EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION MAKING AND ACCEPTANCE OF PLANNED CHANGE Thesis fer the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY SHAN-PANG YIEN 1970 L I B R A R Y Michigan State ~ University “- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I/ 3 1293 01001 6370 This is to certify that the thesis entitled EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION MAKING AND ACCEPTANCE OF PLANNED CHANGE presented by YIEN, SHAN-PANG has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for m degree in , ”VI H' Ct"! lax-(.94 MM {4 z c/C/éf ajor professor I 0-169 ABSTRACT EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL.DECISION MAKING AND.ACCEPTANCE OF PLANNED CHANGE BY ShanApang Yien This study explores some of the social psychological factors that might account fOr'member acceptance of planned.change within a formal organization. The field.research was conducted in a local bank whidh provided stateAWide credit card services. The questionnaire was the major instrument for data collection. .Acceptance of organizational planned Change was predicted to be affected and modified by variables concerning personal data items, peru sonality determinants and organizational perceptions. Psychological and Objective participation were examined along with role perception, group ochesiveness, perceived supervisors"attitudes to change, perceived self-competence, etc. The findings showed that the criterion was accounted for more by institutional variables than by personal data or personality- deterninants. These imply that participative control Should not be overemphasized in securing Change acceptance unless the relevant social as well as psychological elements are taken into consideration. EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION MAKING AND ACCEPTANCE OF PLANNED CHANGE By Shan-pang Yien A.THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements . for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Communication 1970 Accepted by the faculty of the Departnent of Communication, College of Commmication Arts , Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirenents for the Doctor of Phil ophy degree . Guidance Committee: ACIOIOWLEDGMENI‘S I wish to express my deep appreciation to my major adviser, Professor Hideya Kumata, for his constant advice and support through- out my graduate studies in the Department of Commication, Michigan State University. I also wish to thank Dr. Verling C. Troldahl, Dr. Bradley S. Greenberg and Dr. William Crano for their thoughtful and critical reading of the manuscript. From all of them, I have gained a direct and immeasurably important intellectual source for this researdn. I especially wish to thank Dr. Eugene H. Jacobson for his consultation regarding the use of theories in social psychology. I am grateful to the officers and employees of the organization which provided me with the opportunity to conduct this field research study . iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN ORGANIZATION DECISION MAKING AND.ACCEPTANCE OF PLANNED CHANGE . Introduction . . . . . . . . I. The Problem. . . . . . . . . II. Research on Member Participation . III. Scope of the Study . . . . . . IV. Rationale and Hypotheses . . . . V. Investigation at the Level of Multivariate Analyses . . II METHODOLOGY I. Data Collection Procedures . . . II. Questionnaire Construction . . . III. Strategy of Data Analysis . . . III FINDINGS I. Testing the Hypotheses . . . II. Multivariate-Analyses: Multiple and Partial Correlations . . . iv Page iii 22 23 3O 36 39 Chapter Page IV CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . #8 I. Summery' . . . . . . . . . . #8 II. Implications . . . . . . . . . 5H BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 List of Variables LIST OF TABLES Inter-item Correlations . Categorization of Variables and Corresponding O Page 11 2M 25 Questionnaire Items . . ._ Zero—order Correlation Coefficientsand Eta's (Relationships between each of the independent . variables and acceptance of planned change.) . Independence of the Variables: Factor Analysis . Associations between Acceptance of (Range and Each of the Independent . Variables: Zero-order Correlation Coefficients . . . . . . . . To Predict Acceptance of Change from Objective Participation in Conjunction with each of the other Variables: Multiple Correlations . . . To Predict Acceptance of Change from Objective Participation with the Influence of each of the other Variables Eliminated: Partial Correlations To Predict Acceptance of Change from Psychological Participation in Conjunction with each of the other Variables: Multiple Correlations . . . To Predict Acceptance of Change from PsychOlogical Participation with the Influence of each of the other Variables Eliminated: Partial Correlations............ LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page 1 Research Sites and Organizational . 8mm 0 o o o o o o o o 9 Q o o o 61 2 Variables Investigated at the Level of Simple Correlations . . . . . . . . . . 67 3 Characteristics of the Respondents . . . . . . 69 u The Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 I. CHAPTERI EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION MAKING AND ACCEPTANCE OF PLANNED CHANGE Introduction The Problem Because of pressures from competition, or from other forces within or without, challenging an organization to develop new methods to cope with even-changing and complicated environments , it is conceivable that any modern organization is constantly facing change. Creative changes , as Faulhaber (1967) contends, become most potent organizational strategic resources and will be the only exercises that keep an organization in a state of competitive leader- ship and superiority. In most organizations , there are subsystems called "Research 8 Development" which are primarily concerned with sensing relevant and important changes in the outside world, and translating the meaning of changes for the whole organization. When a set—up of a new program or discontinuity of an existing one is considered A necessary and inevitable , the immediate concern of top management is how to put it into effect. However, their endeavor sometimes ‘ fails to elicit expected change results because they neglect to devote some of their communication to changing the attitudes” and actions of the personnel in the organization. 1 2 For instance, Coch and French (19u8) reported that one of the serious problems faced at the Harwood Corporation (manufacturing pajamas) was the resistance of the production workers to the necessary changes in methods and jobs. Analogously, Agnew and.Hsu (1966) fOund that forces of resistance came frontboth hospital personnel and the patients When a new clothing policy was being introduced in a.mental hospital. Agnew and Hen attributed these forces of'resistanoe to the following two reasons: (1) Change of any consequence is likely to require some shift in habits to which the individuals involved have been accustomed, and (2) any change in one of its component parts is likely to require or result in alternation or rearrangement of other‘parts. Both of these tend to be painful or'troublesome to the individuals involved. The authors further contended that resistant forces could be reduced to a.great extent if a meeting or meetings were provided in which the purpose of the change and the method to carry out the change were discussed by the people involved. March and Simon (1958) point out that, theoretically, indi- viduals and organizations give preferred.treatment-to alternatives that represent continuity of present programs over those that repre— sent change . Persistence or program continuity comes about primarily because the individual or organization does not deliberately look for or consider alternatives to the present course of action unless the present course of action is unsatisfactory. II. 3 Some of the implications resulting from the above discussion are that any organization and its members prefer program continuity; that commmication within organizations is for maintaining equilibrium, and that changes, if necessary and inevitable, tend to be planned rather than unplanned. .sl“ 3.. Our focus is not on whether an organization out to prefer changes or stick with the old ways, as no organizationwcan afford to have constant changes or no change at all if it intends to keep good quality as well as traditional dependability. Rather, the attention is on the role of organizational communication in the process of introducing planned change. Organizational researchers have indicated that member participation in decision making is highly associated with organizational efficiency and member satisfaction. If this is the case, we speculate that member participation, because of its high psychological reward to the members involved, should be also associ- ated with the employee's acceptance of planned change. Research on Member Participation Communication in organizations has been an interesting subject to draw the attention of both comrmmication researchers and organi- zational scholars since Barnard (1938) discussed the importance of communication in organizational theory. However, most of the research writings have been published by organizational researchers rather than communication scientists. As a result of this organizational approach, efforts have been made to relate different patterns of communication 14 systems to varying degrees of organizational effectiveness. Some of the examples resulting from this "utilitarian" approach are Tannenbaurm (1956), Tannenbaum and Georgopoulos (1957), and Smith et a1. (1964). These researchers suggest that a system of high mutual influence (high amount of control exercised by both leaders and members) and multi-directional commmication is conducive 'to effective organizational performance . Based upon this line of reasoning, a number of field experi— ments (Seashore and Bowers, 1963; Likert, 1961 8 1967; Smith and Jones, 1968, and Marrow et al., 1967) have been conducted to test the theory of participative management , and their findings seem to indicate that member participation, among many other things , results in effective organizational performance. The concept of member participation within organizational context involves at least two things: communication structure and control structure. The participative approach, some modifications of the traditional system of control that give the rank and file some say in matters that affect them on the job, is believed effective in creating a work environment that is more rewarding psychologically to organization members (Tannenbaum, 1966) . However, member participation does not necessarily increase productivity, one of the major concerns of most profit-making organizations . For instance, Morse and Reimer (1949) conducted an experiment that posed quite a different problem. 'Iheir experiment took place in a department employing approximately five hundred clerical workers 5 and four levels of supervision. The department was composed of four divisions, which were precisely parallel in type of work performed. Under the "autonomy program," an attempt was. made to place a greater amount of control in the hands of the rank and file, delegating to lower levels some of the decision—making authority of the higher levels. Under the "hierarchical program," the control exercised by upper levels was increased in the other two divisions. Decisions and policies were initiated at upper levels and passed down the line“ The authors expected to find the autonomy program superior to the hierarchical one in terms of productivity and the psycho- logical adjustments of the employees. The results, however, did not conform entirely to their predictions . It was found that in the participative divisions, the clerks' feelings of self—actu— alization on the job and their general sense of satisfaction with the company increased, whereas the clerks in the hierarchical program experienced an opposite reaction. Company productivity records showed significant improvement in both groups. Although member satisfaction may not necessarily be asso— ciated with productivity and high levels of productivity can be achieved in many different ways (Bass, 1965), it seems to be safe to generate the statement that when the employees' feelings of self- actualization on the job and their sense of satisfaction with the organization increases as a result of participation, their resistance to change introduced by top management will tend to be reduced to a great extent . III . 6 However, the relationship exists between employee partici-4 pation in organizational decision making and acceptance of planned change is not as straightforward as assumed. Lowin (1968), among many others, indicates that the effectiveness of participative decision making is subject to both the structure of factor motives and the opportunity the environment provides or does not provide for motive attainment. Therefore, it is clear that to esplore the effects of participative control on members' acceptance of change in a given organization, such actor motives as personality determi- nants and personal data are no less important than the opportunity the organization provides for motive attainment. Scope of the Study The scope of the study is two fold: (a) to relate member participation to acceptance of change; and (b) to determine the proportion of the variance accounted for by personality determinants , personal data items and other institutional variables 'in addition to psychological and objective participation. Participative decision making was first discussed by Lewin (19W). Since then this concept has been interchangeably used with member participation, or simple participation. For instance, participation is defined as the degree to whiCh members of a social system are involved in decision—making process (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1967); participation is a process of joint decision making by two or more parties in which the decisions have future effects on those 7 making them.