THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MANAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENT AND PERFORMANCE IN TELEVISION -
‘ STATIONS: AN ANALYSIS

Thesis for the Degree of M. A

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

‘ GARY E SHUMAKER- -'
1975‘

 

 

 

I ABSTRACT
/
g v) THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
Lkg MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENT
/\ AND PERFORMANCE
\\J‘ IN TELEVISION STATIONS:

AN ANALYSIS

BY
Gary E. Shumaker

This research focuses on the management environment in
television stations, specifically investigating three dimen-
sions of that environment: leadership initiating structure.
task independence, and job scope: on three types of senior
level subordinate managers: chief engineers, program man-
agers, and sales managers.

The method used was a mail survey of the three subor-
dinate managers and the general manager in each of the major
network stations in the top fifty television markets in the
United States.

Initially, it suggests three hypotheses concerning the
nature of the environment: (1) leadership initiating
structure will be lowest for chief engineers; (2) task
autonomy will be highest for sales managers; and (3) job
scope will be lowest for sales managers.

The study also examines the effects of this environ-

ment. In this regard, it prOposes that (4) performance for

each of the subordinate managers will be highest for those

Gary E. Shumaker

which most closely approximate the median for their group
on each of the dimensions investigated.

In addition, it suggests that (5) station perfor-
mance will be highest for those stations with the highest
performance in their subordinate managers.

Of these hypotheses, the study finds support for

hypothesis 4; the remainder were not confirmed.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENT
AND PERFORMANCE
IN TELEVISION STATIONS:

AN ANALYSIS

BY
Gary E. Shumaker

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Telecommunication

1975

Accepted by the faculty of the Department of
Telecommunication, College of Communication Arts, Michigan
State University, in partial fulfillment of the require-

ments for the Master of Arts degree.

        
 

hn D. Abel
irector of Thesis

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge the
contributions to this work of my advisor, Professor John
Abel, and of my wife, Eleanor.

The errors, of course, are my own.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

I.

II.

III.

INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O C O O

The Social Significance . . . .
The Study. . . . . . . . . .
Organization of the Thesis . . .

BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM AND HYPOTHESES

Classical. . . . . . . . .
Structural Theory . .
Physiological Theory.

Neoclassical . . . . . . .

Modern . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Broadcasting Management . . . .

Neo—Modern . . . . . . . . . . .

Leadership Initiating Structure

Task Independence . . . . .
Job Scope . . . . . . . . .
Performance . . . . . . . .
The Problem. . . . . . . . . . .
Nature of the Environments
Effects of the Environments
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . .

METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . .

The Model . . . . . . . . . . .
The Population . . . . . . . . .
Selection of ReSpondents
General Manager . .
Chief Engineer .
Program Manager .
Sales Manager . .
The Instruments. . . . .
Environmental Variables .
Performance Variables . .

The Questionnaire Package .
The Pretest. . . .-. . . . .
The Mailing. . . . . . . . .
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued

CHAPTER
IV. RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O I

The Responses. . . . . . .
Respondents . . . . .
Narrative Responses .

The Instruments. . . . . .
Leadership Initiating
Task Independence . .
Job Scope . . . . . .
Performance . . . . .

The Hypotheses . . . . . .

Structure

The Management Environment. .

Environmental Variables and Perform

The Heterogeneity Supposition . .

Summary. . . . . . . . . .

O O O O O

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . .

Conclusions. . . . . . . .
The Study as Designed
Method of Study . . .

Recommendations. . . . . .
Tools . . . . . . . .
Method of Study . . .

Summary. . . . . . . . . .

FOOTNOTES 0 O O O O O O C O O .0 .

APPENDICES

A. The Markets Ranked By Size. . . . .

B. The Cover Letter. . . . .

C. The General Manager's Questionnaire

D. The General Manager's Response Sheet.

E. The Subordinate Manager's Questionnaire

F. The Subordinate Manager's Response Sheet

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . .

ance

Page
35
35

4O
41
42
42
42
42
45
45
47
58
60

61
61
61
66
66
67

68
68

70

71
73
74
76
77

88

90

TABLE

10.

11.

LIST OF TABLES

Distribution of Respondents by Network and
Market Size 0 O O O I O O I I O O O O O O O 0

Distribution of Subordinate Manager Responses
By Demographic Item . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tests of Convergent and Discriminate Validity
For Measures of Subordinate Manager
Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Subordinate Manager Median Scores on Four
variables 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Subordinate Manager Mean Scores on Four
variables 0 I O O O O O O O O O I I O O O O 0

Multiple Regression Analysis of Chief
Engineer Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Multiple Regression Analysis of Program
Manager Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Multiple Regression Analysis of Sales
Manager Data 0 O C O C O O O O O O O O O O 0

Multiple Regression Analysis of Total
Population Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chi-Square Analysis of Station Financial
Performance and Subordinate Manager
Performance 0 O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O

Chi-Square Analysis of Station Overall

Performance and Subordinate Manager
Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

37

38

44

46

47

49

51

53

54

56

57

a.....!..T1..Ew....mw...ak.a133...... 33:. a
3. . .. ..

LIST OF TABLES--Continued

TABLE

12.

13.

Page

Variation of Mean Scores of Subordinate
Managers By Group From Median Scores of
Total C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O 59

Variation of Mean Scores of Subordinate
Managers By Group From Mean Scores of Total . . 59

vii

1.333313... .§!!.!.; 31.3. n

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses briefly the social significance
of the area of the problem under consideration. It also
introduces the problem and describes the organization of the

thesis.

The Social Significance

 

The systematic study of management is a relatively new
academic pursuit, dating its active history only from the
middle or last part of the last century.

The study of management is interesting for a number
of reasons.

Perhaps the most compelling of these reasons to the
individual is that, in our highly industrialized society,
it is highly likely that he spends a good portion of his
life in an organizational setting, under management of some
kind. The nature of that management has a dramatic effect
on the quality of his life.

An important part of the value of the study of

.....fl..u.19.:- .
.. a... 1.. w.G.~....3.. 13.1.52. _

management to society as a whole is that its performance

is critical to the economic functioning of that society.
Better management means, by and large, a better, stronger,
economic system, which translates again, into a determinate
of the quality of life for the individual.

Management has other social effects than the merely
economic ones, however. Different industries may be seen
to range on a continuum from very low to very high social
significance. Were, for example, the management of the
toothpick industry to be very poor, the loss to society
would be minimal. The effects of management in other
industries may be seen to be very high.

Among those for which the significance is high, is the
broadcasting industry. The list of authors who have written
concerning the effects of the industry includes such names
as Tannenbaum (1955); Himmelweit, Oppenheim and Vince (1958);
Klapper (1960); Berkowitz (1962); Maccoby (1964); Greenberg
and Parker (1965); Weiss (1969); and Baker and Ball (1969).

A prerequisite to any effect, however, is management.

The Study

 

In the most general of terms, the study described
herein attempts to answer the question: do managers with
subordinate managers working for them in different roles
differentially structure the working environments of those

subordinates, and if so, what is the effect of that

differential structuring?

In more precise terms the study is a survey of persons
in senior management positions in network television
stations in the fifty largest television markets in the
United States. It examines the measurement and the effects
of certain aspects of the working environment created by
the senior executive for his immediate subordinates.
Specifically, the dimensions of that environment investi-
gated are the degree to which the senior executive
institutes structure for his subordinates, the degree of
autonomy with which he allows them to operate, and the
breadth of scope of their jobs. The range of subordinate
managers with respect to which these dimensions of the
managerial environment are investigated is limited to
three: the chief engineer, the program manager, and the
sales manager. The measurement of the effects Of these
variables on these subordinate managers is done in rela-

tion to two measures of station performance.
Organization of the Thesis

This chapter gives a brief overview of the social
significance of the problem area and introduces the study.
Chapter II gives a brief history of management scholarship
in general, citing works which are considered to be
representative of major schools of thought; introducing

works representative of existing study of broadcasting

management: and discussing the research related to the
specific problem studied. Chapter III describes the
methodology used. Chapter IV describes the results.
Chapter V draws some conclusions and makes recommenda-

tions for further research.

. 11;
.. 4.1.. 33.31.33 $533.33.

CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM AND HYPOTHESES

This chapter discusses the background of the problem,
and states the hypotheses.

The study of management is considered in four
periods, representing a like number of divisions in the
develOpment of management thought: the classical, the
neo-classical, the modern, and the neo-modern.l Prior to
turning its attention to the neo-modern, however, this
chapter examines the application of the earlier schools
specifically to the management of broadcasting.

The problem is stated in terms of those hypotheses
which are concerned with the nature of the managerial envi-
ronment, and those which are concerned with the effects of

that environment

Classical

 

Classical management theory may be subdivided into two
distinct subcategories, the structural theorists, and the

physiological theorists.

Structural Theory

Probably the best known among the structural theorists
was the German sociologist, Max Weber.

Weber's (1947) work was essentially descriptive, con-
centrating on the structure of the administrative components.
of organizations. Weber dealt in ideal types, based on
empirical study. His bureaucratic model included about six
essential components:1 (1) tasks are distributed among work-
ers with a resultant division of labor and specialization;
(2) workers are organized in a hierarchial organizational
structure, with the sc0pe of authority within the pyramid
clearly circumscribed; (3) tasks are accomplished within a
formally established set of rules, resulting in imperson-
ality, stability, and continuity; (4) workers are employees,
without power of their own, except as their poSition in the
organization provides it to them, and without personal
rights to their position; (5) membership in the organization
constitutes a career, with distinct lines of career pro-
gression; and (6) hiring and promotion are based on compe-
tence, demonstrated either by certificated training, or by
performance in position.

Other structuralists, notably Fayol (1949), Urwick
(1943), and Mooney and Riley (1939), stress elaboration of
the need in organizations for coordination and Specializa-

tion.

Principles related to coordination include: (1) the
scalar principle, with its clean cut lines of authority
from the highest to the lowest worker in the pyramid; (2)
the unity of command principle, with each worker responsible
only to one superior; (3) the span of control principle,
with each superior limited to the number of subordinates he
can effectively control; and (4) the exception principle,
with managers dealing only with those decisions which
cannot be routinized and delegated.

Principles related to specialization include: (1) the
departmentalization principle, with duties distributed in
such a manner that homogeneous activities are within units
and heterogeneous activities are separated among units and
levels; and (2) line staff division of functions, with line
activities accomplishing those tasks necessary for the
achievement of organizational goals, and staff activities

providing advice and services.
Physiological Theory

Three names stand out among the physiological theorists;
Fredrick W. Taylor, Henry C. Gantt, and Frank B. Gilbreth.

Taylor (1947) is credited with bringing order to the
chaotic situation in industrial organizations at the turn of
this century.3 He emphasized the separation of the functions
of management and labor, breaking of work tasks down into

their most minute components, and the use of time and motion

studies as a planning tool for management. He advocated,
for example, basing a worker's pay on his performance.
Gantt's4 contribution to management thought was the
use of record keeping as an organizational tool, even to
keeping detailed production records on each worker. In
many respects, his work built upon and formalized the

methodology of Taylor.

