-. .214 Jinn. u. Mn L ’ minim}!till?li’l'mllmDimitri"7 9:24 W \\:L 0 3 1293 00569 4496 A .zw' “BRA“. S Michigan State { University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled INTERPERSONAT. RELATIONS AS A POSSIBLE MEDIATING VARIABLE IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AN ORGANIZATION'S STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT presented by Dakheel A. Al—Dakheelallah has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph .D . degree in Sociology Major professor Date W 7/. /é7 present a review of related literature on the concept of organizational commitment and its antecedents or correlates. ' Special emphasis, however, is given to the attitudinal approach to the concept and the empirical studies related to it. M, we briefly summarize the concept of organizational commitment. Then, we present four classes of variables which seem to emerge as antecedents of commitment. ‘We will seek to identify those correlates of organizational commitment crucial for the proposed study and to show where our study fits. These classes of variables (particularly structure, job characteristics and work eXperience) are complicated and probably interactive in their effects on commitment. We discuss this possibility in the following section as it appears in the related literature, with a concluding statement about the present study as it relates to this assumption. At the end, a special section is devoted to cross-cultural studies on commitment in order to allow comparison of the findings of these studies with the findings of the Proposed study. This is followed by a summary of the literature reviewed, delineating the concerns of our study. pggganizational Commitment: Definition of Antecedents Historically, there has been concern with the basis of commitment in general, and recently social scientists have expressed increased interest in the concept of organizational commitment in particular, and it has become a major focus of research (Bluedorn, 1982). This interest has been expressed both in theoretical efforts to explicate the construct and in empirical efforts to determine the antecedents and outcomes of commitment. Angle and Perry (1983) commented: Apart from its intrinsic appeal, the current p0pularity of this concept seems to reflect a recurrent theme in the research literature whereby organizational commitment has been identified as an important variable for understanding the work-relevant behavior of organizational members. (p. 23) Consequently, organizational scholars have attempted to develOp commitment models ranging from single-cause models to multiple- antecedent ones. Angle and Perry (1983) argued that the Witiple- antecedent models, such as what Steers (19778) ofer'Ed. have been the exception rather than the rule. The most common are single-cause etiological models of two broad theoretical notions regarding the antecedents of organizational commitment: 1. The member-based model. This model holds that commitment originates in the actions and personal attributes of the organizational member. That is, the attributes and actions of the individual member are considered to be the locus of commitment. (See Kiesler, 1971, and Salancik, 1983 as proponents of this approach.) This social-psychological perspective is 50mm“ ”Stricuve' —7— 9 however, in that its adherents emphasize that "in order to be committing, such prior behaviors must have been public, explicit, irrevocable, and, above all, voluntary" (Angle & Perry, 1983:125).1 2. The organization-based model. This model is based on the premise that commitment reflects a member's reciprocation for the organization's having provided resources that satisfy important needs. That is, commitment is a function of the way the member has been treated by the organization. (See the work of Buchanan, 1974, as an example of this approach.) Both models characterize the literature on organizational commitment, and a preference for one over the other depends greatly on the concern and interest of the researcher. However, the distinction between the two lies in "whether it is the member of the organization that is considered to be the initiator of actions that lead ultimately to an increase in the member's organizational commitment" (Angle 8: Perry, 1983:124). 1A specific version of the member-based model is Johnson's (1973) concept of commitment. He perceived it as having two distinct meanings: (1) "personal commitment" refers to a strong personal dedication to a decision to carry out a line of action, or any set of behaviors which are organized around the attainment of a goal; (2) "behavioral commitment," which refers to those consequences of the initial pursuit of a line of action which constrain the actor to continue that line of action (Johnson, 1973:395-397). A more general version of the member-based model is Becker's theory (Angle 8: Perry, 1983). Howard 3. Becker, in 1960, took the first major steps toward the meaningful specification of the concept of commitment (Johnson, 1973). A coherent pattern of research has developed, based on Becker's (1960) theory of side bets (as it appears in the present review, e.g., Alutto, Hrebiniak 8: Alonso, 1973; Stevens, Bayer, 8. Trice, 1978). However, in Becker's theory, commitment is treated as a structural or accrual phenomenon, one in which a series of investments, or side bets, sometimes individually, rather trivially and incrementally, come to commit one to one's role (Hrebaniak 8: Alutto, 1972, cited in Angle & Perry, 1983). —i—WW 10 A few studies have, at least