PURCHASING EFFECTIVENESS ’. ‘~ Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ROSS RICHARD RECK 1977 I .- , I . - . \, I ' . II " ‘ ' r ,‘ggééfij-utj‘fi‘”1],;;.7.f..;.-',;:._.,‘~g,3315 14“»; u: 3M1 -‘ '. '— u: 1’: , 4- '1'). L"!- Lynn 9513332135}?Igfii‘itfifri{I333.3;I:EI:§i§i15i3fi:-'.§Ii€s‘i 3‘ n \- a h. V ' f' . 4 U- f 5'- . L I . This is to certify that the thesis entitled PURCHASING EFFECTIVENESS presented by Ross Richard Reck has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D. degree in Management w/éa/ Date 6-20-77 0-7639 I aha-m; m mu; 11(2):qu "ii mug II a“ 07/ ABSTRACT PURCHASING EFFECTIVENESS BY Ross Richard Reck Purpose The purpose of this research was to determine some of the individual characteristics that differentiated more effective from less effective purchasers. This was accomplished by empirically testing a Purchasipgfgffectiveness Profile. This profile was developed as a result of reviewing the literature pertaining to purchasing effectiveness and consisted of certain personality, socioeconomic, and performance measures. The personality measures included: self-esteem, need for certainty, external control, desire to satisfy higher order needs, and a Composite Personality Index. The socioeconomic measures included: age, years of purchasigg Iggperience, years with current firm, salary level, salapy increase-- last five years, satisfaction--purchasing career, satisfaction-- current firm, number of positions--last five years, number of pro- fessional development activities attended pgrpyear, number of professional associations, and education level. The performance measures included: profit potential, procedures, sourcing, personal skills, departmental coordination, negptiation, product research, interfirm coordination, quality assurance, and overall effectiveness. Ross Richard Reck The need for this study stemmed from the fact that, on the average, purchasing departments in the manufacturing industry are responsible for spending over half the income their companies receive on materials and services. This means that the effectiveness of the purchasing function can have a significant impact on a com- pany's profits. Since much of the activity involved in carrying out the purchasing function is performed by individual purchasers, knowledge of some of the characteristics that differentiate more effective from less effective purchasers should be of particular interest to purchasing and other corporate executives. A review of the literature, however, revealed only one study that had directly investigated purchasing effectiveness. The data for this research was obtained by administering a mail questionnaire to a large national sample of purchasers. This survey resulted in 1,090 usable responses. Before these data could be analyzed, however, it was necessary to determine who, within the sample, were the more effective and the less effective purchasers. This was accomplished by utilizing the marketplace to identify a group of extremely more effective and a group of extremely less effective purchasers from the sample of respondents. Once identified, these two groups were compared and analyzed according to their mean scores on the ten purchasing performance measures. This analysis revealed that profit potential, personal skills, departmental coordination, negotiation, interfirm coordination, and overall effectiveness were the performance measures that differentiated more effective form less effective purchasers. Using these results as a Ross Richard Reck basis for differentiating more effective from less effective pur- chasers in the total sample involved adding together the response scores of each individual on these six performance measures to form a Purchasing Performance Index. This index served as the basis for dividing the sample into five levels of purchasing effectiveness. The mean scores of each of these five effectiveness levels on the personality and socioeconomic variables were then compared. This analysis indicated that self-esteem, desire to satisfy_higher order needs, and the Composite Personality Index were positively related to effectiveness, and need for certainty and external control were nega- tively related to effectiveness. In addition, age, years of purchasing experience, salary level, salary increase--last five years, satisfac- tion—épurchasingpcareer, satisfaction--current firm, number of pro— fessional development activities attended_per year, number ofppro- fessional associations and education level were all shown to be positively related to purchasing effectiveness. Based upon the findings of this study, the following conclu- sions were formulated: 1. There is a general congruence between purchasers' per- ceptions and their firms'perceptions of the purchasers' level of effectiveness. 2. The more effective purchasers perceived themselves as having superior ability to use their interpersonal skills. 3. More effective purchasers demonstrated a more positive self-image than less effective purchasers. 4. More effective purchasers tended to look at their jobs Ross Richard Reck from the standpoint of opportunities to reinforce their high self-image. More effective purchasers tended to be more interested in developing themselves professionally. PURCHASING EFFECTIVENESS BY Ross Richard Reck A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Management 1977 Copyright by © ROSS RICHARD RECK 1977 DEDICATION To my wife Marcia, whose patience, help, and understanding were necessary for the successful completion of this dissertation. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Although it will never be possible to thank all of the people who aided in the successful completion of this dissertation, I would like to mention several in particular. I am deeply indebted to my dissertation chairman, Dr. John H. Hoagland, who greatly assisted in locating mailing lists and finan- cial help. In addition, Dr. Hoagland's continued guidance, construc- tive criticism, and encouragement were instrumental in bringing this study to a close. I also wish to express my sincere thanks to the other members of my dissertation committee, Dr. William J. E. Crissy, Dr. Lawrence Foster and Dr. Robert Monczka for their assistance and encouragement. A sincere note of gratitude goes out to the National Associ- ation of Purchasing Management for their support of this study through a Doctoral Research Grant. In addition, I wish to thank the Editors Group of the N.A.P.M. for their support in providing me with their mailing lists. I am very grateful to Jan WOzniak and Jim Lukey of Michigan State University and Carol waters of Arizona State University for their Computer Programming assistance. I would like to thank my Colleagues at Arizona State Univb ersity and especially Dr. Harold Fearon, Chairman of the Management Department, for their unselfish help in providing me with the time 111 to finish this research. A very special note of recognition is appropriate for Tom and Nancy Loomis, Dan and Chris Carr, Barb Terova, John Nyland, Jerry Richardson, and especially Don Reid and Brian Long for their help and companionship during my years at Michigan State. A special note of thanks goes also to Jim McFillen and Ron Tatham of Arizona State, whose knowledge of Research and Statistics proved invaluable. I would like to thank Jean Krepela, Leslie Meyer and Barbara Wegener for their typing assistance and especially Jo McKenzie who typed the final draft of this dissertation. Finally, I would like to thank my wife Marcia for her un- selfish help and encouragement. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LI ST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I 0 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Need for the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of Variables Used in the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personality Variables. . . . . . . . . . . Socioeconomic Variables. . . . . . . . Purchasing Performance Measures. . . . . . Presentation Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . II. LITERATURE REVIEW.AND RESEARCH DESIGN . . . . . Previous writings and Research Concerning Purchasing Effectiveness and Personality Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literature Prior to 1900 . . . . . . . . . Literature from 1900 - W. W. II . . . . . . Literature from W'.W. II to Present. . . . Personality Variables Selected for Testing Self-Esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Need for Certainty. . . . . . . . . . . External Control. . . . . . . . . . . . Desire to Satisfy Higher Order Needs. . Composite Personality Index . . . . . . Previous writings and Research Concerning Purchasing Effectiveness and Socioeconomic Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Financial Rewards. . . . . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Professional Development Activities. . . . Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . College Majors, Position Levels, and Sex . Page ix xiv NH «3000an 10 10 10 ll 12 16 17 19 20 20 22 22 23 23 26 27 29 31 33 Chapter Previous Writings and Research Concerning Purchasing Effectiveness and Purchasing Performance Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purchasing Effectiveness Profile. . . . . . . Statistical Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I I 0 DATA COLLECT ION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Deve10pment of the Mail Questionnaire . . . Questionnaire Design. . . . . . . . . . . . Pilot Testing the Questionnnaire. . . . . . The Personality Measures. . . . . . . . . . self-Esteem s o o o s s o o o o o o o o 0 Need for Certainty. . . . . . . . . . . External Control. . . . . . . . . . Desire to Satisfy Higher Order Needs. . Need for Achievement. . . . . . . . . . The Socioeconomic Measures. . . . . . . . . The Purchasing Performance Measures . . . . Design of the Sample and Data Collection. . . Cleaning the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE POPULATION. . . . Present Position. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Entry Level Position. . . . . . . . . . . . . Supervisor's Present Position . . . . . . . . Position-~Five Years Hence. . . . . . . . . . Number of Positions-Last Five Years. . . . . Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Years With Current Firm . . . . . . . . . . . Years of Purchasing Experience. . . . . . . . Salary Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage Salary Increase--Last Five Years . Satisfaction With Purchasing Career . . . . . Satisfaction With Current Firm. . . . . . . . Number of Professional Associations . . . . . Number of Professional Development.Activities Education Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Undergraduate Major . . . . . . . . . . . . . Graduate Major. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Employer's Line of Business . . . . . . . . . sex I I C O O O O I O O O O I O O O O O O O O smry I O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 0 vi Page 33 37 4O 42 42 45 45 45 46 47 47 49 50 51 52 54 54 54 55 57 58 58 6O 62 63 66 68 69 71 75 77 80 81 82 85 87 88 92 93 96 Chapter V. PURCHASING PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND EFFECTIVENESS . Using the Market place to Determine Who Were More and Less Effective Purchasers . . . . . . . Salary Level as a Criterion of Purchasing Effectiveness . Position Level as a Criterion of Purchasing Effectiveness . The Combination of Salary Level and Position Level as a Criterion of Purchasing Effectiveness . The Combination of Salary Level and Salary Increases as a Criterion of Effectiveness With the Socioeconomic Measures Controlled. . A Purchasing Performance Index as a Measure of Purchasing Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . VI. PERSONALITY MEASURES AND PURCHASING EFFECTIVENESS . Personality Characteristics of the More and Less Effective Purchasers. . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of the Personality Variables as They Related to Purchasing Effectiveness . . Self-Esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Need for Certainty. . . . . . . . . . . . External Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . Desire to Satisfy Higher Order Needs. . . Analysis of the as They Relate Analysis of Analysis of Analysis of Analysis of Individual Personality Items 1 to Purchasing Effectiveness . the Self-Esteem Items . . . . the Need for Certainty Items. the External Control Items. . the Higher Order Need Items . Summary of the Personality Characteristics of More and Less Effective Purchasers. . . . Development of a Composite Personality Index. . . Summary . . . . . . VII. SOCIOECONOMIC MEASURES AND PURCHASING EFFECTIVENESS Socioeconomic Characteristics of More and Less Effective Purchasers. . . . . . . . . . . . Relative Importance of the Socioeconomic Characteristics of More and Less Effective Purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of the Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Lower Effec- tiveness Range With Those of the Higher Effectiveness Range. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Replication of Prior Research . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 98 99 102 104 105 107 113 115 115 116 117 117 118 118 118 119 125 130 135 138 139 140 142 142 145 148 149 Chapter VIII. APPENDIX A. COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE. B. THE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE RESPONSES FOR EACH ITEM ON THE RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE. C. A SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES CONCERNING THE PERSONALITY MEASURES . . . . . . SBIf-E8teem o s o o o o o o o 0 Need for Certainty. . . . . . . . . External Control. . . . . . . Desire to Satisfy Higher Order Needs. Need for Achievement. . . . . D. DEFINITIONS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF EFFECTIVE Summary . . . . . . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . Research Summary. . . Research Findings . Conclusions . . . . . Recommendations . . . Commentary. . . . . Final Comment . . . . .AND INEFFECTIVE BUYERS BIBL IOGRAPHY O O I O O O O O O 0 viii Page 151 157 163 164 166 167 168 169 174 189 189 192 195 197 200 202 205 Table II-1 IV-3 IV‘4 IV-6 IV-7 IV-8 IV‘S IV-lO IV-11 IV-IZ IV-13 LIST OF TABLES Comparison of Effective and Ineffective Buyers by ACtiVities O I O O O O O O O I O I O O O O O O Frequencies Concerning Respondents' Present Position. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequencies Concering Respondents' Entry Level Position. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosstabulation of Present Position With Entry Level Position . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequencies Concerning the Position of the Respondents' Supervisors . . . . . . . . . Frequencies Concerning Positions Where the Respondents Expect to be Five Years in the Future Crosstabulation of Present Position With Expected Position Five Years in the Future. . . .' Frequencies Concerning the Number of Positions Held by Each Respondent During the Last Five Years 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O Crosstabulation of Present Position With Number of Positions Held During the Last Five Years 0 O O O O O O O O O I 0 O O O O 0 Respondent Frequencies Concerning Age . . . . . . . Crosstabulation of Present Position With Age. . . . Respondent Frequencies Concerning Years With current Firm 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O Crosstabulation of Present Position With Years With Current Firm. . . . . . . . . . . Respondent Frequencies Concerning Years of Purchasing Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Page 36 59 60 61 63 64 65 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Table IV-14 IV-15 IV-16 IV-17 IV-18 IV-19 IV-ZO IV‘ZI IV-22 IV-23 IV-24 IV-25 IV-26 IV-27 IV-28 IV-29 IV-30 Crosstabulation of Present Position With Years of Purchasing Experience . . . . . . . Frequencies Concerning Salary Level . . . . . . . . Crosstabulation of Present Position With Salary Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequencies Concerning Percentage Salary Increase During the Last Five Years . . . . . . . Crosstabulation of Present Position With Percentage Salary Increase During the Last Five Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequencies Concerning the Respondents' Satis- faction With Their Purchasing Career. . . . . . . Crosstabulation of Present Position With Satis- faction With Purchasing Career. . . . . . . . . . Frequencies Concerning Respondents' Satisfaction With Their Current Firm . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosstabulation of Present Position With Satis- faction With Current Firm . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequencies Concerning the Number of Professional . Associations in Which Respondents Held Membership’ Crosstabulation of Present Position With Number of Professional Associations. . . . . . . . . . . Frequencies Concerning the Number of Professional Development Activities Attended Per Year. . . . . Crosstabulation of Present Position With the Number of Professional Development Activities Attended Per Year. . . . . . . . . . . Frequencies Concerning the Respondents' Education Level C O O O O O - O O O O O O O O O O O Crosstabulation of Present Position With Education Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequencies Concerning Respondents' Undergraduate College Major . . . . . . . . . . . Crosstabulation of Present Position With Undergraduate College Major . . . . . . . . . . . X Page 74 75 76 77 78 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 86 87 89 Table IV-31 IV-32 IV-33 IVF34 IV¥35 IVe36 VI-l VI-Z VI-3 VI-4 Frequencies Concerning Respondents' Graduate College Major. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosstabulation of Present Position With Graduate 0011888 M810! 0 o o o o o o' o o a o Frequencies Concerning the Line of Business of the Respondents' Employers. . . . . . Crosstabulation of Present Position With Employer's Line of Business. . . . . . . . . Frequencies Concerning the Number of Males and Females Among the Respondents . . . . . . . . Crosstabulation of Present Position With Sex. . . . Comparison of Purchasers' Salary Levels With Scores on the Ten Purchasing Performance Measures and Selected Socioeconomic Measures . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Purchasers' Position Levels With Their Scores on the Ten Purchasing Performance Measures and Selected Socioeconomic Measures. . . Comparison of the Extremely More Effective and Extremely Less Effective Purchasers on the Basis of Their Scores on the Ten Purchasing Performance Measures and Selected Socio- economic Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Frequency Distribution of the Scores on the Purchasing Performance Index for the Entire sample 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Comparison of Purchasers' Effectiveness Levels With Their Scores on the Four Personality Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Purchasers' Effectiveness Levels With Their Scores on the 31 Self-Esteem Items . . Comparison of Purchasers' Effectiveness Levels With Their Scores on the 16 Need for Certainty Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Purchasers' Effectiveness Levels With Their Scores on the 8 External Control Items 0 I O O O O I O O O O O O O O I O O O C O 0 xi Page 90 91 92 94 95 95 100 103 108 110 116 120 127 131 Table VI-S VI-6 VII-1 VII-2 VII-3 VII-4 VII-5 B-l B-2 B-3 3-4 8-5 8-6 8-7 Comparison of Purchasers' Effectiveness Levels With Their Scores on the 12 Higher Order Need Items. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations Among the Personality Variables, the CPI, and Purchasing Effectiveness . . . . . Comparison of Purchasers' Effectiveness Levels With Their Scores on the Socioeconomic Measures 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O I Rank-Ordered Comparison of Purchasers' Effective- ness Levels With Their Scores on the Socioeconomic Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effective and Ineffective Purchasers Compared by Age Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effective and Ineffective Purchasers Compared by Years of Purchasing Experience . . . . . . . . Effective and Ineffective Purchasers Compared by Education Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency Distributions of the Respondents' Scores Frequency Distribution of the Individual Need for Achievement Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘ Frequency Distributions of the Respondents' Scores on the Individual External Control Items. . . . . Frequency Distributions of the Respondents' Scores on the Individual Need for Certainty Items. . . . Frequency Distribution of the Respondents' Scores on the Individual Higher Order Need Items . . . . Frequency Distribution of the Respondents' Scores on the Individual Performance Measures. . . . . . Frequency Distribution of the Respondents' Scores on the Socioeconomic Measures . . . . . . . . . . Frequency Distribution of the Respondents' Self- Esteem Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency Distribution of the Respondents' Need for Certainty Scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii Page 136 140 143 146 152 153 154 174 176 177 178 181 183 185 190 193 Table Page C-3 Frequency Distribution of the Respondents' External Control Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 C-4 Frequency Distribution of the Respondents' Higher Order Need Scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 C-5 Frequency Distribution of the Respondents' Need for Achievement Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 xiii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page II-l Purchasing Effectiveness Profile. . . . . . . . . . . . 38 V—1 Histogram of the Frequency Distribution of the Scores on the Purchasing Performance Index for the Entire Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lll xiv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Purpose The purpose of this research is to determine some of the characteristics that differentiate more effective from less effective purchasers. This is accomplished by developing and testing the com- ponents of a Purchasing Effectiveness Profile.1 This profile resulted from reviewing the literature pertaining to purchasing effectiveness and consists of certain personality, socioeconomic and performance measures. The personality measures include: self-esteem, need for certainty, external control, desire to satisfy higher order needs,2 and the development of a new Composite Personality Index.3 The Socioeconomic measures include: age, years with current firm, years of purchasing experience, salary level, percentage salary increase-- last five years, satisfaction—-purchasing;career, satisfaction-- current firm, number of positions--last five years, entry level posi- tion, present position, supervisor's position, position--five years hence, number of professional development activities attended per 1The Purchasing Effectiveness Profile is developed and pre- sented in Chapter II. 2The rationale for including these four personality variables in this study is presented in Chapter II. 3Development of this index is presented in Chapter V. 2 year, education level, employer's line of business, undergraduate college major, graduate college major, the number of professional associations, and sex.4 The performance measures include: profit potential, procedures, sourcing, personal skills, departmental co- ordination, negotiation, product research, interfirm coordination, qpality assurance, and overall effectiveness.5 Need For The Study On the average, purchasing departments in the manufacturing industry are responsible for spending more than half of the income their companies receive on materials and services.6 This means that more dollars are spent for materials and services than for all other expenses combined, including wages, salaries, depreciation, and taxes. Therefore, the effectiveness of the purchasing function can have a significant impact on many corporations' profits. Since much of the activity involved in carrying out the purchasing function is performed by individual purchasers, knowledge of some of the characteristics that differentiate more effective from less effective purchasers should be of particular interest and use to purchasing and other cor- porate executives. Such information could assist purchasing execu- tives in more effectively selecting, training, evaluating, and 4The rationale for including these socioeconomic measures in this study is discussed in Chapter II. 5The rationale for including these performance measures in this study is presented in Chapter II. 6George W. Aljian, ed., PurchasingZHandbook (3rd ed.; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973), Section 1, p. 8; and Lamar Lee, Jr. and Donald W. Dobler, Purchasingyand Materials Management (2nd ed.; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), pp. 9-10. 