5 together with his wife Lillian, honed

Gilbreth,
Taylor’s and Gantt's ideas to a fine edge. They may be
credited with doing much to popularize the stereotype of
the efficiency expert with a stopwatch and clipboard.
Gilbreth advocated, for example, athletic type competi-

tion between teams of workers, and individual performance

records.

Neoclassical

 

An easy criticism of the classicists is their failure
to consider psychological variables. The neoclassical, or
human relations theorists corrected this error.

The origins of the neoclassical school can be traced
to the Hawthorne studies at the Western Electric Company
plant in Chicago. Here Elton Mayo (1933) and his associates
found that worker performance increased for each of several
experimental treatments, and that, to their surprise, it
increased still further when working conditions were

restored to those during the control period. The only

explanation they could offer for this result, was a favor-
able worker reaction to the increased management attention
during the experimental period. In later studies the
researchers discovered that workers did not respond
according to strictly economic rules, but that the work
groups developed a restrictive norm for the number of units
which might be produced, in spite of financial rewards to
workers for greater output. Human factors affected
performance!

Mayo's student, Chester I. Barnard, (1954) may be
credited with further developing the theory surrounding the
effects of the informal group on the achievement of organi-
zational goals. Bernard's work is of particular interest,
because of his considerable background as a practitioner of
management, in his role as a corporation executive.

Maslow (1954) developed a theory of motivation which
postulated a hierarchy of needs; man had different levels of
needs, ranging from the physiological, through safety, love
and esteem, to self-actualization. In his theory, workers
are motivated by the need at the lowest unfulfilled level.

The break between the classicists and the neoclassi-
cists is sharply drawn in McGregor's (1960) Theory x -
Theory Y paradigm. Theory X assumes an economic model of
man; Theory Y, a social one.

Herzberg (1966) further developed this thinking by

pointing out that satisfiers and dissatisfiers were not

10

opposite ends of a continuum, but separate sets of factors
which influenced performance independently.

Another important direction taken by the neoclassical
theorists in their ardor for human relations is represented
by Argyris (1962). His interest laid in means of improving
inter-personal relationships between members of organiza-
tions. His name is closely associated with the T—group, a
laboratory method used to increase self confidence and
understanding of others through intensive small group

therapy sessions.
Modern

The classical theorists assumed an economic model of
man: the neoclassicists, a social one. The moderns argued
for a socio-economic, or complex, model.

Vroom (1964) may be noted for having developed a
mathematical model of motivation. Motivation was the prod-
uct of a numerical representation of the desirability of
attaining a particular goal and the expectancy that a
particular action would achieve that goal. Desirability
times expectancy equaled motivation. The problems of
assigning values, or valences, to desirability and
expectancy were not fully addressed.

Adams' (1963) was also a mathematical model. He
suggested that motivation was a result of an individual's

perceptions of the ratio of his inputs to his outputs, as

11

compared to his perceptions of some significant other's
ratio of inputs to outputs. Further, he found that per-
ceived inequality, either in the direction of advantage or
disadvantage, was a source of tension. Reduction of this
tension was the significant factor in determining the
individual's behavior, and therefore his source of motiva-
tion.

Fiedler's (1967) contingency theory is a SOphisticated
example of modern thinking. The name of the theory implies
that the performance of interacting groups is contingent
upon the interaction of leadership style and factors unique

to the particular situation.
Broadcasting Management

Studies of the management of the broadcasting industry
in particular have not, for the most part, dealt seriously
with any of these traditions.

The industry may date its history as an industry only
back as far as the late twenties of this century, acquiring
any sort of business importance certainly not before the
thirties. In this time frame, it was too late to feel the
effects of the classicists. Too, the types of labor re-
quired by the new industry were perhaps difficult to relate
to studies of bricklayers and steelworkers.

Also, many of the early studies tended to focus on

industries with groups of workers in largely similar jobs.

12

These similarly were difficult to apply to the broadcasting
industry.

By the time the neoclassical school became of major
importance, the glamorous broadcasting industry was actively
engaged full time in the business of giving large numbers of
people what they wanted. It was well qualified to ignore
the movement.

Too, over the years, the broadcasting industry had
enjoyed a stability, secured for it by the Federal Communi-
cations Commission.6

As a result, the systematic study of the management of
the broadcasting industry has lagged behind the study of
management in general. It has suffered generally from one
of two faults: it has been anecdotal, rather than based on
systematic, empirical research; or it has considered only
the communication variables in the decision making process.

The books usually used as textbooks for broadcasting
management courses are usually guilty of the former.

Roe's (1964) collection of readings on the subject is
an example of this. It has no solid theoretical base, and
its authors contradict each other from one article to the
next. Each article is based on one individual's recollec-
tions of a specific situation or station, with no indica-
tion of the probability that the situation or station is at
all typical.

Quaal and Martin (1968) exhibit the same general con-

dition. Although they cite numerous examples of managerial

13

situations in the broadcasting industry, all of their
situations come from the same station. No indication is
made of the probable application of their solutions to
stations with different network affiliations, in different
size markets, in different geographic areas. No attempt is
made at any sort of systematic study, and therefore, nothing
which could be called general theory even begins to emerge.

Brown (1971) cites the problems of a single network in
a single season. The anecdotal affliction is pervasive.
Again, there is not even token attention paid to the kind of
systematic study from which a general theory might emerge.

Well planned, carefully executed studies of broadcast-
ing management exist primarily in the form of theses and
dissertations. Done, for the most part by communication
scholars, they usually look at the kinds of variables one
would expect them to be the most familiar with.

Lewis' (1966) dissertation, for example, studied
feedback utilization behaviors among the management of
commercial television stations. Specifically, he looked
at the effects of direct and inferential feedback on the
decision making process of programmers: direct in the form
of letters, phone calls and meetings with the external
audience of the station; and inferential in the form of
national and local ratings and rating-derived information.

Bennett (1970) looked at the relationship between

management types and the communication behavior of employees

14

in television stations. He classified management type as
either autocratic, bureaucratic, or democratic, finding a
relationship between type and the preferred method of
general manager-employee communication. Bennett also
examined manager non verbal behavior by management type.
One of the best single studies was done by Cremer
(1971), who examined the dimensions of association between
the station general manager and the news director, in
connection with the functioning and operating of the news
component of the station Operation. He found that the
important dimensions in this relationship were those of
claiming and evaluating. General managers whose news
directors held an essentially positive view of the newsroom
environment were able to predict accurately the news
directors' perceptions of that environment; general managers
whose news directors held an essentially negative view were

not able to make accurate predictions.

Neo-Modern

 

Early management studies assumed an economic model of
man, in which he was solely motivated by the desire for
greater financial rewards. Neoclassical thought focused on
the social man, driven only by his needs for social and
psychological satisfactions. Modern theory has based itself
on a social-economic model, assuming an interrelationship

between economic and social needs.

15

Even these most recent studies are admittedly based
on an overly simplistic model of man; man's true nature is
complex, based on a multitude Of attributes.

A few recent studies have tended to focus, not so
much on the nature of man, as on the nature of the environ-
ment in which he finds himself in his work situation. The
nature of this environment, these studies seem to suggest,
will determine the attributes of the complex man which will
govern his behavior.

It may be, to offer an extreme example, that the
exploitation of labor in the environments in which Taylor
and the Gilbreths worked, was such that man's economic
needs did dominate his behavior. Of course it may also be
true that the nature of those environments was such that
satisfaction of social or psychological needs might also
have had important effects on performance; without empirical
evidence, the student of today may only guess. The point,
however, is that it would be dangerous, if not foolhardy,
to attempt to apply Taylor's or the Gilbreth's theories in
the work environments of our present culture, and expect
similar results.

What are the dimensions of this work environment?
Leadership Initiating Structure

Recent management research has pointed toward two major

dimensions in leadership behavior, which have been termed

16

instrumental, and social-emotional or expressive (Korman,
1966). The terms most frequently used to describe these
behaviors are initiating structure, and consideration.
Consideration has been generally highly related to
job satisfaction (Filley and House, 1969). While satis-
faction is important for other reasons, Vroom's (1965) RR
analysis of studies of satisfaction showed it to be A
correlated with performance at only the .14 level. For
this reason, the present study does not investigate

leader consideration.

 

Leadership initiating structure is the term used to
describe the degree to which the leader initiates psycholog-
ical structure for his subordinates, by such acts as assign-
ing tasks, specifying procedures, clarifying his expectations,
and scheduling work. The reader may see a relationship
between this aspect of leader behavior and the thinking of
the classical management school, in terms of the principles
of coordination and specialization.

Fleishman (1953) found leadership initiating structure
to be an important variable in the management environment
of factory foremen. Halpin (1954) found it so for military
aircraft commanders. Hemphill (1957) found it important
among twenty-two departments of a liberal arts college.
Filley and House (1969) found it important among unskilled
and semi-skilled factory workers. Wigdor (1969) found it

important among nontechnical corporate office employees of

17

a chemical manufacturing company. House et al. (1971) found
it so among salaried engineers, scientists, and technicians
in three large research, design, and development organiza-
tions.

One study of particular note in this regard is that
of Rhea. (1970). Rhea studied the leadership initiating
structure for the general manager, sales manager, program
director, chief engineer, and business manager. In ten
television stations in large markets and ten stations in
small markets. He found no differences between general
managers and subordinate managers, and no differences

between large and small markets.

Task Independence

 

Task independence is defined as the degree to which an
individual is able to perform his job without depending upon
his supervisor or others for financial resources, non-
financial resources, and directions; and is able to indepen-
dently schedule and plan his activities and innovate
independently.

Rizzo et a1. (1970) found job autonomy to be an impor-
tant variable in the management environment of office
employees of a heavy equipment manufacturing company.

Wigdor (1969) found task autonomy to be an important
variable in the environment of his sample of nontechnical

corporate office employees.

18

Job Scope

Job sc0pe is defined as the extent to which an
individual performs various tasks, sees projects through
to completion, and determines job objectives and methods.

Wigdor (1969) found job scope to be an important

variable for the population in his study.

Performance

 

The value of establishing parameters for the manage-
ment environment is greatly enhanced if this information
can be used to predict performance. This study considers
the dimensions of this environment in terms of both manager

performance and station performance.
Manager Performance

Performance of individuals may be measured either
objectively or subjectively. Both methods have disadvan-
tages.

Rhea (1970) used objective measures of performance,
such as share of market and per cent of sales increase.

Such measures may miss the essence of a job, or, as Rhea
found, apply differentially to different subordinate manager
jobs.

Rhea also used a subjective measure of performance;

per cent of goal achievement. Wigdor (1969), however,

19

compared self, peer, and superior ratings, and found that,
while peer and superior ratings were significantly related,
self ratings were not significantly related to either the
peer or superior ratings.

Lawler (1968) suggests, in a review of methods for
measuring performance, a multi-trait, multi-rater measure
of performance, noting that with such a method, "it is
possible to assess the criterion by determining its con-
lvergent and discriminate validity." (p. 470) thereby pro-
viding many of the advantages of both the more subjective

and the more objective measures.
Station Performance

Station performance is perhaps the most difficult
variable in the present study to measure. Obviously the
theoretical considerations are similar to those for manager
performance.