(Vroom, 1960), and participation is a mode of organiza- tional operations in Which decisions as to activities are arrived at by the very persons who are to execute those decisions (Lowin, 1968). In this study, participative decision making is defined as an organizational decision-making process in WhiCh the employee exercises his control in arriving at, or:helping to arrive at, some decisions in Which he will be involved in carrying out. Operationally defined, it is the extent to Which the employee either actually exercises or psychologically exercises his influ- ence in relevant decision-making activities. As it is possible to find in any organization people Who _t1_1_ir_1_k_ they have much say on decision making and peOple who do have a great amount of influence on decision making, the concept of participative decision making is conceptualized as shown in the following paradigm. Explication of Participative Decision Making Objective Psychological Participation Participation Form.of Involvement Physical partiCi- Psychological pation participation Relevance Participate to be Perceived legitimacy informed, to vote of participation and to make decision Contncl/ Amount of control Perceived range of Influence one exercises on decision making decision making 8 Psychological participation is the state in which an indi- vidual psychologically exercises his influence in relevant decision- making activities . 'Ihus , we say an employee is psychologically participating in decision making if he Eek he has some say on what is going on around him. The more he feels, the higher his psychological participation. Psychological participation differs from objective partici— pation in: the sense that the latter refers to the agt_t_1§_l_ amount of influence an individual has on decision-making activities. We say that an employee is objectively participating in decision making when his exercise of influence in a meeting helps shape or arrive ' at some kind of decision. 'Ihus, physical attendance is the first characteristic that distinguishes objective from psychological participation. Secondly, psychological participation is different from objective participation in the aspect of participation relevance. Psychological participation is characterized by perception of par- ticipation legitimacy, the degree to which participation is legiti— mized by societal norms and values . For example, a department SLpervisor perceives that it is legitimate for him to have some say in whether a particular employee should be promoted or not , whereas he might not expect to be consulted about the hiring of a new employee. The notion of participation legitimacy also accounts for the reasons an employee attends decision—making activities. Sometimes, 9 an individual is there only to get information; and, sometimes , the attendance helps make or shape the making of a new decision. In short, considering objective participation, participation legit- imacy may refer to attendance to be informed of a new policy, attendance to discuss the implementation of a new program, or attendance to make a new decision. Finally, in terms of the exercise of influence in decision, psychological participation refers to the individual's perception of the range cf decisions over which participation is considered, whereas objective participation means the actual amount of influ— ence the individual has exercised on decision-making activities. As cited previously, Coch and French (19148) contend that participative control creates a work environment that is psycho- logically favorable to the adoption of changes and Agnew and Hsu (1966) point out that member participation speeds up the adaption of an innovation (staff meetings on introducing a new clothing policy in a mental hospital resulted in less resistance found among the hospital personnel), both psychological and objective partici- pation are investigated in this study. Nevertheless, it is not the purpose of this study to investigate the possible discrepancy be- tween members' psychological and objective participation though Vroom (1960) points out that such a phenomenon is almost always conceivable because a formal organization is a special setting in which members are subject to both organizational structure and control . 10 On relating participation to one's attitudes toward job and over-all job performance, Vroom (1960) found that such personality determinants as authoritarianism and need for independence may inter- vene with the otherwise simple and apparent association between participation and job satisfaction. (Participation has a more positive effect on the attitudes of those with strong independence needs; participation is more satisfying to low than high authoritarians .) In addition to personality determinants , it was found that the employees' response to change may include differences among the employees in their readiness for change and the history of the management of change in a given organization (Jacobson et al. , 1962), differences in their social status and organizational positions (Faunoe, 1960) as well as differences in sex, group membership, perceived supervisor-subordinate relationship and perceived self- competenoe (Trumbo, 1961). We will call an individual's predispositions the antecedent . variables and label the ones derived from his surrounding environ— ments , the contextual variables . The- following table represents the swpe of the study. IV. 11 Table 1. List of Variables Independent Variables Antecedent Variables Contextual Variables Dependent Variable Age Length of Employment Sex Psychological Group Education Participation Cohesiveness Acceptance of Background Planned Change Perceived Readiness to Supervisor's Change Attitudes to Change Authori- Objective tarianism Participation Perceived Supervisor- Need for subordinate Independence Relationship Perceived Self - Competence Role Perception Rat ionale and typotheses Based upon the discussion that psychological participation can be intrinsically satisfying and that objective participation promotes employees' feelings of self-actualization and their satisfaction with the company, it is predicted that member par- ticipation associates positively with acceptance of planned change . More specifically, the greater the extent an individual feels he. has influence and/ or control over organizational decision making, the more the likelihood that he shows positive response to planned change. Similarly, the greater the amount of influence an indi- vidual exercises in the process of decision making, the higher the possibility that he is to welcome the decision. 12 H1: Psychological participation correlates positively- with acceptance of change . H2: Objective participation correlates positively with acceptance of change . However, as the scope of the study points out that the indi- vidual's predispositions and his surrounding environments can also affect one's response to change, we are interested not only in knowing how member participation is related to acceptance of change , but in exploring the variables which may either increase or decrease the predictability of acceptance of change from participation. For example, Trumbo (1961) found that, within an organization, female workers were less receptive to change than male workers. Thus, sex may decrease the predictability of acceptance of change from par- ticipation in an organization which is mainly composed of female workers even though the employees are provided with the opportunity to participate in decision-making activities. Analogously, by virture of the fact that work—related change requires extra effort from the people involved and that change oftentimes disturbs the existing system, it is assumed that (younger employees should be more open to change- than older ones and that. junior employees should show less resistance than senior employees . Therefore, in terms of such individual predispositions as sex, age and length of employment, we hypothesize that: H3: In an organization which is mainly composed of male workers , sex correlates positively with acceptance of change; whereas in an organization which is mainly composed of female workers , sex correlates negatively with acceptance of change. l3 Hm: Employee's age correlates negatively with acceptance of change ;. i.e., the older the employee, the less the acceptance of change. H5: Length of employment correlates negatively with acceptance of change; i.e. , the longer the employment in the organization, the less the acceptance of change . Work-related change also requires a certain amount of formal education .to cope with the re-training caused by either discon- tinuity of an existing program or the beginning of a new one. Formal education is important in the sense that it not only pro- vides an individual with more insight into the necessity of change, but it also makes him more receptive to change. Trumbo (1961), for example, found a positive relationship between amount of edu— cation and attitudes toward change . Therefore , we hypothesize that: H6: Education correlates positively with acceptance of change; the higher the education, the more the acceptance of change . At the level of the individual employee, such personality determinants as readiness to change , need for independence , author- itarianism, and self—perceived competence are no less important than his personal data items in account for his response to change. Jacobson et a1. , (1959) argue that one important aspect of employee adjustment to technical change is the way in which the employee experiences the change . The more one experiences , the more he is psychologically ready for change of similar nature. When an individual is psychologically ready, he will not consider 11+ Change as a.threat and thus is more likely to welcome it. H7: Readiness to change camrelates positively with acceptance of change; the higher'the.readiness to change, the more the acceptance of change. Need for independence and authoritarianismtare two of the personality determinants Which'have been found to affect the effec- tiveness of participation. Participation, according to Vroom (1960), has a more positive effect on the attitudes of those with strong independence needs and is meme satisfying to low than.than high authoritarians. Howevery within an organization context it is common-to find some people Who like to get their jobs done without constant instruction and close supervision, whereas some people react oppo- sitely. Relevant literature has pointed out that employees who prefer'autonomy'programs have strong independence needs and those who feel inclined to hierarchical programs have less need for inde— pendence (Vroom, 1960; Agnew and Hsu, 1966). It is assumed that detailed instruction and close supervision almost always fbllow planned change in a fbrmal organization, it seems legitimate to say that for those employees with strong inde— pendence needs change tends to challenge their feelings of self- reliance as they will be given instruction constantly and be supervised closely. H83, Need for independence correlates negatively with acceptance of change; i.e., the stronger'the independence needs, the less the acceptance of change. 15 Conversely, on.relating authoritarianismxtoiacceptance of change, we predict that employees with high authoritarianism are more receptive to change than low authoritarians. .In this study, authoritarianismlis the personality'pattern, associated vdth excessive respect for and obedience to authority, admiration for pmver, toughness and aggression. As it is asSumed that high authoritarian people tend to be overly conscious of distinction of status in their interpersonal relations and are contempuous orrexploitative toward those of lower‘status (Deutsch and Krauss, 1955), we expect high authoritarians to accept planned change without questioning the details as long as it comes from top management. Of course, since participation is more satisfying to low than high authoritarians, low authoritarians may welcome change more than high authoritarians in an organization.where par- ticipative control is highly practiced. Based upon participant observation that participative con- trol was not widely practiced in the organization under investi— gation, we hypothesize that: H9: Authoritarianism correlates positively with acceptance of change; 1.e . , more acceptance of change is expected fronthigh than low authori— tarians. Another personality determinant which is assumed to be related to an individual's acceptance of change within an organizational contextual is his self—perceived competence. 