhat quite very
effective effective effective effective effective

How often are the people in your work group given the real
reasons why their suggestions were not acted on?
1 2 3 4 5
always often occasionally seldom never

Would you like to be a representative to a production commit-
tee?

Yes 4 No 5

 

 

How much does the Scanlon Plan provide you with an oppor-
tunity to really influence decisions which affect your job?
1 2 3 4 5

' very much much some little very little

The Scanlon Plan is basically a way for management to "get
more out of the workers. "
1 2 3 4 5
I disagree I disagree I' m I agree I agree
strongly somewhat undecided somewhat strongly

The Scanlon Plan helps me to do my job better.
1 2 3 4 5
I disagree I disagree I' m I agree I agree
strongly somewhat undecided somewhat strongly

The Scanlon Plan helps my work group to do a better job.
1 2 3 4 5

I disagree I disagree I' m I agree I agree

strongly somewhat undecided somewhat strongly

Genera-11y, who benefits the most from the Scanlon Plan,
management or the workers?

1 2 3 4
management the workers both benefit neither
about equally benefits

very much

68

137. The Scanlon Plan helps me learn more about my job.

1 2 3 4 5
I disagree I disagree I'm I agree I agree
strongly somewhat undecided somewhat strongly

138. The Scanlon Plan is a nice idea but it really doesn' t accomplish
much of anything.
1 2 3 4 5
I disagree I disagree I' m I agree I agree
strongly somewhat undecided somewhat strongly

APPENDIX B

RECODING OF THE SCANLON PERCEPTION SCALE AND

THE CREATION OF A NEW VARIABLE: SPPI

1 . Reflecting items

 

Within the Scanlon Perception Scale, items 122, 126, 127,
130, 132, 133, and 138 were reflected so that the most favorable
response received a score of "5" and the least favorable a score of
"1. " Item 131 was reflected such that a "YES" response received a

score of "5" and a "NO" response a score of "4. ”

2 . Dichotomizing items

 

Items 128 and 136 were dichotomized. For item 128, the
response "I vote for the man who will do the best job of improving
company efficiency" was coded "5" whereas any other response
received a value of "4. " Item 136 was dichotomized in a similar
fashion with the response "both benefit about equally" being coded

"5" and any other response ”4. "

69

7O

3. Creating a new variable: SPPI

 

Finally, based on the assumption that the Scale was
homogeneous, a composite measure was created which was an
overall measure of favorableness toward, or satisfaction with, the
plan. Since the items were of comparable directionality, a simple
sum appeared to be an ideal measure; but due to the nature of the
data, a simple summation of items was inappropriate for the
following reasons: unequal item variances and missing data.

In reference to the former, it is essential to note that
when items are summed they are weighted according to their standard
deviations, which, in this case, would have meant that the dichoto-
mous items (12 8, 131, and 136) would have contributed proportion-
ally less than the Likert—type items. Since the goal was to generate
an overall estimate, then it was important to have each item con-
tribute as equally as possible in the determination of the overall
measure.

The solution to the problem was to respectively transform
the values of the dichotomized items from "5" and "4" to "4" and
"2. " This in part solved the variance problem, and also yielded a
response range that bracketed the "neutral" response of "3, "
similar to the Likert items. It is important to note that the above

transformation applied only to the creation of the overall estimate.

71

The second reason for not using a simple sum was missing
data, which, in this case, would have resulted in those respondents
with missing data receiving a total score not representative of their
overall attitude toward the plan.

Therefore the estimate utilized was a form of mean estimate
which was simply the sum of those items answered divided by the
number of questions answered. This estimate was called the Scanlon

Plan Perception Index and denoted SPPI.

APPENDIX C

DISTRIBUTIONS OF DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

The following distributions represent the data as used in
the present study. Included in the tables are: the code assigned to
each subgroup, an interpretation of each code (where appropriate),
the number of respondents, on the SPPI, in each subgroup for both
the Primary and .Validation Groups (these groups are defined in the
Design section), and the number of respondents who were omitted.
The ”N" for all tables represents the number of respondents on which
a SPPI estimate was obtained. This value is an upper bound of the

number of respondents to the individual items.

72

73

Table C 1

Plant Site (Independent Plans)

 

 

 

Primary Validation
Code Group Group

N N
1 75 77
2 12 12
3 121 120
4 5O 46
5 134 135
6 11 13
7 76 76
8 83 82
9 88 88
10 84 89
11 3O 32
12 121 123
13 54 54
14 10 11
15 46 44
16 8 8
17 5 5
18 176 172
19 69 68
20 49 50
21 20 19
Omits 57 51

 

 

 

74

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table C2
Plan Type
Primary Validation
Code Interpretation Group Group
N N
1 multiple -plan, one -process* 843 807
2 one -plan, one ~process** 47 9 463
omits 58 105
*sites 1 - 8
**sites 9 - 2 1
Table C3
Job Level
Primary Validation
Code Interpretation Group Group
N N
5 managerial 72 77
7 supervisory 106 1 15
9 rank and file 105 l 1048
omits l5 1 135

 

 

 

 

75

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table C4
Tenure
Primary Validation
Code Interpretation Group Group

N N
2 1 through 3 months 123 137
8 4 through 13 months 180 183
18 14 through 25 months 142 142
36 26 through 48 months 246 222
60 49 through 73 months 135 127
96 74 through 121 months 174 199
150 122 through 181 months 104 97
2 10 182 through 241 months 90 100
300 more than 241 months 71 68
omits 115 100

Table C5

Sex
Primary Validation
Code Interpretation Group Group

N N
1 male 661 694
2 female 659 629
omits 60 52

 

 

 

 

76

Table C6

Years of Education

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Primary Validation
Code Interpretation Group Group
N N
8 eighth grade or less 153 184
10 some high school 315 294
12 high school graduate 553 561
14 some college 240 221
omits 119 115
Table C7
Age
Primary Validation
Code Interpretation Group Group
N N
19 ages 18 through 21 190 173
24 ages 22 through 26 213 218
30 ages 27 through 33 242 254
38 ages 34 through 42 210 222
47 ages 43 through 53 239 231
59 ages 54 through 68 146 164
omits 140 113

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX D

FORMATION OF

PRIMARY AND VALIDATION GROUPS

From the total sample of respondents two subgroups were
formed and denoted as the Primary Group and Validation Group.
The determining factor in the assignment of subjects to groups was
the last digit of the respondent' s identification number. Those
respondents whose identification numbers ended in 0, 2, 4, 6, or 8
were assigned to the Primary Group (N = 1380) while the remaining
respondents, with identification numbers ending in 1, 3, 5, 7, or 9

were assigned to the Validation Group (N = 1375).

77

NOV 12 1971

HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES

Ill!
1

312931017

2010