A review of the literature reveals only one study of
importance which rates stations according to their per-
formance.

Johnson (1973) rank orders network stations in the
tOp 100 markets, based on their total hours of news, public
affairs, and "other" programming in the composite week ,
total number of public service announcements in the
composite week, total number of composite week hours with

more than twelve minutes of commercials, programming

20

expenses as a percentage of gross earnings, and total
ranking across all of these areas.

This paper will address the theoretical considera-
tions raised concerning the measurement of station per—

formance in greater detail in Chapter IV.
The Problem

The studies described, with the exception of Rhea, for
the most part, assume a situation where a manager super-
vises a number of subordinates with largely similar tasks.
In fact, a manager may supervise subordinates with a wide
range of diverse tasks, many of which are outside the range
of his own abilities. The present study postulates that
at least in a large segment of the broadcasting industry
this is the case, and that this, by plan and of necessity,
results in differential structuring of the management
environment by the manager, and that this differential
structuring has an effect on the performance of those sub-
ordinates.

I This study focuses on television stations. The
rationale for this is that the diversity of jobs within
television stations is greater than any other readily
investigatible unit of the broadcasting industry:
engineering is more complex; programming involves network,
syndicated and local sources; and sales covers a broader

geographic area and demands a higher volume than any

21

comparable unit. The hypotheses are of two types; those
which attempt to describe and predict the nature of the

differences in the management environments of the various
subordinates responsible for the divergent work require-
ments of the focus of the study, and those which attempt

to relate the environments to performance.
Nature of the Environments

General managers are postulated to be likely to exert
the most control over their subordinates in areas where
they have the most expertise. If few general managers of
television stations acquire their own positions as a result
of their expertise in engineering, for example, as this
study assumes, then it is likely that they will exert the
least control over their subordinates responsible for this
area, suggesting hypothesis 1: leadership initiating
structure of general managers will be lowest for chief
engineers.

Another possible reason for differential structuring
of management environments is physical proximity. Autonomy
is postulated to be higher for those subordinates whose jobs‘
are performed to the greatest degree at sites physically
remote from the general manager's office. Therefore, this
study suggests hypothesis 2: task autonomy will be highest
for sales managers.

Job titles themselves may contribute to the

22

structuring of the management environment: some suggest
concrete limitations to responsibilities, Others are
sufficiently vague as to allow incumbents considerable
magnitude of scope. This suggests hypothesis 3: job

scope will be lowest for sales managers.
Effects of the Environments

Woodward (1958) found, in an investigation of British
industry, that across a number of firms and types of firms,
in the outstandingly successful firms, a number of organi-
zational characteristics approximated those of the median
for that characteristic for that type of firm. If this
principle can be extended to the present study, it would
suggest a relationship between these dimensions of the
management environment and the successfulness of the
station, as indicated by some measure of its performance,
which leads to hypothesis 4: performance for each of the
subordinate managers involved will be highest for those
who most closely approximate the median for their group
on each of the dimensions investigated and hypothesis 5:
station performance will be highest for those stations

with the highest performance in their subordinate managers.

Summary

This study has surveyed the scholarly study of

management, considering its classical, neo-classical,

23

modern, and neo-modern periods. In the process, it has
discussed the application of management study to the
management of the broadcasting industry. Finally, it
has presented the background and developed the hypotheses

for the study discussed herein.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Briefly, the methodology used in the study was this:
questionnaires were mailed to the general manager, the
chief engineer, the program manager, and the sales manager
of each network station in the tOp fifty television markets
in the United States. The general manager was asked to
rate the performance of each of three of his subordinates.
Each subordinate was asked about the leadership initiating
structure, the task independence, and the job sc0pe of
his work environment. Additionally, subordinate managers
were asked to rate a randomly selected peer, and to provide
certain demographic information on themselves. The differ-
ence of means test was used to look for differences between
the subordinates' jobs. Multiple regression analysis was
done to examine the relationship between the independent
variables and job performance. The Chi-square test was used
to compare performance ratings with two existing measures

of station performance.

24

25

The Mode l

 

This study assumes that a model of management
structure in a typical station includes a general manager,
supervising primarily three coequal subordinates: a chief
engineer, a program manager, and a sales manager. These
were selected as representative of the range of diversity

of second level station management jobs.
The Population

The pOpulation for this study included all major
network (ABC, CBS, and NBC) stations in the fifty markets
with the largest numbers of television households, as
determined by the American Research Bureau. This selection
includes 67.82 per cent of all television households in
the United States; doubling the size of this universe
would increase the size of this universe to only 86.44 per
cent. A list of these markets is in Appendix A.

Affiliates could not be identified for all three
networks in markets thirty-three and forty-eight. In
markets with more than one affiliate for a given network,
the VHF station was selected. In market five, a station
affiliated solely with CBS could not be identified, but a
station affiliated with all three networks simultaneously
was identified and used.8 Using these criteria, one

hundred and forty-eight stations were identified for use in

26

the study from the listings of the 1974 Broadcasting

Yearbook.
Selection of Respondents

Questionnaires were sent to individuals, addressed
by name, again from information in the 1974 Broadcasting
Yearbook.

Where no individual could be identified by name to
match the model for the study, no questionnaire was sent,
with the logic that: (l) the function might be being per-
formed by another individual who had received another
questionnaire for his principle duties; (2) the function
might be being performed by an external source acting as
a contractor, as an advertising representative; or (3)
the questionnaire might be completed by someone whose
duties were remote from those of the individual in the
model, as a secretary. Even so, three completed response
sheets were received with notes indicating that they had
been completed by the successors to the individuals to
whom they were addressed. These responses were used in the
analysis.

Using these criteria, 547 subjects of the 592 which
a population of 148 stations might predict were identified,

as follows:

27

General Manager

Most stations have someone who holds a title of
general manager. Often this individual is also a vice-
president. A few stations have a station manager instead;

a few have a station manager in addition to the general
manager. In this case, the general manager was selected
for the study over the station manager, with the reason-
ing that the broader duties of the general manager would
encompass those of the station manager, who might not
supervise, say, the sales manager. Any error caused by the
possibility that a performance rating given by a supervisor
two levels higher, rather than one, is controlled for by the
multirater instrument used, described later in this chapter.
In one case, two individuals were listed as co-general
managers; they were excluded from the study.

Using these selection criteria, individuals filling
the general manager position were identified in 147 out of

148 stations.
Chief Engineer

Most stations have a chief engineer. Some list a
vice-president in charge of engineering. A few list both;
in these cases, the chief engineer was selected. Of those
who do not list either, a few list a studio engineer and

occasionally some other kind of engineer such as a

28

translator engineer; in these cases, the studio engineer
was selected. In the absence of a chief engineer, a chief
of technical Operations was also accepted.

Selecting from these titles, an individual whose
duties were essentially those of chief engineer was identi-

fied in 140 out of 148 stations.
Program Manager

Most stations list either a program manager or a pro-
gram director. Either of these titles was used. Occasion-
ally the individual was also a vice-president.

Selecting from these titles, individuals with program
manager resPonsibilities were identified in 139 out of 148

stations.

Sales Manager

 

Most stations list a general sales manager. Where
this was the case, this individual was selected. A few
who do not list a general sales manager, list either a
national, a regional or a local sales manager. Where there
was only one of these listed, he was used. Where there was
more than one, the manager with the broadest geographic
reSponsibility was selected, with the logic that his job
would be the most diverse from the other subordinate
managers under consideration, and also most closely related

to that of an individual with the general title. Using

29

these criteria, sales managers were selected in 139 out of

148 stations.
The Instruments

All of the instruments used for the survey portion of
the study had been previously demonstrated to have some
degree of validity. Those used to measure station per-

formance were merely the best available.

Environmental Variables

 

The leadership initiating structure instrument was
taken from the Leadership Behavior Description
Questionnaire develOped by the Ohio State University. It
was shown by Halpin (1954) to have concurrent criteria
validity, and by Stogdill (1965) to have experimental
criteria validity.

The task autonomy scale was validated by Wigdor
(1969) on a sample of corporate vice-presidents and a sample
of white collar trainees and secretaries. The difference in
the distribution were in the predicted direction and signi—
ficant at the .0001 level. When college professors were
used in place of vice-presidents, p<,0001.

Wigdor (1969) also validated the job scope instrument
by comparing thirty employees at a high organizational level
making a wide variety of decisions, with thirty employees

who were low in these characteristics. He found it

30
significant at the .0001 level, Mann-Whitney U=861, Z=6.08.
Performance Variables

A multitrait-multirater instrument developed by Wigdor
(1969) was used to measure individual performance. He found
this instrument to have convergent validity, and to meet two
out of the three tests suggested by Campbell and Fiske (1959)
for discriminate validity.

Two measures of station performance were used.

No index of station financial performance was readily
available. Many stations are jointly owned with other
enterprises, frequently other stations, and their earnings
are not reported separately in the usual financial sources.
Information on the earnings of individual stations is re-
quired to be reported to the Federal Communications Commis-

sion, however. In 1972, then Commissioner Nicholas

Johnson did a study using this information in which he rank
ordered network stations in the tOp fifty markets on the
basis of programming expenses as a percentage of gross
earnings. In as much as stations earning more spend more
on programming, this is a valid index of individual station
financial performance, and the first index used for the
present study.

The reader may note that Johnson's study was done in
1972, and the present in 1974. No correction was made to

account for the changes in management during that time;

31

however, as Table 2 shows, 90.7% of the chief engineers in
the study have been in their present station in their
present capacity for more than two years, as have 67.8% of
the program managers and 67.4% of the sales managers.
Johnson's study also ranked stations on the basis of
a composite of programming criteria including the scale
just described; total hours of news, public affairs, and
"other" programming in the composite week, number of public
service announcements in the composite week, and number of
composite week hours with more than twelve minutes of
commercials. This ranking was the second index used as a

measure of station performance.
The Questionnaire Package

The package sent to subjects included a gang typed,
personally addressed cover letter, a questionnaire, a mark
sense response sheet or sheets, a stamped self addressed
return envelope, a machine scoring pencil, and a blank
address label to be completed and returned if the subject
desired a copy of the results. A copy of the cover letter
is at Appendix B.

The instructions directed the subject to return only
the mark sense response sheet or sheets. A four digit code
identifying network affiliation, market size, and job title
of the subject was placed on each response sheet and the

return envelope.

32

Two different questionnaires were used, one of which
had three different forms. Corresponding overprinted mark
sense response sheets were used.

The questionnaire sent to general managers consisted
of the six trait performance rating scale, repeated three
times, to allow its application to the chief engineer, the
program manager, and the sales manager. The mark sense
sheet had space for the necessary eighteen reSponses. Due
to a typographic error, this sheet had space for two
responses to item 11. All subjects appeared to have made
necessary corrections. Examples of this questionnaire and
its reSponse sheet are contained in Appendices C and D.