16 As a result of comparing his own abilities and opinions with other employees (the notion of self-evaluation) and comparing his own ideals with his achievement (the notion of self-esteem) , an individual may differ from others. in terms of his participative activities and response toward change. Cohen (1959), for instance, points out that persons of low self-esteem (greater discrepancies between his ideals and achievement), tend to be less active in attempting to exert influence. By the same token, we may e>q3ect that persons with low self- perceived competence tend to resist change of any nature simply because of the fear that they are unable to readjust. Therefore, on relating percein self-competence to an individual's response toward change, we hypothesize that: H10: Self -perceived competence correlates positively with acceptance of change; i.e. , the higher the self-perceived competence, the more the acceptance of change. So far we have been concerned with acceptance of change at an individual employee's level. At the level of organizational context, such variables as role perception, group cohesiveness, perceived supervisor's attitudes toward change and percein super- visor-subordinate relationship are assumed to influence employees' acceptance of change . One of the many approaches to analyze a complex organization is to see it as having a fabric of roles that constitutes the struc- ture of the organization (Weiss and Jacobson, 1955). This approach 17 is considered appropriate to this study as it assumes that the elements of organizational structure are role relationships. Member participation is one of the activities based upon such relationships . Also, in most formal organizations the structure tends to remain unchanged despite the fact that changes mayoccur in terms of personnel or techniques. Cohen (1965) applies the term role to situations in which the prescriptions for interaction are culturally defined and are independent of the particular persmal relationships which may otherwise exist between persons occupying the positions . Ana- logously, Rommetveit (1955), and Thibaut and Kelley (1959) conceptu- alize "subjective role" as a set of specific expectations the occupant of a position perceives as applicable to his own behavior when he interacts with the occupants of some other positions . Role perception is more appropriate than status position in describing an employee's behavior within a given organization, as position may only refer to one's formal status butrole per- ception reflects the activities based upon both formal status and such other things as seniority, familiarity with operations, access to organizational information , etc . For example, A and B are supervisors of two departments, but as a result of A's seniority, B‘may still consult with A when difficulties come up and he wants to make no mistakes. In terms of position, A and B are equal in supervisory position, yet the role A plays tends to be broader than 3'8. By the same token, two 18 rank—and-file employees may differ from ead": other for the roles they play. One may be working completely within his own department , and the other may be. in contact with members of other departments "on the basis of task necessity (the notion of liaison personnel dis- cussed by Weiss and Jacobson, 1955, and Schwartz, 1968). To better explain the activities of the employees in this organization, role perception is thus used to substitute, for status position, and we define role perception by asking our respondents to classify themselves as: (l) rank-and—file; (2) liaison personnel between nonsupervisory and supervisory employees; (3) supervisory personnel; (1+) linkage between srpervisory personnel and the officers, and (5) the officers. Under the assumptions that role perception is positively related to organizational information (the broader the role , the , more the information) and that organizational information justifies the necessity of change (change is to increase productivity or to cope with the external demands), we hypothesize that: H11: Role perception correlates positively with ‘ acceptance of change; ..i ,e . , more acceptance of change is expected from the employees with high than low role perception. Other contextual variables which are assumed to determine an employee's acceptance of change are group cohesiveness , perceived supervisor-subordinate relationship . Deutsch (191+9) related group cohesiveness to the degree of perceived cooperative interdependence among group members , and to 19 the strength of goals about which the members are cooperatively interdependent . To the extent that an individual perceives high group cohesiveness , he is more likely to perceive opportunities of participating in decision making. However, group cohesiveness was fomd negatively related to attitudes toward change (Trumbo, 1961) . It was interpreted that change posed a threat to the satisfaction of social needs through informal social structure. Thus, we hypothesize that group cohe- siveness is negatively associated with acceptance of dmange, despite the fact that it is positively related to member participation. H12: Group cohesiveness correlates negatively with acceptance of change; the higher the group cohesiveness, the less the acceptance of change. As planned change usually comes from people on the top, it is assumed that an employee's perceived supervisor—subordinate relationship determines his response toward change . Perceived supervisor—subordinate relationship is important in the sense that the greater the psychological distance experienced by the subordi- nate, the less he will feel he has been consulted regarding the change, and, in turn, the less the likelihood that he will accept such change. H13: Perceived supervisor-subordinate relationship correlates positively with acceptance of change; i.e. , the closer the relationship, the more the acceptance of change . Finally, it is assumed that whensupervisors show their favorable responses to the change introduced, they tend to create a V. 20 social climate that will reduce their subordinates' overt resistance to change (trumbo, 1961). An individual's perception regarding his SLpervisor's attitudes toward change is thus expected to affect his own response to change . H1”: Perceived supervisors' attitudes toward change correlates posrtively With acceptance of change; i.e. , the more favorable-the perceived attitudes, the greater the amount of acceptance of change . Investigation at the Level of Multivariate Analyses The above hypotheses have been chiefly concerned with the simple associations between acceptance of change and each of the variable assumed to have influence on an individual's response toward change. Significant findings from these tests will not only tell us that the prediction of change acceptance are attainable. from these variables , but point out that acceptance of change is not midimensional . For illustration, supposing that acceptance of change is found significantly associated with psychological and objective participation, length of formal education, role perception and group cohesiveness , then it is quite legitimate to interpret that amount of formal education, degrees of role perception and group cohesiveness are as good predictors as psychological and objective participation for the criterion. Multivariate analysis will be used to examine whether the inclusion and/or elimination of an individual's personal data items, his personality determinants and relevant institutional factors 21 affect psychological and objective participation in predicting an employee's amount of change acceptance. CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY In investigations of participative control and its effective— ness , research findings indicate that empirical demonstrations of participative decision-making effectiveness or its absence can be safely generalized only to other setting whose environments are be- lieved to be similar to the test setting (Lavin, 1968). A brief description on research sites , organizational structure and char— acteristics of the respondents of this study are presented in Appendices l and 3 . Data Collection Procedures It was the first time the organization allowed any field research to be conducted within its system and its affiliated offices. To make it more difficult, the study came neither from top management nor from a consultant agency. The study was. initi- ated by a doctoral candidate who used to work there in summers and was never considered a permanent employee pursuing any kind of life career. However, the special relationship the author had with the organization turned out to be very helpful. Being an "outsider" but having some employment relationship, the writer was in the advantageous situation to obtain almost full cooperation from the entire employee body, without being percein as a threat by any employee of any rank. 22 II. 23 The very same factor limited the study by confining data collection to questionnaire only. Such vital aspects of organiza- tional behavior as employees ' job satisfaction, perceived competence of superiors , and varied states of grievances could only be included implicitly or completely untouched. The author hopes that his more than two years of participant observation would be advantageous to bridge the gaps left by the hard data. Approximately one month prior to the beginning of the study , key personnel in each department were contacted informally in which the purpose of this study was explained and their cooperation was asked. During a week in July, 1969, questionnaires were distributed to the department supervisors along with a written,“ message from the general manager to insure that the study was approved and office hours could be used to fill out the questionnaire. As a result of the whole-hearted trust from both top manage- ment and the rank—and-file employees , data collection was completed in the week, with more than 88 percent return. After incomplete questionnaire were eliminated, the sample used for this study was composed of 210 subjects. Questionnaire Construction The questionnaire items were of multiple-choice type , with five responses, ranging from "Strongly disagree" though "Don't know" to "Strongly agree." Such variables as sex, age and length of employment were the exceptions . 2n .After the questionnaires were collected, the items were C(Xjed by aSSigrling "1" to "Smngly disagree"; "2" to "Disagree"; "3" to "Don't know"; "H" to "Agree," and "5" to "Strongly agree." Negative items were reversed accordingly. Although most of the items were used in other studies, for example, the items measuring authoritarianismland need for inde— pendence were used by Vroom in 1960, interbitemlcorrelations were performed and the items which resulted in low and/or negative coefficients were removed from the scales utilized to test the hypotheses. Table 2. Inter-item1Correlations* Number of Items Variables Correlated Range Median Authori- tarianism, 3 .2u to .H? .uu Group cohesiveness 3 .16 to .56 .21 Need for Independence 2 .58 .58 Objective 6 (Nonsupervisors)' .12 to .97 .33 Participation 3 (Supervisors) .31 to .H2 .35 Perceived Competence 6 .H6 .H6 Psychological Participation 6 .07 to .50 .32 Readiness to Change 7 .OH to .u7 .24 25 Table 2 (contd. ) Number of Items Variables Correlated Range Median Perceived . Supervisors ' Attitudes to Change 2 . 38 . 38 Perceived Supervisor- subordinate Relationship 2 . 26 . 26 Acceptance of Change L1 .31 to .62 .us *N = 210 except that for objective participation N. = 15 for supervisors and N = 195 for nonsupervisors. Because of the result of the inter-item correlations , 17 items were deleted from the original questionnaire. The measure- ment instrument actually used for this study is presented in the following table . Table 3 . Categorization of Variables and Corresponding Questionnaire Items . Independent Variables Questionnaire Items N = 210 A. Pgrsonalifl Demrminants a. Authoritarianism Obedience and respect for authority are the Mean = l$.02 most important virtues children should learn 8. D.: 1.16 The future would be brighter if peOple Mean : 3.26 would talk less and work more. 8. D.: 1.29 Table 3 (contd. ) 26 VT Independent Variables QLestionnaire Items N 210 What American youths need is to learn strict disci- _ pline, respect, and determi- Mean : 3.39- nation to protect their cormtry. S. D.: 1.21: b. Need for Inde— pendence When I am not in a group situation, I usually do things which I believe are right, Mean : 3.8M regardless of others' ' . . .. ' ‘ opinions. S. D.: 1.06 When I am in a group situa— tion, I usually do things I believe are right, regardless Mean : 3A8 of what other people in the group think. S. D.: 1.19 c. Perceived Competence Based on such criteria as ability, information, person- ality , and attitude toward innovation in general , please rate yourself in terms of the following pairs of adjectives: pretence _ Incompe- Mean : 14.32 —___ tence S. D.: .63 Informed Unin- Mean : 3.95 ————— formed S. D.: 1.27 d. Readiness to Change I'd rather stay with a job thatl canhandle than switch Mean : 2.55 to one where most things are new to me. S. D.: 1.27 The job that I would consider ideal for me would be one Mean : 1.83 where the way I do my work is always the same. S. D.: .95 Table 3 (contd. ) 27 Independent Variables Questionnaire Items N = 210 The trouble with most jobs is that you just get used to do- ing things in one .way, then Mean : 3.22 they want you .to do them differently. S. D.: 1.28 I like a job where I know I'll be doing my work about the Mean : 2.814 same way from one week to the next. 8. D.: 1.22 When I get used to doing things in one way, it is dis- Mean : 2.57 turbing to have to change to a new method. 8. D.: 1.10 B. Contextual Variables a. Group Cohe- siveness I always feel that I am an Mean : 3.1+8 important part of this organization. " ‘ S. D.: 1.07 The people in my department get along with each other Mean : 3.28 better than people in other departments. 