3 placing purchasing personnel, thereby potentially improving overall purchasing performance. A review of the purchasing literature revealed a number of purchasing writers who felt that certain personality characteristics were related to purchasing performance.7 Some of these character- istics included honesty, shrewdness, truthfulness, industriousness, executive ability, and adaptability. A review of the literature, also revealed that, although relationships between a number of personality characteristics and purchasing effectiveness had been theorized, none of these relationships had ever been proven to exist. One possible reason for this is that some of the personality characteristics such as truthfulness, industriousness, honesty, and shrewdness were rather general in nature and did not readily lend themselves to quantifying measurement. One step toward proving the existence of a relationship between personality characteristics and purchasing effectiveness would be to convert some of these general characteristics into specific per- sonality characteristics for which measurement instruments are already available. To date, however, it appears that only one researcher has directly explored the link between measurable personality character- istics and purchasing behavior.8 In his study, David T. Wilson found that a purchasing agent's need for certainty and, to some extent, his 7A review of the literature concerning purchasing effective- ness and personality characteristics is contained in Chapter II. 8David T. Wilson, "An Exploratory Study of the Effects of Personality and Problem Elements Upon Purchasing Agent Decision Styles," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, April, 1970). 4 level of self-confidence were good predictors of his decision-making style.9 Although Wilson did not directly explore the link between measurable personality characteristics and purchasing effectiveness, the results of his research strongly implied that investigating this link would prove to be a fruitful undertaking. A review of the purchasing literature also revealed a number of purchasing writers who felt that certain socioeconomic character- istics were related to purchasing effectiveness.10 Some of these socioeconomic characteristics included age, experience, education, and financial rewards. The literature review also revealed that to date, only one researcher had directly investigated the link between socioeconomic characteristics and purchasing effectiveness.11 In his study, Robert I. Cook concluded that there did seem to be a relation- ship betwen the age, experience, and education level of buyers and whether they were effective or ineffective performers. Cook's research suggested that further exploration of the relationship between socioeconomic characteristics and purchasing effectiveness would prove to be a worthwhile venture. The research of Cook also appeared to be the only study that directly explored the relationship between the performance of certain purchasing activities and purchasing effectiveness. In his research, 91bid., pp. 89-90. 10The literature pertaining to purchasing effectiveness and socioeconomic characteristics is reviewed in Chapter II. 11Robert I. Cook, Industrial Buyers: Critical Incidents Which Distinguish Between Effective and Ineffective Purchasing Performance (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1974). 5 Cook identified 28 purchasing activities;12 and he found that certain of these activities tended to be more frequently associated with effective buyers whereas others tended to more frequently be associ- ated with ineffective buyers. For example, Cook réPOItEd that the effective buyers tend to emphasize human relations skills as well as product knowledge while ineffective buyers seemed to be inept at following procedures and in communicating with other people.13 These findings suggested that further investigation of the relationship be- tween the performance of certain purchasing activities and purchasing effectiveness would prove to be a productive endeavor. Description of Variables Used in the Study Personality variables Self-esteem: The extent to which an individual perceives him- self as being effective in dealing with problems that confront him.14 Need for certainty: The extent to which a person dislikes ambiguity or uncertainty of information.15 External control: The extent to which a person perceives events that happen to him as being beyond his control.16 121bid., p. 111. 13Ibid., p. 134 14E. E. Ghiselli, Explorations in Managerial Talent (Pacific Palisades, California: Goodyear Publishing Company, Inc., 1971), pp. 54-55. _15Douglas N. Jackson, Manual for the Personality Review Form (London, Ontario: The University of Western Ontario, 1967), p. 32. 16Laurie A. Broedling, "Relationship of Internal-External Control to Work Motivation and Performance in an Expectancy Model," Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (February, 1975), p. 65. 6 Desire to satisfy higher order needs: The degree to which an individual is desirous of obtaining higher order need satisfactions from his work. Higher order needs relate to an individual's need for social activity, status, and personal growth.17 Composite personality index: This index was developed by com- bining items from the research instruments used to measure the above four personality variables. The development of this index is discussed in Chapter VI. Socioeconomic Variables 'Agg: The respondent's chronological age. Years with current firm: The number of years a purchaser has spent with his current firm. Years of purchasing experience: The number of years the respondent has spent in the purchasing profession. Salary level: The respondent's current salary level. Salary increase--last five years: The percentage salary in- crease that the respondent has received during the last five years. Satisfaction-épurchasiqg career: The respondent's satisfac- tion with his career progress in purchasing. Satisfaction-current firm: The respondent's overall satis- faction with the firm he currently works for. Number of positions-1ast five years: The number of positions the respondent has held during the last five years; these can be 17J. R. Hackman and E. E. Lawler III, "Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics," in Readings in Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, ed. W. E. Scott and L. L. Cummings (Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1973), p. 224. 7 either purchasing or nonpurchasing positions. Entry level purchasing position: The position at which an individual entered the purchasing profession. Examples of such entry level positions are: Clerk/Expediter, Assistant Buyer, Buyer, Pur- chasing Agent, Manager of Purchasing, and Vice-President of Purchasing. Present purchasipg position: The current position level of each participant in the study. A list of such positions is similar to that listed above under entry level purchasing position. Supervisor's position: The position level occupied by a purchaser's immediate supervisor. The purchasing positions falling into this category are similar to the entry level positions listed above. Position—-five years hence: The position a purchaser expects to occupy five years into the future. The purchasing positions falling into this category are similar to those mentioned above. In addition, nonpurchasing positions and retirement are also included in this cate- gory. Number of professional development activities attended per ‘yggg: The number of professional development activities (seminars, meetings, training programs, etc.)the respondent attends per year. Education level: The highest formal education level attained by the respondent. Employer's line of business: The type of business activity engaged in by the respondent's employer as classified by one of the following categories: educational, governmental, industrial insti- tutional, wholesale or retail. Undergraduate collegg major: The respondent's major area of study at the undergraduate level. Graduate college major: The respondent's major area of study at the graduate level. Number of professional associations: The number of profes- sional associations in which the respondent holds active membership. Example of such organizations are: 1. National Association of Purchasing Management (N.A.P.M.). 2. National Institute of Government Purchasing (N.I.G.P.). 3. National Association of Educational Buyers (N.A.EOB.) I 4. American Production and Inventory Control Society (A.P.I.C.S.). Sex: Male or female. Purchasing Performance Measures Profit potential: The extent to which a purchaser's acti- vities result in cost savings for his firm. Procedures: A purchaser's normal adherence to his firm's established buying procedures. Sourcing: The degree to which a purchaser searches for new suppliers or reevaluates old suppliers. Personal skills: The successful expenditure of extra effort on the part of a purchaser to convince others in his organization to accept his proposals. Departmental coordination: Effort a purchaser spends in com— municating, providing reports, arranging meetings, or providing liaison within his department or organization. Eggggiggiop: The extent to which a purchaser's discussions 9 with his suppliers produce favorable results. Product research: The amount of product research a purchaser performs by studying reference sources or questioning salesmen, sup- pliers, and users of similar products. Interfirm coordination: The extent to which a purchaser arranges meetings between himself, members of his firm, and vendors in order to improve cooperation. Qualigy assurance: A purchaser's investigation of quality by checking samples, having tests run, comparing items, or discussing possible adjustments with vendors. Overall effectiveness: A purchaser's self—rating on total performance in his present purchasing position. Presentation Overview Chapter I has presented an introduction to the topic being researched in this dissertation. Chapter II summarizes the relevant literature pertaining to purchasing effectiveness and presents the design of the research. In Chapter III, the procedures used to collect the data for this research are described. Chapter IV presents some of the characteristics of the sample population. Chapter V pre- sents the evaluation of the purchasing performance measures as they relate to purchasing effectiveness. In Chapter VI, the personality measures are evaluated as they relate to purchasing effectiveness. Chapter VII presents the valuation of the socioeconomic measures as they relate to purchasing effectiveness. Finally, Chapter VIII con- tains the summary, conclusions, and recommendations of this study. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH DESIGN A review of the literature pertaining to purchasing effective- ness was accomplished by first examining the writings and research concerning purchasing effectiveness and personality characteristics. Second, literature pertaining to purchasing effectiveness and socio- economic characteristics was examined. Third, some of the previous writings and research relating to purchasing effectiveness and pur- chasing performance were analyzed. As a result of this review, a hypothetical Purchasing Effectiveness Profile was developed. Previous writings and Research Concernigg Purchasing Effectiveness and Personality Characteristics Literature Prior to 1900 Prior to the twentieth century, several writers in the pur- chasing field were already expressing what they thought were some of the necessary personality characteristics for effective purchasing. An article that appeared in 1892 mentioned the need for honesty and shrewdness on the part of a purchaser. The article stated: I tell you, air, if there is one place more than another in a large concern that requires an honest, shrewdi experienced, practical man to make money, it is the buyer's. 1"Machine Shop Notes," The En ineerin Ma azine, December, 1892, pp. 477-478, quoted in Harold E. Fearon and John H. Hoagland, Purchasipg:Research in Amerigan Industr (New York: American Man- agementfiAssoc1ation,‘1963), Research tudy 58, p. 22. 10 11 Four years later, J. Slater Lewis in his book The Commercial Organization of Factories, emphasized the importance of shrewdness for effective purchasing. Lewis stated: Stores cannot, of course, be purchased advantageously with- out that particular shrewdness which is characteristic of a successful buyer; and no system of bookkeeping, however come plate, can possibly dispense with that personal quality.2 Literature from 1900-WWII In 1900, Hugo Diemer introduced tact as an important person- ality characteristic of an effective purchaser. Diemer believed that: "in securing good terms and low prices, much depends upon the shrewdness and tact of the purchasing agent."3 In 1915, C. S. Rindsfoos listed what he thought were the attributes of "the perfect purchasing agent." Rindsfoos pointed out ' and "loyalty" were that "honesty," "truthfulness," "industriousness,' essential to success.4 Rindsfoos went on to say that there were several characteristics that applied with peculiar force to successful purchasing. These were "broad-mindedness," "tact," and "a natural aptitude."5 Edward T. Gushee and L. F. Boffey also believed that person- ality characteristics played an important role in determining pur- chasing effectiveness. In their book, Scientific Purchasing, written 2J. Slater Lewis, The Commercial Organization of Factories (London: E. and F. N. Spon, 1896), p. 108; ibid. 3Hugo Diemer, "Functions and Organization of the Purchasing Department," The Engineering Magazine, March 1900, pp. 836; ibid. 4C. N. Rindsfoos, Purchasing (New York: McGraw—Hill, Inc., 1915), p. 51. 51bid., pp. 51-55. 12 in 1928, they presented a list of fundamental standards of purchasing competence. Among these standards were "absolute honesty," "ability to reason calmly and logically," "executive ability," and "the ability to deal with people."6 According to Gushee and Boffey: These are the fundamental standards by which fitness for the purchasing function may be measured and which should be considered in the selection of an incumbent for the purchasing position. If, upon examination, a man cannot be fairly graded in each one of the standards he is likely to fall short of real competence in the work of buying.7 In another book published in 1928, entitled Principles of Scientific Purchasing, Norman F. Harriman discussed the importance of yet another personality characteristic and its relationship to effective performance--namely, the purchaser's mental attitude. Harrimanicontended: From the standpoint of the psychology of business relations, the purchaser's chief interest may be said to be in the manner in which his mental attitude effects the transaction. When the purchaser knows how his reactions influence the vendor, he is in a position to do his purchasing profitably.8 Literature from.WWII to Present There was a noticeable lack of purchasing literature during the 1930's9 Furthermore, nothing more seemed to have been written concerning the relationship between purchasing effectiveness and per- sonality characteristics until after 1945. In his 1946 article, "This 6Edward T. Gushee and L. F. Boffey, Scientific Purchasing (New York: MbGraw-Hill, Inc., 1928), pp. 16-20. 71bid., p. 19. 8Norman F. Barriman, Principles of Scientific Purchasing (New York: McCraw-Hill, Inc., 1928), p. 58. 9Fearon and Hoagland, PurchasingLResearch, p. 27; Robert I. Cook, Industrial Buyers, p. 19. 13 Business of Procurement," Howard T. Lewis emphasized that "the key to the procurement function is found in successful negotiation with vendors."10 Lewis further stated that to be fit as a negotiator, an individual should possess high amounts of certain personal qualities: vision," "willingness to cooperate, judgment," "11 "integrity, "intelligence," and "adaptability. John H. Hill, in his speech to the 38th Annual International Convention of the N.A.P.A. in 1953, reiterated what earlier writers had said concerning tact as a necessary characteristic of an effective purchaser. Hill stated that in addition to "tact," a good purchaser "12 must have "poise,' and "self-confidence. In 1959, A. L. McMillan introduced the personality concept of temperament when he discussed the qualifications for purchasing: "Not all persons are fitted temperamentally to perform the work of a "13 McMillan further pointed out that purchasing office. Some personalities are irritated by the necessity of defining every item of dimension and quality, . . .Some people do not like the 'haggling' that goes even with the best of pur- chasing.... Such temperaments should seek other occupations than the field of purchasing.l4 10Howard T. Lewis, "The Business of Procurement," Harvard Business Review, Spring, 1946; reprinted in the Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1975, p. 10. 111bid., p. 11. 12John H. Hill, "The Purchasing Revolution," the keynote address given to the 38th Annual International Convention of the National Association of Purchasing Agents in Los Angeles in 1953; reprinted in the Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1975, p. 21. 13A. L. MeMillan, The Art of Purchasing(New York Exposition Press, 1953), p. 355. 14Ib1d. 14 In 1961, the National Association of Purchasing Management published a list of personality characteristics that were believed to be important contributors to success in professional purchasing.15 The list was a summary of some of the characteristics mentioned by a few of the earlier purchasing authors. The personality character- istics included on the list were "integrity," "dependability," "initiative," "industriousness, unusual ability to cooperate," "unusual tact," "ability to learn," "ability to work on details," " "good human relations skillS," "inquiring 16 "mechanical aptitude, mind," and "a high sense of values and ethical standards." In their 1971 edition of Purchasing and Materials Management, Lamar Lee, Jr. and Donald W. Dobler commented on the N.A.P.M. list of personality characteristics: The list is long, and many of the characteristics listed contribute to success in most professional areas; how- ever, several characteristics receive greater emphasis in purchasing and therefore warrant further comment. Most purchasing authorities agree that tap-flight buying requires an unusually high degree of initiative. The total framework within which a buyer operates is largely unstructured. He must depend upon his own initiative and imagination in developing sources of supply, good vendor relations, alter- native materials, value analysis projects, and cooperative investigation with other operating departments. The extent to which a buyer is a "self—starter" greatly influences his success in these areas. A good buyer must also be especially tactful and must display genuine cooperative ability. A buyer's success depends ultimately upon the effectiveness of the relationships he develops with suppliers and with the technical personnel in his own organization. Such relationships can be achieved only through the use of tact and cooperative abilities of a high order. 151. V. Fine (ed.), Purchasing as a Career, a booklet pre- pared by the Project Development Committee on Purchasing as a Career, National Association of Purchasing Management, New York, 1961, pp. 14-15. 16 Ibid._ 11 Four years later, J. Slater Lewis in his book The Commercial ‘Qrganization of Factories, emphasized the importance of shrewdness for effective purchasing. Lewis stated: Stores cannot, of course, be purchased advantageously with- out that particular shrewdness which is characteristic of a successful buyer; and no system of bookkeeping, however com- plete, can possibly dispense with that personal quality. Literature from 1900-WWII In 1900, Hugo Diemer introduced tact as an important person— ality characteristic of an effective purchaser. Diemer believed that: "in securing good terms and low prices, much depends upon the shrewdness and tact of the purchasing agent."3 In 1915, C. S. Rindsfoos listed what he thought were the attributes of "the perfect purchasing agent." Rindsfoos pointed out ' and "loyalty" were that "honesty," "truthfulness," "industriousness,' essential to success.4 Rindsfoos went on to say that there were several characteristics that applied with peculiar force to successful purchasing. These were "broad-mindedness," "tact," and "a natural aptitude."5 Edward T. Gushee and L. F. Boffey also believed that person- ality characteristics played an important role in determining pur- chasing effectiveness. In their book, Scientific Purchasing, written 2J. Slater Lewis, The Commercial Opganization of Factories (London: E. and F. N. Spon, 1896), p. 108; ibid. 3Hugo Diemer, "Functions and Organization of the Purchasing Department," The Engineeripg:M§gazine, March 1900, pp. 836; ibid. 4C. N. Rindsfoos, Purchasing (New York: MeGraw-Hill, Inc., 1915), p. 51. 51pm, pp. 51-55. . 12 in 1928, they presented a list of fundamental standards of purchasing competence. Among these standards were "absolute honesty," "ability to reason calmly and logically," "executive ability," and "the ability to deal with people."6 According to Gushee and Boffey: These are the fundamental standards by which fitness for the purchasing function may be measured and which should be considered in the selection of an incumbent for the purchasing position. If, upon examination, a man cannot be fairly graded in each one of the standards he is likely to fall short of real competence in the work of buying.7 In another book published in 1928, entitled Principles of Scientific Purchasing, Norman F. Harriman discussed the importance of yet another personality characteristic and its relationship to effective performance--name1y, the purchaser's mental attitude. Harrimanzcontended: From the standpoint of the psychology of business relations, the purchaser's chief interest may be said to be in the manner in which his mental attitude effects the transaction. When the purchaser knows how his reactions influence the vendor, he is in a position to do his purchasing profitably.8 Literature from.WWII to Present There was a noticeable lack of purchasing literature during the 1930's9 Furthermore, nothing more seemed to have been written concerning the relationship between purchasing effectiveness and per- sonality characteristics until after 1945. In his 1946 article, "This 6Edward T. Gushee and L. F. Boffey, Scientific Purchasipg (New York: McGrawhnill, Inc., 1928), pp. 16-20. 7 Ibid., p. 19. 8Norman F. Harriman, Principles of Scientific Purchasing (New York: McGrawbflill, Inc., 1928), p. 58. 