The questionnaire sent to subordinate managers con-
sisted of the sixteen item leadership initiating structure
instrument, the sixteen item task independence instrument,
the five item job scope instrument, and seven demographic
items. No distinction was made in the questionnaire
between the task independence and the job scope instru-
ments. Three different versions of the questionnaire were
used to allow for peer ratings of the three different types
of subordinate managers. The three versions were identical,
except for page six, on which the title of the peer which
the respondent was asked to rate changed. Peer rating
assignments were based on odd or even market sizes; in odd
numbered market sizes, chief engineers rated sales managers,

program managers rated chief engineers, and sales managers

33

rated program managers; in even numbered markets sizes,
the scheme was reversed. CorreSponding mark sense response
sheets had space for fifty reSponses. Examples of the
questionnaire and the response sheets are at Appendices
E and F. Appendix E includes three pages seven, represent-

ing the three versions of the questionnaire.
The Pretest

A pretest was conducted in ten selected stations in
markets fifty-one through sixty during May, 1974. The only
change other than the correction of typographic errors as
a result of the pretest was the inclusion of an example of
the proper way to indicate a choice on the mark sense
response sheets.

The selection of market sizes used for the pretest was
from a 1973 listing. The 1974 list was used for the study.
This had the result of questionnaire packages being sent to
two stations during the pretest which should have been

saved for the study. Responses from these stations were

used in the study.

The Mailing

The questionnaire packages were mailed in three

batches on June 18, 19, and 20, 1974.

34

Summagy

Aspects of the methodology of the study discussed in
this chapter include the model assumed for the unit of the
industry under study, the population, the selection of
respondents, the instruments used, the design of the
questionnaire package, the pretest, and finally, the actual
mailing. Methods of analysis used and results obtained are

discussed in detail in the next chapter.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS

This chapter discusses the results of the survey in
terms of the characteristics of the respondents, the
reliability of the instruments used, and the validity

of the hypotheses tested.
The Re§ponses

A total of 281 reSponses were received prior to the.
cut off date, August 18, 1974. Of these, 189 were usable,
the others coming from subordinate managers not paired with
a general manager or vice versa. One additional response
received had the necessary network, market size, and job
title code obliterated and was not used. Four responses
were eliminated because of obvious experimenter error in
assigning this code; two code numbers had been assigned

twice. A number of letters were received, both with and

without completed questionnaires.

35

36

Respondents

The distribution of respondents by network and market
size is shown in Table 1. The reader will note a fairly
even distribution by network, and substantially fewer
respondents from smaller market sizes, especially markets
thirty-one through forty. No significance testing of
these distributions was conducted.

The distribution of subordinate manager questionnaire
responses by demographic item is shown in Table 2. Although
no significance teSting was conducted on this data, the
following conclusions may be drawn concerning the respon-
dents in the study: substantial numbers of them have been
in their present capacity with their present station over
two years; to an even greater extent, they have been in
their present capacity in some station for over two years;
to a still greater extent, they have been with their
present station over two years; almost without exception,
they have been in the broadcasting industry for over four
years; chief engineers tend to be the oldest of the three,
with program managers second, and sales managers the young-
est; and sales managers are most likely to have the most
formal education, followed by program managers and chief

engineers in that order.

37

a.Om AOm\OOH m.mm OOH\mm m.O~ OOH\O~

0.0m OmH\mO 0.0m O~\O H.m~ O~\O
«.mm -H\Hm O.m~ O~\O O.MH m~\m

p.Om OOH\OO O.Om ON\O ~.sH Omxm
A.OO AOH\OA m.OO OmxaH O.HO O~\~H
O umnesz w “mnesz w Lamasgz
mHmuoe OOIHO OOIHm

OOH O\O O.mm OOH\OO

OOH H\H O.~m OO\OH

OOH H\H m.m~ vamH

OOH H\H H.Hm mO\OH

OOH H\H 0.00 OO\O~

w HOQESZ w Hwnfisz

Hmnuo umz

H

H mflm¢8

O.mm mHHxsm O.OO

O.Hm O~\O A.OO

O.ON m~\O A.HO

O.b~ O~\O O.NO

m.OO Om\OH O.OO

w “mnesz O

omuHm

m.om OOH\mm

a.Om mO\~H
a.m~ mm\m

H.ON OO\~H

A.HO OO\O~

O .Honeagz

mm“.

moa\am

hm\dn
¢N\OH
mN\NH
om\mH

aflflflz

ONIHH

.uxmu CH m

0.0m OHH\OO
m.mm om\OH

H.m~ O~\O
A.mm ON\OH
O.Om Om\mH
O “waspz
OHuH

mNHm umxumz

N.mm

m.mm
o.mH
m.mm

H.5m
w

mQUQb

wamH
~O\O

OO\OH
OOxmm

HmnEsz

Dm<

MHOBumz

MNHm Emmmfiz QZ§ mm039mz Hm mfizmazommmm m0 ZOHBDmHmBmHQ

.: mom
H

mamuos

mummmcmz mmHmm
mummmcmz Emumoum
muwmcamcm mmflzu

mummmcmz amumcow

mamuoe

mummmcmz mmamm
muowmcmz Emumoum
mummsflmcm mmwgo

mummmcmz Hmumcmw

mucmpcommmm

38

b.v N

m.N H

w HODEBZ. w HOQEBZ

noncommmu Uflam>cfl

NH“!
O O O
moon:
com-4°

H.mm
o.Hh
h.om

m.mm
¢.m¢

whom» v
cam mcflmmfiz. cusp man:

ma
ma

mm

mm
mm
mm

ha
hm

N om ma m.m v m.HH m
o mm m m.m N m m N
o h m >.¢ N h a N
a on m o.vH m h.v N
m NH O m.~H ¢ N.m H
o b m m.~ H
m.>~ NH m.om m o.HH m
«.ma m o.- h h m m
m.ma m o.h m m m H
m “fixafigg w amnesz w HwbEsz
munch v undo» m
away mmma cusp mmma
pop wumm» N pan mcucos m mcucos m
away mans” cusp one: cusp mmmq
oncommmm

ZmBH UHmmdmwozmQ Mm mmmzommmm

mm04242 madzHQmOmDm m0 ZOHBDmHmBmHQ

N mfiflfifib

mummmcmz.moamm
mummmcm215mumoum
mumocflmcm unflgu

«coaumum mum cw
muaommmo Hammond H50» cw

noxuoszsox m>mn mcoa_3om

muwmmcmz.mmamm
mummmcngamnmoum
mumeHmcm mmflnu

«coaumum ucwmmum H50» SRO;
cwoa.so> m>mz mood 30$

mummmcmz_mmamm
mummMQQZHENHwaH
mummcwmcm mmflcu

«coaumum ucwmmum H50» spas

muflommmo ucwmmum Moo» cH
soon so» m>ms mcoa sum

83H

39

OON HH «.3. OH 0.0m O OH O Wm H mHmmmfiH mmem
O.~H O OH OH fan O ~.m H NO H OHOOSE 5.68m
O.HH O OH O v.8 ON OOH O mummfimfi H620
Onofiflum gas so»
538960 no Hm>mH
umfimfl mfi OH 0.23
#33 $.3me 08:00 Hoonom
Bantam mumeHsmamoomn 96m 98 :3: mo
96m HO HO Hoonom :3: mo Hoonom no? no 533950
c0335 :oUwHQOOO coflmfiwsou 2033960 Sufi. meH
OOH O O.~m OH OOH. Hm Tm H mHmqumz mmHmm
H.OH O. «OH. mm 0.0~ O mO N 3&5 588m
«.3. OH O.HO OH OH O mummfiOfi H25
mmmm H50» ma p.33
OO 5.5 OO :93
mmmH use. 83 “an
om Hobo ow Hm>o om H95 om Hats:
OO O O.mO OH. md H 3&5 mmHmm
0.00 OO ~.m H mummmcmz 5&on
OOH Q mHmmfiOfi H35
“”3365 mammopmonn
mfi :H 88H?
53 so» 95.: mcoH 30m
Homsfincoov

mg

40
Narrative Responses

A number of response sheets were accompanied by
letters and short notes. Other correspondence received in-
dicated that no reSponse sheet was forthcoming from that
subject.

Replies accompanying completed response sheets in-
cluded one subordinate manager who noted that the selection
of the last response category to items seventeen, nineteen,
and twenty was possible "and still have your superior rule
with an iron hand." Another felt that "the results will
show you how some of our stations are handled." Another was
impelled to comment that "One thing I fault my boss on, very
badly, is his unwillingness to mix with 'the troops' on a
day to day basis. This occurs only in moments of crisis."
Another asked "What's the point of this whole thing --
except for the final 12 questions?"

One sales manager observed, in a note accompanying his
completed reSponse sheet, that "The answers offered are, as
you undoubtedly projected, based largely on how the sales
manager sees himself vis-a-vis his management and how filled
he is at the time of his answering with his own self
importance."

Although no systematic assessment was done, letters
without completed reSponse sheets seemed to come more often
from general managers. They displayed considerable range.

Perhaps the least was a scribbled "policy forbids." A

41

chief engineer noted "...I have no bosses in my particular
work." A general manager wrote "...we receive many
requests...to provide proper answers...would require the
attention of a large staff...we...must therefore decline
requests for complex or extensive information." Another
general manager refused, due to "a recent experience where
the confidentiality for this type of project did not hold
up." An executive assistant to a general manager wrote,
"We fail to see how our best interests or those of our
executives would be served by our participation in the
study."

The most vehement letter came from a general manager
who had gathered up all the questionnaires from his
subordinates, broken the machine scoring pencils, defaced
the stamps of the return envelOpes, and returned all of the
mailings at a cost to the station of one dollar in postage.
In his opinion, the questions asked were "1) None of your
damn business; 2) Unrelated to the management decision

making in the broadcast industry."
The Instruments

The leadership initiating structure, task indepen-
dence, job scope, and performance ratings instruments were
tested for validity by the correlation averaging method
described by Lindquist (1953). The performance rating

instrument was also tested for convergent and discriminate

42

validity, according to the criteria suggested by Campbell

and Fiske (1959).
Leadership,Initiatinngtructure

The average correlation for the leadership initiating
structure instrument was .2492. This is significant at the

.001 level. The value for n in this computation was 202,

,.
__—::P
A

since subordinate manager data could be utilized without

corresponding general manager data.

 

Task Independence 5.,

The average correlation for the task independence
instrument was .1193. This does not meet the .05 level of
significance criteria. The value for n for this computation

was 197.

Job Scope

 

The average correlation for the job scope instrument
was .0842. This does not meet the .05 level of significance

criteria. The value of n for this computation was 201.

Performance

 

The average correlation for the performance instrument
was calculated in three different ways: between items for
the general manager rating; between items for the peer

rating; and between items between raters. The computation

43

was based on listwise deletion of missing values; n was
equal to 109. The values respectively were .6540, .6951,
and .2620. All are significant at the .01 level or beyond.

The performance instrument was also tested for con-
vergent and discriminate validity.

The convergent validity criteria is this: there
should be high and significant interrater agreement among
measures of the same traits. The reader may see by refer-
ence to the underlined values on Table 3 that this criteria
is met.