implicitly, compared the two models. Angle and Perry (1983) extended this stream of research, concluding that: Although the latter [organizational-based] model received more support from the data, both models explained a significant amount of variance in commitment. Contrary to the preponderance of related research findings, extrinsic aspects of satisfaction were more strongly associated with organizational commitment than were intrinsic aspects. (p. 123) In other words, there is more than one path to organizational commitment. Commitment can be influenced by what the individual brings to the organization by way of history and personal attributes such as age, tenure, education, and self-image (member-based model), and commitment can also be a result of how favorably individuals view the organization's treatment of them (organization-based model). The latter viewpoint has received more empirical support than the former (e.g., Angle & Perry, 1983; Buchanan, 1974; Morris & Steers, 1980: Steers, 1977a; Welsch & LeVan, 1981). D_e§inition of Oganizational Commitment Commitment, in general, has been studied from many different theoretical perspectives (Becker, 1960; Buchanan, 19711; Johnson, 1973; Kanter, 1968; Kiesler, 1971; Mowday, Porter, 8: Steers, 1982; Mowday, Steers a. Porter, 1979; Staw 8: Salancik, 1977). For Kanter (1968), the term "commitment" refers to the willingness of social actors to give their energy and loyalty to social systems, whereas to Buchanan (19711), commitment refers to an affective attachment to an Organization apart from the purely instrumental worth of the relationship. ’——— 11 Two major trends in defining the concept of’ organizational commitment can be drawn, based on the assumptions underlying the broad theoretical orientation of the two models discussed above. Eliéfi. is the behavioral approach, focusing (n1 commitment— related behaviors 1J1 Which the organization member becomes "bound by his action" or his behavior exceeds formal and/or normative expectations and rue chooses to link him/herself to the organization. In this regard, Kiesler and Sakamura (1966) defined commitment as the "pledging or binding of the individual to behavioral acts," and Salancik (1983) described it as "a state of being in which an individual becomes bound by his actions" (p. 62). Thus, the highest levels of' commitment are fostered by behaviors that. are explicit, irrevocable, freely chosen, and public (Kiesler, 1971; Salancik, 1983). The second trend in defining organizational commitment is the attitudinal approach, focusing on commitment in terms of attitude (Mowday, Porter, 8. Steers, 1982; Mowday, Steers. 8. Porter, 1979).1 Although there is a general lack of agreement concerning the definition of organizational commitment or even its measurement, substantial attention has been directed toward organizational commitment as the attitudinal component of the relationship between employee attitudes and organizationally' relevant. behaviors (Angle & Perry, 1981). .Attitudinal commitment thus represents a state in which an individual identifies with a particular organization and its goals and 1For a discussion of the different positions in defining commitment from an attitudinal approach, see Cook & Wall (1980). 12 wishes to maintain membership in order to facilitate these goals (Mowday et al., 1979). "This process of accepting organizational goals and values and integrating them into a system of personal goals and values is viewed by all researchers as 'organizational identification'" (Wiener, 1982:1118). It is to the attitudinal construct of commitment that the discussion now turns, and with which the review of related literature is primarily concerned.1 As an attitudinal construct, organizational commitment was described by Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) as a global reflection of a general affective response to the organization as a whole. Commitment emphasizes attachment to the employing organization, including its goals and values. Organizational commitment should also be stable over time. Thus, day-to-day events in the workplace should 1Other closely related commitment-like concepts observed in the literature are Patchen's (1970) comet-3pt 0f organizational identification and Hall and Schneider (1972) concept of organizational involvement. Patchen (1970) construes identification to be a composite of the following three phenomena: (1) a perception of shared characteristics with organization members-~a similarity component, where an individual possesses shared interests and goals with other organization members; (2) a feeling of solidarity with the organization--a membership component, where an individual experiences a feeling of belongingness with the organization; and (3) support of the organization-~a loyalty component, where an individual supports and defends organizational goals and policies. In their survey of organizational literature, Tompkins and Cheney (1985) pointed out that conceptualizations of identification and commitment overlap significantly. Moreover, they maintained that identification is a more descriptive term than commitment, which for them suggested the notion of a pledge or promise, because (a) identification suggests the relevance of "identity" and "self," and (b) identification is used in everyday language with such richness of meaning. Further, they maintained that "identification is more embracing than commitment because it can be applied more readily to process and product aspects than commitment. However, studying organizational