9Fearon and Hoagland, Purchasipg Research, p. 27; Robert 1. Cook, Industrial Buyers, p. 19. 13 Business of Procurement,” Howard T. Lewis emphasized that "the key to the procurement function is found in successful negotiation with vendors."10 Lewis further stated that to be fit as a negotiator, an individual should possess high amounts of certain personal qualities: "integrity," "vision," "willingness to cooperate, judgment," "intelligence," and "adaptability."11 John H. Hill, in his speech to the 38th Annual International Convention of the N.A.P.A. in 1953, reiterated what earlier writers had said concerning tact as a necessary characteristic of an effective purchaser. Hill stated that in addition to "tact," a good purchaser 12 must have "poise,' and "self-confidence." In 1959, A. L. McMillan introduced the personality concept of temperament when he discussed the qualifications for purchasing: "Not all persons are fitted temperamentally to perform the work of a '13 McMillan further pointed out that purchasing office.‘ Some personalities are irritated by the necessity of defining every item of dimension and quality, . . .Some people do not like the 'haggling' that goes even.with the best of pur- chasing.... Such temperaments should seek other occupations than the field of purchasing.l4 10Howard T. Lewis, "The Business of Procurement," Harvard Business Review, Spring, 1946; reprinted in the Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1975, p. 10. 111bid., p. 11. 12John H. Hill, "The Purchasing Revolution," the keynote address given to the 38th Annual International Convention of the National Association of Purchasing Agents in Los Angeles in 1953: reprinted in the Journal of Purchasingfiand Materials Management, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1975, p. 21. 13A. L. McMillan, The Art of Purchasing (New York Exposition Press, 1953), p. 355. 141b1d. 14 In 1961, the National Association of Purchasing Management published a list of personality characteristics that were believed to be important contributors to success in professional purchasing.15 The list was a summary of some of the characteristics mentioned by a few of the earlier purchasing authors. The personality character— istics included on the list were "integrity," "dependability," "initiative," "industriousness, unusual ability to cooperate," "unusual tact," "ability to learn," "ability to work on details," " "good human relations skills," "inquiring 16 "mechanical aptitude, mind," and "a high sense of values and ethical standards." In their 1971 edition of Purchasing_and Materials Management, Lamar Lee, Jr. and Donald W. Dobler commented on the N.A.P.M. list of personality characteristics: The list is long, and many of the characteristics listed contribute to success in most professional areas; how- ever, several characteristics receive greater emphasis in purchasing and therefore warrant further comment. ~Most purchasing authorities agree that top-flight buying requires an unusually high degree of initiative. The total framework within which a buyer operates is largely unstructured. He must depend upon his own initiative and imagination in developing sources of supply, good vendor relations, alter- native materials, value analysis projects, and cooperative investigation with other operating departments. The extent to which a buyer is a "self-starter" greatly influences his success in these areas. A good buyer must also be especially tactful and must display genuine cooperative ability. A buyer's success depends ultimately upon the effectiveness of the relationships he develops with suppliers and with the technical personnel in his own organization. Such relationships can be achieved only through the use of tact and cooperative abilities of a high order. 151. V. Fine (ed.), Purchasing as a Career, a booklet pre- pared by the Project Development Committee on Purchasing as a Career, National Association of Purchasing Management, New York, 1961, pp. 14-15. 16 Ibid.‘ 15 Although a buyer also spends considerable time dealing with people, much of his work also involves detailed analyses. Without patience and an aptitude for detailed investigation, a buyer would find it difficult indeed to arrive consistently at sound decisions.17 The purchasing literature presented thus far has only dealt with personality characteristics as they related to being an effective purchasing agent or buyer. In 1964, however, Victor H. Pooler attempted to answer the question, "What personality characteristics make for an effective purchasing manager?" Pooler contended that an effective purchasing manager must be honest, loyal, reliable, intelligent, and mature and possess sound judgment. In these respects, the pur- chasing manager is no different from any other good manager. Still there are many more characteristics which are particularly conducive to success in purchasing man- agement.18 According to Pooler, some of these additional characteristics were "flexibility," "the ability to stimulate subordinates to their best "19 ' and "understanding the viewpoints and problems of others. efforts,’ The purchasing literature reviewed revealed a fair number of personality characteristics that the authors thought related in some way to purchasing effectiveness. It should be noted, however, that although relationships between certain personality characteristics and purchasing effectiveness were theorized, none of the writers proved the existence of such relationships. __‘* l7Lamar Lee, Jr. and Donald W. Dobler, Purchasingyand Mate- rials Management (New York: McGrawbHill, Inc., 1971), p. 543. 18Victor H. Pooler, Jr., The Purchasipngan and His Job (New York: American Management Association, 1964), p. 36. 19Ibid., pp. 36-38. 16 To date, it appears that only one researcher has directly explored any relationship between measurable personality character- istics and purchasing behavior.20 Although Wilson did not directly explore the link between measurable personality characteristics and purchasing effectiveness, the results of his study strongly implied that investigating this link would prove to be a fruitful undertaking. In a later study David T. Wilson and Blair Little found that a pur- chasing agent's need for certainty and to some extent his level of self-confidence were good predictors of his decisionmaking style.21 Personality Variables Selected for Testing If the relationships between personality characteristics and purchasing effectiveness were to be explored, a question that needed to be answered was which measurable personality characteristics should be included in such research. Although the previously reviewed liter- ature theorized that a large number of personality characteristics were related to purchasing effectiveness, the need for respondent co- operation required that the time necessary to answer the questionnaire should be limited. This time constraint, in turn, limited the number of measurable personality characteristics to be selected for inclusion in this study. Those personality traits eventually selected were self-esteem, need for certainty, external control, and the desire to 20David T. Wilson, An Exploratory Study of the Effects of Per- sonality and Problem Elements Upon Purchasing Agent Decision Styles (unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, April, 1970). 21David T. Wilson and Blair Little, "Purchasing and Decision- Making Styles of Purchasing Managers," Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1974), pp. 38—40. 17 satisfy higher order needs. The rationale for the inclusion of these particular personality traits is discussed in the following sections. Self-Esteem The concept of self-esteem as used in this study was developed by Edwin Ghiselli.22 The reason for selecting self-esteem was that it is a measurable personality characteristic that is virtually identical in definition to the "self-confidence" characteristic that Wilson found useful in predicting a purchaser's decision-making style.23 It was reasoned that since this characteristic had already been shown to be related to a purchaser's decisionmaking style, it might also be related to a purchaser's level of effectiveness. The high degree of similarity between self-esteem and self- confidence becomes apparent when their definitions are compared. Wilson defined self-confidence as "the degree of correspondence between an individual's ideal and actual self-concept."24 Wilson further stated that self-confidence "may reflect a person's success in solving problems."25 Ghiselli defined self-esteem as the extent to which an individual perceives himself as being effective in dealing with problems that confront him.26 The reason the Ghiselli concept of 22E. E. Ghiselli, Explorations in Managerial Talent (Pacific Palisades, California: Goodyear Publishing Company, Inc., 1971), pp. 54-610 A 23The paragraph that follows compares the definitions of these two concepts. 24Wilson, An Exploratory Study, p. 29. 251bid., p. 30. 26Ghiselli, Explorations, pp. 54-55. 18 self-esteem.was selected for use in this study over the self-confi- dence concept used by Wilson was that self-esteem appeared to be a more widely used personality concept.27 Furthermore, the behavioral literature contains a number of accounts that attest to the validity of the instrument designed to measure the concept of self-esteem.28 Although no known research involving self-esteem has dealt with purchasers, the results of a number of studies do imply that persons with a high level of self-esteem will tend to be more effec- tive. For instance, in a recent study involving self-esteem and per- formance, it was concluded that high self-esteem individuals tended to perform better than low self-esteemindividuals.29 Along these same lines, a study conducted by P. D. Hechler and Yoash Wiener con- cluded that high self-esteem individuals generally manifested higher quality work than those low on self-esteem.3O 27See, for instance, Jeffrey H. Greenhaus and Irwin J. Badin, "Self-Esteem Performance, and Satisfaction: Some Tests of a Theory," Journal of Applied Psychology, 59 (December, 1974), pp. 722-726; Abraham K. Korman, "Self-Esteem as a Moderator in Vocational Choice," Journal of Applied Psychology, 53 (January, 1969), pp. 188-192; Yoash Wiener,fnTask Ego-Involvement and Self-Esteem as Moderators of Situ- ationally Devalued Self-Esteem," Journal of Applied Psychology, 58 (October, 1973), pp. 233-238. 28See, for example, E. E. Ghiselli, The Self-Description Inventory Manual (University of California, Berkeley: available from author, undated), pp. 9-11; Abraham K. Korman, "Relevance of Personal Need Satisfaction or Overall Satisfaction as a Function of Self- Esteem," Journal of Applied Psychology, 51 (December, 1967), pp. 533- 538; SkiptonILeonard and’Jbseph Waltz, "Task Enjoyment and Task Perseverance in Relation to Task Success and Self-Esteem," Journal of Applied Psychology, 56 (October, 1971), pp. 414-471. 29Greenhaus and Badin, Self-Esteem, Performance, and Satis- faction, p. 722. 30P. D. Hechler and Yoash Wiener, "Chronic Self-Esteem as a Moderator of Performance Consequences of Expected Pay," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11 (February, 1974), p. 104. 19 Need for Certainty The need for certainty is another measurable personality characteristic that Wilson found useful in predicting a purchaser's decisionmaking style.31 It was reasoned that since this character- istic had already been shown to be related to a purchaser's decision- making style, it should be related to a purchaser's level of effec- tiveness. Other researchers have shown that people with a high need for certainty tended to perceive new or complex situations as a source of threat.32 In addition, such individuals strongly disliked ambiguity and uncertainty of information.33 Although no studies were found that related the need for certainty to purchasing effectiveness, the research conducted by Wilson implied that more effective purchasers tended to have a lower need for certainty than less effective purchasers. Wilson's research showed that purchasers with a high need for certainty tended to be far more conservative in their decisionmaking.34 Wilson also pointed out that purchasers with a high need for certainty would either avoid situations where uncertainty was high or would seek to reduce the uncertainty.35 31David T. Wilson, "Industrial Buyers' Decision-Making Styles," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. VIII (November, 1971), pp. 435-436. 328. Budner, "Intolerance of Ambiguity as a Personality Variable," Journal of Personality, 30 (1962), p. 50. 3Douglas N. Jackson, Manual for the Personality Review Form (London, Ontario: The University of Western Ontario, 1967), p. 32. 34Wilson, Industrial Buyers, p. 435. 35Wilson, An Exploratory Study, p. 90. 20 External Control External control is defined as the extent to which an indi- vidual perceives events that happen to him as being beyond his con- trol.36 Persons who rate themselves low on external control tend to believe they can influence what happens to them whereas persons who rate themselves high on external control tend to believe that fate and forces beyond their control influence what happens to them.37 External control was selected for inclusion in this study both because it is a measurable personality characteristic and be- cause it appeared to be closely related to shrewdness, tact, and the ability to cooperate, which several of the earlier purchasing writers considered to be closely related to purchasing effectiveness.38 The apparent relationship between each of these characteristics and external control stems from the assumption that shrewdness, tact, and the ability to cooperate all involve a purchaser's ability to success- fully influence those individuals with whom he works and deals. This implies that more effective purchasers will tend to rate themselves lower on external control than less effective purchasers. Desire to Satisfy Higher Order Needs This personality characteristic is a measure of the degree to which individuals are desirous of obtaining higher order need 36Laurie A. Broedling, "Relationship of Internal-External Control to Work Motivation and Performance in an Expectancy Model," Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (February, 1975), p. 65. 37Ibid. 38See for example, Machine Shop Notes, quoted in Hoagland and Fearon, Purchasipg Research, p. 22; Rindsfoos, Purchasing, p. 51; and Lewis, This Business, p. 10. 21 satisfaction from their work. Higher order needs relate to an indi- vidual's need for social activity, status, and personal growth.39 Lower order needs, on the other hand, refer to an individual's need for physical well-being and security.40 Research by J. R. Hackman and E. E. Lawler showed that people with a stronger desire to satisfy higher order needs performed most effectively when they were placed on jobs that were high on certain dimensions.41 Specifically these dimensions were: variety (the opportunity to use a number of person- ally valued skills and abilities), autonogy (the chance to feel respon- sible for one's work), task identity (the Opportunity to perform a whole piece of work) and feedback (the opportunity for an individual to find out how he is doing).42 The research by Hackman and Lawler also pointed out that individuals who were not desirous of satisfying their higher order needs on the job or who were incapable of dealing with complex jobs requiring large amounts of autonomy would probably be ineffective on such jobs and dissatisfied with them.43 These findings suggested that it was critical, in the interest of facilita— ting effective performance, to achieve a match between the psycho- logical makeup of an individual with the psychological demands and 39A. H. Maslow, "A Theory of Human Motivation," Psychological Review, 50 (1943), pp. 370-396. 40 Ibid. 41J. R. Hackman and E. E. Lawler III, "Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics," in Readings in Organization Behavior and Human Performance, ed. W. E. Scott and L. L. Cummings (Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1973), p. 231. 421bido’ pp. 218-2190 431b1d., p. 232. 22 44 opportunities of a job. Many purchasing writers have in effect contended that a high proportion of purchasing jobs contained relatively high amounts of variety, autonomy, task identity, and feedback.45 This suggests that current purchasing practitioners who have a relatively strong desire to satisfy their higher order needs on the job will tend to be the more effective purchasers. Composite Personality Index The four previously discussed personality variables were selected for this research both because they appeared to be related to purchasing effectiveness and because research instruments were available to measure them. It was suspected that if the individual item responses on these four research instruments were analyzed sepa- rately, certain items would be more strongly related to purchasing effectiveness than others. It was further suspected that if the responses on these certain items were added together to form a Compo- site Personality Index, that this new index might be more strongly related to purchasing effectiveness than any of the four original personality variables would be individually. Previous Writings and Research Concerning Purchasing Effectiveness and Socioeconomic Characteristics The socioeconomic characteristics selected for inclusion in this study were: age, experience, financial rewards, satisfaction, 441b1d., pp. 232-233. 458ee for example, Harriman, Principles, pp. 13-16 and McMillan, The Art of Purchasing, pp. 334-338; J. H. Westing, I. V. Fine, and Gary J. Zenz, Purchasing Management (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1976), pp. 9-12. 23 professional development activities, education, college majors, position levels, and sex. In the sections that follow, some of the literature pertaining to each of the above socioeconomic character- istics and its relationship to purchasing effectiveness will be pre- sented. .Age Prior research by Robert Cook concluded that there did seem to be a relationship between a purchaser's age and whether he is effective or ineffective.46 Cook's research utilized the critical incident technique by asking purchasers to describe situations in which they had observed a buyer performing in a particularly effec- tive or ineffective manner. In addition to these incidents, infor- mation concerning each buyer's age, education, and purchasing expe- rience was gathered. A comparison between the buyers' ages and whether or not they were effective or ineffective led to the findings that ineffective buyers tended to be under 30 years of age while the effective buyers tended to be 30 years of age or older."7 Experience Purchasing writers began discussing a relationship between experience and purchasing effectiveness sometime prior to the twenti- eth century. In 1887, Marshall M. Kirkman expressed the idea that experience was related to a purchaser's ability to save money for his firm. Kirkman said 46Cook, Industrial prers, p. 137. 471b1d., p. 116. 24 a capable purchasing agent, it is probable, can save his employer a greater sum through the exercise of experience and intelligence, than any other officer of like grade.4 In 1892, an article that appeared in the Engineering Magazine stated that experience was one of several important characteristics related to a purchaser's ability to make money for his firm: "if there is one place more than another in a large concern that requires an honest, shrewd, experienced, practical man to make money, it is the buyer's."49 In 1915, Rindsfoos put forth the notion that judgment was an important characteristic of successful purchasing. Rindsfoos then "50 Cady, in went on to state that "judgment is based on experience. his book, Industrial Purchasing, emphasized the idea that experience within one's own company is an important characteristic for successful purchasing. The most important quality for any member of the purchasing department is his ability to align his thinking and his actions with the "feel" of the company. If he lacks this, then any technical training or previous experience as a purchasing agent may be the worst enemy of his chances to succeed. For this reason many purchasing agents prefer to select their personnel from within the company itself.51 In 1959, McMillan advanced the idea that a successful purchaser should have a variety of experiences: "The successful purchasing agent today must be a man of many parts."52 McMillan further stated 48Marshall M. Kirkman, The Handling of Railway Supplies-- Their Purchase and Disposition (Chicago: Charles N. Trivess, 1887), p. 42; quoted in Fearon and Hoagland, Purchasing Research, p. 22. 49Machine Shop Notes, p. 478. 50Rindsfoos, Purchasing, p. 55. 51Cady, Industrial Purchasing, pp. 207-208. . 52McMillan, The Art of Purchasing, p. 335. 25 that experience as a salesman "is excellent training for the future "53 Furthermore, "Experience in buyer and purchasing specialist. store-rooms, inventory and cost accounting, production control, expediting and other related activities lead quite naturally to the purchasing office."54 The research of Cook pointed out that the duration of pur- chasing experience was also related to effective purchasing perform- ance. Cook's data indicated that ineffective purchasers tended to have less than five years of purchasing experience while the effec- tive purchasers tended to have five or more years of purchasing expe- rience.55 In 1971, Stuart F. Heinritz and Paul V. Farrell discussed the types of experience and training they considered most likely to lead to success in purchasing; they noted that a successful purchaser should have: 1. Practical training in the production, stores, accounting, and engineering departments. 2. Practical training in all sections of the pur- chasing department; experience in, or familiarity with, clerical positions, and service as a buyer and assistant purchasing agent. The above writings and research have several implications for purchasing effectiveness. First, a more effective purchaser will tend 53Ibid., p. 337. 541b1d. 55Cook, Industrial Buyers, pp. 118-119. 56Stuart F. Heinritz and Paul V. Farrell, Purchasing (Engle- wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971), pp. 69-70. 26 to have more years of purchasing experience. Second, a more effec- tive purchaser will tend to have more years of experience with his current firm. Third, as a result of their wide training experiences, more effective purchasers will tend to have occupied more positions during the last several years. Financial Rewards Over the years, a number of purchasing writers have contended that there is an important relationship between the financial rewards a purchaser receives and his level of effectiveness. For example, Gushee and Boffey considered financial rewards to be important for attracting and keeping competent people as well as for motivating and rewarding effective performance: the competent purchasing agent must be properly rewarded. In the past, the tendency has been to set the wage for purchasing at a level far from commensurate with its per- formance. To attract and maintain the right type of men in purchasing, the remuneration must be in keeping with the responsibilities of the position and results achieved. An adequately paid purchasing agent may, and usually will, save from ten to a hundred times his salary as compared ‘with the results obtained by a man.who draws half the amount or less, it being assumed that salaries are paid in true relation to the efficiency of the individuals.57 In the 1945 edition of his book, Cady expressed an argument similar to that of Gushee and Boffey when he stated: The ability of the purchasing department to attract and hold the highest type of personnel will depend largely upon the incentives offered. Salary, of course, is the primary incentive.... More than one large purchasing department is making the mistake of hiring too many men and paying each of them too little, rather than devoting the same budget to hiring fewer and better men. The purchasing agent who is underpaid is likely either to 57Gushee and Boffey, Scientific Purchasing, p. 20. 