There are three tests for discriminate validity.
Interrater agreement on the same traits should exceed
correlations by the same raters on different traits. Table
3 indicates that correlations of the ratings of the same
traits by general managers and peers were generally lower
than the correlation among different traits rated by the
same raters, as indicated by the correlation triangles to
the side and bottom of the table. Thus this criteria was
not met. This is a rather stringent requirement which, and
Gunderson and Nelson (1966) and as Lawler (1966) state, is
rarely met by behavior trait data. It can be seen, however,
that the diagonal coefficients generally exceed other
correlations in the same matrix, demonstrating that inter-
rater agreement on the same traits exceeds interrater
agreement for different traits, thereby meeting the second

test. Finally, it may be seen that the magnitude and

E h u. 3. JOE]!

.quoflHcmHm uozm
.HgmH OO. um HSBHHEOHOO

dump mfiummd: How
nonsuflmnsm mHm mean: 630: mmmde ummu cwadmp 93 5.3 HOOK/ma Ho. um unmoamémflm mmsdms. H2

44

H
HOOO. O
OOOO. OOOO. O
ONOO. HHOO. NOOO. m
OOOO. OOOO. OOOO. OOOO. N
OOOO. NOOO. OOOO. OOOO. OOOO. H
mmmmm. Ommm. OOOH. NOON. OOOH. OOHO. O
OHOO. NOOOH. .mmmmq OOON. HOOO. OOON. HOOO. O
NHOO. OOOO. mOOHH. HNOO. .mmwmq OOON. HOOO. NOOO. O
OOOO. OOOO. HOOO. mOOOH. OOHO. HOOOH. .mmmmq OHOO. OOOO. m
ONOO. OHOO. OOOO. mOOOH. NOOOH. OHON. NOOOH. .mmwmq OHHO. m
OHOO. OOOO. OOOO. OOOO. OOHO. OOOO. HHOO. OOOO. Ommmmq H
O O O O O O O N H flHOHH.

mOZHafim mmmm

HUZ¢SMOmmmm mmw¢z¢z MB¢ZHQMOMDm m0 mmmDm¢m2 mom
NBHOHA<> mB¢ZH2HmumHO 92¢ Bzmomm>ZOU m0 memma

m mqmdB

SONILVH HHOVNVW TVHHNHD

45

direction of the monorater triangles at the side and bottom
are markedly different from the heterorater triangles.

Because this is so, the data fails to meet the third test.
The Hypotheses

For the purposes of this discussion, the findings of
the study pertaining to the validity of the hypotheses are
considered in two categories: those involving the nature
of the subordinate manager environment; and those involving

relationships of the environmental variables to performance.
The Management Environment

Hypotheses involving the nature of the subordinate
manager environment were as follows: (1) leadership
initiating structure of general managers will be lowest for
chief engineers; (2) task autonomy will be highest for sales
managers; and (3) job scope will be lowest for sales
managers.

Differences in the management environment of the
subordinate manager jobs were examined both in terms of the

median and the mean scores of the environmental variables.

Median Scores

Table 4 shows the median scores on the four variables
for each of the three groups of managers. Although the re-

sults are in the predicted direction for leadership

initiating structure and for job scope, the differences are

minimal.

TABLE 4

SUBORDINATE MANAGER

No significance tests were performed.

MEDIAN SCORES ON FOUR VARIABLES.

Variable

Performance

Leadership
Initiating Structure

Task Autonomy

Job Scope

Mean Scores

Chief
Engineers

8.938

36.667

60.773
10.000

n=43

Program
Managers

8.286

36.375

59.333
9.750

n=3l

Sales

Managers

8.000

35.445

59.389
10.091

n=43

All Sub-
ordinate
Managers

8.857

36.107

59.938
9.983

n=117

As another measure of the central tendency, the mean

scores were examined.

Table 5 shows these figures.

In

every case the results are in the predicted direction, but

the difference of means test show the differences to be

insignificant.

47

TABLE 5

SUBORDINATE MANAGER
MEAN SCORES ON FOUR VARIABLES

Chief PrOgram Sales All Sub-
Variable Engineers Managers Managers ordinate
Managers
Performance 9.930 10.774 9.262 9.914
3.918 4.624 3.982 4.146
Leadership 37.536 36.965 36.476 36.995
Initiating Structure 5.236 3.547 4.859 4.684
Task Autonomy 60.279 59.442 59.235 59.675
4.154 4.509 4.164 4.245
Job Scope 10.291 10.008 10.384 10.250
1.912 .831 2.261 .851

Second number in each grouping is standard deviation.

n=43

Conclusions

Therefore, we may conclude that, while not conclusively

n=3l

n=43

n=117

disproved, hypotheses 1 through 3 are not confirmed at an

approPriate level of significance

Environmental Variables and Perfo

rmance

Hypotheses involving the relationships of the subor-

dinate manager environment to performance were as follows:

(4) performance for each of the subordinate managers in-

'volved will be highest for those who most closely approxi-

Inate the median for their group on each of the dimensions

48

investigated; and (5) station performance will be highest
for those stations with the highest performance in their
subordinate managers.

The effects of the independent variables upon per-
formance is considered first in terms of subordinate

manager performance, and later in terms of station perfor-

mance.
Subordinate Manager Performance

The regression of subordinate manager performance on
the independent variables was calculated for each of the
types of subordinate manager in the study, and for the

pOpulation as a whole.

Chief Engineers.--Regressing the general manager

 

performance ratings for chief engineers on leadership
initiating structure, task independence, and job scope,
produced the results shown in Table 6. By the .05 criteria,
these results are significant and hypothesis 4 is confirmed
for chief engineers.

Leadership initiating structure, task independence,
and job scope do account for nineteen percent of the
'variance in chief engineer performance ratings with a
significance of .04. The value of F to enter or remove for
leadership initiating structure is also significant at the

.035 level. The next most significant F is that for job

mocmcsmmmvaH
Xmas

HhH.I

49

«0.

mocmoHMfiGmwm

 

mnsuosnum
mcflpmfluncn
mflnm momma
lumwqu IMOmumm

vMH. Hom.
mad. hHo.I
mmm.

mucmfloammmoo coflumawuuoo

wwm.ma
mmo.m Nam.ov

mumsvm
m cam:

Nmo.

wmm.

mmo.

mocmoHMHcmHm

mmo.NNm mm
mmn.NNH m

mmumsvm Eoommum
mo Esm mo mmmummo

bum.m

boo.

mmh.¢

m>OEmH so
Hmusm co m

Hmscwmmm

coflmmmummm

MVHC

wmoom non
mocmocwmwwsfl xmme

musuosuum
mcHuMHuficw magnumpmmq

omH. mumsvm m

omq. m mamfluasz

defln mmmZHUZM mmHmU m0 mHm>A¢Z¢ ZOHmmmmwmm mquBADE

m mnmfla

50

sc0pe, at the .092 level. F for task independence is quite
small and significant only at the .936 level. Considering
the relatively small value of n, job scope should probably

be considered marginally significant. Values for small

r, both significant at the .01 level, tend to confirm this.
Further research on the performance of chief engineers should
therefore probably concentrate on leadership initiating

structure and job scope.

Program Managers.--Regressing general manager
performance ratings for program managers on leadership
initiating structure, task independence and job scope,
produced the results shown in Table 7. By the .05 criteria,
these results are not significant, and hypothesis 4 is not
confirmed for program managers.

Leadership initiating structure, task independence,
and job scope do not account for variance in program
manager performance ratings at an acceptable level of
significance. Values for F to enter or remove the inde-
pendent variables are not significant. There was a
correlation of .34623, significant at the .01 level,
Ibetween leadership initiating structure and task

independence.

Sales Managers.--Regressing the general manager

 

Ekarformance ratings for sales managers on leadership

mocwpcwmmUcH
xmma

th.I

51

«mm.

mocmoflMHsmHm

mnsuosuum

manumHuncfl
mwnm cocoa
lumpmmq Iuowumm

moa.l omo.
mum. mvo.l
omo.

musmwoflmmmoo coflumawuuoo

haw.mm

mmo. mmN.H

mumswm
m com:

mam.

Nmm.

mom.

mocmofiMHcmHm

mmm.bmm hm

owh.m m

monmsvm Eocmmum
«0 65m mo mmmummo

mmo.

wvo.

vwo.

m>OEmH no
Hound 0p m

Hmscwmmm

coflmmmummm

II
C.

an

mmoom 30b
mocmpcmmwpcfl xmme

musuonuum
mcflumfluecfl mnemumwmmq

woo. mumowm m

850. m mfimflnasz

dBfiQ mm042¢2 Edmwomm m0 mHmWAdZ< ZOHmmmmUmm mAmHBHDE

h mqmdfi

52

initiating structure, task independence, and job scope,
produced the results shown in Table 8. Although failing
to meet the .05 level criteria, these results are in the
hypothesized direction, and may be considered marginally
significant.

Values for F to enter or remove task independence and
job scope are of roughly comparable significance, .077 and
.091 respectively. F for leadership initiating structure
is quite small and significant only at the .616 level.
Values for small r, both significant at the .05 level tend
to confirm this. Further research on sales manager
performance, therefore, should probably concentrate on task

independence and job scope.

Total Population.--Regressing the general manager

 

performance ratings for the entire population on leadership
initiating structure, task independence, and job scope,
produced the results shown in Table 9. By the .05 criteria,
the results are significant, and hypothesis 4 is confirmed
for the total population.

The only value for F to enter or remove a variable
which is even marginally significant, is the one for job
scope, significant at the .068 level. In View of the value
of F for this variable for chief engineers and sales
managers, the size of the n, the general lack of signifi-

cance of the program manager data, further research might

mocmpsmmmch
xmms

vma.l

53

no.

wOGMOHchmHm

musuosuum

manhunuflca
manm mocme
lumpmwn unemumm

vhH. mvN.
oea. mam.l
mmo.l

mucmfloflmmmoo soflumawsuoo

mvN.¢H
Hmm.m www.mm

mumsvm
m cows

¢B¢Q mmw4z¢2 mqum m0

Hmo.

who.

mam.

cosmoflmwcmflm

www.mmm mm
hom.oaa m

mmumsvm Eocmwum
mo Edm m0 mmmumma

m mqmdfi

Hoo.m

mmN.m

mmm.

m>o€ms Ho
Hmucm on m

Hmspfimmm

cofimmmnmmm

MVNC

mmoom non
mocmpcmmmpcfl xmme

musuosuum
msHuMAuHcH mwnmuwpqu

wwa. mumsvm m

nos. m mamnuasz

mHmMA¢Z< ZOHmmmmUmm mquBADE

54

musuosuum
maaumnuncfl
mocmpcmmmch mflnm mocmfi
xmma lumpmmq luomumm
omH.- ooa. eon. moo.
«ma. mma.l emm.
«NH. mna.
wucmHOHmmmoo coaumamnuou mOGMOAMHcmHm
mmv.ma omn.mwma mHH
mo. mmm.~ ham.mv omm.oma m
mumowm mmumsvm Sovwmum
moamoHMHcmHm m cwmz mo 85m mo momummo

mow.m

mmv.a

Nwm.H

w>OEmH no
Hmucm ou m

Hoopflmmm

sowmmmummm

bHHHG

mmoom now
mocmpcmmmUcH xmme

musposnum
maflumfluflcfl mflnmumcmmq

mmo. mnmswm m

mmm. m wamfluasz

¢B¢Q ZOHBdADmOm AdBOB m0 meMA¢Z¢ ZOHmmmmwmm mquBADE

m m9m49

55

find it profitable to concentrate on this variable for
chief engineers and sales managers, hopefully with an

improved tool with which to measure the variable.