8. D.: .97 Compared with other depart- ments, I think that the people in my department Mean : 3.65 really help each other more on their jobs. 8. D.: .91 b. Perceived Super— I think my bossis always Mean : 3.111 visors' Attitude in favor of change.. S. D.: .90 toward Change When I make any suggestions that may result in some Mean : 3.93 change, my boss shows his willingness to listen to me. S. D.: .85 Table 3 (contd. ) 28 Independent Variables Questionnaire Items N = 210 c. Perceived SLper- My boss makes me feel at Mean : 3.93 visor-subordinate . ease when I speak with him. S. D.: 1.11 Relationship As compared with other departmental heads, I feel Mean : 2.23 that my supervisor can't be approached easily. S. D.: 1.21 d. Psychological ' Participation My boss usually explains his Mean : 3.714 decisions to me about (matters in which I am involved. ' S. D.: 1.05 My boss acts on things which Mean : 2.70 involve me without consulting me first. S. D.: 1.06 I don't feel that my opinions will affect the decisions of Mean : 2.5M my boss on things in whiCh I am involved. S. D.: 1.07 My boss usually asks my Mean : 3.142 opinion when a problem comes up that involves my work. 8. D.: 1.06 It's easy for me to get my ideas across to my boss when— Mean : 3.30 ever I have a suggestion for improving the job in some way. 8. D.: .96 e . Role Perception We are interested in the role you play within this organization. Your role does not necessarily mean your ition. For instance, in terms of position, you may be a supervisor, but the role you play may include activities as a coordinator between other supervisors and your superior, in addition to your supervisory function. By the sare token, you may be a non-SLpervisory employee , but the role may include your activities as a linkage between other employees and the supervisor. Assuming that the 29 Table 3 (contd.) Independent Variables Questionnaire Items . N = 210 structure of this organization can be . diagramed as in the chart provided below, please place the number that is most appropriate to describe your role in this. organization . (Ntmerically, ,1 stands for nonstervisory employee; 2 stands for the linkage between nonsupervisory employees and supervisors; 3 for supervisory personnel; M for the linkagebetween srpere visory personnel and the officers; and 5 stands for officers. My role number is . than : 1.82 S D.: 1.31 f. Objective Participation I attended all the meetings Mean : 1.71 regarding my departmental problems. S. D.: 1.119- I attended the meetings only Mean : 3. 17 to be told what's going on in my department. 8. D.: 1.57 I attended the meetings to discuss and -offermy opinions Mean : 3.61 on matters regarding .the work in my department. 8. D.: 1.143 (The above items were filled out only by nonsupervisory personnel.) I attended all the super— Mean : 1.82 visory-meetings. S. D.: .51 I attended the supervisory meetings only to be informed Mean : 3.98! about what I should do in my department. ‘ S. D.: 1.02 I attended the supervisory Mean : 14.53 meetings to discuss my own departmental problems. 8. D.: 1.62 - Table 3 (contd. ) 30 Independent Variables .2 ll Questionnaire Items 210 Acceptance of Change I attended the SLperviSOIy meetings to discuss my own departmtalproblems as well Mean : I4.71 as other departmental problems. D. 8.: 1.148 I had much say (or a lot of. influence) on the decisions Mean : 3.77 made in the recent meetings I attended. S. D.: 1.89 The feeling .I had from. attend- ing the supervisory meetings is that the relationship be—v tween my superior and me is Mean : £1.11; more or less like a partner— ship. 8. D.: 1.76 (Preceding six items were answered by supervisory personnel only.) In general , changes .to more automated work methods result in improved work situations Mean : 3.35 for employees in a'job like mine. S. D.: .80 The change to more autarated Mean : 3.'+6 work methods has made my own work much more satisfying. S. D.:, .78 The change to more automated work methods has made my than : 3A1 working conditions more pleasant. S. D.: .75 III. Strategt of Data Analysis Since, as already indicated, we wish to assess the covariation between participative decision making and acceptance of planned 31 change as well as to examine the factors (which may contribute to differences in predicting acceptance of change from participation, eifiner correlation analyses or interactional analyses can be used. In this study, because of its exploratory natureand some idiosyncra- ‘ sies of the organization, correlation analyses are emphasized. The use of zero-order correlation to examine fine relation- 1 ships between the variables, however, assumes that the nature of- such associations is linear, whereas the use of partial and multiple» correlation to test the hypotheses about the nature of relationships among social psychological variables assumes that such variables are independent of one another (Brewer et a1. , 1970). Consequently, ' it is clear that linearity should be checked in order to be sure that the assumption is met , and that the factor structure Lnnderlying the intercorrelations should be examined before the single-factor model is rejected in favor of a two-factor model. Eta' s were computed from fi'e associations between acceptance of change and each one of the variables included in fine study. The results are presented in Table. 1+. Table u. Zero-order Correlation Coefficients and Eta' 5. (Relationships between each of fine independent*variab1es and acceptance of planned change.) Zero-order Independent Correlation Signifi canoe of Variables Coefficients Eta's Curvilinearity Age 0 0 7 o 2 3 n o S 0 Sex (.27) .27 ** 32 Table 1+ (contd.) Zero-order Independent Ctmrelation Significance of Variables Coefficients Eta's Curvilinearity Length of Employment -.17 .2u- n.s. Education .05 .13 n.s. Role Perception .37 .37 n.s. Authoritarianism1 -.0u .32~ n.s. Group cohesiveness .H0 .H6 n.s. Need fOr Independence -.03 .11 n.s.- Objective Participation .3H .HO n.s. Perceived Competence .20 .26 nus. Psychological Participation .2H .52 s.* Readiness to Change .16 .MO n.s. Perceived Super— visors' Attitudes to Change .19 .38 s.* Perceived Super- visor-subordinate Relationship . .12 .3u. s.* *Curvilinearity was significant at..05 level. **As sex contains.only.two categories, no linear statistic was calculated. 33 As shown in fine table , three out “of fourteen variables violated fine assumption of linearity. The consequences of finis violation will be discussed in the following chapter. Partial and multiple correlations were used to determine the proportion of variance of fine criterion accounted for by other pre- dictor variables in addition to psychological and objective partici- pation. However, cautions will be given for fine conclusions and the interpretations based upon the finding so obtained. Since fine basic assumptions underlying the use of partial and multiple correlations are finat the variable being partialled out from, or included in conjunction with, the main predictor contains no unique components and is measured without error, no conclusions regarding fine nature of such social psychological variables can be drawn on fine basis of the results unless fine viability of a single- factor model has been tested through appropriate factor analytic techniques. The results could sometimes be assumed to mean that two variables share some common variation not shared by the others , but they could justas well reflect the existence of a single factor shared and imperfectly measured by all the variables (Brewer, 1970). However, regardless the fact that those assumptions are diffi- cult to meet in most social science researches, partial and multiple correlation were still performed. The rationale is that even when a cluster or clusters of highly intercorrelated measures is found among fine predictor variables, it is statistically clear that the one which happens to have the largest correlation wifin the criterion 3H ‘will enter the regression equation first, with the others contribut- ing little or nothing to the prediction. Given the instability of zero—order correlations, the dominant predictor could vary’greatly from sample to sanple . Partial and multiple correlations were. thus used to determine the dominant predictor or~predictors in this study, with the intention to show that research of similar nature in fUture may yield different findings as a.result of the fact that organizational idiosyncrasies vary from one to another. .As the problems regarding the conclusions and interpretations drawn on the use of partial and multiple correlations are most encountered in the cases in which social and psychological variables are examined, a factor analysis of the 11 x 11 matrix of inter~ cornelations was conducted for this study and the results are pre- sented in Table 5. Table 5 shows that role perception, self-perceived competence, objective participation and acceptance of change load on Factor 1; perceived supervisors' attitudes to change, perceived supervisor- sUbordinate relationship and psychological participation load on Factor 2 , and readiness to change , and authoritarianism load on Factor 3 (Need for independence was fbund loaded on Factor H. However, as the first three factors accounted for H6 percent of variance, instruction was given to stop the rotation at Factor 3). These findings indicate that misinterpretation could occur if either'partial or multiple correlations are used to test the hye potheses underlying the relationships among these intercorrelated 35 Table 5 . Indegndence of the Variables: Factor Analysis" Variables Factor Loadings l 2 3 Role Perception ._8_li -.07 .05 ~ Aufinoritarianism — . 06 . 21 .§_3_ Need for Independence .114 . 11 - . O 3 Group Cohesivenessi .52 -.32 -.'+3 Perceived Competence .§_§_ -.33 -.09 Readiness to Change .21 -.37 .62 Perceived Supervisors' ' Attitudes to Change .1l+ -.§6_ -.06 Perceived Supervisor- subordinate Relationship .00 -.6_9_ .06 Psychological Participation . 20 - ._7_l_ - . 11+ Objective Participation §6_ -.11 .16 Change Acceptance .51 -.22 -.08 Proportions of Variance .20 .16 .10 *Varimax rotation analysis variables without examining the factor structure underlying fine intercorre lations . Extreme caution should be given to fine conclu— sions and the interpretations drawn on fine basis of the results of partial and multiple correlations . Finally, in testing the hypotheses , because the directionality of results was specified, one-tailed tests for significance was accepted as the basis for rejecting fine null hypothesis. I. CHAPTER III FINDINGS Testigg fine Hypotheses . The Pearson product—moment correlation (r) was used to determine if finere is a relationship between fine criterion and each of the 1” independent variables investigated in fine study. The findings of zero—order correlation, shown in Table 6 indicate finat 2 out of 1+ demographic characteristics, 2 out of ‘4 personality . determinants , and 5 out 6 institutional factors were statistically significant at the five percent level. Table 6 . Associations between Acceptance of Change and Each of the Independent Variables: Zero-order Correlation Coefficients .* Independent Association found wifin Variables Acceptance of Change (N = 210) A. Demographic Characteristics Age ~ n.s. Sex Positive (r = .27) Length of Education n.s . Length of Employment Negative (r = -.l7) B . Personality Factors Authoritarianism n . s . Need for Independence n. s . 36 37 Table 37 (contd. ) Independent Association found with Variables Acceptance of Change (N = 210) Perceived Competence Positive (r = .20) Readiness to Change Positive (r = .16) C. Institutional Factors Group Cohesiveness Positive (r = .M0) Role Perception Positive (r = .37) Perceived Supervisor's. Attitude to Change Positive (r = .19) Supervisor-subordinate Relationship n.s. Objective Participation Positive (r = .314) Psychological Participation Positive (r'= .2H) *N = 210 p < .05 when r's are greater than .16 N.B. Zero—order correlation coefficients for all the variables investigated are presented in Appendix 3. Across the organization, it was fOund that sex and length of employment, perceived competence and.readiness to change, as well as perceptions toward the organization such as group cohesiveness, role perception, perceived.supervisors' attitudes to change, objec- tive participation and psychological participation were significantly associated with the criterion. In terms of directionality, the findings show that: ' 1. Sex correlated.positively with acceptance of change. In” this study, it should be interpreted as female workers were no less receptive to change than male employees, as females constituted 73 38 percent of the employee body. (This finding was contrary to the expectation of H3.) 2. Length of employment correlated negatively with acceptance of change. That is, the amount of change acceptance decreased as the seniority increased. 3. Group cohesiveness Ctrrelated.positively with acceptance of change. The more the employees perceived themselves as a group, the greater the amount of their acceptance of change (contrary to the prediction of H12). u. Role perception correlated positively with acceptance of change. However, it was also found that role perception highly correlated.with objective participation (r = .78). This seemed to indicate that in this organization role perception was greatly dependent upon status position. Thus, the positive association existed between.role perception and the criterion might be a direct result of formal positions the employees were assigned to. 5. Perceived supervisors' attitude to change correlated positively with acceptance of planned change. This finding indi- cates that when supervisors were perceived in favor of change their subordinates would also be more accepting of change. 