27 accept too many favors from salesmen who have money to spend or to bolster his spirit by thinking of the size of the company he represents and so become overbearing and arrogant to the salesmen. Either course tends to reduce the high standard of cooperation which obtains the best results for purchasing departments.58 Some of the more recent writers in the purchasing field also thought there was a strong relationship between a purchaser's salary level and his level of effectiveness. In the 1971 edition of their book, Lee and Dobler stated that "No department operates at its full potential for long if its salary structure fails to reward individuals in relationship to their respective performance levels."59 Westing, Fine and Zenz went one step further when they dis- cussed the role of salary increases: it is important that some measure of ability and perform- ance be devised and used periodically in rating the indi- vidual's (developmental) progress. On the basis of these ratings, the employee should be advised of his shortcomings or rewarded for his improvement with a salary increase.60 The above writings have at least two implications for pur- chasing effectiveness. First, more effective purchasers will tend to receive higher salaries. Second, more effective purchasers will tend to receive larger salary increases. Satisfaction A number of purchasing writers have acknowledged some sort of positive relationship between satisfaction and purchasing effec- tiveness. In the 1964 edition of his book, The Purchasipg Man and 58Cady, Industrial Purchasing, pp. 209-210. 59Lee and Dobler, Purchasing, p. 556. 60Westing, Fine and Zenz, Purchasing Management, p. 405. 28 His Job, Victor Pooler listed what he called five non-cost incentives that were designed to improve a purchaser's level of satisfaction which, in turn, was supposed to increase a purchaser's level of effectiveness.61 Pooler's non-cost incentives included: Participation in the making of decisions. Additional responsibility. Special projects. . Opportunity to be heard. . More prestige on the job. UIbUNH 62 Pooler went on to say that: People want to get into the act! Poor performance on the job is due more to lack of involvement than to laziness or incompetence. The buyer who is allowed as much influ- ence as possible on the decisions that affect him so that he can be a party to the problem and motivated to find the solution is a better produger than the one who feels no need to take action since "it's not my problem."63 Lee and Dobler also thought that effective purchasing perform— ance was related to satisfaction. These authors contended that: The wise (purchasing) manager knows that long run perform- ance is dependent on the job satisfaction of his employees.... Over the long run, most people perform better when they enjoy their work. And people tend to enjoy a job more when their abilities and interests are fully utilized and challenged by the requirements of the job.64 The 1973 edition of the Purchasing Handbook also subscribed to the idea that purchasing effectiveness and satisfaction were posi- tively related. The Handbook stated that purchasing jobs should be structured "in such a way as to optimize the job satisfaction factors 61Pooler, The Purchasing Man, p. 70. 621bid. 63Ibid., p. 71. 64Lee and Dobler, Purchasing, pp. 541-542. 29 of achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, advance- ment and growth opportunities."65 The above writings suggest at least two implications for pur- chasing effectiveness: (1) purchasers who are more satisfied with their purchasing career will tend to be more effective, and (2) pur- chasers who are more satisfied with the firm they currently work for will tend to be more effective. Professional Development Activities Opportunities for professional development have often been made possible through the efforts of professional associations. According to the Purchasinngandbook, Professional associations are generally organized to draw together individuals who are members of the profession to provide them with the vehicle and tools for improving themselves and their profession through mutual cooperation, interchange of ideas, educational programs, ethical stand- ards and other such means.6 Another author viewed professional associations as being a forum for an interchange of ideas and a discussion of prob- lems while providing its members with a means of developing themselves professionally so as to increase their contribu- tions to the profitability of their respective firms.67 A number of professional associations have been organized within the purchasing profession. The National Association of Pur- chasing Management has claimed to represent "a wide diversification 65George Aljian, ed., Purchasing Handbook (3rd ed.; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973), Section 27, p. 21. 66Ibid., Section 29, p. 3. 67Frank J. Winters, "A Look Back. . .and Ahead," Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Summer, 1975), pp. 47-480 30 of business interests; it has members from large and small units of industrial, education, governmental, utility and distribution organ- izations."68 Other purchasing professional organizations have been organized around specific segments of the purchasing profession. Some of these organizations include: the National Institute of Gov- ernmental Purchasing, the National Association of Education Buyers and the National Association of Hospital Purchasing Management. In addition, a number of professional associations have been organized that represent professions closely related to purchasing, such as the American Production and Inventory Control Society and the National Council of Physical Distribution Management. Each of the above professional associations has claimed to exist, at least in part, for the purpose of assisting individuals in 69 These associ- improving their level of effectiveness on the job. ations have accomplished this by providing educational programs such as seminars and workshops. At the same time, many of the national professional associations have also supported and assisted local professional associations in organizing professional development activities.70 It therefore seems reasonable to expect that a more effective purchaser will tend to belong to a larger number of profes- sional associations and will tend to participate more often in the professional development activities. 68Aljian, Purchasing Handbook, Section 29, p. 12. 69 Ibid., Section 29, pp. 13-17. 7°1b1d., Section 29, pp. 17-28. 31 Education A college course in purchasing was offered at least as far back as 1917; the establishment of one purchasing course was the re- sult of a cooperative effort betwen the Purchasing Agents Association of New York and New York University's School of Commerce, Accounts and Finance.71 Harvard University also established a purchasing course during the 1917-1918 academic year and a few decades later there were purchasing courses in ninety colleges and universities throughout the United States and Canada.72 In 1945, E. L. Cady pointed out the fact that a number of colleges were teaching courses in purchasing and suggested that graduates of these schools might be good candidates for purchasing positions. Cady stated: Many colleges and universities have a course in indus- trial purchasing given in conjunction with their schools of business admdnistration.... The records of graduates of these schools may be consulted, and conversations with professors will elicit much about the graduates.... Engineering graduates who have the necessary ability to cooperate, with the instinct for ferreting out facts, often make good members of purchasing departments.73 In 1959, A. L. McMillan noted that "The academic training called for in purchasing offices has risen considerably in recent years."74 Cady referred to a survey conducted in the state of Ohio in 1951 that showed 34 percent of the purchasers surveyed had college 71Paul V. Farrell, Fifry Years of Purchasing (New York: National Association of Purchasing Agents, 1954), p. 31. 721bid. 73Cady, Industrial Purchasing, p. 209. 7t‘MicMillan, The Art of Purchasing, p. 335. 32 degrees: in the younger group, aged 24 to 34 years, the percent (having college degrees) had risen to 56 percent, indi- cating that the requirement of a college degree will be a more common qualification for the purchasing office in future years. More recently, Heinritz and Farrell listed a college educa- tion as one of the personal qualifications most likely to lead to success as a purchasing executive.76 They also listed a college degree as a desirable, although not a necessary personal qualifica- tion for individuals seeking buying positions.77 Heinritz and Farrell went on to state, however, that if these people expected to advance to a position of top responsibility for purchasing management, they should "have the ambition and perseverence to acquire the equiva- lent educational qualifications through evening and extension courses."78 The study by Cook appeared to be the only piece of research that demonstrated a relationship between formal education and pur- chasing effectiveness. Cook found that purchasers with only a high school education "are not as likely to be effective as those with more education."79 Cooke's findings, taken together with the other writings mentioned above imply that a more effective purchaser will tend to have achieved a higher level of formal education. 75Cady, Industrial Purchasing, p. 209. 76Heinritz and Farrell, Purchasing, p. 69. 77Ibid., p. 73. 781bid. 79 Cook, Industrial prers, p. 120. 33 College Majors, Position Levels, and Sex In order to gain additional insight into the type of people who were included in the sample, information was gathered concerning the respondents' undergraduate and graduate college majors, entry level position, present position, superior's position, desired posi- tion five years into the future, and sex. Because of time and resource limitations, this information was not related to purchasing effective- ness. Nevertheless, this information did prove useful in revealing several examples of possible sample bias. It should be noted, however, that plans are afoot to more thoroughly analyze these data in future research. Previous Writings and Research Concerning Purchasing Effectiveness and Purchasinngerformance Measures One problem that had to be faced with regard to evaluating purchasing performance was deciding whether to use ratings by superiors or self-ratings. Superior ratings involve having supervisors rate the performance of their subordinates. Self-ratings involve having the individuals rate their own performance. There were a number of subjective, as well as objective rating techniques that could have been used by superiors in rating the performance of their subordinates.80 However, it was not possible to draw a sample that was statistically 80Aljian, Purchasingngandbook, Section 27, pp. 22-23; John P. Campbell, Marvin D. Dunnette, Richard D. Arvey and Lowell V. Hellervik, "The Development and Evaluation of Behaviorally Based Rating Scales," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 57, No. 1 (February, 1973), pp. 23-27; Lee and Dobler, Purchasing, pp. 556-558; Heinritz and Farrell, Purchasing, pp. 432-437; C. H. Lawshe, N. C. Kephart and E. J. McCormick, "The Paired Comparison Technique for Rating Performance of Industrial Employees," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 33, No. 1 (February, 1949), pp. 69-77. 34 appealing. An alternative research strategy that overcame many of the deficiencies of ratings by superiors was to identify performance dimensions that were common to most purchasing jobs and then ask the purchasers in different organizations to rate themselves on these identified performance dimensions. In the past, several questions have been raised about the usefulness of self-ratings and their comparison to superior ratings. Some researchers have claimed that self-ratings tend to be more lenient and have less variability than superior ratings.81 Other researchers have questioned the validity of self-ratings.82 However, recent research by Herbert G. Heneman indicated that when self-ratings were obtained under conditions where they could be used solely for research purposes, they tended to be less lenient and more variable than superior ratings.83 Heneman's findings also showed that self- ratings demonstrated less halo error than superior ratings. The research of Cook was helpful in developing a self-rating 81E. P. Prien and R. E. Liske, "A Comparative Analysis of Supervisor Ratings and Incumbent Self-Ratings of Job Performance," Personneingsychology, Vol. 15 (1962), pp. 197-194; and G. C. Thornton, "The Relationship Between Supervisory and Self-Appraisals of Executive Performance," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 21 (1968), pp. 451-456. 82D. T. Campbell and D. W. Fiske, "Convergent and Discrimin- ant Validation of the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix," Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 56 (1959), pp. 81-105; and J. B. Miner, "Management Appraisal: A Capsule Review and Current References," Business Horizons, Vol. 11 (1968), pp. 83-96. 83Herbert G. Heneman, III, "Comparisons of Self and Superior Ratings of Managerial Performance," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59, No. 5 (October, 1974), pp. 638-642. 35 scale to measure purchasing performance. Cook identified 28 pur- chasing activities and ranked them in order of their frequency of occurrence;84 he suggested that the frequency of occurrence of each of these activities might reflect their relative importance. Cook's ranking of these 28 purchasing activities is presented in Table II-l. The definition for each of these activities is presented in Appendix E. It was assumed the purchasing activities that tended to occur more frequently would also tend to be more generally applicable across a wider variety of purchasing jobs. This implies that activities such as profit potential, procedures, and sourcing would tend to be engaged in by more purchasers than would activities such as scrap and surplus disposal, target pricing and forward buying. For this reason, the purchasing self-rating scale used in this study was developed from the purchasing activities that occurred most frequently in Cook's research. The activities selected for inclusion in the purchasing self- rating scale were: profit potential, procedures, sourcing, personal skills, departmental coordination, negotiation, product research, interfirm coordination, and quality assurance. In addition, an activity called overall effectiveness was also added to the scale. The definitions of each of these activities were shortened in length in order to reduce the amount of space required by this scale on the mail questionnaire that was used to collect the data for this research. The definition of each of these activities as it appears on the mail questionnaire is presented below. 84Cook, Industrial Buyers, pp. 109-115. 36 .HHH .a .muomwm HmHuumsosH .xoou "mousom a oH N a s N age so was: a aH a NH N a aoHaum o oN a N a NH waHapm capstan N HN o a N NH waHUHua saunas a sN oH sH a oH HmaoaaHn aaHausm a apnea a NN aH NN a a aaoHspuppHaaoo Hmpr a mN mH HN s N msoHumHom sovcw> 0H Ha HH pH a aH :oHumuuoaaamua oH Na mH HN a HH appease sH . ss aH HN NH aN :oHupaHp>N upHHaaam aH as sH aN mH aN waHspmuppoa pH on sH oN NH on aaoHumpHHHupaa oH Hm ON aN N NH aojsoHHoa NH am NH sN . NH aN aHaaqu< spasm: oN as HH pH NN Ns aaoHsasHumnam 0N so NH mN NN an apHa p>HuHupaaoo HN so aN on NH on Houuaou auouap>aH HN so NH sN oN ss soHumHsowpz sN Ha NN Na aN as aoHspaprooo auHmuupuaH mN oa NN Na sa an poapsaHap< popap> Ha aa sN ma Na so eppmoapm gaseous an aoH sa as Ha sa puappaaa< NUHHuso sm aoH am am sa ma aopraHsuooo staoauumapo pa NHH Ns Ho om Ha aaoHaHupn HpaoHsmNHcmwuo as oaH Ns op ss 0N aHHHaa Hpaopuoa as asH as oN Ns aN waHuusoa on mmH an mm Ns MN monsooooum NN ssN sN aoH aN aaH HpHsauuoa sHuoua NsHa-zv NssH-zv HNNanV ufimouwm NOAH—52 ucwuuflm MODE—HZ uflfluuom . Hon—:52 hugfluud muflflm kuOH. muflham 0>fluoumm0dH nhflhflm 0>flu00wwm mmHHH>HHO¢ Mm mmmhbm m>HHomhhm2H 924 m>Hhommmm mo zcmHm Ho.COHv Am.sv HH.HV HN.NNV HH.nHv Aa.mmv A¢.mHv Am.NHV wsHmmeousm mos Hm m nOH oN oNH Ne om mo Newman: No.00HV HH.mv Am.ov Ao.ov Am.wuv As.omv aN.NHv Ao.oHv usow< Nmm NH H N om HNH Ne mm weHmmsousm No.ooHV No.sv Nov Na.ov AN.NV NN.asv Na.an No.HNV spasm «NH m o H s on mm on Ho.o0Hv Nov on Nov Hm.NHV on Ho.omv Am.NmV women m o o o H o s m unnumHmm< Hmuoa Honuo wsHmmnousm wnHmmnouom usow< Hausa Hausa Hoquoon so u no 30m mo .m.> mo Newman: wsHmmnousm usmumHmm< NJHOHU swamps“ OOHuHmom HO>OH amusm ZOHHHmom Hu>mH VMHZM mHH3 ZOHHHmom HZMmmmm mo onH¢H5mH mHm No.ooHv AN.aHv Ha.HNV Np.an HN.cav As.v HN.V Nos mpHapeppaa Has Hp ma NaH NoH N H o No Hummus: Ho.ooHv AN.NHV Nw.sHv Na.ov Nwav NN.NNV Nov Nov uspw< Nmm Ns as MN oNH Nm 0 o wchmnousm No.o0Hv as.oHv Am.oNv As.Nv Ao.NHv Aq.emV as. mo powwow: .nousm usmumHmm< uwwwmum unsusm mummy o>Hm I GOHuHmom mmDHDm may 2H mm m>Hh ZOHHHmom awhommxm mBH3 ZOHHHmom HZMmmmm mo onHH MHm 8.83 3.3 $3 3.8 3.3 3:63 3.an 8.a3 manccousm mos m m on Na mm NmN mm «0 Humane: Ho.o0Hv Am.HV NH.NV Am.mv Aw.0Hv Am.NHV Hw.Hmv HH.mHv uaww< Nmm m N HH on He NNH om wchmnousm No.00Hv No.Hv Ao.Hv Aw.sv Ao.oHv Ac.av Ho.msv As.mHv Hoasm mNH N N 0 ON NH om mN 8.83 NS 83 83 8.va Am.N3 863 3N3 “page N o o o N H q H unnumHmm< Hmuoa sOHumo muauHso moaOHom .Hum .oom wsHuooussm mmosHmsm msoz OOHuHmom Boa noon IHuw¢ .uu< .AHH mammoum uofimz consummwwoomb mead: MGMHHOU maH mamma 90 TABLE IV-31 FREQUENCIES CONCERNING RESPONDENTS' GRADUATE COLLEGE MAJOR Relative Cumulative Graduate Major Absolute Frequency Frequency Frequency (Percent) (Percent) None 830 76.3 76.3 Business 196 17.9 94.1 Engineering 19 1.7 95.9 Liberal Arts - Social Science 23 2.1 98.0 Science 13 1.2 99.2 Agriculture 2 .2 99.4 Education 7 .6 100.0 Total 1,090 100.0 91 .momonusoumo sH mum oommusoouoa 30m “ouoz Ho.ooH3 Nov Hoe Nov Hs.av Hs.a3 Ha.aN3 Ha.Nc3 porno Na o o o a a NN aa Ho.ooH3 Nov Hos Hoe HH.aV _HH.av Nov HN.NNV noronoonom HH o o H H H o a Ho.ooH3 Nov Nov Hc.Hv HN.s3 Hc.Hv Hs.sav Ha.Nav wanneoooa so o o H a H NN Na so .a .> Ho.ooH3 Ha.v Nov Ha.H3 HN.H3 Ha.H3 Hr.mH3 Ho.aN3 onnoconoa Nos s o N a N Na can No hoarse: Ho.ooHv Ha.v Ha.3 Ha.3 Hr.H3 HN.H3 Ha.aHv Ho.Hr3 snows Nam a H a c s cs aoN moHonconoa Ho.ooH3 Nov No.3 Ha.3 Nc.H3 Ns.N3 Hs.sHv Ho.oa3 noaoa aNH o H H N a NH ooH A03 Nov Nov A03 Nov Nov Hm.NHV Am.va Human o o o o o o H N oncoano< HmuoH OOHumo ousuHso ousOHom .Hom .oom waHuooussm mmOOHmom osoz OOHuHmom sou loom IHHw< .uu< .AHH usomoum “ohm: mumsomuo “0642 MUMHHOU ma<=nH mHm4H 92 Employer's Line of Business Information concerning the type of business activity of the respondents' employers is summarized in Table IV-33. This table shows that more than 60 percent of the sample population worked for industrial firms. TABLE IV-33 FREQUENCIES CONCERNING THE LINE OF BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS' EMPLOYERS Relative Cumulative Line of Business Absolute Frequency Frequency Frequency (Percent) (Percent) Educational 47 4.3 4.3 Governmental 92 8.4 12.8 Industrial 667 61.2 74.0 Institutional ‘ 24 2.2 76.2 Wholesale 58 5.3 81.5 Retail 28 2.6 84.1 Other _l_73_ _l_5_:_9 100 . 0 Total 1,089 100.0 93 The category "other,' which appears in Table IV-33 was used to categorize purchasers whose employer's line of business did not fit one of the other categories. Since a marked-sense format was used to gather this information, there was no way to determine what types of firms were included in this category. Some of the unsolic- ited comments that appeared on some of the questionnaires indicated that a number of these people worked for utility firms. In the future, it is suggested that the "other" category either be replaced with several additional types of firms or an Open-ended response. Table IV-34 shows that the different lines of business were distributed across all position levels in much the same proportion as they appear in Table IV-33. Hence, there does not appear to be any direct relationship between position level and the employer's line of business. 3325 Table IV-35 shows that 95.2 percent of the sample population were men and only 4.8 percent were women. This ratio of men to women did not seem to be abnormal although there is reason to believe that it will change significantly in the future as more women enter the purchasing profession. Table IV-36 compares the distribu- tion of men and women across all purchasing jobs. The table shows that a higher percentage of women tended to occupy lower level posi- tions and a higher percentage of men tended to occupy the higher level positions. For example, 25.0 percent of the women were buyers as contrasted to only 10.8 percent of the men. On the other hand, 43.4 percent of the men were managers of purchasing as constrasted 94 .momosuooumq cw one moMMuaoouoe 30M "ouoz Ao.ooHv Ao.m~V Aa.Hv Am.~V on an.mev Ao.ev A¢.mV umnuo um ON H N 9 mm q n Ao.c0HV Ace Ace A~.wav Ace Ao.mov A~.mse Ace “meuumommm NH 0 o N o N N o Ao.ooav Am.o~v Am.ov An.ev Aa.mv Ao.anv Am.~v Am.ov mafimmnuusm «0 ma c m N mm m a mo .m .> Ao.ooav Ao.oHv Ae.Nv Am.mv Ao.mv an.mov Ae.mv Am.ev wafimmnuuam nee «a as «N «H mmN mN «N we umwmamz Ao.ooav Au.NHV Ae.~v Ao.hv Aa.~v Am.mmv Aa.NHV Am.mv uamm< Hmm Ne w mN N wma cc Ha mcamonousm Ao.ooav A~.msv Am.mV Ao.Hv Ao.av Ae.wmv Ao.~Hv Ao.ev “mean mNH «N a N N nu ma m Ao.ooav on on on Am.NHV Ao.omv An.NHV Ao.m~v “mean w o o o H c H N oomumfimm< Hmuoe nonuo mammom mammoaon3 HmcowusufiumaH HmwuumsvaH Hmuaosauo>ou Hoaoaumosvm soaowmom 30m mmocfimam mo moan m.uohoaqam uaomoum mmmszDm mo HZHA m.mmwoamzm MHHB ZOHHHwom 82mmmmm mo ZOHB¢ADm¢HmemU ant>H mqmdfi 95 TABLE IV-35 FREQUENCIES CONCERNING THE NUMBER OF MALES AND FEMALES AMONG THE RESPONDENTS Relative Cumulative Sex Absolute Frequency Frequency Frequency (Percent) (Percent) Male 1,038 95.2 95.2 Female 52 4.8 100.0 Total 1,090 100.0 TABLE IV¥36 CROSSTABULATION OF PRESENT POSITION WITH SEX Present Sex Position Male Female Assistant 6 2 Buyer (.6) (3.8) B er 112 13 “Y (10.8) (25.0) Purchasing 311 21 Agent (30.0) (40.4) Manager of 451 12 Purchasing (43.4) (23.1) V. P. of 63 1 Purchasing (6.1) (1.9) 10 1 Researcher (1.0) (1.9) 85 2 Other (8.2) (3.8) Note: Column percentages are in parentheses. 