commitment along with identification is found to be of great value, in that they fit, together as do form and substance, respectively" (Tompkins 8: Cheney, 1985:209). This position was taken into account in reviewing the literature. ————7—— ~ a 13 not cause an employee to seriously reevaluate his/her attachment to the overall organization. Further, commitment attitudes appear to develop slowly but consistently over time as individuals think about the relationship between themselves and their employer. This identification approach postulates commitment to be an attitudinal intervening construct, mediating between certain antecedents and outcomes, and views this attitudinal process as primarily affective, rather than cognitive-calculative (Wiener, 1982). Accordingly, Mowday et a1. (1979) defined organizational commitment as "the relative strength of an individual's identification with and involvement in a particular organization" (p. 226). Lately, this definition has become the basis of the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) developed by Mowday et a1. (1979), and continues to be the most prevalent in guiding commitment research. Although organizational commitment is attitudinally defined here, it includes some aspects of commitment-related behaviors. This selected definition of organizational commitment is characterized by three basic dimensions: 1. A strong belief in and acceptance of the organization's goals and values. 2. A willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization. 3. A strong desire to maintain membership in the Organization.1 » IDimensions of the first and third components are held in common with other authors such as Buchanan (19711). The second comPonent (a high level of effort in the job on behalf of the organization) is viewed in a broader way. Buchanan (19714) deals with This behav manag thes psyc‘ stn my: 0012! h r... ,_r 111 This definition has often been used by students of organizational behavior. It is consistent with most sociological, psychological, and managerial conceptions of organizational commitment. Most scholars in these areas conceive commitment as involving some form of psychological bond between people and the organization. Organizational and Occupational Commitment Ritzer and Trice (1969b) suggested that rather than being a structural phenomenon, organizational or occupational commitment are a psychological phenomena, based on the subjective meaningfulness of an occupation and an organization. Focusing on professional occupations, organizational commitment, from their perspective, may be an alternative to occupational commitment. They stated: "Commitment to an organization is primarily a psychological phenomenon which emerges after some realization that an occupation offers little to which a subject can commit himself" (pp. 1175-79). Support for a different conception of the relation between organizational and occupational commitment was provided by Aranya and Jacobson (1975), who concluded that organizational commitment is highly positively correlated with occupational commitment. Especially where an occupation is partly bureaucratic and partly professional, there is a dual commitment to both occupation and organization. They also assert that this second component (involvement) as a form of satisfaction obtained from one's work and activities carried out in the job role. The difference between the two positions is whether or not a person's involvement with his work goes beyond the job itself such that he works hard for both his own satisfaction and for the sake of the Organization (Cook 8: Wall, 1980:140). “org phen Grit con prc th1 00 15 "organizational and occupational commitment is a psychological phenomenon" (p. 21). In his analysis of professional and organizational commitment orientations among teachers and nurses, Hrebiniak (1971) found that there are common, underlying correlates or predictors of both types of commitment, which do not appear as unique to either of the professional roles considered. The most striking difference between the two orientations is that the professional is more complicated compared to the organizational. "In essence, this analysis seems to imply that some of the differences between professional and organizational commitment are, to an extent, differences in degree rather than kind" (p. 310). Lawrence and Mortimer (1985) distinguished job involvement from both occupational and organizational commitment. For them, job involvement means the psychological attachment to a particular job, whereas occupational commitment denotes the preference for specific vocations, and organizational commitment means the preference for Specific employers. (See also Alutto et al., 1973, and Ritzer 8 Trice, 1969a). Importance of Organizational Commitmepp Organizational commitment has been identified as an important variable for understanding the work-relevant behavior of members of an organization. The literature contains growing evidence to suggest that encouraging employees to become more committed to their workplace can have positive consequences for the organization. Commitment is presumed to be related to a variety of organizational outcomes, such 16 as goal achievement, quality of performance, and job satisfaction (Tompkins 8 Cheney, 1985). An alternative explanation for satisfaction and turnover among employees may be seen in the process of commitment (O'Reilly 8 Caldwell, 1981; Pfeiffer 8 Lawler, 1973). For example, increases in commitment have been shown to be correlated with decreases in absenteeism (Steers, 1977a) and turnover (Porter, (rampon 8 Smith, 1976; Porter, Steers, Mowday 8 Boulian, 197A) and to be a predictor of employee effort and performance (Mowday, Porter, 8 Dubin, 197A; Mowday et al., 1979; Steers, 1977a), but the relationship between performance and commitment was found to be mixed to modest (Wiener, 1982). Other writers have proposed that organizational commitment be used as one indicator of organizational effectiveness: It was hypothesized that organizations whose members were strongly committed would have both high participation and high production. Such organizations were therefore expected to show relatively low levels of absenteeism, tardiness and voluntary turnover, and high levels of operating efficiency. (Angle 8 Perry, 1981:10) Further, organizational commitment appears to have important implications for the basic fabric of society. One cfi‘ these implications is the fact that without members' commitment, some organizations simply would not work. The level of productivity and the quality of products and services in a society would be affected (Mowday, Porter, 8 Steers, 1982). And if these basic ingredients of survival are adversely affected, the survival of society will be threatened. (For further discussion, see Mowday et al., 1982.) Selected Variables Affecting Organizational Commitment Much research, particularly in the United States, has centered on determining the antecedents or predictors of organizational 17 commitment. According to Buchanan (19711), scholars have been expressing increased interest in the concept of' commitment and in empirical assessment of its causes in varying organizational settings, ranging from the commitment of professionals as scientists, nurses, and teachers to the roots of commitment in utOpian communities. Essentially, three classes of variables seem to emerge as antecedents of commitment. They are cited by Wiener (1982) as follows: 1. The first category includes personality—need variables and value orientation (Dubin, Champoux 8 Porter, 1975; Hall, Schneider 8 Nygren, 1970; Patchen, 1970; and Steers, 1977a). Thus, an important determinant of commitment seems to be person-organization fit. 2. The second category includes job characteristics and work experiences such as job challenge, feedback, opportunity for social interaction, task identity, group attitudes, and organizational dependability (Buchanan, 1974; Hall 8 Schneider, 1972; Lee, 1971; Porter 8 Steers, 1973; Steers, 1977a). A common theme linking many of these variables is their traditional role as antecedents and correlates of' other affective motivational responses such as job satisfaction (Stone 8 Porter, 1975). 3. The third category' inclues personal. demographic ‘variables, particularly age and tenure (Hall et al., 1970; Lee, 1971). A relatively new area of investigation of correlates of organizational commitment has dealt with the influence of organizational structure (e.g., formalization, centralization, decentralization, participation and organization size) on commitment (Morris 8 Steers, 1980; Patchen, 1970; Stevens et al., 1978). However Steers (1977a) concluded that antecedents of organizational commitment ___ 18 are diverse in their nature and origin. In the present literature review, studies on commitment are examined for the purpose of defining the important variables that influence organizational commitment and are crucial for the prOposed study. The review of these variables is categorized under the following headings: a) Individual Characteristics and Commitment; b) The Organization's Structure and Commitment; c) Job—Characteristics and Commitment; d) Work Experience and Commitment; and e) Cross-Cultural Organizational Commitment. First: Individual Characteristics and Commitment In general, organizational commitment is, at least partly, a result of what an individual brings to the organization by way of history and personal attributes (Angle 8 Perry, 1983). In examining the various studies on the determinants of organizational commitment, those variables that define the individual were found to be related to such commitment. In particular, such attributes as age, tenure, and education have been found to be linked to organizational commitment. For example, researchers have found that age is positively related to organizational commitment (Hrebiniak, 1971, 19714; Hrebiniak 8 Alutto, 1972; Lee, 1971; Marsh 8 Mannari, 1977; Schneider, Hall 8 Nygren, 1971; Sheldon, 1971; Steers, 1977a; Welsh 8 LeVan, 1981). Tenure has also been found to be positively related to organizational commitment (Buchanan, 19711; Grusky, 1966; Hall 8 Schneider, 1972; Hrebiniak, 19711; Marsh 8 Mannari, 1977; Schneider et al., 1971; Stevens et al., 1978; Welsh 8 LeVan, 1981). These two variables--age and tenure-- have been the most frequently examined and have shown the most 19 consistent relationship to organizational commitment (Luthans, McCaul 8 Dodd, 1985). Presumably, the positive relationships of these variables with commitment reflect the process of growth and personal change involved in the deveIOpment of identification (Buchanan, 19711; Hall et al., 1970). Level of education has been found to be inversely related to organizational commitment (Angle 8 Perry, 1981; Morris 8 Steers, 1980; Steers, 1977a). The argument often used to explain these relationships is that increasing age and lower levels of education tend to reduce the feasibility of obtaining desirable alternative education and therefore tend to restrict the individual to the present organization (Angle 