6. Objective and psychological participation correlated positively with acceptance of change. That is, when employees' influence on decision making increased, their acceptance of planned change also increased. II. 39 7. Readiness to change correlated positively with acceptance of change. Low though significant relationship between his pre- dictor and the criterion (r = .16) seemed to conform to fine general contention that an individual ' s over—all attitude toward change does not necessarily apply to a particular. In om:n study, readiness to change was measured by the questionnaire items concerning an individual' 3 response to change in general , but acceptance of change was measured by those which examined his response to accepting auto— mation. I 8 . Length of employment correlated negatively with acceptance of change . Thus the longer the employees had remained in the organization , the less the likelihood that they welcomed change . One interesting and important finding is that the magnitude of the significant correlations between members' acceptance of change and institutional variables tended to be greater than those of the criterion and either personality or demographic variables . One implication of this finding is that an employee's response to planned change can be positively promoted if such variables as group cohesiveness, perceived supervisors' attitudes to change, etc. are properly manipulated. At least, it is relatively easier for top management to improve the environment surrounding an employee than to change his personality and/or his personal background. Multivariate Analges: Multiple and Partial Correlations As already stated, once participation correlates with the criterion and once the criterion is shown to be mmlti-dimensional, no our immediate and no less important task is to determine the preportion of the variance of change acceptance Which is accounted for'by other'predictor variables in addition to psychological and objective participation. Multiple correlations were used for the prediction of acceptance of Change from.participation in conjunction with an additional variable, and partial correlations were employed for the influence of an additional variable eliminated. The results are reported separately fbr the relationship between acceptance of change and objective participation, and for that of change acceptance and psychological participation. Table 7. To Predict.Acceptance of Change from Objective Participa- tion in Conjunction with each of the other Variables: Multiple Correlations* Variables in Conjunction Multiple Correlation with Objective Participation Coefficients Age .36 Sex .36 Length of Employment .3u Education .3u Role Perception .38 Authoritarianism. .3” Group Cohesiveness .u6** Need fer Independence .35 Perceived Competence .36 Readiness to Change .35 Lu Table 7 (contd. ) _‘_ Variables in Conjunction Multiple Correlation with Objective Participation Coefficients Perceived Supervisors ' Attitudes to Change .36 Perceived Supervisor— subordinate Relationship .35 Psychological Participation .37 *Zero-order correlation coefficient between Objective partici- pation and acceptance of change was u = .3u, significant at .0005. .All multiple correlation coefficients in the above table. met significance criterion. **Group cohesiveness was related to acceptance of change by, r = .HO. When the prediction of acceptance of change was made from.Objective participation and group cohesiveness, it was found that beta weight for the formerwwas .2”, and the latter 'was .33. At the first glance, the results of'mudtiple correlations SEEHltO indicate that predicting acceptance of change from objective participation in conjunction with each of the other predictor variables did not result in improving the prediction of the criterion except when group cohesiveness was taken into account (over 20 percent of the variance of the criterion was accounted for by Objective participation and group cohesiveness). However, since the results of factor analysis, as presented in Table 5, show that objective participation and group cohesive— ness loaded on the same factor, the multiple correlation coefficient can only let us draw the conclusion that group cchesiveness u2 contributed more than objective participation in predicting the criterion (beta weight for group cohesiveness was . 33, for objective participation .2”). The significant coefficient (R = .HB) might be a result of neasurenent error, as these two predictors were essenti- ally neasuring the sane thing with varying amounts of unique variation, and they bore the sane relationship to the criterion. Therefore , the use of multiple correlations could generate neaningful findings only when the criterion was predicted from objective participation in conjunction with such other predictors as psychological participation, perceived supervisor-subordinate relationship, perceived supervisors' attitudes to change, authori- tarianism and readiness to change. These latter variables were found E to load on the sane factor as objective participation. The same reasoning should also apply to the use of partial correlations , in which the criterion was predicted from objective participation with the influence of each of the other predictor variables eliminated. The results are presented in Table 8. The results of partial correlations, as compared with that of zero-order correlation between objective participation and the criterion (r = .310 , seem to indicate that objective participation retained its predictability for the criterion except when the influence of role perception was partialled out. However, role perception and objective participation were found to load on the sane factor; thus, the nonsignificant finding ‘ based upon the partial correlation ould nerely be a result of ”3 Table 8. To Predict Acceptance of Change frontobjective Partici— pation with the Influence of each.of the other Variables Eliminated: Partial Correlations.* Variables Partial Correlation 7 Significance Eliminated Coefficients Levels Age .35 .0005 Sex .25 .0005 Length of Employment .30 .0005 Education .3” .0005 Role Perception .09 .20”0** Authoritarianisnx .3” .0005 Group cohesiveness .25 .0005 Need fOr Independence .35 .0005 Perceived Competence .30 .0005 Readiness to Change .31 .0005 SupervisOrs' Attitude to Change .32 .0005 Supervisorbsubordiante Relationships .33 .0005 Psychological Participation .30 .0005 *Zero-order correlation coefficient between objective participation and acceptance of change was r = .3”, significant at .005. **Objective participation was.no.longer a good predictor for - acceptance of change after'role perception.was.eliminated. Beta.weight fOr objective participation in predicting acceptance of change was .13, whereas that of role perception was .27. neasurement error. .As objective participation and.role perception shared a great deal of common variation, the partialling out of role perception eliminated the significance of Objective participation. I4” Consequently, the only conclusion one can draw from this finding is that role perception contributed n'ore than objective participation in predicting acceptance of planned change (beta weight for role perception was .27, for objective participation . 13). To sum up the findings presented in Tables 7 and 8, we conclude that although Objective participation could significantly predict acceptance of planned change , when other predictors were taken into account the dominant predictors were group cohesiveness and role perception rather than objective participation . Table 9 . To Predict Acceptance of Change from Psychological Participation in Conjunction with each of the other Variables : Multiple Correlations . * Variables in Conjunction Multiple Correlation with Psychological Participation Coefficients Age ' . 25 Sex .33 Length of Employnent . 2 8 Education . 2” Role Perception . ”0** Authoritarianism pf . 2” Group Cohesiveness .”2** Need for Independence . 2” Perceived Competence . 2 8 Readiness to Change . 26 ”5 Table 9 (contd . ) LAL fl Variables in Conjunction Multiple Correlation with Psychological Participation Coefficients Supervisors' Attitude to Change .26 Supervisor-subordinate Relationship . 2” f *Zero-order correlation coefficient between psychological participationand acceptance of change was-” = .2”. All multiple correlation coefficients reported in the above table net, significance criterion. I”In predicting acceptance of change from psychological participation and role perception, beta weight for role participation was .33 , and for psychological participa- tion was .15. Analogously, beta weight for group cohe— siveness was .36, for psychological participation was .12. The results of multiple correlations as shown in Table 9 indicate that the prediction of nenbers' acceptance of change noticeably increased when psychological participation was in con- junction with group cohesiveness and role perception. Almost no difference was found when psychological participation was in conjunction with such variables as age, education and perceived supervisor—subordinate relationship. However, a comparison of the zero-order correlation coeffi- cient between psychological participation and acceptance of change (r =‘ .2”) with the coefficients obtained from partial correlations, sone interesting findings appeared. The predictability of members' acceptance of change from psychological participation decreased when the influences of such variables as group cohesiveness, role perception, supervisors' ”6 Table 10 . To Predict Acceptancecf. Change from Psychological Participation with the Influence _of each .of the other Variables Eliminated: Partial Correlations . * Variables Partial ”Correlation ‘ Significance Eliminated Coefficients Levels Age .2”. .0005 Sex .21 .003 Length of Employment .22 .001 Education .2” .001 Role Perception .15 .029** Authoritarianisnl .2” .001 Group Cohesiveness .l” .059“ Need fOr Independence .2” .001 Perceived Competence .20 .00” Readiness to Change .22. .002 Perceived Supervisors' Attitude to Change .18 .010 Perceived Supervisor—sUbordinate Relationship .21 .002 Objective Participation .16 .018 *Zero-order correlation coefficient between psychological participation and acceptance of change was r = .2”. ”In predicting acceptance of change , psychological participation was no longer a good predictor when such variables as role perception and group cohesiveness were eliminated. Beta weights for role perception was . 33 , for psychological partici— pation was .15 . Analogously, beta weight for group cohesive- ness was .36, for psychological participation was .12. ”7 attitude to change , objective participation, and perceived competence were eliminated from the associations between members' acceptance of I change and psychological participation . Psychological participation could no longer predict nembers' acceptance of change if the knowl- edge of group cohesiveness and role perception were unattainable , correlation coefficients drOpped from r = .2” to r = .1” and r = .15. To summarize our findings, the data seened to support the general hypothesis that nember participation correlates positively with acceptance of planned change . The data also showed that enployee response toward planned change in this organization was rmlti-dinensional . . Further, the data demonstrated that the greater the influence which employees had on decision neking, the more the likelihood for them to accept planned change. Enployee response to change depended upon how they perceived the organization and the people working within it, and was also nodified by their personality and denographic background. The multi-dinensionality of acceptance of change reveals that role perception and group cohesiveness were dominant predictors though objective participation alone could significantly account for the variance of the criterion. Further, it shows that role perception and group cohesiveness were crucial predictors to retain psychological participation as a predictor for the criterion. I. CHAPTERIV CONCLUSIONS Singer Introducing and/ or implenenting change of any nature in a formal organization is a common phenonenon. Its succes or failure maybe attributed to multiple. causes. However, the acceptance of or the resistance to change found anong nenbers is undoubtedly a commication poblem. It is so because, a formal organization is composed of a group of individuals who hold together as long as it fulfills a variety of personal purposes . Commmication is crucial in that it makes all nembers see their actions as interrelated and their fates as interdependent. One way to study communication within organizations is to see conmunication as a prescribed formal network according to an organizational flow chart . This type of approach assures that large organizations inpose a set of patterned connrmication links upon their nenbers . Accordingly, the individual and the assump- tions about him are either ignored or oversimplified. A result of this oversight is the breach between theory and practice in organizations , between the way organizations should work and the way they do work (Tannenbaum, 1966). as ”9 The Hawthorne research (192”), fOr example, illustrated how inpcrtant this human aspect of the organization is, and also made it clear that psychological and/or social psychological ‘principles of behavior were at work. Since then, the fOllowing issues have been raised constantly by organization theorists: 1. That the qualities of personality and motivation of an individual are fOund to be inconsistent with the requirenents of a formal organization; 2. that the human-organism.lacks the rationality, simplicity, and passivity that classical organization theories assume it has, and 3. that human beings are conplex and variable. The general contention is that formal work—related organi- zations are not adequately set up with employee self-interests~ in mind. TherefOre, frustrations have been.frequently encountered in formal organizations, especially from people of lower ranks. Menber-participation.has thus been considered, among other things, as a method to redmce some of the frustrations. It does this by increasing the authority and status of people on lower positions, by broadening the activities of these postiions, and by producing decisions that seentless arbitrary and disadvantage- ous. Participation seens to be intrinsically satisfying. Nevertheless , relevant research literature has indicated that.member{participation is subject to an individual's personality and tends to be regulated by the structure of a given organization. 