96 to 23.1 percent of the women. In addition, 6.1 percent of the men were vice-presidents in contrast to only 1.0 percent of the women. It should also be noted that one woman made up this 1.9 percent. Summary The foregoing analysis revealed a number of shortcomings concerning both the sample population and the data collected from the sample population. With respect to the sample population, the analysis uncovered an example of possible sample bias. This example centered around the fact that the ratio of managers of purchasing to assistant buyers within the sample population was 58 to 1. It con- cluded that although such a ratio of managers to assistant buyers may be representative of the population of N.A.P.M. affiliated pur- chasers, it was probably not representative of the total population of purchasers in general. From the standpoint of data collection, the analysis revealed a number of shortcomings. One of these shortcomings involved the repeated use of the response category "other." Since a marked-sense questionnaire format was used to collect the data, this response category was designed to categorize responses that did not fit the categories listed in the questionnaire. As a result there was no way to determine the make-up of any of the "other" categories. This problem could have been avoided, however, if larger and more inclu- sive sets of response categories had been made available to the respondents, or if the "other" category had been replaced with an openeended response. Another data collection shortcoming involved several 97 instances where there were not enough response categories to accommo- date the entire range of possible responses. This problem could have been avoided if the number of response categories had been increased, or if the highest response category had been made open-ended. In spite of these biases and shortcomings, however, the data collected still proved useful for providing information concerning purchasing effectiveness. What is important to note is that these shortcomings and biases were recognized, and that the conclusions drawn from these data were made after giving full consideration to these biases and shortcomings. CHAPTER V PURCHASING PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND PURCHASING EFFECTIVENESS The evaluation of the purchasing performance measures (ques- tions 76-85 on the mail questionnaire) as they relate to purchasing effectiveness was accomplished in the following manner: first, the marketplace was utilized to identify a group of extremely more effec- tive and a group of extremely less effective purchasers. Second, these two groups of purchasers were then compared and analyzed according to their scores on the ten purchasing performance measures. Third, as a result of this analysis, several of the purchasing per- ‘ formance measures were then combined into a Purchasing;gerformance ‘Igggx. This index was subsequently used as a measure of purchasing effectiveness for the entire sample of purchasers. Usiggithe Marketplace to Determine More Effective and Less Effective Purchasers Using the marketplace to determine who were more or less effective purchasers was based on the assumption that those indi- viduals who received larger rewards tended to be more effective pur- chasers than those who received smaller rewards. The major problem in applying this assumption.was deciding which reward or combination of rewards would best serve as criteria for determining who are more and less effective purchasers. 98 99 Salary Level as a Criterion of PurchasigggEffectiveness The use of salary level as a criterion of purchasing effec- tiveness was based upon the premise that purchasers who received higher salaries tended to be more effective than those who received lower salaries. In order to test this premise, the sample of pur- chasers was divided into five groups in accordance with the salary level they were currently receiving. Since the group making under $10,000 per year contained only twenty purchasers, it was decided to drop this group from the analysis due to the small sample size. The average scores of each of the four remaining salary groups on the ten purchasing performance measures were then compared to see which, if any, of these performance measures were related to salary level. Also, several socioeconomic measures of these four salary groups were examined in this analysis. These were age, years with ‘current firm, and years of purchasing experience. These measures were included in the analysis because it was suspected that one or more of these measures might be closely related to salary level. If this were the case, then any observed relationships between salary level and the performance measures might actually be the result of a relationship between one or more of the socioeconomic measures and the performance measures. This would imply that salary level was not an independent indicator of purchasing effectiveness, but, instead, might only be the result of age, years with current firm, or years of purchasing experience. The mean scores of the four salary groups on the purchasing performance measures as well as their mean scores on the socioeconomic measures are presented in Table V-l. 100 TABLE V-l COMPARISON OF PURCHASERS' SALARY LEVELS WITH SCORES ON THE TEN PURCHASING PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND SELECTED SOCIOECONOMIC MEASURES Performance and Socioeconomic Scores Performance Measures H.271 N‘352 H-278 H.216 $10,000- $15,000- $20,000— $25,000 a $14,999 $19,999 $24,999 or More Profit Potential 3.89 4.09 4.18 4.34 Procedures 4.08 4.17 4.09 4.18 Sourcing 3.96 4.02 4.00 4ul4 Personal Skills 3.91 4.01 4.15 4.34 Departmental Coordination 3.67 3.96 4.05 4.19 Negotiation 3.92 4.08 4.21 4.34 Product Research 3.70 3.78 3.73 3.69 Interfirm Coordination 3.50 3.73 3.90 4.01 Quality Assurance 3.50 3.61 3.48 3.59 Overall Effectiveness 3.98 4.13 4.26 4.35 Socioeconomic Measures Age 2.40 2.83 3.12 3.44 Years with Current Firm 2.22 2.75 3.16 3.57 Years of Purchasing Experience 2.17 3.03 3.37 3.70 Note: N - The number of respondents in each salary group. 101 It becomes apparent upon examining the purchasing performance scores of the four salary groups that several of the performance mea- sures demonstrated a positive and fairly consistent relationship with salary level. For example, as salary level increased, the profit potential scores also increased in fairly consistent increments. A similar relationship with salary level held true for personal skills, departmental coordination, negotiation, interfirm coordination, and overall effectiveness. Several of the performance measures, however, did not demon- strate consistent relationships with salary level. For example, Table V-l shows that as salary level increased from the $10,000- $l4,999 bracket to the $15,000-$19,999 bracket, the procedures score also increased from 4.08 to 4.17. As salary level increased to the next higher bracket, however, the corresponding procedures score did not increase, but actually decreased to 4.09. Finally, as salary level increased to the $25,000 and over bracket, the procedures score reversed direction again and increased. This same sort of incon- sistent relationship with salary level also held true for sourcing, product research, and quality assurance. As shown in Table V-l, all three of the socioeconomic measures demonstrated positive and consistent relationships with salary level. This implies that the apparent relationship between profit potential, personal skills, departmental coordination, negotiation, interfirm coordination, overall effectiveness and a purchaser's salary level might be the result of a relationship between these same six perform- ance measures and either age, years with current firm, or years of purchasing experience. For this reason, it was decided to examine ‘I’tl‘ I. 19 II 'I III [I ‘I‘I‘l (I! {D I II [LII I! .l‘lnll .ll all! (I. II {II' 102 other purchasing effectiveness criteria. Position Level as Criterion of PurchasingiEffectiveness In using position level as a criterion of effectiveness, it was assumed that purchasers who occupied higher position levels tended to be more effective than those who occupied lower position levels. It was further assumed that a purchasing agent occupied a higher organizational position than a buyer, a manager of purchasing occupied a higher position than a purchasing agent, and a vice- president of purchasing occupied a higher position than a manager of purchasing. In order to test this effectiveness criterion, the sample of purchasers was divided into four groups according to the position they currently held. Two of the position level groups, namely assistant buyer and researcher, were not included in the analysis since they contained small sample sizes of only eight and eleven respondents, respectively. The position level category of "other" was also not included since there was no way to determine what level of position any of these people currently occupied. The average scores of each of the four remaining position level groups on the ten pur- chasing performance measures were then compared. The purpose of this comparison was to see if any of the per- formance measures were related to position level. In addition, the same three socioeconomic measures included in the previous analysis were also included in this analysis. The mean scores of the four position level groups on each of the ten purchasing performance mea- sures and on the three socioeconomic measures are presented in Table V-2. 103 TABLE V-2 COMPARISON OF PURCHASERS' POSITION LEVELS WITH THEIR SCORES ON THE TEN PURCHASING PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND SELECTED SOCIOECONOMIC MEASURES Performance and Socioeconomic Scores Manager Vice-Pres. Performance Measures Purchasing of of Buyer Agent Purchasing Purchasing N-125 N-332 N-463 N-64 Profit Potential 3.72 4.00 4.18 4.55 Procedures 3.80 4.13 4.15 4.08 Sourcing 3.98 3.96 4.05 4.23 Personal Skills 3.72 3.98 4.13 4.52 Departmental Coordination 3.51 3.83 4.03 4.16 Negotiation 3.91 4.04 4.20 4.44 Product Research 3.61 3.78 3.69 3.86 Interfirm Coordination 3.46 3.58 3.84 4.03 Quality Assurance 3.44 3.54 3.56 3.75 Overall Effectiveness 3.90 4.12 4.23 4.36 Socioeconomic Measures Age 2.32 2.80 3.03 3.39 Years with Current Firm 2.33 2.79 2.97 3.20 Years of Purchasing Experience 2.07 2.78 3.27 3.78 Note: N - The number of respondents in each salary group. . . . . II .. Ill-l. Il|\ I‘.|Illl‘".l\[v(ll' 1 104 The findings of this analysis were similar to the findings of the previous analysis in that the strongest and most consistent relationships were found betwen position level and the scores on the performance measures of profit potential, personal skills, depart- mental coordination, negotiation, interfirm coordination, and overall effectiveness. Also, similar to the previous analysis, the perform- ance measures of procedures, sourcing, product research, and quality assurance demonstrated the weakest and least consistent relationships with the effectiveness criterion. Furthermore, as was the case of salary level, the three socioeconomic measures also demonstrated strong positive relationships with position level. This means that position level, as a criterion of effectiveness, has the same drawback as does salary level in that it may be the result of age, years with current firm, and years of purchasing experience rather than the result of purchasing effectiveness. The Combination of Salary Level and Position Level as a Criterion of Effectiveness In both the previous two analyses, the socioeconomic measures of age, years with current firm, and years of purchasing experience appeared to be interrelated with the effectiveness criterion and the performance measures. In an attempt to eliminate some of these apparent interrelationships, it was decided to combine position level and salary level into a single purchasing effectiveness criterion. The assumption was that within each position level, those purchasers who received higher salaries tended to be more effective than those who received lower salaries. The findings of this analysis were similar to those previously mentioned in that the strongest and most 105 consistent relationships were found between the combination of salary level and position level and the scores on profit potential, personal skills, departmental coordination, negotiation, interfirm coordina- tion, and overall effectiveness. Also, similar to the previous analyses, the three socioeconomic measures again demonstrated strong positive relationships with the combination of salary level and posi- tion level. This implies that the socioeconomic measures are once again interrelated with the effectiveness criteiron. For this reason it was decided to analyze still another effectiveness criterion. The Combination of Salary Level and Salary Increases as a Criterion of Purchasinngffectiveness with the Socioeconomic Measures Controlled In each of the previous analyses, the three socioeconomic measures appeared to be interrelated with the effectiveness criteria and the purchasing performance measures. In an effort to control these apparent interrelationships, two groups of extreme levels of purchasing effectiveness were selected so that the interrelationships with the socioeconomic measures ran counter to those observed in the previous analyses. One group consisted of purchasers deemed by the marketplace to be extremely more effective, and the other group consisted of those purchasers the marketplace deemed to be extremely less effec- tive. The marketplace criteria for selection was the combination of salary level and salary increase. It was assumed that more effective purchasers tended to receive higher salaries and larger salary in- creases than less effective purchasers. The more effective group was limited to those purchasers who received salaries of $20,000 per 106 year or more and who had received salary increases of 41 percent or higher during the last five years. In an effort to ensure that this group was truly more effec- tive and not just a collection of older and more experienced pur- chasers, selection was limited to those who were 40 years of age or younger. This limited the number of years a purchaser could have spent with his current firm as well as the number of years he could have spent in the purchasing profession. In addition, membership in this elite group was restricted to those purchasers who had occupied at least two positions during the last five years and who had achieved at least a bachelor's degree. This extremely more effective group therefore consisted of purchasers who were younger and less experi- enced, but who were mobile, college educated, received high salaries, and high salary increases. The extremely less effective group consisted of those pur- chasers who received salaries under $15,000 per year plus salary increases of 20 percent or less during the last five years. In order to ensure that this group was truly a less effective group and not just a collection of younger and less experienced purchasers, mem- bership in this group was limited to those who were 30 years of age or older, who had been with their firms for five or more years, and who had five or more years of purchasing experience. This extremely less effective group therefore consisted of purchasers who were older and more experienced, but who were receiving low salaries and low salary increases. The mean scores of these extremely more effective and extremely less effective groups of purchasers on the purchasing performance measures and on the socioeconomic measures are presented 107 in Table V-3. As shown in Table V-3, the mean scores of the extremely more effective group were much higher than those of the extremely less effective group on profit potential, personal skills, departmental coordination, negotiation, interfirm coordination, and overall effec- tiveness. On the other hand, the differences on procedures, sourcing, product research, and quality assurance were small or nonexistent. Furthermore, the big difference in this analysis as compared to previous analyses is that positive relationships between the socio- economic measures and the effectiveness criterion were eliminated. This comparative analysis of the extremely more and less effective groups showed that profit potential, personal skills, departmental coordination, negotiation, interfirm coordination, and overall effectiveness are performance measures that can differentiate more effective from less effective purchasers, at least at the extreme levels of effectiveness. A Purchasing Performance Index as a Measure of Purchasing Effectiveness At this point, the analysis has produced six performance mea- sures that differentiate 44 extremely more effective purchasers from 58 extremely less effective purchasers. It should be noted that these six performance measures have a valid relationship with pur- chasing effectiveness and are not the result of age, experience, or company seniority. The next problem that had to be dealt with was how these six performance measures could be used to differentiate the more effective purchasers from the less effective purchasers in the entire sample. In order to resolve this problem, it was decided 108 TABLE V-3 COMPARISON OF THE EXTREMELY MORE EFFECTIVE AND EXTREMELY LESS EFFECTIVE PURCHASERS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR SCORES ON THE TEN PURCHASING PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND SELECTED SOCIOECONOMIC MEASURES Performance and Socioeconomic Scores Performance Measures N-58 N-44 Less More Effective Effective Profit Potential 3.74 4.41 Procedures 4.21 4.02 Sourcing 3.93 4.11 Personal Skills 3.81 4.43 Departmental Coordination 3.69 4.27 Negotiation 3.83 4.45 Product Research 3.62 3.61 Interfirm Coordination 3.26 4.16 9 Quality Assurance 3.41 3.41 Overall Effectiveness 3.86 4.50 Socioeconomic Measures Age 3.52 1.91 Years with Current Firm 3.81 1.82 Years of Purchasing Experience 3.14 2.14 Note: N - The number of purchasers in each effectiveness group. 109 to combine each individual's total score on these six performance measures to form a composite Purchasing Performance Index. These composite performance indices could then be divided into groups representing different levels of purchasing effectiveness, and the personality characteristics of each of these groups could then be analyzed. The scores on this index had a possible range of 6 to 30 with 6 indicating a very low level of effectiveness and 30 indicating a very high level of effectiveness. Once the scores on the Purchasing Performance Index (hereinafter referred to as the PPI), were computed, the next step of this analysis was to decide upon a logical basis for classifying these scores into levels of purchasing effectiveness. This decision involved analyzing the frequency dis— tribution of the scores on the PPI for the entire sample. This fre- quency distribution is presented in Table V-4. The histogram shown in Figure Vel illustrates the shape of this distribution. As Table V54 shows, the actual scores on the PPI ranged from 12 to 30 with a mean of 24.13 and a standard deviation of 3.43. Based upon this information, the size of the sample, and the shape of the distribution; it was decided to divide the PPI scores of the sample into five effectiveness groups of comparable size. These groups were labelled as low, medium-low, medium, medium-high, and high in terms of their level of effectiveness. The criteria used for determining which PPI scores were included in each of these effectiveness groups will be discussed in the paragraphs that follow. The lowbeffective group was composed of individuals whose PPI scores fell one standard deviation or more below the mean. 110 TABLE V-4 THE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE SCORES ON THE PURCHASING PERFORMANCE INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE SAMPLE Relative Cumulative PPI Score Absolute Frequency Frequency Frequency (Percent) (Percent) 12 2 .2 .2 l3 '3 .3 .5 l4 5 .5 .9 15 13 1.2 2.1 16 7 .6 2.8 l7 16 1.5 4.2 18 25 2.3 6.5 19 37 3.4 9.9 20 43 3.9 13.9 21 67 6.1 20.0 22 90 8.3 28.3 23 119 10.9 39.2 24 130 11.9 _ 51.1 25 126 11.6 62.7 26 126 11.6 74.2 27 103 9.4 83.7 28 83 7.6 91.3 29 48 4.4 95.7 30 47 ._§;§ 100.0 Total 1,090 100.0 Mean = 24.13 Standard Deviation = 3.43 111 FIGURE V-l HISTOGRAM OF THE REQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE SCORES ON THE PURCHASING PERFORMANCE INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE SAMPLE PPI Score I 12 ** (2) I 13 ** (3) I 14 ** (5) I 15 **** (13) I 16 *** (7) I 17 *t*** (16) I 18 ****** (25) I 19 ********** (37) I 20 ************ (43) I 21 ****************** (67) I 22 ************************ (90) I . 23 ******************************* (119) I 24 ********************************** (130) I 25 ********************************* (126) I 26 ********************************* (135 I 27 *************************** (113) I 23 *a**********a********* (83) I 29 ************* ' (48) I 30 ************* (47) I I I I*********I*********I*********I*********I*********I 40 80 120 160 200 Number of Purchasers 112 Since the mean PPI score was 24.13 and the standard deviation was 3.43, individuals with PPI scores of 21 or below were classified as being low—effective. Because of an apparent irregularity in the distribution of these PPI scores, however, it was decided not to in- clude persons in this group with PPI scores of 15 or below. This apparent irregularity can be seen by examining Figure V-l. Figure V—l shows that as the PPI scores decreased from 24, so did the number of purchasers who demonstrated these scores. For example, as the PPI score decreased from 24 to 23, the number of people who demon- strated each of these scores decreased from 130 to 119. This rela- tionship held until the PPI score decreased to 15. As Figure V-l shows, thirteen purchasers posed a PPI score of 15, which was an increase of 6 rather than the expected decrease from the number who posted a score of 16. This apparent irregularity in the data may have been due to a number of things such as random occurrence or misinterpretation of the instrument on the part of some of these respondents. Since it was not possible to pinpoint the nature of this apparent irregularity in the distribution and since only 23 purchasers were involved, it was decided to eliminate these indi- viduals from this analysis rather than take a chance on their biasing the results. With these 23 purchasers eliminated from the analysis, the lowbeffective group contained 195 purchasers. ‘ Individuals who demonstrated PPI scores that fell one standard deviation or more above the mean were classified as being high—effec- tive. Hence, this group contained those 178 purchasers whose PPI scores were 28 or above. The medium-effective group included those individuals whose 113 PPI scores fell one point either side of the mean. Since the mean PPI score was 24.13, this group contained those individuals with PPI scores of 24 or 25. This medium-effective group contained 256 purchasers. The remaining two groups of purchasers were classified as medium-lowbeffective and medium-high-effective. The medium-low group was made up of those individuals whose PPI scores were either 22 or 23. The medium-high group contained those individuals whose PPI scores were either 26 or 27. These two groups contained 209 and 229 purchasers, respectively. In the chapter that follows, the personality characteristics of the entire sample as they relate to these five levels of purchasing effectiveness will be evaluated. Summary In an effort to identify those individuals within the sample who were more or less effective purchasers, four effectiveness criteria were utilized. These were salary level, position level, the combination of salary level and position level, and the combination of salary level and salary increase. Salary level, position level, and the combination of salary level and position level were applied to the total sample of purchasers but failed as effectiveness criteria because of their apparent interrelationships with socioeconomic mea- sures of age, years of purchasing experience, and years of company seniority. In an effort to find an effectiveness criterion that was not interrelated with the socioeconomic measures, the combination of 114 salary level and salary increase was utilized as an effectiveness criterion to select a small group of extremely more effective and a small group of extremely less effective purchasers. These groups were selected in such a manner that their interrelationships with the socioeconomic measures ran counter to those observed in the previous analyses. With the effects of the socioeconomic measures removed, it was concluded that the combination of salary