Station Performance

To test hypothesis 5 concerning the effect of
subordinate manager performance on station performance
the total performance ratings for all three subordinate
managers by each general manager were rank ordered and
divided at the median. This was examined, both in terms
of the financial criterion, and of the overall criterion.
Stations falling on the median were randomly assigned to

either the high or the low group.

Financial Criterion.--The financial criterion, it may
be remembered, was a rank ordering of all network stations
in the top fifty markets on the basis of programming
expenses as a percentage of gross earnings. This listing
was divided at the median, with random assignment of those
stations falling on the median.

Table 10 shows the Chi-square analysis of this data.
The results are not significant at the .05 level and

hypothesis 5 is not confirmed for this criteria.

56

TABLE 10

CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF
STATION FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE AND
SUBORDINATE MANAGER PERFORMANCE

Financial Performance

 

High Low
Total
General High l7 16
Manager
Performance Low l3 19
Ratings

 

Chi-square = .802
Significance .35

derall Criterion.--The overall performance criterion

 

was a rank ordering based on a composite of programming
expenses as a percentage of gross earnings; total hours
of news, public affairs, and "other" programming in the
composite week; number of public service announcements in
the composite week; and number of hours with less than
twelve minutes of commercials in the composite week.' This
ordering was similarly divided at the median with random
assignment of those stations falling on the median to
either the high or the low group.

Table 11 shows the Chi-square analysis of this data.

The results are not significant at the .05 level and

57

hypothesis 5 is not confirmed for this criterion

TABLE 11

CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF
STATION OVERALL PERFORMANCE AND
SUBORDINATE MANAGER PERFORMANCE

Overall Performance

 

High Low
General
Manager High 16 17
Performance Low 14 18
Ratings

 

Chi-square = .1585
Significance .65

Other Relationships

In view of the low levels of significance throughout,
the possibility that some of the variance in the primary
variables might be explained by the demographics was also
examined. Of the seventy-two possible combinations gener-
ated by four primary variables against six demographic
variables for three types of managers, only two cases with
significant relationships were found. These were the
leadership initiating structure for the sales manager with

his age, where F equaled 2.9130, significant at the .05

58

level; and the job scope of the sales manager with his age,

where F equaled 3.2166, significant at the .05 level.
The Heterogeneity Supposition

Why, one might ask, are the significances of the
scores of the program managers so different from those of
the chief engineers and the sales managers? One possible
explanation is that, while the duties of the chief engineers
and the sales managers are relatively homogeneous, the duties
of the sales managers are relatively heterogeneous. This
would be true, for example, if all chief engineers had about
the same responsibilities and all sales managers had about
the same responsibilities, but some program managers had
considerable responsibilities and other program managers had
minimal responsibilities. For the sake of a label, this
prOposition is referred to hereafter as the heterogeneity
supposition.

If the heterogeneity supposition is true, returning to
Tables 4 and 5, we would expect scores of program managers
to regress toward the median and the mean respectively, for
the entire group. Table 12 shows the deviation from the
median for each of the scores from the median of the total,
Table 13 shows similar data for the mean scores. In Table
12, the heteroqeneity supposition is supported for leader-

ship initiating structure and task independence. In Table

59

TABLE 12

VARIATION OF MEDIAN SCORES
OF SUBORDINATE MANAGERS BY GROUP
FROM MEDIAN SCORES OF TOTAL

Chief Program Sales
Variable Engineer Manager Manager
Performance .081 .571 .857
Leadership .560 .268 .348
Initiating
Structure
Task .835 .605 .549
Independence
Job Scope .017 .233 .108

'k 'k * 'k * *

TABLE 13
VARIATION OF MEAN SCORES
OF SUBORDINATE MANAGERS BY GROUP
FROM MEAN SCORES OF TOTAL

Chief Program Sales
Variable Engineer Manager Manager
Performance .016 .860 .652
Leadership .541 .030 .519
Initiating
Structure
Task .604 .233 .440
Independence

Job Scope .041 .242 .134

60

13, it is supported for leadership initiating structure.

If the heterogeneity supposition were true, we would
also expect the size of the standard deviation in the
multiple regression analysis to be greatest for program
manager. Reference to Tables 6 through 8 will show that
this is true.

The preponderance of evidence, even if lacking in
significance or not ameniable to significance testing,

argues strongly that this explanation not be discarded.

Summary

This chapter has described the responses to the
questionnaire, both in terms of their representativeness
of the universe included in the study, and of their demo-
graphic characteristics, and also has described certain
narrative reSponses which were not tabulated for inclusion
in the statistical analysis. It has discussed the validity
testing which was performed on the instruments used.
Finally, it has described the findings of the study with
1:espect to the hypotheses tested. The final chapter will

discuss the implications of these findings.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This concluding chapter considers the meanings of the
study in the context of the academic environment and of

society as a whole.
Conclusions

The results of this study are less than incontra-
vertable in their support of the hypotheses. Two kinds of
reasons may be given for this: shortcomings in the study
as it was designed, and shortcomings in the method of
study used. The nature of these two types of problems is

elaborated upon somewhat in the following sections.

The Study As Designed

Several problems within the design of the present
study have already been suggested: the sample is not as
large as might be desired; questions might also be raised
as to its representativeness, from Table l; the instruments
used to measure task independence and job scope were
demonstrably imperfect; the instrument used to measure

manager performance, while meeting some of the validity

61

62

criteria, failed to meet others; the measures of station
performance used were not taken at the same point in time
as the remainder of the data, and may have been

theoretically lacking.

The Sample

Considering the population defined for the study,
the maximum number of questionnaires was distributed. In-
creased numbers of responses could probably have been
collected by using such techniques as pre-letters, follow-
up letters, and telephone follow-ups. These solutions would
not, however, address the issue of the representativeness of
the replies.

The effect of increasing the size of the pOpulation
for the study is discussed in Chapter III.

A better method of gathering data for any future study
of this type would be personal interviews with all managers
of a smaller number of stations, selected at random from

the population under study.

The Instruments

Conclusions concerning the environmental and the

Exarformance variables are discussed separately.

63

Environmental Variables.--The validity of the instru-
ment used to measure leadership initiating structure has
been long established, and this study raises no reason to
doubt the previous work.

The task autonomy and job scope instruments developed
by Wigdor (1969) are a different issue. The measures of
validity in this study and the measures he used yield
quite disparate results. Using the Mann-Whitney test, he
found both scales significant at the .0001 level. This
study, using the correlation averaging method, found, that
both failed to meet even the .05 level criteria.

The Mann-Whitney test is appr0priate for use with
ordinal measurements. Correlation averaging is appropriate
for nominal measurement. Wigdor quite properly uses both
of these instruments as ordinal level measurements in his
study, by dividing his subjects into three groups with
high, medium, and low task independence and similarly into
three groups for job scope.

Wigdor erred, however, in dividing, for validity test-
ing purposes, his five point scale arbitrarily between two
and three, rather than at some universally acceptable
central measurement. The results of the validity testing
in this study suggest that his error has given him mislead-
ingly high levels of significance.

Further, his choice of an ordinal level statistic must

be questioned. Other tools in his study, such as the

64

leadership initiating structure instrument and the
performance rating scale, with similar sets of response
categories, he uses as interval statistics.

The size of the disparity between his study and the
present one suggest that his choice of statistic, work-
ing in concert with his erronious choice of a mid point,
may have seriously misled him as to the validity of his
tools.

A better study of the management environment of the
broadcasting industry might take the responses to the
individual items on all three instruments and factor

analyze, and then rearrange them as necessary.

Performance Variables.--This study also raises other

 

questions, although less serious, about the performance
rating instrument used in Wigdor's study. While in his
istudy, it met the third test of discriminate validity,
in this study, it did not. Close examination of the
correlation matrix in Table 3 suggests that the problems
with the instrument are greater with some traits than
with others. Note, for example, trait six, quantity.

An obvious improvement in this index might simply
be to omit the offending trait or traits. This, however,
reduces the advantages gained by using a multi—trait

instrument.

It may be that the traits selected are merely not the

65

most apt for the variable under study. An improved per-
formance rating scale could be generated by factor analysis
of data gathered for a large number of subjects rated on a
large number of traits. From these, the traits which pro-
vided the best index could be drawn.

The lack of significance concerning the relationship
between station performance and subordinate manager per-
formance may suggest two shortcomings of the instruments
used to measure station performance.

The first of these has already been considered, that
of the age Of the data in relation to personnel turnover.
There is also the possibility that personnel change in
their ability to perform their jobs.

The other is that the measures are Strongly
programming oriented. This is not necessarily bad in
(itself; programming is an important element of station
performance.

The problem is that it is just that, an element. As
noted earlier, financial performance data is not available.
Were it, this would provide an element. These two taken
together would not, however, account for the quality of
station engineering.

Indeed, the beauty of the multitrait-multirater
instrument used to measure manager performance is that it

gets around these issues. It is difficult to find, however,

suitable peers and superiors to measure station performance.

66

Methodof Study

The possibility must not be overlooked that the
difficulties encountered in this study are due to the
method of study itself.

The heterogeneity supposition, discussed in the
preceding chapter, would suggest the desirability of
re-evaluating those subordinate managers who are included
in the study, and possibly, of develOping some measure of
the heterogeneity of the work done by individuals with
similar job titles.

Furthermore, this study presumes that there is a
direct link between managerial environment and performance.
In view of its criticism in earlier sections of undue
simplicity in earlier study of management, this study would
be remiss if it did not consider the possibility that the
relationship is more complex than that. Accordingly, the
following section discusses an alternative which would

take into account this possibility.
Recommendations

In View of the social significance of the broadcasting
industry, it seems apprOpriate that the final chapter of
this study discuss the implications of the study and make
recommendations for further scholarly work on that industry.

ffivo types of observations are advanced; those concerning

67

the tools and those just noted concerning the method of

the study.
Tools

It seems obvious that better tools for the study of
broadcasting management are needed.

The failure of the instruments used to measure job
scope and task independence are apparent, and a major
shortcoming of this study. The failure of the study to
define the environmental structural dimensions of manage-
ment jobs in the broadcasting industry must, in the last
analysis be traced to these. Moreover, development of more
reliable tools will profit the more general study of
management in that they may be applied to other industries
as well.

Of perhaps more pressing need is that demonstrated for
better indexes of station performance. It confirms the
need expressed by Johnson (1973) for information on station
financial performance to be made a matter of public record.
The study does not, however, underestimate the danger of
using station performance indices which measure only one
aSpect of station performance.

Many critics of the governmental agency which regulates
the broadcasting industry, the Federal Communications
Commission, fault it for not adequately assessing station

performance prior to acting on license renewal applica-

68

10
tions. If nothing else, the present study points to the

need for more study of methodology for measuring this

important variable.
Method Of Study

One type of analysis not attempted in this study is
path analysis. House, (1971) for example, would argue that
task independence should be thought of as having a moderating
effect on the effect of leadership initiating structure on
performance. That is to say, the more independent the job,
the more positive the relationship between leadership
initiating structure and subordinate performance.