8 Perry, 1981). Conversely, when employees have higher levels of education, it may be'more difficult for an organization to provide them with sufficient rewards (as perceived by the individual). Hence, nore highly educated people would be less committed to the >rganization and perhaps more committed to a profession or trade than rould those with less education (Steers, 19773). Other personal characteristics that have been found to be elated to organizational commitment are central life interest (Dubin, hampoux 8 Porter, 1975), skill, hierarchical position, and ‘ganizational status (Marsh 8 Mannari, 1977; Sheldon, 1971). wever, no significant differences in commitment have been found ross racial-ethnic subgroups or between employees whose incomes were were not the primary source of family support (Angle 8 Perry, 1). Finally, in examining the relationship between involvement in a -related communication network and organizational commitment, 20 Eisenberg, Monge and Miller (1983) concluded that the effect of involvement in communication networks on employee attitudes and behaviors may occur only for individuals with certain characteristics. These researchers explored the possibility that different commitment processes operate for different kinds of employees, with Special emphasis on those for whom communication is a potent factor in determining attitudes. Findings regarding the relationship of a variety of personal characteristics to organizational commitment have indicated that individual differences must be taken into account in any model of the commitment process in organizations (Mowday et al., 1982). Second: The Organization's Structure and Commitment Organizational Structure: Definition and Dimensions. The structure of an organization is its anatomy and the ways in which all he parts interrelate in pursuit of the organization's goals (Muchinsky, 1987). "It is what brings about or makes possible that uality of atmosphere, that sustained, routine purposiveness that istinguishes work in an organization from activities in a group: a ob, a society, and so forth. . . . It is a defining characteristic of n organization" (McPhee 8 Tompkins, 1985:150). Historically, structure has referred to the patterns of elationships among organizational members, tasks, and activities. ore Specifically, organization structure is "the organization's fficial arrangement of rules, authority relationships, and mmunication patterns" (Connor, 1980:346). 21 For James and Jones (1976), the organizational structure can be defined as "the enduring characteristics of an organization reflected by the distribution of units and positions within the organization and their systematic relationships to each other" (James 8 Jones, 1976: 26). These structural arrangements or characteristics are usually conceived as consisting of several dimensions, specified by early writings as "the hierarchy of authority, the specified juridictions, and the formal rules and written records" (Weber, 1946:196-98), and lately as "the structuring of activities, concentration of authority, line control of flow, and supportive component" (Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, 8 Turner, 1968) or "size, differentiation, standardization- formalization and administrative component" (Blau 8 Schoenherr, 1971). In an extensive review of structural dimensions and their conceptual relationships with individual attitudes and behavior, James and Jones (1976) suggested seven dimensions of organizational tructure. These are: total size, centralization of decision making, pan of control, pervasiveness of rules, specialization, tandardization of process, and interdependence of organizational omponents. An examination of the literature yields the impression that here are dozens of "basic" components of structure, which leads us to orrow the following, concluding statement of Ouchi and Harris (1974) 0 determine our position: This proliferation of labels sometimes reflects subtle differences in concepts but at other times reflects vagueness or disagreement concerning the precise nature of the phenomenon. Basically, the components of structure can be subsumed by four major variables; complexity, formalization, administrative intensity, and centralization. . . . size is very much interrelated with these four structural dimensions. (p. 110) 22 However, the structural dimensions or components that have most frequently been studied as properties of organizational structure having an impact on individual's reactions, are size, formalization, centralization or participation in decisions making (James 8 Jones, 1976), and span of control (Porter 8 Lawler, 1965). Campbell, Brown, Peterson and Dunnette (1974) suggested a useful distinction between the definitions of these structural dimensions as being either structural or structuring characteristics of organizations. The structural qualities of an organization are its physical characteristics, such as size, span of control, and flat/tall hierarchy. In contrast, "structuring" refers to policies and activities occurring within the organization that prescribe or restrict the behavior of an organization's members, such as specialization, formalization/ standardization, and centralization, or the operational structure (Jones 8 James, 1979; see also Dalton, Todor, Spendolini, Fielding 8 Porter, 1980). The structuring characteristics or the operational structure's definition have concentrated on the "enduring and systematic characteristics of organization rather than on the relational component of the definitions (Brass, 1979:6-7; see also Brass, 1981, for summary). This definition is of primary concern in the present review of literature. Effects of Organization Structure on Commitment. Hall (1982) suggested that structure has two basic functions, each of which is likely to affect individual behavior and organizational performance; structure is designed to minimize or at least regulate the influence of individual variations on the organization, and structure is the 23 setting in which power is exercised, decisions are made and the organization's activities are carried out. Organizational scholars have studied the relationship between properties of the overall organizational structure and the psychological and behavioral reactions of individual members (see, for example, Cummings 8 Berger, 1976; Hall, 1977; James 8 Jones, 1976; Kohn 8 Schooler, 1983; Porter 8 Lawler, 1965; and Rousseau, 1978). Organizational structure has served as an independent variable in investigations of the work-related behaviors and attitudes of organization members. The role organizational structure plays in job attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction, involvement, and identification) has long been of interest to sociologists, psychologists, and management scholars. (See Aiken 8 Hage, 1966; Hall, 1982; James 8 Jones, 1976; McPhee 8 Tompkins, 1985; and Porter 8 Lawler, 1965, for extended discussion and reviews.) In the area of job satisfaction, for example, the literature suggested that structural variations such as centralization or participation in decision making can affect job satisfaction and employee behavior. It is reasonable to expect that structural variations may affect other work-related attitudes, such as organizational commitment. Stevens, Bayer, and Trice (1978) addressed this issue. They found four structural variables (organization size, union presence, pan of control, and centralization of authority) to be unrelated to ommitment. The researchers concluded that structural variables were f little consequence in determining organizational commitment. On he other hand, Pierce and Dunham (1976) found that formalization and entralization were significantly and negatively associated with 211 employees' descriptions of their degree of commitment. Likewise, the literature on perceived decentralization or participative decision making consistently pointed to increased employee involvement and attachment resulting from decentralization (Hall, 1977). Vroom (1964) suggested that greater participation in decision making leads to employees becoming more ego-involved in their work and work-related outcomes. In studying organizational identification, Patchen (1970) found that overall participation in decision making had a marked effect on identification with the organization. The results of this study suggested that participation in decision making was likely to lead to a sense of solidarity with others in the organization. Yet such participation did not necessarily make organizational membership more important to the participants. Morris and Steers (1980) examined the effects of organizational structure on the level of employee commitment. Their sample comprised 262 nonfaculty employees of a major American university. Six structural variables were considered in this study: decentralization, formalization, supervisory span of control, span of coordination, perceived functional dependence, and work-group size. The authors found that formalization, functional dependence, and decentralization were related to commitment. With greater decentralization, greater ormality of written rules, and greater dependence on the work of thers, there were high levels of commitment. In contrast, with more entralization, less formal written rules, and less dependence on thers' work, there were low levels of commitment. Work-group size 25 and span of control were unrelated to commitment. Based on their findings, Morris and Steers (1980) suggested that: . . . increased formalization may influence commitment to some extent by facilitating both job and role clarity. The presence of written rules and procedures may help to ameliorate otherwise ambiguous situations and thereby provide means, for highly committed members, to achieve those goals. (p. 56) Another potential effect of structure has to do with the type of organization to which individuals become attached. Hall andSchneider (1972) noted that Roman Catholic priests and members of the United States Forest Service typically spend their entire careers in one organization (the single-organization career pattern), whereas professionals in research and development laboratories usually are much more mobile (the multiorganizational career pattern). Individuals who join an organization under duress are unlikely to commit as much of their personalities to the organization as those who enter voluntarily (Bluedorn, 1982). This explanation is congruent ith Etzioni's (1975) compliance theory. Etzioni considered 'nvolvement the key motivator in certain types of organizations, i.e., the structural-motivational relationship of compliance as the central lassificatory variable" (Eldridge 8 Crombie, 1974:116). He istinguished three types of involvement, representing increasing egrees of commitment on the parts of members, existing within three ypes of organizations: (a) alienative involvement, in which the ndividual member is not psychologically involved but is coerced to emain as a member (e.g., inmates in prisons as coercive rganizations); (b) calculative involvement, in which