level and salary increase was a useful criterion for differentiating extremely more effective from extremely less effective purchasers. Applying this effectiveness criterion resulted in the identification of six performance measures that differentiated extremely more effective from extremely less effective purchasers. These measures were profit potential, personal skills, departmental coordination, nego- tiation, interfirm coordination and overall effectiveness. Each individual's total score on these six performance measures were then added together to form a Purchasing Performance Index. This index was then used to divide the entire sample into five levels of pur— chasing effectiveness. CHAPTER VI PERSONALITY MEASURES AND PURCHASING EFFECTIVENESS Evaluation of the personality measures as they related to purchasing effectiveness was accomplished as follows: First, the PurchasingWPerformance Index was used to divide the entire sample of purchasers into five levels of effectiveness. Second, the average scores of each of these five effectiveness groups on the four person- ality variables included in this study were compared. The purpose of this comparison was to determine which of these personality vari- ables were related to effectiveness. Third, in a similar manner, the individual items that made up the instruments used to measure the four personality variables were also analyzed. Fourth, those individual items that were found to be most strongly related to pur- chasing effectiveness were combined to form a Composite Personality 1242.2:- Personality,Characteristics of the More and Less Effective Purchasers Analysis of the personality characteristics of the more and less effective purchasers was accomplished in two steps. First, the personality variables used in this study were analyzed as they related to purchasing effectiveness. Second, the individual items that made up the instruments used to measure these personality variables (questions 1—75 on the mail questionnaire) were also evaluated as 115 116 they related to purchasing effectiveness. Analysis of the Personality Variables as They Relate to Purchasing Effectiveness Analysis of the personality variables as they related to purchasing effectiveness was accomplished by comparing the mean scores of each of the five effectiveness levels on the four person- ality variables included in this study. The purpose of this compari- son was to determine which, if any, of these personality variables were related to purchasing effectiveness. The scores of the five effectiveness levels on the four personality variables are presented in Table VI-l. TABLE VI-l COMPARISON OF PURCHASERS' EFFECTIVENESS LEVELS WITH THEIR SCORES ON THE FOUR PERSONALITY VARIABLES Personality Variable Scores Personality N-l95 N-209 N-256 N-229 N-l78 Variables Low Medium- Medium Medium- High Low High Need for Certainty 43.63 42.76 41.97 41.04 41.78 External Control 3.88 3.26 3.21 2.82 2.60 Desire to Satisfy Higher Order Needs 51.00 52.59 53.66 54.63 55.85 117 Self-Esteem1 Upon examining Table VI-l, it can be seen that self-esteem demonstrated a positive and fairly consistent relationship with pur- chasing effectiveness. For example, as the level of effectiveness increased from low to high, so did the self—esteem score. This means that the more effective purchasers tended to see themselves as being more competent in handling the problems that confronted them than did less effective purchasers. Need for Certainty2 As shown in Table VI-l, the need for certainty demonstrated a negative but not a totally consistent relationship with purchasing effectiveness. For example, as the level of effectiveness increased from low to medium-high, the need for certainty score decreased from 43.63 to 41.04 in fairly consistent increments. As the level of effectiveness increased from medium-high to high, however, the corre- sponding need for certainty score did not decrease but actually in- creased from 41.04 to 41.78. Although this inconsistency tended to weaken the relationship between need for certainty and purchasing effectiveness, the tendency still existed for more effective pur- chasers to have a lower need for certainty than less effective pur- chasers. This means that more effective purchasers had less tendency to perceive new or complex situations as a source of threat than did less effective purchasers. 1The Ghiselli instrument was used to measure self-esteem and was discussed in Chapter III. 2The Budner instrument was used to measure need for certainty and was discussed in Chapter III. 118 External Control3 According to Table VI-l, external control was also negatively related to purchasing effectiveness. This indicates that the more effective purchasers tended to more strongly feel that they could influence things that happen to them. Conversely, there was a tend- ency for the less effective purchasers to more strongly feel that events that happened to them were beyond their control. Desire to Satisfngigher Order Needs4 The desire to satisfy higher order needs demonstrated the strongest and most consistent positive relationship with purchasing effectiveness. Table VI-l shows that as the level of effectiveness increased from low to high, the score on this personality variable also increased. This means that the more effective purchasers tended to be more desirous than less effective purchasers of obtaining satisfaction from their work of their needs for social activity, status, and personal growth. Analysis of the Individual Personality Items as They Relate to PurchasingZEffectiveness This analysis was carried out in four parts. Each focused on the set of items that constituted one of the personality instru- ments. The first items analyzed were those that made up the self- esteem instrument. This analysis was followed in turn by analyses 3The Rotter instrument was used to measure external control and was discussed in Chapter III. 4Tbe Hackman and Lawler instrument was used to measure the desire to satisfy higher order needs and was discussed in Chapter III. 119 of the items that made up the need for certainty instrument, the external control instrument, and the desire to satisfy higher order needs instrument (hereinafter referred to as the higher order need instrument). Analysis of the Self-Esteem Items This analysis involved comparison of the mean scores of each of the five levels of effectiveness on the 31 items that made up the self-esteem instrument (questions 1-31 on the mail question- naire). The purpose of this comparison was to determine which of the self-esteem items were related to purchasing effectiveness. It should be noted that this instrument involved having the respondents choose from pairs of adjectives the one word that described them best or least. On the first fifteen pairs of adjectives, the respondents were asked to select the one adjective from each pair that they thought described them best. For items 16-31, the respond- ents were asked to select the one adjective from each pair they thought described them less well. The mean scores of the five levels of effectiveness on the 31 self-esteem items are presented in Table VI-2. For the first fifteen items, the scores shown in the table indicate the proportion of respondents in each level of effectiveness who felt that the top_ adjective in the pair described them best. For items 16-31, the scores shown in the table indicate the proportion of respondents in each level of effectiveness who felt that the Egp_adjective in the pair described them less well. The numbers in the extreme right column of the table indicate the difference between the proportions of high-effective purchasers who selected the top adjective and the 120 NH.+ mm. me. we. we. we. umoooz ummmmoam OH mo.+ cc. me. He. mm. mm. museum Hmwoom o no.1 0N. mN. «N. am. mN. wovafiZIuamm Haeuswaosa m «N.+ on. NN. co. co. Nm. muwuuna o>ammouwoum N Ho.+ es. es. .ee. es. me. ucmwaaamuoH wsamaumuoucm o no.+ me. An. em. em. as. eases vmwx m NH.+ He. mm. Nm. om. mN. oumquNHon wouufizlmumnm q ma.| No. no. NH. «a. oN. uuoa< vouoomwmoa m No.+ om. 0N. NN. HN. wN. manmvmooon Hmhoq N om.| Nq. be. om. mm. we. nwsouona wcaoomumuovob H MoooH swam 30A I afinmooHuoHom swam Iaswvoz aswvmz Iasfivmz 304 waouH amoumm waom sonasz aouH mouoom aouH Hmsvw>wvcH Hmaua>aeaH ouHmGaOHumoso mZHHH ZNNHmNIMAMm MZOIMHmHmB Nah mo mmmoom mHmmH mHH3 mqm>mu mmmzm>HHUmmmm .mMmm<flu%Dm mo zomHM mAMHum oHnmumma HN mo.+ mm. mm. on. mm. on. hmswum sOHHmnm oN HH.u mN. NN. wN. om. mm. oHHusmon wouHooaoo mH mo.+ we. on. He. no. es. maaxmmm-esmm thooHumoD wH NH.+ HN. me. me. me. cm. oaomHouuoso ousumasH NH co.l mo. NH. mH. 0H. mH. Nana New es mN.I me. He. on. on. NN. wouanmouom oHnoum mH No.+ me. me. He. es. Ne. usoHumm oeumsumsaem es oq.+ ON. mm. Nm. be. om. coHHouuoooleom o>HumonmEH MH HH.+ be. Ne. mm. oe. mN. woNHHH>Ho emflesamHn NH ON.+ om. we. <0. mm. on. oHomHHom oHnHmmoamom HH a mwmmaw o w IauwHw a: Iamogo Bo maouH amoummIMHom nonaoz aouH Ha Ha H m 5 Hz Ho 2 Hum: Ho 2 H HonoH>HvdH ouHoaaoHumoao mouoom aouH HmsvH>HooH emanauaoollNIH> WHNHuoomvo aou onu umzu uHom on: moomo>Huoommo mo Ho>oH some aH muoovooamou mo aOHuuoeoua onu oumoHvoH HMIoH maouH so mouoom one mo Ho>oH some :H .uoon Eon» ponHuomov o>Huoohvo QOu onu umnu uHom 0:3 mooso>Huoommo muaovcoomou mo oOHuuoeoue sou ouooHoaH maouH coouwHw umuHm may «0 ounces may "ouoz oo.+ mm. mm. mm. mm. HN. stucomom mHnmeamaoecn Hm NH.+ mm. mm. um. cm. we. o>Hmmouww< Hausaeo om NH.I mm. Nm. mm. em. as. mezuHmleom wouumomuoumm mN mH.+ mm. mo. me. mo. 09. souuHm mmoHuMHnm wN mH.I oN. mN. oN. on. He. oHuoHaHmmom wouoaoHoHao NN NH.I mN. mN. mm. Hm. Ne. o>HomHan=m xmmsm 0N mN.+ Hm. on. we. me. on. sonHom sows mN NH.+ em. me. me. on. No. o>Hmo>m anomaoamoa «N 0N.+ so. mm. mm. em. mm. HmoHumHuowm oHuonume< mN mo.| No. me. no. we. no. unmeaooon maooua NN xooaH anm 30H oaouH amoumMImHom Honaoz BouH aHnmsoHumHom :me IasHooz ssHouz IasHpoz 36H HosvH>vaH ouHoccOHumoso mouoom EouH HmsvH>vaH vmscHu500IlNlH> NHQHH ou oxHH vHsoz on mN.I mo.H mm.H NN.H mo.H em.H .mosHo> umHHaHm o>mn HHm vHoonm o3 mm oq.l em.m mN.m m¢.m wo.m om.m .mHeoom umHHHamm Hummus H em nm.| no.N NH.N Hq.N ¢N.N sq.N .omHH umstou onu ummouo H mm wN.I «m.N mo.m «N.m «N.m NN.m .HMHHHamw on» mowoua H Nm «H.I mm.N Nm.N wo.N wo.N NN.N .maoHooua HHmam onomH Hm mH.I Nm.N N¢.N mm.N oo.N No.N .umoHo on oops maOHuooan 0m mm.+ mm.m mq.m NN.m oe.m «N.m .po>Hom on coo maoHnoum HH< me MN.+ NN.N oo.N om.N wm.N mq.N .uoamom ouHsHmov m o>mn vHsonm uuomxm we xovcH anm 30H Hoaasz aouH aeemcoeumHmm swam nausea: asses: nasfiuaz ace aoeumfl>munn< amuH mouoom aouH HosvH>HvoH ouHMdmOHumooo mZMHH MHZHmH mmmzm>HHOmmhm .mmmm made 128 oH.I Hm.H 0N.N «H.N NH.N no.N .uovmos so» oxma vHsonm momH>uoe=m d mo mo.| Nq.H No.H H¢.H em.H Hm.H .HuHHmonHuo moooun whososwm> No NH.I NN.N mm.N Nm.N mm.N Hq.N .aOHumapowsH uooHo IHmwamsH do women soumo mum moonHoon Ho ~H.- H~.N em.H ss.~ NN.N mm.~ .mmaaeu mo eumeHs Iaoo onu oumHoouaem H oo mm.+ Hm.m Ho.m mm.m ~m.m es.m .ossoms uoouonHv nomoue H mm Hm.+ oq.m mo.m 0H.m mm.N mm.N maoHooua voumoHHoaoo mousse H mm NN.+ Ho.N me.N be.N om.N em.N .moHsvonom oxHHmHv H mm so a w 30 QHSmGOH—OUWH mm nwfim IEMHWMZ Eda—um: lag—”6w: 30..— GOHumfi>0HAD< EUHH BOA—:52 EOHH ouHmasoHumoso mouoom aouH HmovH>HvoH voaaHuGOUIIMIH> mHmda 129 increased, purchasers tended to more strongly agree with the following statements: --An expert who doesn't come up with a definite answer probably doesn't know too much. --There is really no such thing as a problem that can't be solved. --1 would like to live in a foreign country for a while. --People who fit their lives to a schedule probably miss most of the joy of living. --It is more fun to tackle a complicated problem than to solve a simple one. --Often the most interesting and stimulating people are those who don't mind being different and original. Table VI-3 also contains several items that demonstrated relatively strong negative relationships with purchasing effective- ness. For instance, as the level of effectiveness increased from low to high, the scores on items 52, 53, 54 and 55 tended to decrease. This means that as the level of effectiveness increased, purchasers tended to agree less strongly with the following statements: --What we are used to is always preferable to what is unfamiliar. --A person who leads an even, regular life in which few surprises or unexpected happenings arise, really has a lot to be grateful for. --I like parties where I know most of the people more than ones where all or most of the people are complete strangers. -The sooner we all acquire similar values and ideals, the better. Items 50, 51, 60, 61, 62 and 63 all demonstrated relatively weak relationships with purchasing effectiveness. This means that as the level of purchasing effectiveness increased from low to high, 130 the scores on each of these items changed very little. For this reason, these items were of little use in differentiating more effective from less effective purchasers. This analysis indicated that more effective purchasers were more tolerant of situations involving uncertainty. In addition, more effective purchasers were less likely to perceive complex or unfamiliar situations as sources of threat. Furthermore, more effective purchasers expressed a higher level of self-confidence than did less effective purchasers. This analysis also pointed out that questionnaire items 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59 were the need for certainty items that were most useful in differ— entiating more effective from less effective purchasers. On the other hand, items 50, 51, 60, 61, 62 and 63 were the need for certainty items that were least useful in differentiating more effective from less effective purchasers. Analysis of the External Control Items This analysis involved comparing the mean scores of each of the five levels of effectiveness on the eight items that made up the external control instrument (questions 40-47 on the mail ques- tionnaire). The external control instrument involved having the respondents choose, from among pairs of statements, the one statement with which they most strongly agreed. The scores of the five levels of effectiveness on the eight external control items are presented in Table VI—4. These scores represent the proportion of respondents in each level of effectiveness who most strongly agreed with the top statement of each pair. The eight pairs of external control state- ments are presented in the second column of Table VI-4 in abbreviated 131 OH.I mo.+ oo.+ wo.l NH.+ mo. mm. co. mo. mm. MH. mm. Cu. «H. oh. MH. mm. no. mH. we. MH. mm. He. no. wH. Hm. mm. 0H. on. .auHHHnm Ho nouuma o «H moon was onom .xosH Ho sounds a oH moon ogu moHom .mHoo m waHmeHHH mo ovHoov ou uooo ooumo .xoaH nuHa ov ou moHnuoa no: mass H moss waHuuoo .xosH mH ooh voow m onuuou .xuos Ho sounds a pH moooosm .muovmoH moxoa ooHqusu Iuoomo Ho ammuoo>o< .muomooH o>HuoomHo mama oxooum .voNHnmooous: oommmo nuuoa m.Hm=oH>HvoH d4 .o>uomoo mono uooamou onu uow oHaoom «q me Ne He ow NomaH aHamaOHuoHoM swam .1me 18:52 mouoom aouH Hoove>HvaH 36H EdeQZ IaaHvoz mOHuoH>ounA< aouH nonssz souH ouHoosOHuooso mZMHH AOMHZOU HMH mmmzm>HHommmm .mmmmdeMDm ho zomHm NHMdH 132 .omHH ma oH oHou om whon HooH mN.I mN. mm. me. Ne. Nm. .ooaoonaH oHuuHH o>o£ H we .xosH on wsHsu noon on mH muons NH.I mm. mm. co. so. NN. .muaomHoom mo voHHouuaoo one oo>HH woo be .Houuaoo :H one 03 NN.: Hm. Nm. me. oq. mm. .voaoouu who 03 me e owwvww o w Iaume as 13:3OH so do us >ou Emu Honasz aouH H; H H m : Hm Hem: Hoax Hum: H H H no< H ouHoGGOHuoooo wouoom aouH HosvH>chH uusaHuaoouusuH> mamas 133 form. These statements can be found in their complete form in part III of the questionnaire exhibited in Appendix A. The extreme right column of the table contains the relation- ship index, which indicates the difference between the proportions of high effective and low effective purchasers who most strongly agreed with the.tgp_statement of each pair. This difference pro- vides a rough measure of the size of the relationship between the individual external control items and purchasing effectiveness. Using the relationship index, these eight items were classified as having either a relatively strong or a relatively weak relation- ship with purchasing effectiveness. Those items that demonstrated a relationship index of .10 or greater were classified as having a relatively strong relationship with purchasing effectiveness. Items that demonstrated a relationship index of less than .10 were classified as having a relatively weak relationship with purchasing effectiveness. Upon examining Table VI—4, it becomes apparent that several items demonstrated relatively strong negative relationships with purchasing effectiveness. For instance, as the effectiveness level increased, the scores on items 44, 45, 46 and 47 decreased. This indicates that decreasing proportions of the more effective pur- chasers most strongly agreed with the following statements: --Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right place first. --As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are the victims of forces we can neither understand nor control. --Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidental happening. 134 --Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me. Conversely, this means that increasing proportions of the more effec- tive purchasers most strongly agreed with the statements listed below: -—Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability, luck has little or nothing to do with it. --By taking an active part in political and social affairs the people can control world events. --There really is no such thing as "luck." --It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my life. Only item 40, shown in Table VI-4, posted a relatively strong positive relationship with purchasing effectiveness. This means that as the level of effective increased, an increasing proportion of purchasers tended to agree that "In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world," as opposed to agreeing that "An individual's worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard he tries." Items 41, 42 and 43 demonstrated relatively weak relation- ships with purchasing effectiveness. Therefore, the scores on these items changed very little as the level of effectiveness increased. These three items were, consequently, of little value in differentiating more effective from less effective purchasers. The above analysis pointed out that the more effective pur- chasers expressed a higher level of confidence in their ability to influence things that happen to them. These more effective pur- chasers tended to believe that they were in control of their lives and that luck or fate had little or no influence on them. This 135 analysis also revealed that questionnaire items 40, 44, 45, 46 and 47 were the external control items that were most useful in differ- entiating more effective from less effective purchasers. Question- naire items 41, 42 and 43 were the external control items that were least useful in differentiating more effective from less effective purchasers. Analysis of the Higher Order Need Items In this analysis, the mean scores of the five levels of effectiveness on the twelve items that made up the instrument used to measure an individual's desire to satisfy his higher order needs (questions 64-75 on the mail questionnaire) were compared. This instrument involved having the respondents indicate what amount of certain opportunities they wished to have in their purchasing posi- tions. A response of 1 indicated that a respondent desired a minimum amount of a given opportunity while a response of 5 indicated that the respondent desired the maximum amount of an opportunity. The scores in Table VI-S represent the average response of each level of effectiveness on the twelve items that made up this instrument. These twelve items are presented in the second column in Table V-S in summary form. These items can be found in their complete form in part V of the questionnaire exhibited in Appendix A. The far right column of the table contains the relationship index, which indicates the difference between the average scores of the high effective and low effective groups on each of the twelve items. This difference provides a rough measure of the magnitude of the relationships between these twelve items and purchasing effectiveness. Before analyzing the data in Table VI-5, the twelve higher 136 Nq.+ Ho.e we.e H<.q NN.¢ «H.q mwcHSD mo Hogans o oo 0» auHasuuoaeo mu mm.+ oo.e wq.e mq.e mm.q nN.e .waHoo as H 3o: uso vcHH ou muHmouuoano cm oH.+ wm.e oN.e mm.¢ mN.¢ mN.¢ .oon oHons m ow 0» mousse mm me.+ o~.s No.e Ne.q oe.q HN.¢ .ooHuom use unwsosu mommaoaomaH How oommnu NH on.+ oo.e Nm.e wN.< «N.¢ OH.e .mumHum> you muHoauuoaao Hm Nq.+ mH.¢ Ho.¢ mm.m mm.m NN.m .soHuom Ho aovooum 0N cq.+. Nm.e en.¢ mo.e oo.¢ em.q .ouoaH IoHuuoa ou NuHsauuoaao me mN.+ HN.¢ mm.e mo.q Ne.q Nq.s .xomnvoow momma IpOmuoa mom qucsuuoaao mo mH.+ Hm.e em.e mq.q mm.s Nq.e .xuos oumHano ou kansuuoaao no mm.+ mm.¢ NN.¢ wo.q mq.q qm.q .xuoa mewcoHHmzo uom ooomzo we mm.+ Hw.q Nw.e mm.q mo.q mq.q .uaoaanHaaooom Ho meHoom no om.+ mw.q mn.q No.< Nq.< mN.e .nuaouw Hmoomuoa How zuHoauuoeao so QflSmHMMMWHOM fiwfim IEHHMMWMZ Hum—HUME ISMMHX 301m GOHUdH>0HDD¢ EQUH RNA—EH2 EMUH ouHoomOHumoao mouoom aouH HmsvH>HoaH MSMHH Qmmz dunno mmmon m>Hm39 mmh zo mmmoom mHmmH mHHS mHm>MH mmmzm>HHommmm .mmmm mHmHuoouHo mo Ho>oH some aH muoomnousa Ho Hanson any I z "ouoz mouoom oHaomoooOHoom Hm. + NQ.N mq.N em.N MN.N 0H.N msOHuoHoomm< HmGOHmoomoum Ho Hooasz on. + NN.N mm.N oN.N mo.N NH.N Ho>oH GOHumosvm am. + oo.N «o.N mm.H um.H no.H use» mom movsouu< moHuH>Huo< unmea0H0>on HmoonmoHoum Ho Honssz NH. + mm.H mm.H mm.H Nm.H mw.H memo» o>Hm uomHulmooHuHmom mo Honesz me. + aN.c No.¢ NN.¢ ao.e cw.m ahHm poouusollcOHuommeumm em. + m~.s oo.s so.s aa.m Hm.m assume maHmmeousmnuaoHuomemHumm om. + oo.m om.m wo.m wo.m Hm.m mums» o>Hm ummHIIommouooH humHom «o.H+ ew.m NH.N mm.m NN.m om.N Ho>oH %HMHmm NH. + em.m 0H.m mo.m om.N co.N oosoHuoaxm wsHmmnousm mo mummy «H. + Nm.N aN.N No.N Nm.N NN.N shHm uoouuso nuHa sumo» Nm. + wo.m mm.N mm.N NN.N 0N.N ow< xooaH :mHm :wH: ssHooz 30H 30H aHnchHumHom IsoHooz IasHvoz monsoon: oHaooooooHoom NNHIz mNan omNuz mONIz mmHIz mmMDmMH mmmzm>HHUmmmm .mmmmdmombm ho zomHm mHmHuoomHo Ho Ho>oH some aH ouommsousa mo hogan: one I z ”ouoz NH. + Ha.H mm.H mm.H mm.H mm.H mamas «>Hs ummaunmeoHuHmom mo “usage sH. + NH.N HH.~ Hm.~ ~m.~ .me.~ auHm sausage euHs sumo» on. + NH.N mo.~ o~.~ ne.~ as.~ Ho>ma aoHu-oaem Hm. + He.~ me.~ em.~ m~.~ 0H.~ maoHumHoomm< HmaoHammmoum mo nosasz NH. + mo.n Hm.~ ma.~ we.~ ee.~ mm< mm. + eo.~ so.~ mm.H Hm.H He.H new» tom ease-use mmHuH>Huo< unoBQOHo>oa HmaOHmmoHoum Ho Honasz ms. + a~.e Ho.s H~.e. ao.e sm.m auHm uaouuaouuaoHuomemHuam en. + m~.s oo.e so.e ao.m He.m umuuuo waHmmeuusmnucoHuommmHumm an. + om.m om.m we.m we.n Hm.m sumo» o>Hm unmaunommouueH HumHmm ms. + em.m oH.m mo.m em.~ so.~ moemHuusxm meHmasousm we «was» so.H+ sm.m He.m mm.m -.m om.~ Hm>ua HuaHmm xmeaH emHm amHm asHemz use see .2- ANN” -.-. Hum ..--.- oouoom oHEOGOOQOHoom mmxbmNH mmuzu>Hhumhhm .mmmm NHHHuooHHooH mo Hooaaz Ham.va Hammv eHm.va eHomv eAe.omv efioov eAm.oev ermv «HooHv «HooHv «A0.NmV «HMHV «He.oov «Aesv aao.Nv «HHHV Noe meH OMH 0N oeN MHH Hm 0H o>HuooHHm Ho Honasz mama mum: sumo moon puma sumo mum: sumo some sooo some sooo some soon some onoo Hmuoe muoow ammo» mums» om uo>o onion om Hows: mmbomw mo< Mm nmmHaumthZH nz< M>Hfiommmm MIHH> MHHHuuomwoaH Honabz *AN.omV aAmmv *Am.omV efimov §Ao.h¢v *ANMV *Aw.mmV *Ammv «HooHv «AOOHV Ac.mov «anqv «Am.va «HomV «Ho.mHv «AaHv woo mHH mmN 50 mm on mm mm o>Huoomwm «0 Honadz moon name some moon some some some moon some sooo some sooo some sooo some Hsooo Hmuoa memo» memo» ouoow OH ua>o oaum m “use: NUZMHmmmNm oszdmuMDm ho madmw fin nmmHHommmmzH 92¢ m>HHommmm QIHH> NHHHuoomwooH mooeaz eaN.omv efimmv qu.mmv enemy §A¢.Nev efimmv *Ho.smv HAnmv «AOOHV «AOOHV «Aw.va «Aqmv «Aw.mmv «Aan «A<.NV «AHHV Noe -msH . mHN ow NoH Nm on NH o>Huoomwm noossz moon soon moon moon soon moon moon moon some aooo some soon some sooo some Hsooo Houoa ouosoouu .monHoo Hoonom oonHoo . oaom anm Hw>mH ZOHHHBUmmmmzH 92¢ m>HHommhm mIHH> mHm L «- XML,” (- - -~¢ \.:'\ It?) f.1:h(]l.