The size of the sample and the validity of the
instruments used preclude this kind of analysis. There
is room, however, for future research to pursue this avenue,
which has considerable promise for explaining the relation-
ship between subordinate manager performance and station
performance, possibly with general manager behavior as a
moderating variable. Research of this nature is outside
the scope of the present study, but a natural outgrowth of

it.
Summary

The study suggests strongly, if not conclusively, that
subordinate managers of television stations do their jobs

in different managerial environments, at least along the

69

dimensions investigated. In doing so, it demonstrates the
need for more exhaustive methodological study. More
exhaustive work which, if more conclusive than the present
investigation, might serve to map for general managers,
those kinds of behaviors which would result in optimally
productive management environments for their subordinates.

The study, even with its primitive methodology, suggests
that different dimensions of management environment are more
important in the performance of different jobs. This in it-
self should serve as a guidepost to station managers in

their relation with their subordinates.

FOOTNOTES

1
This analysis of Weber's theory is a compendium

of the analyses of Tausky (1970) and Gerth and Mills (1946).

2
This model of their ideas draws heavily on
Tausky (1970).

Tausky (1970) describes this situation in some
detail.

Gantt's contribution is brought together in
Rathe (1961).

5The Gilbreth's approach was largely functional
rather than scholarly, and they did not write for publica-
tion. A collection of such writing as they did do is avail-
able in Spriegel and Myers (1963).

Former FCC General Counsel Henry Geller makes
an excellent statement of this argument (1974).

7Program type labels and "composite week" are used
here as defined by the FCC for use by stations requesting
license renewal. Johnson (1973) also gives the definitions

of these terms.

8
This station is labeled "other" in Table 1.

9In Johnson's (1973) study, he advocates making
this information a matter of public record.

LOSee, for example, Johnson (1973) and Geller
(1974).

70

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

The Markets Ranked By Size1

 

 

 

 

(00) %

Total U.S. 66,575.0 100.00%
1 New York 6,184.0 9.29
2 Los Angeles 3,428.8 5.15
3 Chicago 2,736.8 4.11
4 Philadelphia 2,226.3 3.34
5 Boston 1,632.4 2.45
6 San Francisco 1,558.4 2.34
7 Detroit 1,525.5 2.29
8 Cleveland 1,294.8 1.94
9 Washington, D.C. 1,223.8 1.84
10 Pittsburgh 1,082.6 1.63
Markets 1-10 22,893.4 34.39%

11 Dallas-Ft. Worth 1,024.3 1.54
12 St. Louis 927.0 1.39
13 Minneapolis-St. Paul 861.0 1.29
14 Houston 812.3 1.22
15 Miami 767.2 1.15
16 Atlanta 751.1 1.13
17 Seattle-Tacoma 748.8 1.12
18 Indianapolis 737.2 1.11
19 Baltimore 717.8 1.08
20 Tampa-St. Petersburg 702.1 1.05
Markets 11-20 8,048.8 12.09%
Cumulative Total 30,942.2 46.48%

21 Hartford-New Haven 620.0 .93
22 Kansas City 616.7 .93
23 Cincinnati 606.4 .91
24 Milwaukee 597.9 .90
25 Sacramento-Stockton 587.0 .88
26 Portland, Ore. 581.4 '.87
27 Providence 570.1 .86
28 Buffalo 565.9 .85
29 Denver 562.7 .85
30 Nashville 509.3 .77
Markets 21-30 5,817.4 8.74%
Cumulative Total 36,759.6 55.22%

 

l . . . . .
Source of thlS listing is the American Research Bureau.
These figures represent Arbitron Television household

estimates for the 1973-1974 season.

71

72

APPENDIX A

(Continued)

 

 

 

(00) %
Total U.S. 66,575.0 100.00%
31 Columbus, Ohio 493.5 .74
32 Memphis 491.8 .74
33 San Diego 474.2 .71
34 Charlotte 472.5 .71
35 New Orleans 450.0 .68
36 Louisville 441.2 .66
37 Phoenix 434.2 .65
38 Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo 429.3 .64
39 Oklahoma City 428.3 .64
40 Greenvil1e-Spartanburg-Ashevil1e 426.4 .64
Markets 31-40 4,541.4 6.82%
Cumulative Total 41,301.0 62.04%
41 Dayton 414.3 .62
42 Albany-Schenectady-Troy 405.3 .61
43 Charleston-Huntington 393.2 .59
44 Wilkes Barre-Scranton . 391.8 .59
45 Harrisburg-York-Lancastar-Lebanon 385.9 .58
46 Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport
News-Hampton, Va. 374.1 .57
47 Orlando-Daytona Beach 373.2 .56
48 Birmingham 371.3 .56
49 Salt Lake City 367.7 .55
50 San Antonio 366.6 .55
Markets 41-50 3,874.7 5.78%
Cumulative Total 45,148.7 67.82%

 

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

The Cover Letter

Michigan State University is presently engaged in an
investigation of characteristics of management decision
making in the broadcasting industry. Your name has been
selected for participation in this study.

Your role involves completing the enclosed
questionnaire. To do this, you must indicate your
responses to the individual items on the computer response
sheet, using the pencil provided. Although there are no
"right" or "wrong" re3ponses to any of the items, all
response sheets will be machine processed to insure that
your responses will not be available to anyone, thus in-
suring your confidentiality.

Return the response sheets in the envelOpe provided.
If you desire a copy of the results, please complete and
return the enclosed address label.

Once again, your cooperation is appreciated.

Sincerely,

John D. Abel
Assistant Professor
Project Director

73

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

The General Manager's Questionnaire

The following items are designed to show the
effectiveness of the chief engineer in your station.
Remember that your reSponses will be computer processed,
and that no one will have access to them so that you may
be completely candid. Please reSpond according to this key:

1 excellent
2 good

3 average

4 fair

5 inadequate

1. Rate the quality of his performance.
2. Rate his ability to perform the job.
3. Rate his effort put forth on the job.

4. Rate his ability to perform the job without
guidance.

5. Rate his initiative in performing the job.

6. Rate the quantity of work he performs on the job.

The following items are designed to show the
effectiveness of the programming manager in your station:

7. Rate the quality of his performance.

8. Rate his ability to perform the job.

9. Rate his effort put forth on the job.

10. Rate his ability to perform the job without
guidance.

11. Rate his initiative in performing the job.

12. Rate the quantity of work he performs on the job.

74

75

APPENDIX C

(Continued)

The following items are designed to show the
effectiveness of the sales manager in your station:

l3.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Rate the quality of his performance.
Rate his ability to perform the job.
Rate his effort put forth on the job.

Rate his ability to perform the job without
guidance.

Rate his initiative in performing the job.

Rate the quantity of work he performs on the job.

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D

The General Manager's

Response Sheet

BROADCASTING
MANAGEMENT
DECISION MAKING
PROJECT RESPONSE

SHEET

FORM NUMBER 3531

76

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
RESERVES FOR

COMPUTER USE

 

 

 

 

 

C.V".YL"\15 R “URN!“ (7 )

 

 

APPENDIX E

12.

13.

14.

APPENDIX E

The Subordinate Manager's Questionnaire

The following statements are designed to show your
relationship with your boss. Remember that your responses
will be computer-processed, and that no one will have

access to them so that you may be completely candid. Please
respond according to this key:

He

He

He

He

He

He

He

He

He

He

He

He

1. Always

2. Often

3. Occasionally
4. Seldom

5. Never
makes his attitudes clear to the group.
tries out his new ideas with the group.
rules with an iron hand.
criticizes poor work.
speaks in a manner not to be questioned.
assigns group members to particular tasks.
schedules work to be done.
maintains definite standards of performance.
emphasizes the meeting of deadlines.
encourages the use of uniform procedures.
lets group members know what is expected of them.

sees to it that group members are working up to

capacity.

He

sees to it that the work of the group is

coordinated.

He

decides what will be done and how it shall be done.

77

78

APPENDIX E
(Continued)
_ 2 _
15. He makes sure that his part in the organization is
understood by all of the members.
16. He asks that all group members follow standard rules

and regulations.

The following questions are designed to show the
general structure of your job. Please reSpond to them
according to the key provided with each item.

17. To what extent are you able to act independently of
your supervisor in performing your job function?

1 hardly ever.

2 seldom.

3 occasionally.
4 frequently.

5 almost always.

18. How much are you required to depend on your superiors
for the non-financial resources (information, supplies,
etc.) necessary for the performance of your job?

almost always.
very much.
quite a bit.
seldom.

not at all.

U'l-bOJNl-J

19. How much must you rely on directions from others in
the performance of routine jobs?

almost always.
very much.
quite a bit.
seldom.

not at all.

Wilt-LUMP"

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

79

APPENDIX E
(Continued)
-3—

How often are you given assignments requiring you to
search for a solution without directions from your
superiors?

rarely.
sometimes.
often.

very often.
almost always.

Ul-bLAJNH

How much do your job rewards depend upon your ability
to gain the cooperation of others?

almost completely.
very much.

quite a bit.

some.

very little.

Ul-bWNH

How often must you rely on directions from others in
performing non-routine tasks?

1 almost always.
2 very often.

3 often.

4 sometimes.

5 rarely.

How much do your job rewards depend upon your superiors?

1 almost completely.
2 very much.

3 quite a bit.

4 some.

5 very little.

How often is it necessary for you to seek instructions
from others prior to beginning new assignments?

1 almost always.
2 very often.

3 often.

4 occasionally.
5

rarely.

25.

26.

27.

28.

80

APPENDIX E
(Continued)

_4-

When someone else in the company requests you to per—

form a task for them, how frequently do you seek
advise from your superiors?

1 almost always.

2 very often.

3 often.

4 occasionally.

5 rarely.
How much do your job rewards depend on your perfor-
mance?

1 very little.

2 some.

3 quite a bit.

4 very much.

5 almost completely.

How much of your satisfaction on the job is dependent

upon your contact with your superiors?

1 very much.

2 quite a bit.
3 some.

4 little.

5

very little.

How much time do you have on your job to perform your
regularly assigned functions rather than those specially

assigned by your superiors?

very little.
little.
some.

quite a bit.
very much.

U‘IQWNH

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

81

APPENDIX E
(Continued)

_5_

How much of your satisfaction on the job is determined

by your superior's approval rather than by your
feeling of accomplishment?

1 very much.

2 quite a bit.

3 some.

4 little.

5 very little.
To what extent are you able to schedule and plan your
task requirements independent of others in your
organization?

1 hardly ever.

2 seldom.

3 occasionally.

4 frequently.

5 almost always.
In your efforts to get ahead on your job, to what
extent do you act as an innovator?

l hardly ever.

2 seldom.

3 occasionally.

4 frequently.

5 almost always.
To what extent do the resources you receive (personnel,
budget, etc.) depend on your superiors?

1 very large.

2 large.

3 some.

4 slight.

5 almost none.
To what extent do you participate in decisions concern-
ing the methods to be used in performing your job?

1 almost always.

2 occasionally.

3 frequently.

4 usually.

5 never.

34.

35.

36.

37.