the individual involved to the extent of doing a fair day's work for a fair day's 26 ay (e.g., members in utilitarian organizations, such as most blue- nd white-collar industries); and (c) moral involvement, in which the ndividual intrinsically values the mission of the organization and is/her job and is personally involved in and identifies with the rganization (e.g., members in normative organizations, such as oluntary associations, mental health agencies, and. religious rganizations). Etzioni's typology of organizations was based on a cross- abulation of two dimensions: (a) the type of power that is used to ake participants comply and (b) the type of involvement participants xhibit toward the organization. In other words, "a relationship onsisting of the power employed by superiors to control subordinates ad the orientation, of the subordinates to this power" (Eldridge 8 rombie, 1979:46). A cross—tabulation of the power and the nvolvement dimensions yields nine logically possible types of mpliance, as illustrated in Figure 1. nds of Power Kinds of Involvement Alienative Calculative Moral ercive 1 2 3 unerative/ ‘ (Coercive) 'litarian A 5 6 (Utilitarian) mative 7 8 9 (Normative) gure 1--Etzioni's typology based on compliance. (Source: Etzioni, 1975) 27 In addition, Etzioni noted that in all organizations, the higher the organizational level of participants, the more likely that normative compliance predominates. Hence, the typology is 1x) be applied by emphasizing the compliance modes that characterize lower-level participants in organizations (Scott, 1981)(see also Franklin, 1975b, and Mowday et al., 1982). Structural variables, such as centralization, participation, and formalization, together might be thought of in terms of an organic-mechanistic continuum. Burns and Stalker (1961, 1962), Lawrence and Lorsch (1967, 1969), and Morse and Lorsch (1970) contrasted organizational characteristics ix: terms cfi‘ an organic—mechanistic typology. According to this typology, organic organizations are characterized by implicit goals and directions, Dpenness in communication, intergroup cooperation, low formalization, and task feedback systems. Personnel are often professionally rather han organizationally oriented. There exists a high degree of trust nd openness, conflict resolution through confrontation and joint roblem solving rather than internal politicing, and multidirectional, pen communication. In contrast, mechanistic organizations have xplicit policies and procedures, job descriptions, specific goals, igh formalization, tOp-down communication, and departmentalization. as communication may take place in mechanistic than in organic ganizations. Managers are required to relate to one another in ascribed ways, regardless of variations in their individual arsonalities. Standardization is sought for the flow of influence 1d information, as much as for goods and raw materials. Primary tyalty and orientation of personnel are toward the organization, with 28 mutual trust among organization members. The essential racteristics of organic and mechanistic organizational forms are marized in Figure 2. Evidence that is relevant to the present study and supports such ypology was provided by Smith, Moscow, Berger, and Cooper (1969) in ir study of the relations between managers and their work ociates in organic versus mechanistic organizations. They eluded: The expected differences between mechanistic and organic environments do indeed appear. In organic environments, relations with superiors tend to be excellent or else poor, rather than intermediate. In mechanistic environments, on the other hand, very few managers had excellent relations with their superiors and relations with subordinates correlated linearly with relations with superiors. (p. 343) 3, the experience of organization members in such environments can viewed as a major socializing force and as such is an important luence on the extent to which workers form psychological Ichments with organizations. In summary, the aspects of an organization's structure seem to otentially important dimensions of influence on organizational tment, since the structural variables (such as formalization, alization, and decentalization/participation) can be experienced ganization members in a comparatively direct and operationally ngful way. However, the research results are somewhat mixed. augh there are few studies concerning the relationship of Etural variables to organizational commitment, these findings at that: a) the inconclusive results obtained in these prior :ure-commitment studies may be attributable, in part, to the use fferent scales to measure structure; or, b) that the discrepancy Mechanistic _L Tasks are broken into very specialized abstract units L— Tasks remain rigidly defined Specific definition of reSponsibility that is attached to individual's functional role only Strict hierarchy of control and authority Formal leader assumed to be omniscient in knowledge concerning all matters Communication is simply vertical between superiors and subordinates Content of communication is instructions and decisions issued by superiors Loyalty and obedience to organization and superiors is highly valued Importance and prestige attached to identification with organization itself 29 Organic Tasks are broken into subunits, but relation to total task of organization is much clearer There is adjustment and contin- ued redefinition of tasks through interaction of organi- zational members Broader acceptance of responsi- bility and commitment to organization