- l lAr-swm SI-iLET Norm-Ia r. s . ' - I“‘ .- -1. '. :5 r ' r‘ . . I" LJK‘Z-:; IKJ=\-JI‘JI"“!I\E (_3 ‘ 2 3 4 o b I 8 :1 "-1-.-~' ”‘2345678‘9 Ulla-If. ISIIy . “173456789 J I '2 3 t1 5 6 7 t3 9 z I \ 'u"“" I., ‘. "'I.‘ I k] up'u”: “‘"H n‘ ' ' "" / 1 " la”“': I 2'r’;' L _.s_I()f. . x . .1 In. I . I was ..I It Mumdrmmmcus, 50 p-msr. .M. .. . ... F" . I ‘,. .J , ' v.1 , ., I.” H Inrr.(..l ..r ~- nr' ‘z'l’.f.1l.'-Il arm dear. tween-«Him HIM-55.1w.Example. u ‘-(> u‘. 1:. ‘KI r L I 1|[\, ‘Kv‘r’H-i lI‘HItTer '3 .17 :2" - mi 4, all-argvattwi 1M?(1efeli't_wr._itt’+ I H I'H' I'l I , Idl' T'V'I'Vi'n‘d 1 I .I 12. c1:g_;r;mmj rm ,pw CNN-[Pd . r: . r" v: ’ 'l" *r . mtms you less v.44,” '9 m; EU II; .. 1 ‘ " t ”II-‘HHW: .iL’ urn-Ivy Z3 ’dLMIIHEIIC uwrrrvm {quisitmifl fo'. afi‘i'alI‘a-‘II' f Lyn-u t , in .1! 3]. UIM'IIPIWHJFHIJIM) ' 1 . .~ resentful ' I ‘1 ' ' . :1- 117+ Hm]: ‘.’ilH‘htlLlr‘SIiOH. ‘ VHS N l \T‘ I T- sz N r r I ’ \ws INN \w‘, I) r,» \. I"5 . I ' 1v If '1 w. 'v ‘ HHS PJ‘ I i! .11. H. u . . :11 PM ,u... mark (he. spam. CH’II_‘w‘)(,lf'.'fI'|'l\;; TO the Shawn-Am frlzm v mw: -I-‘ ‘rwm EACH LU”. l'f. . l I} ' r ’ ‘ '7" " " ‘13":1‘ wim- Irma r ' , ‘ I'J ..,I ‘I' ..u. II) 12,. l';l""'v"1"]. n'l',‘ '. 'I ::‘--r1"+ "{1~..~i(‘,.'I-f‘:f '. '1 <‘1i‘m’R rm “Army-9.3111If. INIW'IJ) ‘. .‘v I If! . ' ’- v. "I. 7“I‘11f‘{¥?r11}. l6 . . .VI '4 I i l '4 i ‘, Part V I‘m: 1‘ I .A; If: ,1 H If .a' .II I‘,’ "o1'.\I'll‘;\'t-'\I~H:“J: I Iv'vII 'I|"I I..‘Ij I: ‘. II I II. ,M', II IL’ :3 I 2 q 4 R F ’I ; l" _ I "‘ II' ‘u’It‘ll‘y "'1‘ ‘I"“II'I III" ‘1' .l I ~ II.’ T" ~I . ' ‘ . " I 1"" " v I I ‘ ' .\ y! 2 ”y t: R r H - l .r‘ I v v I I .. v I ' L A ’ 3‘3' b k U I“ 'I'. I‘l' I!I I'I' .;'\. .II- "M: II .I I». Iluv‘.’ ‘ I . .; c. .1 I, A H 1 o ’1 4 I... F- r - , L s e ' - I‘tr()",I ‘vl‘ — y.\ ‘9» g;- ", I" I-v) Ir 1 ‘3 ~I-y ( I_‘(Igree, :L‘ ‘ ,I’ ... La ‘|."I I . , '7 I 4.) 3 4 :1. "— a :- dIo-‘Igp‘ue somewhat, 'I‘- *"\' .; ."l."'!i"'.’ 2 - "Ht" II ‘IIIF'II I“ III cw w.) m 'I I.” 3‘ I ( . Q I L1 a »'I’I1.c« _1 | \J I: SCIII)€€\'I/IIL1I agree, “WINK sz‘I-a .E- I'i.l”.'I"v'f I1 ctrrr'In' gr rpp '.':'.",. ~'['I.:I ;. .v‘.III."I."I' C) . .x , . ‘IY I] ..,. ,. .3 I. .. I.. ~. ~. ._. I: I' w? .- _mve youroplmgm()nevery stain-ment :1 I-;. ',.".f‘!I 3' f- " “HI"- I‘ 7’ ..'I"+"I"'II’ ..i' .' I. ’ ‘. ' I' I ' ‘ . ’ ' ~ I I . I 2 :1 a , . I I' ' .1: >1 '~ .I.’ I. I5 'I ‘1‘ 1 "II IIIIJI ’ I'~. ~(I In ‘I 'w .. I. II ‘c r I l ,r I ‘ 2' ,2; _1 l l- I J. ‘ I I . « 4, 1 ‘ I‘ ‘ l 41 ‘ ..‘ KG." » u I'( 5.le I.‘\;‘~." . I',t “Ii. 11‘ I " I’ I.. l . . «I f) ’. {2 H ‘ ‘. ’ L t . . II: ‘. ‘ A, I i , ' . I I II | ' 'I .I I I I, ‘ , p ‘ I I“! ,' Ix}? 'l'Il‘I.l).'."‘ wl'I’HI‘ I““ . I" II ‘le .I I ' ' I ‘ , "» 'Y( I'II \I'IIIIIPI5_ _ ’ ' I 5~ “ IV I I",Jki 1 2 5 ‘4 i ,'I [ 1 I . I r I , . . . 4 a . I ' ‘ - II II' ‘ IL ." I .III [II ' "I I «If . ..- III 4 .' l" l (I II, V I 1'I“,)Ill'| ‘ II," LI IV I' r r~ . , ~." cwfiy :II “pur- I ‘ \j, ., -I -\".I ,, I ..I I 1 ' 7 I ' ' \ I ‘ I ' a I ; - I I III 7' '1, ¢ '1 _1' 1 . . ‘ ~ I“ I ,II'.‘I$ d VI ‘ ‘ L , .II, ‘ :I .1 ~ ., 1. ‘ . .j. .' ' . Q ') I ' I L v I . , .. H v , I . I‘V:II" ' ..~ ‘I I”k '5. 1“"ITI‘£ YIN .‘II‘I '1I|k\.y‘_-IIJ:NT'1)|] I‘ .~ I ' ‘1 'y I" H . ‘I r 3 . I' I. ‘I |" 1 2 ,1 I L ' I, I. . r- ‘ ‘ I‘ .1 . I I “ - : . . ‘ ,’ x 3 . ‘ 'CIII’IH‘I. l I X’I'“ ‘l-I’I’J II .T KNEW] II I‘ ‘\I\:I1."Y"II'YII‘:I I'lvw' I r,I M I lIIf 'I ' . I7 ’ .~ .II' I “1’ II'.\, LIVII IV .5» ! :V,1.J ’1 2 n4 ('2 r . ' y "f I I v I . I 7 I l I u I ,9 . I L‘.‘ 2 .. - I . - ... I - I . . .- . ‘ .. , r , . I- . , r. , ., 'I L's-YUM {MIMI-x .1H’ 53.1»: I I'ltls II' ”'Hrlgl I" SI‘III'II‘ ’rlILIIJ'TIHI f s12. IIWI Iutl'IruH-W I I‘ [.'I I ' ,,I -. T m _ III II .~III: lhv HII‘IL‘IIIII (,I‘l z'af'I VOL; ‘.‘.I'.I.;I-_1 l.‘ In VDUI' DIII'CIIH‘RHFQ DOS-RIO!) [l‘y’ lTIdlIfilllgl III: .ILIIII [E'IIJ’F' ‘;-.;:,1I' ‘4 I“.~‘ III .‘,'I III I. III‘I.“;‘_; ijjz; II gratwytwnt, The nunlhyrg an; il-IIWIA 'I'I' II'II'I" I'M: I" ‘10.": III"- II III: Ilwrrr» the: mmImum amount, hunk, Maui-- r‘sIIr-zzI-gr I, If .w; .1 small amount, 'I‘xw‘x '.~[ I w l'l,i."IL.:"'l .' II 2~I=I. -;. I? ‘,II', I It 1. I ra l, ’ ‘I‘:I‘ 7y I . V I ’ I I " I .1. 7', ' I 7’ ' ’- I l I:-" :I IIImlverzne amount, I’I‘IUI‘ 311.11 I? I'II'IIIIHI 3 I I large amount. "I III- III/II .» 'IIIIV'III-gr :1 l IIIIXIIIIUIII amount, I'IUIK ‘>IIIII.‘I‘ I'.I‘I"'II-‘r J, fur ;.~:r’—,"=.'..i -;:I;I.'I;III dr'wi (IIl‘..v“'I-:,=IIrwm. 1 7 1. ‘ ;. _T. ' L I" 4 I n‘ I‘ I II ‘ ‘ ' \ I L e.) ‘ I A ‘I I “I D : ; .. 4.. c) ‘l A I." I I I I ‘~' I _’ . ‘ ’ a .I cl . l . I'm. ...I It'r .‘IIgII'I,I'rIIIIII‘I.,‘lI..I I I; v. 1 -4 r 4 I V, I ‘4 ‘ " 4. 'I II I l I . IANum-IR SH'LET NUMBER VII TIIII‘I'IIII!:,.:'I III,fIII'I'fI. I 3"»? III ‘- 2‘ 3 .1 5 I.) 7 8 9 ‘ r) ,- . I _ 'l I I‘ l‘ 'I ‘ 4 j LQ l ’I l.l I II ‘ fl 4 I) ‘1 l 8 ‘I '7l'- I . I ;“I‘+“'.;’t" l I ‘ y . I, 4 IL III‘ III' t M” III‘ ,I 1' I II .(II it“ I‘l‘I , IIImn In I 2 3 l I I.\II w W’) ‘ | ‘ I I V‘ ' l r ‘ I . o , , ,.. II , I I, II I I. I’ , I' I. . . y 1 . . IT I Ill I .. J ‘4 I‘ (J‘IIIIIII’ _‘7 T-, . I I , I Part VI LIstwrl whys. rl'I' I :t-r- III‘: .., I». 2';‘ gnu!“ : III~_.I‘,I:_II~I Rum yourvmlf in C’HYHIXIIISOH to other purchasers on with IlIII‘Ith'IsII'IrI hv l’lhllkll‘il iI-‘.' dIJIJ'WK‘vaIII' "II‘xl‘. ‘ “I! iiit’ ENJU" Vail". LI *1" I033“) I,‘:",I "21’1‘3' I’I,I I'il' [ill-”113’ !'~. I'i1‘3'I‘IIll‘!‘i,'li' II‘IIII"[IIIUHKLJII‘U“IEIUMV: 5 ’ . I , , ., , I, VI' II zip-rt.;r:II.II. f-~-V+.'FV|(JW,'7 ,I’r.‘ ~I“.‘,I;l‘ 5,” ;.._-_r I i; VIII ' [II I:"' .“II > *.H‘(;(if'l’dY(-3IVI()W,i‘=.:-';"11-‘~“7‘l‘2'I-'"'i«? I‘le I' '.¢_I".III1'.: I, l\ i), 1": l' ,.’L II. .. F f' I‘ II--' .‘ .., .,- I. I, ..1.. _ _ng, \ |,)_,,I It , III M .Q I‘ \‘(Vl'lf I] ,.I[‘.yy H . . “111‘)III“Io3{“IV“NIH "I ;I‘ “I“ ,. I, ‘I IIVUM'I‘finflf‘J'IWFIVUFVIMUIL'H:M.,IIII'VHTLEFH 76 Profit Potential Ifr- mt. ht '-"» V.PII‘I II II-JIJII -l‘. I IIII .II . «I»? .l' ‘U'n gun I IIII, ‘ f‘, 4 hwy : ‘ 3 a h lwIH /;j SOUrC'[1(J " Ii’ 'I'-;""':‘,Il\.nyi I' IIIIIIIIII')‘, i'-'_III(IrIII“‘I,1.I‘3III"IIIQI’IHIIV’ ""f‘..'il,II[’)(I{] \‘I-I II’i'I‘x II' “A. 1 L J "~ {3 ,1" 80. Departmental Coordinatmn - i‘IIIIt yrm :nzwrw! III Isn't 'I4..I': I; 1 I'M .Iz: ;;II;II IIJIII m9 :tIIIIIs, or providing IIIISOH within yI (1‘."I‘-;IIIllI-II".I II! (III; :I;:.',IfI;II‘._ Im I 7 3 4 I, H' NIWIw"N Ht] 7-., '- I' A . ,‘n‘ I . _ - . -.7- - . , . IV 82 Product Research I‘-I .,JTI‘I IIJ‘II .I‘ ;)'I III .‘I.'. IN l‘ yin tIIII-‘I'Iw r; _I I ,, I3; 'I ’I ., rm IIIAI. III IILJP‘IYIUHIDQ tut-I'IJSIIICII supplivrs, and IIsII Of 5H“.II.II ;:-II"II1L.I IF. . r) ’ ‘ -' ~ I()‘y.v' I 4. 5 I I I‘ll" ”I” III'I'IrtIII‘If.W~.-rI’.=':'I‘. T ' ‘w‘, ' I , I 7 ' ‘ :' '~ . ,I‘v'1I.‘.v;:rr'I.~.IIIIIIfI-ItI'IT'III, l I 84. Quality Assurance -— ‘IIIIII HIV-4:33;; I',I*-’)l" wt III, II vvmh Vunmurg II‘, III, N'III-I‘IyIIII » I:I,“»~-I Ilgl’..l'ii, '.1r~ III'I I,IIIIII).,II‘i.I‘{_I ItIIIIIt‘j OI (IIS( llSBlf‘g INIbSIbif? leIlJf-IHIPE t I‘.) (A) L. i( I IV I a: OV‘,"’.'IIit'fffé‘lf'l‘a'eff’I‘A: VIII, _I It I’.’ III“: , I- , : ; - , .I Part VII TI‘IES Ill‘IciI SI“ :;I',III of TIIH I; "'.‘.I;()I‘.."..1Y‘!_' !S', :lv.’"-“-I III III"? Il'THII; EIII‘YIII I‘TII.'.",,I‘.'.II7 HI '.I‘ ‘7‘ III’ lxr'I‘ “III ‘IIIl‘I'I'i THIS :HII)."II‘.(III()H IS Cllflfixii It”: the SIICLCE‘SB III II‘IS f-STIIIIV SI '9‘ 'w‘-f~1' ”122'. :1' "(f-,I'I {IlI:',~TII.I71_ Ilia-H.943 ”(I 1"“- IIfl'Y OF'H‘ I'I‘...I ‘ ”I: I‘ ' ‘vi'i'll'IJ 86V \Nheit IS your my? I II" I " HI ’I" P 1', J ‘3 11‘ ‘I' 3 I I I 5 Own! DI.) ( “ 4 - I—jll l 15‘ 'r ‘ ' V (I I I I V . I ' I ‘I . I ‘I E I \ If. II II LLI 817i Hun-w :‘II.II1I.' IIIII—II Hurt, IIIIM- ‘." ‘lJ iJI'IfCI III ‘IJII’I ‘Im'ni-‘IIV l. hpbatIIIIIIS 2. 5 IO 3, ”IT ‘1: I1 ‘IIIL‘V 5, IIIDII:IlIaIIZO l4 .’ .. 1 < .w-— (A. qf‘ \u‘ ' 7 ". ..Mn .5 Wm! (“Iva-"Hi Hi My "‘9'” A "x ‘ ' '1 ‘ |f z: '93. (. F. N 5L" “‘ij E) 5‘4'1 ' "r " "' ‘ L ' v H v ‘ 7 '. ‘ 1 ‘ . 1' c h ‘ .‘ Q r ’3 , V x 1 . . 4' . . Q ' I ' . HOE“; Hum; ;j»“~(‘_flt;')()1~',5’.1(_;HShdv‘f‘VV'U'"*“t'l’ft”"Qfl‘5 I (_H‘Ifl‘ L I Q 41 N12! :7 fl:+u"'“(:f“ 0? NW :n W: "':-H t:f!fi:;’~. 1:5?wa Umrrw wh :;h m-" but}! H- ' I 1, Avigtu‘uttnwrrr 2 R :w :1 mismgmm u? Pmdnagsrm 5. V“ “ 7"" '4' "’ "7 \ . v ‘ ‘ ‘, - ’ 1 V , A . ' ‘ , W a"; M31 i'msltwm Fir) VCJH BXLHHIY TO b9 fW‘“ WV” OW” "”5"- 2. BLANK" .\ I w :Fafifl'fllt {HWL‘Y i. \. l I“ i I L 1 " \th LA ‘1‘, \ $ '1“ r‘ P3 2 l‘ I ‘ LV 1 1" :2. ‘ T " ' "‘ « I‘ . ,_ '9 W: - 3 A r. 1‘ yum-"J of x::‘ :E :5: 1m have ymu (.-.)rr.;‘h_‘?~rdr 1‘ “WM '3: I’m”: .4? rum“: 9 bis-”‘1'? U’W'LI“ 4A var‘vmvjr h.ft1:,i?(,‘3(.*‘u)()! .2 AMZiw-«in'mwf O ’ ‘ . _ . 1:5 ‘1 . ‘. \. fl ‘ ‘ ‘ Z) ) ' A ,_ < ‘ " ‘.'r u r'! t. meussirmal matsmna‘.mm .~n W“? ‘1 1‘ 4. -".‘,:.1fl~'1‘j$'.'(}f F’1:r<.ha$il'ng_) 5 \“HT‘T P"“*‘V"’T "f ‘mmr [)wnrgnt ' anfl'w (Hf‘t:for(1'10“?I0n5101,1"}?- emd MUS piano, (In not mark In this ’ ‘ him; Th_’lr‘.k you. i j ‘ ‘I '1 ‘1 p ; v 'v "{ V) . I I I ‘ . \J ’ ’, 4 . l :1 ' S {I .1 I '1 ‘ ' A IN I ; h ‘1 L‘ 1 7‘ ‘ La , '4 ‘ ‘ I u 1 v « ‘ _ I A‘ u ” J. . 5 “ Q ' . . _V . ...—.—-¢— 1 .‘ V 7 I r . .., I I . ~ 3' r. ‘ .\ , ' |' p. ‘ . ’ ‘ x ) .___—.-__— _—__————.—— ‘4 _. ‘ x — A o . . APPENDIX B THE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE RESPONSES FOR EACH ITEM ON THE RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE 174 TABLE B-l FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS' SCORES ON THE INDIVIDUAL SELF-ESTEEM ITEMS Relative Cumulative Questionnaire Absolute Frequency Frequency Item Number Item Description Frequency (Percent) (Percent) 1 Understanding 587 53.9 53.9 Thorough 503 46.1 100.0 2 Loyal 298 27.3 27.3 Dependable 792 72.7 100.0 3 Unaffected 127 11.7 11.7 Alert 963 88.3 100.0 4 Sharp-witted 376 34.5 34.5 Deliberate 714 65.5 100.0 5 Kind 908 83.3 83.3 Jolly 182 16.7 100.0 6 Enterprising 482 44.2 44.2 Intelligent 608 55.8 100.0 7 Progressive 715 65.6 65.6 Thrifty 375 34.4 100.0 8 Thoughtful 292 26.8 26.8 Fair-minded 798 73.2 100.0 9 Sociable 429 39.4 39.4 Steady 661 60.6 100.0 10 Pleasant 753 69.1 69.1 Modest 337 30.9 100.0 11 Responsible 665 61.0 61.0 Reliable 425 39.0 100.0 12 Dignified 415 38.1 38.1 Civilized 675 61.9 100.0 13 Imaginitive 569 52.2 52.5 Self-controlled 521 47.8 100.0 14 Sympathetic 476 43.7 43.7 Patient 614 56.3 100.0 15 Stable 589 54.0 54.0 Foresighted 501 46.0 100.0 16 Shy 137 12.6 12.6 Lazy 953 87.4 100.0 17 Immature 705 64.7 64.7 Quarrelsome 385 35.3 100.0 175 TABLE B-1--Continued Cumulative Questionnaire Absolute Frequency Frequency Item Number Item Description Frequency (Percent) (Percent) 18 Unfriendly 672 61.7 61.7 Self-seeking 418 38.3 100.0 19 Conceited 321 29.4 29.4 Infantile 769 70.6 100.0 20 Shallow 610 56.0 56.0 Stingy 480 44.0 100.0 21 Unstable 788 72.3 72.3 Frivolous 302 27.7 100.0 22 Dreamy 724 66.4 66.4 Dependent 366 33.6 100.0 23 Apathetic 570 52.3 52.3 Egotistical 520 47.7 100.0 24 Despondent 753 69.1 69.1 Evasive 337 30.9 100.0 25 Weak 750 68.8 68.8 Selfish 340 31.2 100.0 26 Fussy 349 32.0 32.0 Submissive 741 68.0 100.0 27 Opinionated 337 30.9 30.9 Pessimistic 753 69.1 100.0 28 Shiftless 722 66.2 66.2 Bitter ‘ 368 33.8 100.0 29 Hard-hearted 405 37.2 37.2 Self-pitying 685 62.8 100.0 30 cynical 945 86.7 86.7 Aggressive 145 13.3 100.0 31 Undependable 812 74.5 74.5 Resentful 278 25.5 100.0 Note: For items 1-15, the respondents were asked to indicate which adjective from each pair described item best. For items 16-31, the respondents were asked to indicate which adjective from each pair described them less well. u l I 176 TABLE B-2 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL NEED FOR ACHIEVEMENT ITEMS Questionnaire Item ‘ Relative Cumulative Number and Abbreviated Response Absolute Frequency Frequency Item Description Category Frequency (Percent) (Percent) 32: It's easy to relax Yes 756 69.4 69.4 on a vacation. No 334 30.6 100.0 33: Annoyed with Yes 916 84.0 84.0 impunctuality. No 174 16.0 100.0 34: Dislike seeing Yes 1,067 97.9 97.9 things wasted. No 23 2.1 100.0 35: I like getting Yes 77 7.1 7.1 drunk. No 1,013 92.9 100.0 36: I forget about job Yes 510 46.8 46.8 after working hours. No 580 53.2 100.0 37: Prefer congeniality Yes 108 9.9 9.9 over competence No 982 90.1 100.0 38: Ineffeciency makes Yes 968 88.8 88.8 me angry. No 122 11.2 100.0 39: I work hard to be Yes 982 90.1 90.1 the best. No 108 9.9 100.0 177 TABLE B-3 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS' SCORES ON THE INDIVIDUAL EXTERNAL CONTROL ITEMS Relative Cumulative Questionnaire Abbreviated Item Absolute Frequency Frequency Item Number Description Frequency (Percent) (Percent) People get respect. 724 66.4 66.4 40 WOrth passes unrec- ognized. 366 33.6 100.0 41 Breaks make leaders. 156 14.3 14.3 Work makes leaders. 934 85.7 100.0 42 Work makes success. 696 63.9 63.9 A good job is luck. 394 36.1 100.0 Luck makes no differ- 934 85.7 85.7 43 ence. Best to flip a coin 156 14.3 100.0 44 Being boss is luck. 144 13.2 13.2 Being boss is ability. 946 86.8 100.0 45 We are trapped. 434 39.8 39.8 We are in control. 656 60.2 100.0 Accidents control 682 62.6 62.6 46 lives. There is no luck. 408 37.4 100.0 I have little influ- 440 40.4 40.4 47 ence. Luck plays no role. 650 59.6 100.0 178 TABLE B-4 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS' SCORES ON THE INDIVIDUAL NEED FOR CERTAINTY ITEMS Questionnaire Item Number 5 Relative Cumulative Abbreviated Absolute Frequency Frequency Description Response Category Frequency (Percent) (Percent) 48: An expert Strongly Disagree 218 20.0 20.0 should have Disagree Somewhat 415 38.1 58.1 a definite Neutral 157 14.4 72.5 answer. Somewhat Agree 209 19.2 91.7 Strongly Agree 91 18.3 100.0 49: All prob- Strongly Agree 131 12.0 12.0 lems can Disagree Somewhat 250 22.9 35.0 be solved. Neutral 70 6.4 41.4 Somewhat Agree 316 29.0 70.4 Strongly Agree 323 29.6 100.0 50: Directions Strongly Disagree 320 29.4 29.4 must be Disagree Somewhat 329 30.2 59.5 clear. Neutral 110 10.1 69.6 Somewhat Agree 171 15.7 85.3 Strongly Agree 160 14.7 100.0 51: Tackle Strongly Disagree 294 27.0 27.0 small Disagree Somewhat 281 25.8 52.8 problems. Neutral 145 13.3 - 66.1 Somewhat Agree 261 23.9 90.0 Strongly Agree 109 10.0 100.0 52: I prefer Strongly Disagree 176 16.1 16.1 the fam- Disagree Somewhat 243 22.3 38.4 .iliar. Neutral 122 11.2 49.6 Somewhat Agree 344 31.6 81.2 Strongly Agree 205 18.8 100.0 53: I prefer Strongly Disagree 346 31.7 31.7 the regu- Disagree Somewhat 388 35.6 67.3 let life. Neutral 133 12.2 79.5 Somewhat Agree 153 14.0 93.6 Strongly Agree 70 6.4 100.0 54: I prefer Strongly Disagree 55 5.0 5.0 familiar Disagree Somewhat 177 16.2 21.3 people. Neutral 242 22.2 43.5 Somewhat Agree 384 35.2 78.7 Strongly Agree 232 21.3 100.0 TABLE B-4--Continued 179 Questionnaire Item Number 8 Relative Cumulative Abbreviated Absolute Frequency Frequency Description Response Category Frequency (Percent) (Percent) 55: We should Strongly Disagree 647 59.4 59.4 all have Disagree Somewhat 253 23.2 82.6 similar Neutral 73 6.7 89.3 values. Somewhat Agree 69 6.3 95.6 Strongly Agree 48 4.4 100.0 56: Would like Strongly Disagree 176 16.1 16.1 to live in Disagree Somewhat 93 8.5 24.6 a foreign Neutral 170 15.6 40.2 country. Somewhat Agree 309 28.3 68.5 Strongly Agree 342 41.4 100.0 57: I dislike Strongly Disagree 81 7.4 7.4 schedules. Disagree Somewhat 258 23.7 31.1 Neutral 141 12.9 44.0 Somewhat Agree 343 31.5 75.5 Strongly Agree 267 24.5 100.0 58: I prefer Strongly Disagree 34 3.1 3.1 complicated Disagree Somewhat 99 9.1 12.2 problems. Neutral 108 9.9 22.1 Somewhat Agree 360 '33.0 55.1 Strongly Agree 489 44.9 100.0 59: I prefer Strongly Disagree 25 2.3 2.3 different Disagree Somewhat 31 2.8 5.1 people. Neutral 60 5.5 10.6 Somewhat Agree 373 34.2 44.8 Strongly Agree 601 55.1 100.0 60: I appreci— Strongly Disagree 116 10.6 10.6 ate the Disagree Somewhat 246 22.6 33.2 complexity Neutral 164 15.0 48.2 of things. Somewhat Agree 386 35.4 83.6 Strongly Agree 178 16.3 100.0 61: Decisions Strongly Disagree 136 12.5 12.5 are often Disagree Somewhat 196 18.0 30.5 based on Neutral 89 8.2 38.7 insuffi- Somewhat Agree 447 41.0 79.7 cient in- Strongly Agree 222 20.4 100.0 formation. TABLE B-4--Continued 180 Questionnaire Item Number & Relative Cumulative Abbreviated Absolute Frequency Frequency Description Response Category Frequency (Percent) (Percent) 62: Vagueness Strongly Disagree 359 32.9 32.9 breeds Disagree Somewhat 288 26.4 59.3 originality Neutral 90 8.3 67.6 Somewhat Agree 252 23.1 90.7 Strongly Agree 101 9.3 100.0 63: A super- Strongly Disagree 209 19.2 19.2 visor Disagree Somewhat 199 18.3 37.5 should Neutral 130 11.9 49.4 make you Somewhat Agree 353 32.4 81.8 wonder. Strongly Agree 199 18.3 100.0 181 TABLE B-S FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESPONDENTS' SCORES ON THE INDIVIDUAL HIGHER ORDER NEED ITEMS Questionnaire Item Number & Relative Cumulative Abbreviated Response Absolute Frequency Frequency Description Category Frequency (Percent) (Percent) 64: Opportunity Minimum.Amount 2 .2 .2 for per- Small Amount 9 .8 1.0 sonal growth Moderate Amount 83 7.6 8.6 Large Amount 245 22.5 31.1 Maximum Amount 751 68.9 100.0 65: Feeling of Minimum Amount 1 .1 .1 accomplish— Small Amount 3 .3 ' .4 ment. Moderate Amount 27 2.5 2.9 Large Amount 251 23.0 25.9 Maximum Amount 808 74.1 100.0 66: Chance for Minimum Amount 0 0 0 challenging Small Amount 5 .5 .5 work. Moderate Amount 48 4.4 4.9 Large Amount 295 27.1 31.9 Maximum Amount 742 68.1 100.0 67: Opportunity Minimum Amount 1 ' .1 .1 to complete Small Amount 20 1.8 1.9 work. Moderate Amount 117 10.7 12.7 Large Amount 304 27.9 40.6 Maximum Amount 648 59.4 100.0 68: Opportunity Minimum Amount 3 .3 .3 for per- Small Amount 8 .7 1.0 formance Moderate Amount 84 7.7 8.7 feedback. Large Amount 275 25.2 33.9 Maximum Amount 720 66.1 100.0 69: Opportunity Minimum Amount 2 .2 .2 to par— Small Amount 4 .4 .6 ticipate. Moderate Amount 48 4.4 5.0 Large Amount 281 25.8 30.7 Maximum Amount 755 69.3 100.0 70: Freedom of Minimum Amount 12 1.1 1.1 action. Small Amount 51 4.7 5.8 Moderate Amount 235 21.6 27.4 Large Amount 455 41.7 69.1 Maximum Amount 337 30.9 100.0 182 TABLE B-5--Continued Questionnaire Item Number & Relative Cumulative Abbreviated Response -Absolute Frequency Frequency Description Category Frequency (Percent) (Percent) 71: Opportunity Minimum Amount 0 0 0 for variety. Small Amount 14 1.3 1.3 Moderate Amount 123 11.3 12.6 Large Amount 439 40.3 52.8 Maximum Amount 514 47.2 100.0 72: Chance for Minimum Amount 0 O 0 independent Small Amount 4 .4 .4 thought and Moderate Amount 72 6.6 7.0 action. Large Amount 423 38.8 45.8 Maximum Amount 591 54.2 100.0 73: Chance to do Minimum Amount 7 .6 .6 a whole job. Small Amount 26 2.4 3.0 Moderate Amount 141 12.9 16.0 Large Amount 337 30.9 46.9 Maximum Amount 579 53.1 100.0 74: Opportunity Minimum Amount 7 .6 .6 to find out Small Amount 20 1.8 2.5 how I am Moderate Amount 121 11.1 13.6 doing. Large Amount 303 27.8 41.4 Maximum Amount 639 58.6 100.0 75: Opportunity Minimum Amount 2 .2 .2 to do a Small Amount 18 1.7 1.9 number of Moderate Amount 113 10.4 12.2 things. Large Amount 394 36.1 48.3 Maximum Amount 563 51.7 100.0 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESPONDENTS' SCORES ON THE INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES TABLE B-6 183 Questionnaire Item Number 5 Relative Cumulative Abbreviated Response Absolute Frequency Frequency Description Category Frequency (Percent) (Percent) 76: Profit Very Low 10 .9 .9 potential. Moderately Low 25 2.3 3.2 Average 204 18.7 21.9 Moderately High 463 42.5 64.4 Very High 388 35.6 100.0 77: Procedures. Very Low 12 1.1 1.1 Moderately Low 40 3.7 4.8 Average 175 16.1 20.8 Moderately High 440 40.4 61.2 Very High 423 38.8 100.0 78: Sourcing. Very Low 7 .6 .6 Moderately Low 39 3.6 4.2 Average 226 20.7 25.0 Moderately High 470 43.1 68.1 Very High 348 31.9 100.0 79: Personal Very Low 9 .8 .8 Skills. Moderately Low 38 3.5 4.3 Average 189 17.3 21.7 Moderately High 487 44.7 66.3 Very High 367 33.7 100.0 80: Departmental Very Low 20 1.8 1.8 Coordination. Moderately Low 61 5.6 7.4 Average 245 22.5 29.9 Moderately High 404 37.1 67.0 Very High 360 33.0 100.0 81: Negotiation. Very Low 5 .5 .5 Moderately Low 20 1.8 2.3 Average 170 15.6 17.9 Moderately High 542 49.7 67.6 Very High 353 32.4 100.0 82: Product Very Low 19 1.7 1.7 Research. Moderately Low 83 7.6 9.4 Average 311 28.5 37.9 Moderately High 445 40.8 78.7 Very High 232 21.3 100.0 . P] .1- l '1‘. )1 I i. I I i l 1.11.. 184 Table B~6--Continued Questionnaire Item Number & Relative Cumulative Abbreviated Response Absolute Frequency Frequency Description Category Frequency (Percent) (Percent) 83: Interfirm Very Low 22 2.0 2.0 Coordin+ Moderately Low 88 8.1 10.1 ation. Average 298 27.3 37.4 Moderately High 413 A 37.9 75.3 Very High 269 24.7 100.0 84: Quality Very Low 51 4.7 4.7 Accurance. Moderately Low 122 11.2 15.9 Average 330 30.3 46.1 Moderately High 363 33.3 79.4 Very High 224 20.6 100.0 85: Overall Very Low 1 .1 .1 Effective- Moderately Low 7 .6 .7 ness. Average 136 12.5 13.2 Moderately High 620 56.9 70.1 Very High 326 29. 9 100.0 185 TABLE B-7 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESPONDENTS' SCORES ON THE SOCIOECONOMIC MEASURES Questionnaire Item Number 8 Relative Cumulative Abbreviated Response Absolute Frequency Frequency Description Category Frequency (Percent) (Percent) 86: Age. Less than 30 107 9.8 9.8 30-40 324 29.7 39.5 41-50 317 29.1 68.6 51—60 271 24.9 93.5 Over 60 71 6.5 100.0 87: Years with Less than 5 293 26.9 26.9 current 5-10 253 23.2 50.1 firm. 11-15 148 13.6 63.7 16-20 121 11.1 74.8 More than 20 275 25.2 100.0 88: Years with Less than 5 198 18.2 18.2 purchasing 5-10 282 25.9 44.0 experience. 11-15 195 17.9 61.9 16-20 169 15.5 77.4 More than 20 246 22.6 100.0 89: Salary level. Under 10,000 20 ‘1.8 1.8 10,000-14,999 271 24.9 26.7 15,000-19,999 352 32.3 59.0 20,000-24,999 228 20.9 79.9 25,000 and over 219 20.1 100.0 90: Salary 0-10 85 7.8 7.8 increase-- 11-20 214 19.6 27.4 last five 21-30 238 21.8 49.3 years. 31-40 170 15.6 64.9 41-50 185 17.0 81.8 More than 50 198 18.2 100.0 91: Satisfac— Very Dissatisfied 27 2.5 2.5 tion-- Moderately Dis- purchasing satisfied 92 8.4 10.9‘ career. Neutral 70 6.4 17.3 Moderately Satisfied 565 51.8 69.2 Very Satisfied 336 30.8 100.0 186 TABLE B-7--Continued Questionnaire Item Number 5 Relative Cumulative Abbreviated Response Absolute Frequency Frequency Description Category Frequency (Percent) (Percent) 92: Satisfac- Very Dissatisfied 41 3.8 3.8 tion-current Moderately Dis- firm. satisfied 108 9.9 13.7 Neutral 42 3.9 17.5 Moderately Satisfied 407 37.3 54.9 Very Satisfied 492 45.1 100.0 93: Number of One 427 39.2 39.2 positions-- Two 400 36.7 75.9 last five Three 190 17.4 93.3 years. Four 52 4.8 98.1 Five or more 21 1.9 100.0 94: Entry level Clerk/Expediter 188 17.2 17.2 position. Assistant Buyer 164 15.0 32.3 Buyer 329 30.2 62.5 Purchasing Agent 193 17.7 80.3 Manager of Purchasing 125 11.5 91.7 V.P. of Purchasing 20 1.8 93.6 Other 71 6.5 100.0 95: Present Assistant Buyer 8 .7 .7 Position. Buyer 125 11.5 12.2 Purchasing Agent 332 30.5 42.7 Manager of Purchasing 463 42.5 85.1 V.P. of Purchasing 64 5.9 91.0 Researcher 11 1.0 92.0 Other 87 8.0 100.0 96: Position of Assistant Buyer 2 .2 .2 immediate Buyer 10 .9 1.1 supervisor. Purchasing Agent 61 5.6 6.7 Manager of Purchasing 231 21.2 27.9 V.P. of Purchasing 111 10.2 38.1 Other 675 61.9 100.0 97: Expected Assistant Buyer 1 .1 .1 position-- Buyer 21 1.9 2.0 five years Purchasing Agent 147 13.5 15.6 hence. Manager of Purchasing 326 30.0 45.6 V.P. of Purchasing 199 18.3 63.9 Non-purchasing Position 246 22.7 86.6 Retired 146 13.4 100.0 187 TABLE B-7-Continued Questionnaire Item Number 5 Relative Cumulative Abbreviated Response Absolute Frequency Frequency Description Category Frequency (Percent) (Percent) 98: Number of 0-3 507 46.5 46.5 professional 4-7 324 29.7 76.3 development 8-11 135 12.4 88.6 programs 12-15 83 7.6 96.3 attended More than 15 41 3.8 100.0 per year. 99: Education Less than high level. school 2 .2 .2 High school 105 9.6 19.8 Some college 450 41.3 51.1 Bachelor's degree 294 27.0 78.1 Some graduate school 144 13.2 91.3 Advanced degree 95 8.7 100.0 100: Employer's Educational 47 4.3 4.3 line of Governmental 92 8.4 12.8 business. Industrial 667 61.2 74.0 Institutional 24 2.2 76.2 Wholesale 58 5.3 81.5 Retail 28 -2.6 84.1 Other 173 15.9 100.0 101: Undergrad- None 192 17.6 17.6 uate college Business 562 51.6 69.2 major. Engineering 131 12.0 81.2 Liberal Arts-- Social Science 117 10.7 91.9 Science 60 5.5 97.4 Agriculture 13 1.2 98.6 Education 15 1.4 100.0 102: Graduate None 831 76.3 76.3 college Business 195 17.9 94.1 major. Engineering 19 1.7 95.9 Liberal Arts-- Social Science 23 2.1 98.0 Science 13 1.2 99.2 Agriculture 2 .2 99.4 Education 7 .6 100.0 188 TABLE B-7--Continued Questionnaire Item Number 5 Relative Cumulative Abbreviated Response Absolute Frequency Frequency Description Category Frequency (Percent) (Percent) 103: Number of 0 65 6.0 6.0 professional 1 734 67.3 73.3 associations. 