50 Personality determinants may affect an individual's reactions to participative control. As evidenced by French et al., (1960) and Vroom (196”), differences in the performance of workers when participative control is giVen seems to be a joint fUnction of personality (Whether authoritarian or egalitarian) and perceptions of the degree to which the supervisors are participative. Not all organization nenbers react positively to participation. Analogously, it has been illustrated by relevant literature that nember~response to change also varies because of differences in their personality, personal background and their perceptions of the environnents surrounding thenu Thus, under the assunptions that organizational planned change occurs to cope with the everbchanging environnent and to keep the organization in a competitive role, that communication through psychological and Objective participation in decision making reduces the tension caused by change, and that reaction to change can be shaped.by an individual's personality, personal data items and his perceptions of a given organization, this study was intended to explore the factors which could account fer acceptance of planned change. The research was conducted at one of the local banks where the employees were asked to fill out a questionnaire of'closed questions. Personality deterninants and institutional variables were measured by summing the scores of an individual's responses to corresponding items. 51 The results of data analyses show that most of the hypotheses supported were in the sane direction as predicted, except the ones regarding sex and group cohesiveness. Positive association between sex and acceptance of planned change could be attributed to the fact that the organization was nainly composed of young females . As the volune of the work increased, office enployees, three—fomths of them were young females, did not perceive automation as a threat to eliminate jobs, and they regarded change as not disruptive . High acceptance of change fomd among the employees was thus considered a direct result of the particular nature of the organization. Positive association also was found between group cohesive- ness and acceptance of change , contrary to prediction. High group cohesiveness was attributed to the homogeneity of the employees , as nest of them were young females, coming from similar family background and with sane high school educational training . Further, inter—departnental transfers was nothing unusual for the young females , as typing and basic machine operations constituted the major proportion of the work perforned by them. No relationships were found between the criterion and such predictor variables as age , length of education, authoritarianism, need for independence and perceived supervisor-subordinate rela- tionship. The failure to support these hypotheses may be explained by the follwing reasons: l. 52 Inadequacy of neasurenent: Non-significant relationships between the criterion and authoritarianism and need for independence nay be the result of inadequacy of neasurenent as only three itens were used to neasure authoritarianism and only two itens to neasure need for independence . Idiosyncrasies of the organization: Non-significant relationships between the criterion and age and length of education may be the result of the fact that young fenales constituted alnost three— fourths of the entire enployee body. One of the conseqLences of this disproportinate ratio is that it tends to produce low variations in terms of age and education. (Characteristics of the respondents are presented in Appendix 2.) Violation of linearity assunption: Non-significant relationship between the criterion and perceived supervisor-subordinate relationship may be the result of violating the assunption of linearity. Significance of curvilinearity found in the relation- ships between the criterion and such predictors as psychological participation, perceived supervisors' attitudes to change and perceived supervisor—sub- ordinate relationship indicates that the correlation coefficients and linear regression functions are not 53 appropriate measures to use. It seems that Eta's are more apprOpriate than correlation coefficients to describe curvilinear:relationships. waeverg correlation coefficients were used in this study, since Eta can only describe the degree_of associa— tion but not the forggof'the relationship. Theoretically, this study conceptualized the variables which‘ could deternine the degree of acceptance of change within an organization in terms of personality determinants, personal data itens and institutional variables. The results of factor analysis clearly point out that Factor 1 accounted fOr’Objective‘partici— pation, role perception, group cOhesiveness, perceived competence and acceptance of change; Factor 2 for psychological participation, perceived supervisors' attitudes to change and perceived superb visorhSUbordinate relationship, whereas Factor 3 fer authoritari— anism.and.readiness to change. These results point out that change acceptance is multi- dimensional, and is subject to the influence of Factor 1, which seems to deal with employees? objective involvenent with the organv ization; Factor 2, which refers to members' psychological affilia- tions with the organization and the people 'working within it, but Factor 3 points to individuals' predispositions which are inde- pendent of the organizational context. The use of multiple and partial correlations resulted in the findings that group cOhesiveness and role perception were II. 5” dominant predictors when either one of them was used in conjunction with objective participation to predict acceptance of planned change , and that group cohesiveness and role perception were both crucial in retaining psychological participation as an influential predictor for the criterion. The implications of these findings are that an employee's perceptions of group cohesiveness and the role he plays are ncre important to his psychological affiliation with the organization than to his actual influence on decision making; however, objec- tive participation effectiveness can elicit more positive response to planned change if either role perception or group cohesiveness is taken into consideration- Implications Katz and Kahn (1966) point out that to move from an unorgan- ized state to an organized state requires the introduction of ‘ constraints and restrictions to reduce diffusion and random com- munication to channels appropriate for the achievenent of organi- zational objectives. It may also require the introduction of incentives to use those channels and use them appmpriately rather than leave them silent or use them for organizationally irrelevant purposes . Current findings on administrative management, however, reveal ' that too much emphasis on the constraints and restrictions for conmunication channels may result in high turnover. For instance, in their study of executive turnover, North and North (1969) found 55 that ninety—three percent of the young executives were leaving because they felt there was no challenge in their jObs. In-depth exploration revealed that the nadcrity of these young men had positions of responsibility but had been given virtually no authority to make decisions . All decisions had to be cleared with the president of the company. In other~words, positions of responsibility without the companionship of appropriate amount of participation in decision naking cannot nake the jObs challenging. Nevertheless, it may be overstating the case to say that participative control is the only way to solve organizational prOblens involving planned change. This study points out that member participation can be effective only when it is acconpanied by appropriate control of other'relevant social and psychological elenents. Since few of the organizational behaviors are uni-dimen— sional, the importance of social and psychological factors always exists in any attempt to study nember attitudes and behaviors within an organizational context. Although it was a.relatively new attempt to study organiza- tional communication from.a social psychological approach and the enpirical findings presented.here might have been affected.by distinguishing characteristics of the organization and the measure- nent instrument, several implications nay be drawn. Theoretically, this study confirns the contemporary notion that change acceptance, or an individual's response to change, is 56 nulti-dinensional. Thus , change acceptance is subject to an individual's personal data items, his personality and his per- ceptions of the organization he works for and the people he works with. However, this study goes a step further in pointingout that institutional factors , rather than either personal data or personality determinats , accounted for more of the variance in regard to employee acceptance of change . Inportance of this finding is that it inplies that employee attitudes and behaviors can be manipulated toward goals of the organization they work for . If tOp managenent wants full coopera— tion from the rank—and-file in the process of introducing change, what should be of concern is how to get supervisory personnel interested in it. Once the supervisory personnel are in favor of change, their subordinates will also be receptive to it. As this study found, the more favorable the supervisors are to change, the nore like ly the subordinates welcone it . In general , it should be relatively easier for top managenent to change employee perceptions of the organization and the people who work within it than to change the enployees' personalities and/ or their backgrounds . Methodologically, this study points out that research in the future will produce a fruitful contribution to the understanding of organizational change if such. variables as length of employnent are taken into account. As the study indicates , length of employnent correlates negatively with acceptance of planned change , it would 57 be interesting and meaninngl to investigate how an employee's seniority intervenes in his response to change. Analogously, need for independence and authoritarianism can also be examined to see how they contaminate the effectiveness of participative control on.nember*responses to planned change. For example, if participation has a more positive effect on low than high authoritarians, different courses of actiOn might be necessary in delegating participative control to the employees of a given organization. Participation may not be necessary'fOr'employees Who are highly authoritarian, and.participation may not be appropriate fer those with low need for independence. These questions are relevant and deserve to be explored. If change has now become a pernanent and accelerating factor in American life, then adaptability to change becomes increasingly the most important single deterninant of survival. At the level of the individual, adaptability to change is important in order'to cope with the demands of the on-going organization; at the level of the organization, it is vital in the highly competitive world. Ehployee resistance to organizational planned change directly results in organizational inability to cope with outside challenges. I Therefbre, to understand the prOblem of change will not only facilitate the well being of employees thenselves, but the survival of the organization as well. 10. 11. 12. 13. 1”. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adorno, T., FrenkelaBrnmswik‘, E., Levinson, D.J., and Sanford, R.N., T_h3_ Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper, 1950. Agnew, Paul C., and Hsu, Francis, L. K., "Introducing Change in a Mental Hospital, " Hnnnan Organization, Vol. 25,1966, pp. 195- 198. Barnard, C. I., The Function of the Encecutive'.