82

APPENDIX E

(Continued)
_6_

To what extent are you able to allocate a portion of
your time to tasks related to corporate objectives
but not Specifically assigned to you?

very large.
large.
sometimes.
little.
almost never.

UIQDJNH

How often are you required to perform tasks which
previously had not been a part of your job responsi-
bility?

1 very often.

2 often.

3 sometimes.

4 occasionally.
5 rarely.

How often do you see projects through to completion?

1 rarely.

2 occasionally.
3 sometimes.

4 often.

5 very often.

To what extent do you set objectives, goals, and pro-
cedures for your job, rather than following directions
or established procedures?

very large.
large.
somewhat.
little.
almost never.

U'lbUONI-J

 

83

APPENDIX E
(Continued)

_7_

The following items are designed to show the
effectiveness of the chief engineer of your station.
Remember that your responses will be computer processed,
and that no one will have access to them so that you may
be completely candid. Please respond according to this

key:

38. Rate
39. Rate
40. Rate
41. Rate
42. Rate
43. Rate

the
his
his
his
his

the

excellent.
good.
average.
fair.
inadequate.

01;:me

quality of his performance.

ability to perform the job.

effort put forth on the job.

ability to perform the job without guidance.
initiative in performing the job.

quantity of work he performs on the job.

84

APPENDIX E
(Continued)
_ '7 .—

The following items are designed to show the
effectiveness of the programming manager of your station.
Remember that your reSponses will be computer processed,
and that no one will have access to them so that you may
be completely candid. Please reSpond according to this
key:

1 excellent.

2 good.

3 average.

4 fair.

5 inadequate. i

 

38. Rate the quality of his performance.

39. Rate his ability to perform the job.

40. Rate his effort put forth on the job.

41. Rate his ability to perform the job without guidance.
42. Rate his initiative in performing the job.

43. Rate the quantity of work he perfOrms on the job.

85

APPENDIX E
(Continued)

-7—

The following items are designed to show the
effectiveness of the sales manager of your station.
Remember that your responses will be computer processed,
and that no one will have access to them so that you may
be completely candid. Please respond according to this

key:

38. Rate
39. Rate
40. Rate
41. Rate
42. Rate
43. Rate

the
his
his
his
his

the

1 excellent.
2 good.

3 average.

4 fair.

5 inadequate.

 

quality of his performance.

ability to perform the job.

effort put forth on the job.

ability to perform the job without guidance.
initiative in performing the job.

quantity of work he performs on the job.

more complete picture of you.

86

APPENDIX E
(Continued)

_8_

The following questions are designed to provide a

Please respond to them

according to the key provided with each item.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

How long have you been in your present position with
your present station?

a. less than
b. more than
c. more than
d. more than
How long have
a. less than
b. more than
c. more than
d. more than
How long have
any station?
a. less than
b. more than
c. more than
d. more than
How long have
industry?

a. less than
b. more than
c. more than
d. more than

6 months.

6 months but less than 2 years.
2 years but less than 4 years.
4 years.

you been with your present station?

6 months.

6 months but less than 2 years.
2 years but less than 4 years.
4 years.

you worked in your present capacity in

6 months.

6 months but less than 2 years.
2 years but less than 4 years.
4 years.

you been employed in the broadcasting

6 months.

6 months but less than 2 years.
2 years but less than 4 years.
4 years.

What is your age?

a.
b.
c.
d.

under 30.
over 30 but less than 40.
over 40 but less than 50.

over

50.

49.

50.

87

APPENDIX E
(Continued)
_. 9 ..

What is the highest level of education you have
attained?
a. less than completion of high school.
b. completion of high school.
c. completion of high school and some college.
d. completion of baccalaureate degree.
e. completion of some graduate work.

Which of the following did you do your undergraduate/
graduate work in? (Use more than one response if
necessary.)

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

television and radio or a related field.
journalism or advertising or a related field.
business or a related field.

electrical engineering or a related field.
none of the above/does not apply.

APPENDIX F

Example:

1
2
APPENDIX F
3
The Subordinate Manager's 4
Response Sheet
5
BROADCASTING 6
MANAGEMENT 7
DECISION MAKING 8
PROJECT RESPONSE 9
SHEET 10
11
Example: 12
What is the largest television 13
market in the United States?
1. New York 14
2. Spokane 15
3. Detroit
4. Dallas 16
5. Miami
17

Number 1 is correct. Note the way it
is marked in the response space marked 18
"Example."

19
PAGE 1 20
21
22
23
24
25

RESERVED FOR
FORM NUMBER COMPUTER USE

88

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX F

(Continued)

BROADCASTING

MANAGEMENT

DECISION MAKING

PROJECT RESPONSE

SHEET

PAGE 2

FORM NUMBER

89

26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

RESERVED FOR

COMPUTER USE

 

 

,,.1l

')
L

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, J. Stacy. "Toward an Understanding of Inequity."
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.
67(1963):422-36.

Argyris, Chris. Interpersonal Competence and Organization-
al Effectiveness. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin-Dorsey, 1962.

 

Baker, Robert K., and Ball, Sandra J., Eds. Violence and
the Mass Media. A Staff Report to the National
Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence.
Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.

Barnard, Chester I. The Functions of the Executive.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954.

Bennett, El Dean. "Management Types and Communication
Behavior." M.A. Thesis, Michigan State University,
1970.

Berkowitz, Leonard. Aggression: A Social Psychological
Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.

Broadcasting Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: Broadcasting
Publications, 1974.

Brown, Lester L. Television: The Business Behind the Box.
New York: Harcourt Brace Janovich, 1971.

Campbell, Donald T., and Fiske, Donald W. "Convergent
and Discriminate Validation by the Multitrait
Multimethod Matrix." Psychological Bulletin.
56(1959):81-105.

Cremer, Charles Francis. "The Gate Keeper and Authority:
TV News Director General Manager Dimensions of
Association." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Iowa, 1971.

Fayol, Henri. General and Industrial Management.

Translated by Constance Stoors. London: Pittman,
1949.

90

91

Fleishman, E. A. "The Measurement of Leadership Attitudes
in Industry." Journal of Applied Psychology.
37(1953):1-6.

Fiedler, Fred B. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Filley, Alan C., and House, Robert J. Managerial Process
and Organizational Behavior. Glenview, 111.:
Scott Foresman, 1969.

Geller, Henry. A Modest Proposal To Reform The Federal
Communications Commission. A Rand Paper P-5209,_
Santa Monica, California, 1974. Santa Monica,
California: The Rand Corporation, 1974.

Gerth, H. H., and Mills, C. Wright, trans. and eds.
From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1946.

Greenberg, Bradley S., and Parker, Edwin B. The Kennedy
Assassination and the American Public: Social
Communication in Crisis. Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1965.

Gunderson, E. K. E., and Nelson, P. D. "Criterion Measures
for Extremely Isolated Groups." Personnel Psychology.
l9(l966):67-80.

Halpin, Andrew W. "The Leadership Behavior and Combat
Performance of Airplane Commanders." Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology. 49(1954):19-22.

Hemphill, J. K. "Leader Behavior Associated with the
Administrative Reputations of College Departments."
in Stodgill, R. M., and Coons, A. E., eds. Leader
Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Bureau
of Business Research Monograph 38. Columbus: Ohio
State University, 1957.

Herzberg, Fredrick. Work and The Nature of Man.
Cleveland: World, 1966.

Himmelweit, Hilde T., Oppenheim, A. N., and Vince, Pamela.
Television and The Child. London: Oxford University

Press, 1958.

House, Robert J., Filley, Alan C., and Kerr, Stephen.
"Relation of Leader Consideration and Initiating
Structure to R and D Subordinate Satisfaction."
Administrative Scienceguarterly. l6(197l):19-30.

92

Johnson, Nicholas. Broadcasting in America: _The Perfor-
mance of Network Affiliates in the Top 50 Markets.
F.C.C. Reports, 42 F.C.C. 2d 1, August 10, 1973.

Klapper, Joseph T. The Effects of Mass Communication.
Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1960.

Korman, Abraham K. "Consideration, Initiating Structure,
and Organizational Criteria--A Review." Personnel
Psychology. 19(1966):349-61.

Lawler, Edward E. III. "Ability as a Moderator of the
Relationship Between Job Attitudes and Job Perfor-
mance." Personnel Psychology. l9(l966):15.

Lawler, Edward E. III. "A Correlation - Causal Analysis
of the Relationships Between Expectancy Attitudes
and Job Performance." Journal of Applied Psyghology.
52(1968):462-68.

Lewis, John David. "Feedback in Mass Communication: Its
Nature and Use in Decision Making." Ph.D. Disserta-
tion, Michigan State University. 1966.

Lindquist, Everet F. Design and Analysis in Experimenps

in Psychology and Edugation. Bosten: Houghton
Mifflin, 1953.

Maccoby, Eleanor E. "Effects of the Mass Media." in
Hoffman, M.L., and Hoffman, Lois W., eds. Review of
Child Development Research. V01. 1. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation, 1964.

Maslow, Abraham. Motivation and Personality. New York:
Harper, 1954.

Mayo, Elton. The Human Problems of an Industrial Civiliza-
tion. Boston: Harvard University, 1933.

McGregor, Douglas. The Human Side of Enterprize. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.

Mooney, James D., and Reiley, Alan C. The Principles of
Organization. New York: Harper, 1939.

Quaal, Ward L., and Martin, Leo A. Broadcast Management.
New York: Hastings House: 1968.

93

Rathe, Alex W. Gantt on Management. New York: American
Management Association and American Society of
Management, 1961.

 

Rhea, James W. "An Investigation of Relationships Among
Specified Variables in the Management of Television
Stations." Ph.D. Dissertation, The Ohio University,
1970.

Rizzo, John R., House, Robert J., and Lirtzman, Sidney E.
"Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Large Organizations."
Administrative Science Quarterly. 15(1970):150-53.

Roe, Yale. Television Station Mangggment. New York:
Hastings House, 1964.

Spriegel, William R., and Myers, Clark E. The Writings of
the Gilbreths. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin, 1953.

 

Stogdill, Ralph M. Manual for the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire. Columbus: The Ohio State
University, 1965.

Tannenbaum, Percy H. "What Effects When TV Covers A
Congressional Hearing?" Journalism Quarterly.
32(1955):434-40.

Tausky, Curt. Work Organizations. Ithica: Peacock, 1970.

Taylor, Fredrick W. Scientific Management. New York:
Harper, 1947.

Urwick, Lyndall F. The Elements of Administration. New
York: Harper, 1943.

Vroom, Victor A. Motivation in Management. N.P.: American
Foundation for Management Research, 1965.

Vroom, Victor A. Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley,
1964.

Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization.
Translated by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons.

New York: Oxford University Press, 1947.

Weiss, Walter. "Effects of the Mass Media Of Communication."
In Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Arronson, eds. The
Handbook of Social Psychology. 2nd ed. Vol. 5.
Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley, 1969.

94

Wigdor, Larry. "Effectiveness of Various Management and
Organization Characteristics on Employee Satisfaction
and Performance as a Function of Employee's Need
for Independence." Ph.D. Dissertation, Bernard M.
Baruch College, City University of New York, 1969.

Woodward, Joan. Management and Technology. London: Her
Magesty's Stationery Office, 1958.