2 201 18.4 91.7 3 63 5.8 97.5 4 19 1.7 99.3 5 5 .5 99.7 6 2 .2 99.9 7 l .1 100.0 104: Sex. Male 1,038 95.2 95.2 Female 52 4.8 100.0 APPENDIX C A SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES CONCERNING THE PERSONALITY VARIABLES 189 Self-Esteem Each respondent's level of self-esteem was measured with the self-assurance scale of the Ghiselli Self—Description Inventory. This scale is part I of the questionnaire appearing in Appendix A, and is explained in Chapter III. The scores ranged from 11 to 41 with a higher score indicating a higher level of self-esteem. The frequency distribution of the self-esteem scores for the 1,090 respondents participating in the study is presented in Table C-l. The frequency distributions of the responses of each item that made up the instrument used to measure self-esteem are presented in Table B—1. 190 TABLE C-l FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESPONDENTS' SELF-ESTEEM SCORES Relative Cumulative Self-Esteem Absolute Frequency Frequency Score Frequency (Percent) (Percent) 11 2 .2 .2 12 l .1 .3 l3 2 .2 .5 14 2 .2 .6 15 5 .5 1.1 16 5 .5 1.6 17 13 1.2 2.8 18 16 1.5 4.2 19 25 2.3 6.5 20 35 3.2 p 9.7 21 32 2.9 12.7 22 34 3.1 15.8 23 51 4.7 20.5 24 50 4.6 25.0 25 56 5.1 30.2 26 61 5.6 35.8 27 73 6.7 42.5 28 70 6.4 48.9 29 73 6.7 55.6 30 79 7.2 62.8 31 69 6.3 69.2 191 TABLE C—l--Continued Relative Cumulative Self-Esteem Absolute Frequency Frequency Score Frequency (Percent) (Percent) 32 78 7.2 76.3 33 71 6.5 82.8 34 58 5.3 88.2 35 45 4.1 92.3 36 36 3.3 95.6 37 19 1.7 97.3 38 16 1.5 98.8 39 6 .6 99.4 40 4 .4 99.7 41 3 ___453 100.0 Total 1,090 100.0 192 Need for Certainty The Budner Intolerance of Ambiguity Scale was used to measure each respondent's need for certainty. This scale is part IV of the questionnaire found in Appendix A, and is explained in Chapter III. The respondents' scores on this scale ranged from 18 to 70 with a high score indicating a high need for certainty. These scores are summarized in Table C-2. The frequency distributions of the responses on each item that made up the instrument used to measure need for certainty are presented in Table B-4. 193 TABLE C-2 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESPONDENTS' NEED FOR CERTAINTY SCORES Need for Relative Cumulative Certainty Absolute Frequency Frequency Score Frequency (Percent) (Percent) 18 1 .1 .1 20 1 .l .2 22 1 .1 .3 25 2 .2 .5 26 2 .2 .6 27 10 .9 1.6 28 9 .8 2.4 29 12 1.1 3.5 30 11 1.0 4.5 31 17 1.6 6.1 32 15 1.4 7.4 33 21 1.9 9.4 34 25 2.3 _ 11.7 35 32 2.9 15.6 36 61 5.6 20.2 37 50 4.6 24.8 38 47 4.3 29.1 39 50 4.6 33.7 40 66 6.1 39.7 41 76 7.0 46.7 42 65 6.0 52.7 43 54 5.0 57.6 44 65 6.0 63.6 45 55 5.0 68.6 46 56 5.1 73.8 47 48 4.4 78.2 48 42 3.9 82.0 49 42 3.9 85.9 194 TABLE C-2-Continued Need for Relative Cumulative Certainty Absolute Frequency Frequency Score Frequency (Percent) (Percent) 50 31 2.8 88.7 51 26 2.4 91.1 52 23 2.1 93.2 53 23 2.1 95.3 54 10 .9 96.2 55 11 1.0 97.2 56 10 .9 98.2 57 7 .6 98.8 58 3 .3 99.1 59 2 .2 99.3 60 1 .1 99.4 61 1 .1 ' 99.4 62 4 .4 99.8 65 1 .1 99.9 70 1 .1 100.0 Total 1,090 100.0 195 External Control External control was measured using a factored version of the Rotter Internal-External Scale. This scale is explained in Chapter III and is part III of the questionnaire found in Appendix A. The respondents' scores on this scale ranged from O to 9 with a higher score indicating a higher degree of external control. The scores of the 1,090 respondents are summarized in Table C-3. The frequency distributions of the responses on each item that made up the instrument used to measure external control are presented in Table B-3. 196 TABLE C-3 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESPONDENTS' EXTERNAL CONTROL SCORES External Relative Cumulative Control Absolute Frequency Frequency Score Frequency (Percent) (Percent) O 225 20.6 20.6 1 104 9.5 30.2 2 124 11.4 41.6 3 160 14.7 56.2 4 150 13.8 70.0 5 112 10.3 80.3 6 110 10.1 90.4 7 54 5.0 95.3 8 35 3.2 98.5 9 ___1_6_ __1._5_ 100.0 Total 1,090 100.0 I'll" I' 197 Desire to Satisfy Higher Order Needs A measure of the respondents' desire to satisfy their higher order needs was obtained using an instrument developed by Hackman and Lawler. This instrument is Part V of the questionnaire found in Appendix A and is explained in Chapter III. The scores of the respondents on this instrument ranged from 25 to 60 with a higher score indicating a stronger desire to satisfy one's higher order needs. A frequency distribution of the respondents' higher order need scores is presented in Table C-4. The frequency distributions of the responses on each item.which made up the instrument used to measure desire to satisfy higher needs are presented in Table B-5. 198 TABLE C-4 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESPONDENTS' HIGHER ORDER NEED SCORES Higher Relative Cumulative Order Need . Absolute Frequency Frequency Score Frequency (Percent) (Percent) 25 l .l .1 33 l .1 .2 35 1 .l .3 36 5 .5 .7 37 2 .2 .9 38 2 .2 1.1 39 3 .3 1.4 40 2 .2 1.6 41 6 .6 2.1 42 6 .6 _ 2.7 43 11 1.0 3.7 44 15 1.4 5.0 45 32 2.9 8.0 46 23 2.1 10.1 47 44 4.0 14.1 48 50 4.6 18.7 49 38 3.5 22.2 50 59 5.4 27.6 51 66 6.1 33.7 52 60 5.5 39.2 53 61 5.6 44.8 54 70 6.4 51.2 199 TABLE C-4--Continued Higher Relative Cumulative Order Need Absolute Frequency Frequency Score Frequency (Percent) (Percent) 55 76 7.0 58.2 56 73 6.7 64.9 57 87 8.0 72.8 58 91 8.3 81.2 59 53 4.9 86.1 60 __152 13.9 100.0 Total 1,090 100.0 200 Need for Achievement The respondents' need for achievement was measured using the Lynn Achievement Motivation Questionnaire. This instrument is part II of the questionnaire found in Appendix A and is explained in Chapter III. The scores ranged from 2 to 8 with a higher score indi- cating a higher need for achievement. A frequency distribution of the respondents' need for achievement scores is presented in Table C-S. The frequency distributions of the responses on each item that made up the instrument used to measure need for achievement are presented in Table B-2. 201 TABLE C-5 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESPONDENTS' NEED FOR ACHIEVEMENT SCORES Need for Relative Cumulative Achievement Absolute Frequency Frequency Score Frequency (Percent) (Percent) 2 6 .6 .6 3 13 1.2 1.7 4 50 4.6 6.3 5 177 16.2 22.6 6 381 35.0 57.5 7 284 26.1 ' 83.6 8 179 16.4 100.0 Total 1,090 100.0 APPENDIX D DEFINITIONS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF EFFECTIVE AND INEFFECTIVE BUYERS 1. 4. 10. 11. 12. 202 ACTIVITIES OF EFFECTIVE AND INEFFECTIVE BUYERS* Profit Potential. The buyer's activities are reported as producing savings or causing a change in costs. Requires judgment on how to meet company cost goals. Transportation. The buyer reviews transportation modes, services, possible improvements in delivery time or cost. Departmental Coordination. The buyer develops mutually helpful relations with other units in the firm as well as in his purchasing group. Communicates, provides reports, literature, educates. Provides liaison in the firm. Arranges meetings. Competitive Bids. Uses the bidding process. Asks for quotes. Ethics. The buyer is honest and truthful in his operations. Avoids situations which could reflect unfavorably on him or his firm. Followap. The buyer knows the status of purchase orders and takes corrective action when necessary. Follows through to see that procedures are completed satisfactorily. Forecasting. The buyer projects trends for supply, demand, prices. Forward BuYIQa. The buyer purchases more material than is needed for current requirements, but not beyond actual foreseeable needs. Determines when to buy based on changes in the situation. Interfirm Coordination. Arranges meetings between himself, members of his firm, vendors, or customers to improve cooperation. Communicates, advises of problems. Inventory Control. The buyer checks stock balances, usage rates, seeks to provide or maintain a sufficient supply of material. Plans to increase or decrease inventory levels. Legal Considerations. The buyer plans his activities to avoid problems in contractual areas. Make or Buy. The buyer is involved in a make or buy situation. *Activities taken from Robert 1. Cook, Critical Incidents Which Distinguish Between Effective and Ineffective Performance (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University 1974), pp. 148-150. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 203 Market Analysis. The buyer studies the market for information on previous or current supply, demand, or price conditions. Negotiation. The buyer discusses the various factors of a pur- chase with a supplier to obtain a better value. Under- standing of terms and conditions is sought. Mutual benefits are anticipated. Organizational Decisions. The buyer makes decisions involving the formal organizational structure. He acts on some questions related to the chain-of-command or the flow of authority and responsibility. Contacts another unit for advice, assistance or clarification. He may challenge requisitions, releases or recommendations of others. Reacts to orders from superiors. Procedures. The buyer usually follows established procedures. Any changes should bring improvement. May decide to use blanket orders. May omit or change the sequence of a step in the regular procedure. Studies new systems, procedures. Product Research. The buyer increases his knowledge of the items he buys. Studies reference sources, questions salesmen, suppliers, users of similar products. Quality Assurance. The buyer investigates to achieve desired quality. He checks samples, has tests run, compares items, discusses any adjustments with vendor. Records. The buyer is conscious of the importance of maintaining complete, correct records of transactions and having them available for reference. Scrap and Surplus Disposal. The buyer arranges the dispostion of excess or scrap material. Sourcing. The buyer searches for suppliers, checks old and new sources. Investigates and evaluates capabilities. May need to develop and encourage a new source. Stimulates competition. (Specifications. The buyer reviews specifications and may suggest a change in a dimension, material, or design. He is con- cerned with standards. Substitutions. The buyer recommends a substitute product or an alternative manufacturing process to his firm. Proposes a solution to a problem. Supplier Evaluation. The buyer reviews the capability and per- formance of existing vendors. Visits supplier facilities. 25. 26. 27. 28. 204 Tagget Pricing. The buyer works to develop a proper price by analyzing or estimating a supplier's material, labor, and overhead costs. Personal Skills. The buyer is able to convince others in the firm to accept his proposals. Defends his viewpoints. Spends extra effort, personal time, to solve problems. Weakness in these skills is indicated by a lack of initiative, by delays in taking actions, and a lack of insight in dealing with others. Vendor Assistance. The buyer seeks the vendor's expertise in ‘ solving a problem. He asks for suggestions. He may ask the vendor to try a new method or alternative. May also provide assistance to a vendor by buying for him, etc. Vendor Relations. The buyer works to develop friendly, courteous, continuing relations with his suppliers. Intends to create mutually satisfactory inter-actions and to avoid ill-will. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY‘ Alderfer, C. P. "An Empirical Test of a New Theory of Human Needs." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4 (1969), . Existencel Relatedness, and Growth: Human Needs in Organizational Setting . New York: The Free Press, 1972. . Human Needs in Organizational Settingg. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1971. Aljian, George W., ed. Purchasing Handbook. 3rd ed. New York, McGrawbHill, 1973. Barrett, Richard S. Performance Ratings. Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1962. Broedling, Laurie A. "Relationship of Internal-External Control to WOrk Motivation and Performance in an Expectancy Model," Journal of Applied Psycholngy, 60 (February, 1975), p. 65. Bruning, James L., and Kintz, B. L. Computational Handbook of Statistics. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1968. Budner, G. "Intolerance of Ambiguity as a Personality Variable." Journal of Personality, 30 (1962), pp. 29-50. Cady, E. L. Industrial Purchasing. New York: Wiley, 1945. Campbell, D. T., and Fiske, D. W. "Convergent and Discriminate Validation of the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix." Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 56 (1959), pp. 81-105. Campbell, John P., Dunnette, Marvin D., Arvey, Richard D., and Hellervik, Lowell V. "The Development and Evaluation of Behaviorally Based Rating Scales." Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 57, No. 1, February, 1973, pp. 23-27. Cook, Robert 1. "Industrial Buyers: Critical Incidents Which Dis— tinquished Between Effective and Ineffective Performance." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1974. 205 206 Cyert, R. M., and March, J. G. A Behavioral Theory_of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963. Duncan, Delbert J. "What Motivates Business Buyers." Harvard Business Review, Summer, 1940, p. 448. Farrell, Paul V. Fifpprears of Purchasing: The Story of N.A.P.A. New York: The National Association of Purchasing Agents, 1954. Fearon, Harold E., and Hoagland, John H. Purchasing Research in American Industry. AMA Research Study 58. New York: American Management Association, 1963. Feldman, Wallace, and Cardozo, Richard N. "Industrial Buying as Consumer Behavior or the Repressed Revolution," in American Marketing Association, June 1967 Conference Proceedings, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1967, p. 104. Feldman, Wallace and Cardozo, Richard. "The 'Industrial' Revolution and Models of Buyer Behavior." Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, November, 1969, p. 78. Fine, 1. V., ed. Purchasing as a Career. New York: The National Association of Purchasing Management, 1961. Ghiselli, E. E. Explorations in Managerial Talent. Pacific Palisades, California: Goodyear Publishing Company, Inc., 1971. . The Self-Description Inventory Manual. 'University of California, Berkeley: available from author, undated. Greenhaus, Jefferey H., and Badin, Irwin J. "Self-Esteem Performance, and Satisfaction: Some Tests of a Theory." Journal of Applied Psycholqu, 59 (December, 1974), pp. 722-726. Gushee, Edward T., and Boffey, L. F. Scientific Purchasing. New York: MbGrawbflill, 1928. Hackman, J. R., and Lawler, E. E., III. "Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics," in Readingg_in Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Edited by W. E. Scott and L. L. Cummings, Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1973, p. 231. Harriman, Norman F. Principles of Scientific Purchasing. New York: Hechler, P. D., and Wiener, Yoash. "Chronic Self-Esteem as a Moderator of Performance Consequences of Expected Pay." lggganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11 (February, 1974). P. 104. 207 Heinritz, Stuart P., and Farrell, Paul V. Purchasing: Principles and Applications. 5th edition, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1971. Heizer, Jay H. "Effective and Ineffective Actions of Purchasing Managers." Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, August, 1971, pp. 11-23. Heneman, Herbert 6., III. "Comparisons of Self and Superior Ratings of Managerial Performance." Journal of Applied Paypholqu, Vol. 59, No. 5, October, 1974, pp. 638-642. Hill, John H. "The Purchasing Revolution." Keynote address given to the 38th Annual International Convention of the National Association of Purchasing Agents, Los Angeles, California, 1953. Reprinted in the Journal of Purchasing and Materials Mannggment, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1975, p. 21. Jackson, Douglas N. Manual for the Personality Review Form. London, Ontario: The University of Western Ontario, 1967. Joe, V. C. "Review of the Internal-External Control Construct as a Personality Variable." Psychological Reports, 28 (1971), pp. 619-640. Kassarjian, Harold H. "Personality and Consumer Behavior: A.Review." Jaurnal of Marketing Research, November 1971, p. 409. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973. , and Pedhazur, Elazar J. Multiple Rggression in Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973. Kirschner, Wayne, and Dunnette, Marvin D. "Identifying the Critical Factors in Successful Salesmanship." Personnel, September- October, 1957, pp. 54—59. Korman, Abraham.R. "Relevance of Personal Need Satisfaction for Overall Satisfaction as a Function of Self-Esteem." Journal of Applied Psycholngy, 51 (December, 1967), pp. 533-538. . "Self-Esteem as a Moderator in Vocational Choice." Journal of Applied Psycholpgy, 53 (January, 1969), pp. 188-192. "Task Success, Task Popularity, and Task Liking." Journal of Applied Psychology, 52 (1968), pp. 484-490. Lawler, E. E. III. Motivation in Wark Opganizations. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1973. Lawshe, C. H., Kephart, N. C., and McCormick, E. J. "The Paired Comparison Technique for Rating Performance of Industrial 208 Employees." Journal of Applied Psycholpgy, Vol. 33, No. 1 (February, 1949), pp. 69—77. Lee, Lamar Jr. and Dobler, Donald W. Purchasing and Materials Managgment. 2nd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. Lefcourt, H. M. "Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement: A Review." Psycholqgical Bulletin, 65 (1966), pp. 206-220. Leonard, Skipton and Weitz, Joseph. "Task Enjoyment and Task Perseverance in Relation to Task Success and Self-Esteem." Journal of Applied Psycholggy, 56 (October, 1971), pp. 414- 421. Lewis, Howard T. "This Business of Procurement." Harvard Business Review, Spring, 1946. Reprinted in the Journal of Purchasing_ and Materials Management,‘Vol. 11, No. 2, 1975, p. 10. Lichtman, C. M. "Some Intra Person Response Correlates of Organizational Rank." Journal of Applied ngcholngy, 54 (February, 1970), p. 79. Lynn, Richard. "An Achievement Motivation Questionnaire." British Journal of Psychology, 60 (1969), pp. 529-534. Maslow, A. H. "A Theory of Human Motivation." Psychological Review 50 (1943), pp. 370-396. . Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row, 1970. McClelland, D. D. The Achieving Society. Princeton: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1961. . "Toward a Theory of Motive Acquisition." in Readings in ‘thanizational Behavior and Human Performance. Edited by W. E. Scott and L. L. Cummings. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1973. McMillan, A. L. The Art of Purchasing, Jericho, New York: Exposition Press, 1953. Mehrens, William A., and Tehmann, Irvin J. Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973. Miner, J. B. "Management Appraisal: A Capsule Review and Current References." Business Horizons, Vol. 11 (1968), pp. 83—96. Moore, Harry J. "The Evolution of the Industrial Purchasing Man." in.American Marketing Association, June 1967 Conference Proceedings, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1967. 209 Mukherjee, B. N. "Achievement Values, Social Desirability and Endorsement of Trait Names on the Berdie Check List." Journal of Applied Psychology, 54 (April, 1968), p. 129. Nie, Norman H., Hull, C. Hadlei, Jenkins, Jean 6., Steinbrenner, Karin, and Bent, Dale H.* Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. New York: MeGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975. Organ, D. W., and Greene, C. N. "Role Ambiguity, Locus of Control, and Werk Satisfaction." Journal of Applied Psycholggy, 59 (1974), pp. 101-102. Parket, I. Robert. "The Industrial Buyer - Human But Rational." Journal of Purchasing;and Materials Mansggment, November, 1971, p. 63. Pooler, Victor B. The PurchasingyMan and His Job. New York: American Management Association, 1964. Porter, L. W., and Lawler, E. E. Mansgeria1.Attitudes and Performance. Homewood, Illinois: Irwin-Dorsey, 1968. Prien, E. P., and Liske, R. E. "A Comparative Analysis of Super- visor Ratings and Incumbent Self-Ratings of Job Performance." Personnel Psycholngy, Vol. 15 (1962), pp. 197-194. Rindsfoos, C. N. Purchasing. New York: MeGraw-Hill, 1915. Rotter, J. B. "Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement." Psychological Monographs, 80 (1966), pp. 1-28. ' Sheth, Jagdish N. "A Model of Industrial Buyer Behavior." Journal of Marketing, October, 1973, pp. 50-56. Thornton, G. C. "The Relationship Between Supervisory and Self- Appraisals of Executive Performance." Personnel Psycholggy, Tseng, M. S. "Locus of Control as a Determinant of Job Proficiency, Employability, and Training Satisfaction of Vocational Rehabilitation Clients." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 17 (1970), pp. 487-491. Webster, Frederick E. Jr., and Wind, Yoram. Organizational Buying Behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. Westing, J. H., Fine, I. V., and Zenz, Gary J. PurchasingtMannggment: Materials in Motion. 3rd edition. New York: Wiley, 1969. Wiener, Yoash. "Task Ego-Involvement and Self-Esteem as Moderators of Situationally Devalued Self-Esteem." Journal of Applied Psychology, 58 (October, 1973), pp. 233-238. 210 Wilson, David T. "Attitude, Referents and Perceived Risk: Influences in Organizational Buyer Choice." Unpublished Paper, The Pennsylvania State University, undated. . "Industrial Buyers' Decision-Making Styles." Journal of MarketingyResearch, November, 1971, pp. 433-436. . "An Exploratory Study of the Effects of Personality and Problem Elements Upon Purchasing Agent Decision Styles." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, April, 1970. , and Little, Blair. "Purchasing and Decision-Making Styles of Purchasing Managers." Journal of Purchasingtand Materials Management, August, 1971, pp. 33-40. , Mathews, H. Lee, and Sweeney, Timothy W. "Industrial Buyer Segmentation: A.Psychographic Approach." in Relevance in Marketing: Problems, Research and Action. Edited by Fred C. Allvine. Chicago: American Marketing Association, Fall, 1971, pp. 327-331. Wind, Yoram. "Industrial Source Loyalty." Journal of Marketing Research, VII (November, 1970), pp. 450-457. Winters, Frank J. "A Look Back...and Ahead." Journal of Purchasing and Materials Manggement, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1975, pp. 47-48. "‘IIIIIIII“