‘ Cambridge: Harvard University Press ,1938. Bass, Bernard M. , Organizational Psychology. Allyn and Bacon, Inc. , 1965. Bennie , Warren G. ,Changing Organizations, McGrav-Ffill Book Company, 196.6 Bormann, Ernest G. , Howell, Willian S. , and Nichols, Ralph E. , Inte rsonal Conmmication _i_n_ Modern Organization, nt1ce— “T969 Brewer, M. B. , Campbell, D.T. , and Crano, .W..D.., "Testing a Single-Factor Model. as an Alternative to the Misuse of Partial Correlations. in Hypothesis-Testing Research," Socionetry, Vol. 33, No. 1, March 1970. Coch, L. and French, J. R. P. , Overcomin Resistance to Change, Human Relation, l9”8, 1, 512 582. Cohen, A.R. , "Sone Inplications of Self—esteem for Social Influence," in C.I. Hovland and LL. Janis, eds., Personality and Persuasibili . New Haven, Conn. , Yale University Press, pp. 102-12 . Cohen, A. R. , "Communication Discrepancy and Attitude Change; A Dissonance Theory Approach, " J_o____urnal of Personality, 27,1959, 386—396. Cohen, A. R. , Attitude Chan e and Sogial Influence. Basic Books, Inc. , New Yon—rk, ' ‘ I“ ' Deutsch, Morton, "A, theory .of conpetition and cooPeration," Human Relations, 2, 129-152. Deutsch, M. and Krauss , Robert M., Theories in Soci___a_l_ Psychology, Basic Books, Inc., New York, 1865. Dubin, Robert. ,. "Industrial Workers Worlds: A Study of 'Central Life Interests' of Industrial Workers ," Social Problens , Vol. 3, 1956, l31-1”2. 58 l”. 15. 16. . 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2”. ‘25.- 26. 27. 59 Faulhaber, Thomas A., Manufacturing: Strategy for Grcwth ing Qh_a_nge_, Anerican Management Association, 1967. Faunce , William A., "Automation and the Automobile Worker, " S____ccial Pro___13__lems, Vol. 6,1958,68-78. Jacobson, Digene H., Trunbo, Don., and Nangle, John, "Employee Attitudes Toward Technological Change in A Medium Sized Insurance Conpany," Journal 93 Applieim, Vol. ”3, No. 6,1959, 3”9-85”. . Katz, Daniel and Kahn, Robert L., The Social cholo :92 Organizations, John Wiley 8 San-s, c. , . Leavitt, H. J ., '.'Appl1ed Organizational Change in Industry: Structural TechnologiCal, and Humanistic Approaches," in James G. March, ed., Handbook of (Eganizations, Chicago, Rand McNally, 1965,1110.””-II'7 Lewin, K., Frontiersm ' mw:00 t; Methods, and Reality_ in _So__c__iaI Sc1en_____c__e. at____1_‘____ons,18”'7, lT5-”2. Likert , Rensis , New Pattern of Management, New Y:ork McGraw-Hill Book Canpany, Ific., 1951'. Likert , Rensis , The Human anization: Its Management an_<1 Value _, New York: memeHII yTI'Q 67 Lin , Nan , Innovation Internalization in A Formal Or ' zation , unpublished i P5. D. D1ssertat10n ,‘Department of Elfin-Woe tion ,~ Michigan State University , 1966. II a Lowin, A., "Participative Decision Making: A Model, literature Critique , and Prescriptions for Research," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , Academic Press, New York, VoI. 3, No. 1,1968, 68-.106. ' March, J. G.., and Simon, H. 218..., _Ernzations, New York: John Wiley, 1958. Mar-rm, AlfredJ , Bmers,.;Davis..vG., and. Seashore, Stanley E. , _ Maemt by Participation", Harper 8 Row, Publishers, Morse, Nancy .and Reimer, E. ,.-'."*Ihef Ebc'perinental Change of A ' Major Organizational ...Variab1e,"' Journal of Abnormal- “Social Psychology, 1956, 52, 120T.- * . "’ Murray, H. A. , @lorations_ in Personality. New York: Oxford University 88 , 8T . 28. 29. 30. 31.. 32. 33. 3”. 35. .36. 37 . 38. 60 Rogers, Everett M. with Shoemaker, F. F., Diffusion 9_f_ Innova- tions: A Cross-Cultural and ”Con'mmicat1on App“ roach, New York, Free Press of Gfé'ncoe, 1967. ’ ' Rommetveit, Ragnar, Social Norms and Roles: Explorations in Eh_e_ ' Ps chol of bdwingTociEI—Pres sures . Pfinneapolis-z verSIty Effimesota Press. ' ' Schwartz, Donald. H., .1 Liaison ConmmiCation' Roles _i_n_ A Formal Organization, uanIishm Dissertation, Department ' of Ccmmnication, Michigan State" University, 1968. Seashore, Stanley R. , and Bowers, David G. , Changing the Structure and Function of A3 Or 'zatlon, eyrof Research Center, Institute for Soc1al esearch, the University of Michigan, 1963. Smith, C. G., and Brown, M. 11., Communication. Structure and Con- trol Structure _13 A Voluntary Association ,Tbciometry,* Vol. 277196”, ””9-”68. ' Tannenbaum, A. S. , and Allport, F. H. , "Personality Structure and Group Structure: An Interpretative Study of their Relationship through an Event-structure Hypothesis ," Journal 9_1:Abnormal Social fiychOlogy, 1956, 53, 272-280. Tannenbaum, A. S. , and Kahn, R. L., "Organizational Control Structure: A General Descriptive Technique as Applied to Four Local Unions. Human Relations, 1957, 127.-l”0. Tannenbaum, A.--&.,. SocialPsychology 31: .the Work Organization. Wadsworth Publi‘Shing‘ Company , Inc . 7367". ' Trumbo, Dona, .."Individual .and Group Correlates of Attitudes Toward Work-related" Change, " J cur'nal of Mlied Psycholog , V01. 145, No. 5-, 1961, 338-3””——. ‘— - ' ' Vroom, Victor, Some Personality Determinants; of £h_e_ Effects of Participation, Prentice-Hall, Inc. , 1965‘.- ' * Weiss, Robert'and Jacobson, Eugene, A Method for the Analysis of the Structure of file): Organizations , Amerlcan ‘gciological Review, V0 .- 0, No. 6,, Decembe—m—r , 661-666. APPENDIX 1: Research Sites and Organizational Structure APPENDIX 1 APCC was launched in March, 1966. Its services are sold and handled by dozens of participating banks, with hundreds of offices. Banks are compensated for the service they perform for nerchants and cardholders in their areas . Merchants are relieved of record keeping and credit checking, and receive daily cash credit for charged pur- chases. Credit card holders are not required to bercustoners of any of the sponsoring banks, but must be worthy of credit. In the past four years, changes were introduced to the APCC both in areas of administration and operations . The amormt of total employees increased from under fifty to more than 250 at the tine the study was in progress , and automation was seriously considered to replace manual operations in several departments in addition to its original set-up of electronic data processing. As the first charge card handled by a banking institution, the whole idea and the appropriate procedures to put it to work were new not only to consumers but also to the personnel involved. As a result , the organization was under constant change . Sometimes the changes occurred as planned, and sometimes they appeared quite unexpectedly . However , the central notion around them was always to improve accuracy and efficiency at less cost. _ All employees in the APCC were the subjects of our study and the organizational structure is shown in the following chart. As the chain of command descended, the amount of information regarding change 62 63 activities decreased. The General Manager Officers Vice—presidents Assistant vice-presidents N = 8 Middle-range Sgew‘fsory. Departmental Supervisors Personnel N ,_. 7 Nonsgpervisory. Personnel Rank—and-file N = 195 The officers held weekly meetings in which major policies were decided and then relayed to the departmental supervisors. 1 The super- visors, then, sorted out the related information and either formally or informally transferred the information to the rank-and-file. Although upward communication was not formally encouraged, ideas and suggestions originated from the lower ranked employees from time to time. The departmental supervisors were provided with oppor— tunities to forward any constructive recommendations regarding organ- izational changes and they were trusted with confidence and permission to run their departments independently. Consultation and formal permission would be obtained by the supervisors only when the depart- mental changes would seem to affect the organizational operations as a whole . 6” lateral communication behaviors clearly reflected the designated roles the persons were assigned to. During office hours , commtmications were limited to the persons whose work was directly related and conver- sation was discouraged. Breaktime activities were also patterned-- employees took their break almost always with their fellow employees within the same departments; however, the higher the rank, the more the flexibility. In other words, a fixed time schedule was imposed on the rank-and-file employees, but not on the supervisors or the officers. Also, the ranks determined the content of the breaktime conver- sations. The breaktime conversations for the officers tended to be a continuation of their formal discussion. The content changed, yet not drastically, for the middle-range supervisory personnel; but they tended to drop out completely for the rank-and-file . The change of the conver- sation content could be the result of information availability or the amount of decision-making Opportunities , and also could be the indirect result of the organizational stress on the chain of command. Like many other organizations with a similar number of employees , the APCC confronted such employees' grievances as low pay scales, limited chances for promotion, lack of understanding between the super- visory and nonsupervisory personnel, high turnover rates, etc. How- ever, it would be unfair to say that the top management neglected such problems, as the writer, in the past three years , engaged in numerous times with high ranking officers discussing such serious problems as high turnover rates, which had been between 25 to ”0 percent anuall -— almost every week, some employees quit and the same number of 65 replacements were hired. Although this is by no means saying that the training is difficult, constant training of new employees will not only make the departmental stervisor lose his enthusiasm, but also occupy his time and energy for more useful research and/or planning. As a result, in most cases , a new employee was trained by other senior clerks , who, to some extent , did not have enough insight into their own operations within the department. The most common grievances resulted from inadequate training: . "My supervisor did not tell me how to handle a case like this one"; "I was told by George to do it in this way, but Mary told me the other way"; "Well, this is the way my supervisor told me when I was hired in; I don't care how this will affect your department." From several informal contacts with their high ranking officers , the writer found that high turnover rate and inefficiency were , according to the officers , attributed to the poor quality of the middle-range supervisory personnel and the lack of career incentives among the rank-and—file employees . The high turnover rate directly ”affected the employees' morale and indirectly resulted in overempha— sizing seniority as the single baseline for promotion. Lack of career incentives was an immediate result of low pay scale, despite the fact that one high ranking officer openly discussed and emphasized the fact that although the present pay scale was~ admittedly low, the organization was seriously concerned with raising it and that, in the long run, to work in the organization should prove 66 to be advantageous . Unfortunately , that discussion did not achieve its expected effect, and for most of the rank-and-file employees, a wait-and-see attitude prevailed. The APCC still served as a training ground for other organizations with similar work. Among the middle-range supervisory personnel, over 20 per- cent were part—time college students and none of them expected to obtain any college degree in the immediate future. Their average education was higher than that of the rank-and—file in only four out of eight departments, and so was their average age. As the super- visory task did not require any special skill, their seniority seemed to play an important role. To their superiors , the middle-range supervisory personnel held the responsibilities of getting the job done effectively, managing the personnel problems within their own departments, and coordinating with other departments . To their subordinates , they were the bosses, the caretakers, and the only sources for either work— related or personal problems . APPENDIX 2: Variables Investigated at the Level of Simple Correlations as. NH. as. as. em. as. me. mm. as. es. as. ea. mm. om. emm «mm swm cam .m .m . mo.l 10.: mo.| . mo.l mm.l . 30.: :H.I am am am. mm. mm. mo. 5H. om. mm. mo. no.5 em ma. cccu.soumwaw we a cogs mo. v a on u mo. Hm. :0. mo. 20.: :m. mm. Ho. mo. om. mm. .m as.. ea. em.- cm. «H.. me. so. me. eH.- ma. NH.- mm. mH.- am. em.. as. NO.. NH. as. me. mm.- ss. 30.- mm. mm.. em um seaspmfiwsnoo mfiaasm co Hn>ca was en ccsmw.pmm>cH mmfiemanm> m XHDzmmm< z e.0 3. nmcneo mo mocmvcmoo< .mH sH.- coeemaaossnmc 93830 .se me.- coarsenessnne Echoeofisnc .2 HH.- caemcoaenamm new: necsoccnincma>nmcsm .NH oH.- macnao or cospeph< ‘ .msome>nmacm .HH we. emanco or moccflommm .OH no.1 mocovmcaoo seasoned .m sH.I moccm>ww -mcco cacao .m 8.- Scdccmencfi soc cnmz .s mm. lemwcmHQM# nanocpn< .c 30.- ccapeconme mace .m as. coacmcacm no spaces .s as. semesoaeem co armada .m so. xwm .m .: mw< .H .H 68 APPENDIX 3: Characteristics ,of the Respondents APPENDIX 3 Characteristics of Respondents sex we 0......00....0.... 26.5% Penale o. ..... ooooooo'oo 72.2% Noresponse......_..... 1.3% Age Under 20 19.6% 20-2” ................. 31.8% 25-29 l”.0% 30-3” . 6.8% 35-39 ................. 5.9% ”0-”” ................. 5.9% ”5-”9 . 5.9% 50-5” ”.5% 55 andover ........... ”.3% No response ........... 1.3% Education 8 years or less 0.0% Somehigh school 5.9% High school diploma ”3.2% Some college .......... ””.1% College degree or more. 5.5% Noresponse ........... 1.3% Length of Brployment 6 months or less 31.”% 7*to 12 months ........ 19.6% Over one year ......... 17.7% 2years ormore 16.”% 3to”years 10.0% 5years ormore 3.6% No response........... 1.3% Type of Employment Parttime 18.2% R111 tjlm 0.....00....0 80.5% No response ..... 1.3% 70 APPENDIX ”: The Questionnaire ' APPENDIX '4 THE QUESTIONNAIRE Michigan State University Survey of Organizational Communication Behavior Under the guidance of his doctoral committee members, Robert Yien is conducting a study to analyze the commumication behavior of the employee in an organizational setting, and some of his work attitudes. Please help this important study by carefully and honestly answering each item. Please do not put your name on the questionnaire, ~ so that your answers can remain anonymous. Significant and meaningful results will be achieved by your cooperation. However, we shall give you a summary of the results. Thank you for your help. Robert Yien ' Department of Communication Doctoral Committee: Dr. Hideya Kumata Dr. Eugene H. Jacobson Dr. Bradley S. Greenberg Dr. Verling C. Troldahl Michigan State University Summer, 1969 72 73 PLEASE PLACE AN (X) MARK ON THE BLANK LOCATED IN FRONT OF THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE FOR EACH'OFiTHE FOLLOWING ITEMS. Suppose the question is: The United States is the most powerful ration in the world , and your response is "strongly agree," then please put an "X" on the blankin front of that choice. The United States is the most powerful nation in the world . Strongly agree ‘ a Don't know Disagree Strongly disagree ||||-|>< rr—F Begin now. If you have any further questions, please ask your supervisor or contact Bob Yien at Ext. 8”. Thank _you. (l) (2) (3) (”) > _— ‘I’ When I have a problem I like to think it ___~ gly agree through myself first before asking for e help from others . — Don't know —"" Disagree Strongly disagree In general, I like to work under people Strongly agree who. have forceful and dominant per- — Agree sonalities. — Don't know : Disagree Strongly disagree ' I'd rather stay with a job that I can __ Stronglyagree handle than switch to one where most. . e things are new to me. —'Don't 1cm Disagree Ill Strongly disagree When I've made up my mind, it iSn't ____,. ngly agree very unusual for someone else to e change it. -_ Don't-krow‘ : Disagree Strongly disagree . (5). (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (ll) 7” The job that I would consider ideal for me would be one where the way I do my work is always the same. . When I am not in a group situation, I usually do things whiCh -I believe are right , regardless of ' others' opinions. I don't mind at all that the people above me tell. me to do what I really don't want to do. The trouble with most jobs is that you just get used to doing things in one way , then they want you to do them differently. When I am in agroup situation, Iusuallyy do things which I. believe are right, re- . gardless of what other: people in the group think. Obedience and respect ‘ for authority - are the most important virtues children should learn. The trouble with many people is that when they find a‘ job they cando well, they don't stick with it. : __ Strongly agree _Asree __Do'n t know :Disagree :Strongly disagree _‘__ Strongly agree Agree Don't know : Disagree _ Strongly dis agree IIIII IIIII IIIII Strongly agree Agree Don't know Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Don't know Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Don't Imow Disagree Strongly disagree __; Strongly agree _Agree , —"Don' t lmow :Disagree :S'tzongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Don't know ‘ Disagree Strongly disagree (12) (13) (1”) (15) (16) (17) (18) 75 I usually find that I can carry out other people's suggestions without changing them. The fUture would be brighter if' "people would talk less and work HOPE. I like a job where I know I'll be doing my work about the same way from.cne week to the next.' What American.youths need is to learn strict discipline, respect, and deter- mdnation to protect their country. When I get used.to doing things in one way, it is disturbing to have to change to a new method. USually, I want the person.who is in charge of my group to tell me what to do. In_addition to laws and political programs, what this country needs is a group of courageous, tireless, devoted leaders in Whom.the people can trust. Strongly agree Agree Don't know- Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly’agree Agree Don't know Disagree Strongly disagree _Strongly agree Agree - Don't know _ _ — I . s Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Don't know Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Don't know Disagree» Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Don't know Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Don't know Disagree Strongly disagree (19) ('20) (21) (22) (23) (2”) (25) 76 It would take a sizable raise in pay - to get me to voluntarily transfer to ‘ another job . I often feel that-I am not‘as good in things as most people who have worked “ on the job‘ longer than I have. I think it's better to keep busy with cheerful things than. to think about problems and worry . Human nature, being what it is, will always bring war and conflict. I always feel that. I am an important part of this organization. I'd consider moving if I had a chance to do the same kind of work for the ' same amount of pay in some other place . The people in my department get along with each other better than people in other departments . q _ q I e I I g — . — q o q Q * ~ — — — Strongly agee Agree Don't know Dis agee Strongly dis agee Strongly agee Agree Don't know Disagee Strongly disagee Strongly agee Agme Don't Imow Disagee Strongly disagee Strongly agee e Don't know Disagee Strongly disagee Strongly agee Agree 1 Don't know Disagee Strongly disagee Strongly agee Agree Don't know Disagee Strongly disagee Strongly agee Agree Don't Imow Disagee Strongly disagee 77 ( 26) Compared with other departments , I ‘ Strongly agee think the. people in my department really help each' other more on their jobs. Don't ‘ 1mm Disagee Strongly “disagee IIIII Based upon. such. criteria as. ability, information, personality, and ' attitude. toward innovationzingeneral, please..rate. yourself in terms of the following adjective pairs..- Check one and: only one of the ' following fiVe points of each item. Easels Experienced : . : X : ' : : : Inexperienced _V'ea—ry— m m Fa—fiIy Tary— km?» (27) Competent : i . , : Incompetent, (2 8) Open-minded : = : : . : : : Closed-minded (29) Informed: : - ‘ : _ : :6 : Uninformed (30) Flexible : : . : : ' :1 ' : Inflexible (31) My boss usually explains his. __ Strongly agee decisions to me about matter in __ Agree which I am involved. _ Don't know __~_‘ Disagee Strongly disagee (32) My boss acts on things which involve , Strongly agee me without consulting me first. — Agee { '—‘— Don't know Disagee Strongly _. disagee . (33) My boss makes me feel at ease when .. __;_ Strongly agee I speak with him. » Agree —'_ Don't knCM *‘Disagee :' Strongly disagee (3”) (35) ('36)‘ (37) (38) (39) y (no) 78 As compared.with other departmental heads, I feel that my superviSor can't be approached easily. It is part of my job to take part in discussions whidh result in decisions regarding the Bankard's problems and activities. It~issnot-mymjob.to-suggest‘whatsI. think oould.be better ways of doingi ' things'around.here. I think I have some say or influence on.what goes on around here. I think that, if the peOple on the top want to get things done efficiently, they should do them without consulting the rank-and-file employees. I don't feel that my opinions will. affect the decisions of my boss on things in.which I am involved. My boss usually asks myzopdnions when- .a prOblamscomesnup-that’involves:my work. IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII _Strongly agree :Agr'ee —Don't know :Disagree :Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Don't know ' Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Don't know Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Don't-know' Disagree Strongly disagree. Strongly agree Agree Don't know Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Don't know Disagree ‘ Strongly disagree .Strongly agree Agree Don't know Disagree Strongly disagree (#1) (1+2) (#3) -(uu) (I-IS) people in different ways . 79 It's easy for me to get my ideas across to my boss whenever I have a suggestion for improving the job in sOme way. My boss pays more attention to suggestions that I make than he does ‘to those tradeby other employees. I t‘rfinkmy boss. is always in favor. of change. When I make any suggestions that may result in some change, my boss shows his willingness to listen to me. Please indicate one..type of change that has occurred recently in the department where you work. __‘_ Strongly agree ____‘ Agree ___‘_ Don't know ___- Disagree __ Strongly disagree Strongly agree : Agree Don't know Disagree , . Strongly diSagree __._ Strongly agree ___;F¥amaa ‘ Don't know _.- Disagree :‘ Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Don't know : Disagree Strongly diSagree III There are always changes being made in work situations that affect For instance , people in the department of authorization are on the way to using CRT to replace monthly journals; peOple in accounts- receivable and security moved to their new offices; people in customer service had their room extended, etc. In the questions below, please indicate how- you feel about changes in your work situation that have taken place in the past few nonths. - (1+6) In general , changes to nore automated work methods result in improved work situations for employees in jobs like mine . ' Strongly agree Agree ' Don't know Disagree Strongly disagree III (H7) (48) (H9) (50) (51) (52) 80 The changes that have taken place recently have led to better relation- ' ships between me and the other people ' I*work‘with. .The change to more automated.work methods has made ny'working conditions nrme pleasant. The Change to more.automated.work methods has made my own work mush more satisfying. My age is: my sex is: iMy length of employnent at Michigan Bankard is: IIIII IIIII IHIII Strongly agree 'A gree Don't know Disagree' Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree ‘ Don't know Disagree Strongly disagree _Strongly agree :ngree —Don't know :Disagree :Strongly disagree Under 20 20- 2a 25-29 30- 3% 35-39 _ uo-uu '— us—ug ~ _- 50-51: "" 55-60 - | ' I 60 and over ____Male ___[Female IIIIIII 6 nonths 7 to 12 months Over one year 2 years or more 3-u years 5 years More than 5 years 81 (53) My length of formal education is: ‘ 8 years or less Some high school High school diploma Some college College degree or nore (51+) My type of employment here is: __;_'_ Part time _‘Full time (55') Number of people supported by my' . ’ incone is: One —'— 'IWo — Three _' Four — Five : Six or more We are interested in- the-role you..p1ay.wit‘nin.fimie organization. W'mle does not .necesearilyr-neanryotm‘fi‘ ‘ 'itio .. . . For instance,- instants of position, youmay ‘be-a supervisor, but the role you play may .~ include. activities as a coordinator between other ‘ supervisors and your superior, in addition to your supervisory function. ' By the same token, you may be. a. nonésupervisory employee, but the role may include. your activities as a linkage between other employees and the supervisor. Assuming that the structure of this organization can be diagramed as in the chart provided below, please place the mmber that is most appro- priate to describe your role in this organization. (Numerically, 1 stands for non-supervisory employee; 2 for the linkage between non-supervisory employees and supervisors; 3 for supervisory personnel; it for the linkage between supervisory personnel and the officers, and 5 stands for officers.) ('56) .. My role number is 82 L_ _' _‘—___ ,— ‘I‘he‘ following items are for non-supervisory personnel only . For super- visory personnel, please skip to next page. Please. recall any formal .-or informal decision-making meetings you attended e1ther alone with your superviSor or accompanied by fellow employees in the past few weeks or nonths . Check the one and only one which you think is most appropriate to describe the nature of your attendance . (57) I attended all the meetings regarding __ Yes my departmental problems . __ "No (58) I attended the meetings only to be told Strongly agree what's going on in my department. — Agree _’ Don't know _ Disagree : Strongly disagree (59) I attended the meetins to discuss. and _._.. _S‘trongly agree offer my opinions on matters regarding __ Agree the work in my department . Don't know ‘ : Disagree __ Strongly disagree 83 The following items- are for s_upervisory personnel only. Please recall the meetings you attended in the past few weeks or months. Che 5k the one and only one response which you think is most appropriate to describe the nature of your attendance . (60) (61) (62) (63) (61+) .- (65) I attended-all the supervisory meetings. I attended the supervisOry meetings-only to be informed about-what I should do in my departrent . I attended the supervisory meetings to discuss the problems in my departnent. I- attended the supervisory meetings. to discuss my. own departmental problems as well as other departmental problems .‘ I'had muchsay. (or. a lot- of influence). on- .the decisions nedein the recent meetings (I attended. The feeling I had from attending the supervisory meetings is that the relationship between ny superior and ' me is more or less like a partnership. Yes. __ No Strongly agree Agree Don't know Disagree Strongly diSagree Strongly agree e Don't know Disagree Strongly diSagree , Strongly agree Agree Don't know Disagree Strongly disagree __ Strongly agree Agree Don't lcnow ___._Disagree :Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree e Don't know Disagree Strongly disagree . MICHIGAN STQTE UNIV. LIBRARIES IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 31293010016370