that goes beyond individual's functional role Less hierarchy of control and authority sanctions derive more from presumed community of interest Formal leader not assumed to be omniscient in knowledge concerning all matters Communication is lateral between people of different ranks and resembles consulta- tion rather than command Content of communication is information and advice Commitment to tasks and progress and expansion of the firm is highly valued Importance and prestige attached to affiliations and expertise in larger environment re 2--Mechanistic and Organic Organizational Forms (Adapted from R.L. Daft, "Bureaucratic Versus Nonbureaucratic Structure and the Process of Innovation and Change." Research in the Sociology of Organization, Vol. 1, 1982, pp. 129-166. WW4" “ __ m“ ' ’ ‘ ' 30 n the findings may result from the fact that there are other Specific spects of the organization of work which may contribute to the ffects of structure on commitment. These specific aspects include at characteristics and work experience, which might be influenced by “ganizational structure. We will look at the effects of each of them 1 commitment separately, and then discuss briefly their role as ediating variables for the structure-attitudes relationship. ird: Job Characteristics and ganizational Commitment Job characteristics theory was first explicated by Hackman and dham (1976). It identifies five characteristics of the job, their terrelationships, and their impact on employee motivation, :isfaction and productivity. The most common characteristics that have been found empirically influence members' reactions to their employing organization, in ms of their satisfaction with, or their affective responses to, a ticular job or organization, include: 1 - The amount of freedom and discretion at work, autonomy, iback and variety (Brass, 1979, 1981; Oldham 8 Hackman, 1981; 'ce 8 Dunham, 1976; Sutton 8 Rousseau, 1979; Welsch 8 LeVan, 1981). 2 - The nature and frequency of interaction and interpersonal nunication among organization members (Eisenberg et al., 1983; ss 8 Bass, 1982; Penley 8 Hawkins, 1985; Welsch 8 LeVan, 1981). Other job characteristics that may potentially ixfiluence itment, in particular, include related aspects of the work role, as: 31 1 - job scope or challenge and autonomy (Buchanan, 197“; Hall et al., 1970; Hall 8 Schneider, 1972; Marsh 8 Mannari, 1977; Schneider et al., 1971; Steers, 1977a; Stevens et al., 1978). 2 - role conflict and role ambiguity (Hrebiniak, 1971, and Welsch 8 LeVan, 1981). 3 - task interdependence (Morris 8 Steers, 1980, and Salancik, 1983). 11 - opportunities for social interaction, job-related interaction and feedback provided on the job (Eisenberg et al., 1983; Sheldon, 1971; Steers, 1977a; Stone 8 Porter, 1975). Schneider et al. (1971) theorized that As a career development framework, the link between job challenge, psychological success and career is accomplished through the sense of competence or self-esteem the individual derives from his successful performance. To the extent that his success and failures are tied to» a particular career and/or organization, it is hypothesized that his sense of esteem and his self-image will, also become related to the career and/or the organization. (p. 400) The theory was generally supported by this research. In addition, job characteristics such as autonomy, challenge, and task interdependence may increase the behavioral involvement of employees in their job and thus increase their felt responsibility {Mowday et al., 1982). Any characteristic of a person's job situation which increases his felt responsibility will increase his commitment 'SalaDCik. 1983). However, Steers (1977a) suggests that job haracteristics may influence commitment to some degree, although the nfluence is probably more pronounced for other affective responses ike job satisfaction. 32 In addition, Hackman and Lawler (1971) and Hackman and Oldham (1976) suggested that the fundamental characteristics of jobs can establish conditions so that it is possible for workers to obtain >ersonally rewarding eXperiences by doing well in their jobs. Based 1n this assumption, it is reasonable to conclude that it is the ffects of the variations in job characteristics which organization embers eXperience that may potentially affect work-related attitudes, ncluding organizational commitment. Now we turn to the effects of these work experiences on "ganizational commitment. Eth: Rbrk EXperience and gpnizational Commitment Steers (1977a) suggested that commitment is influenced by the ,ture and quality of an employee's work experience during his/her Inure in an organization, or what Buchanan (19711) termed ganizational experience. According to Steers, work experiences are major socializing force and as such greatly influence the extent to ich psychological attachments are formed with the organization. :hough all three antecedents of organizational commitment (personal aracteristics, job characteristics, and work experiences) that rers investigated appeared to be important, work experiences were 1nd to be more closely related to commitment than were personal or characteristics. 'The most striking experiences that have been found to influence nitment include: 1. Social involvement with co—workers: the greater the social erection, the more socially tied the individual becomes with the 33 >rganization. As a result, the individual becomes further linked with :he organization (Buchanan, 1974; Maehr 8 Braskamp, 1986; Sheldon, 971: Steers, 1977a). 2. Interpersonal relations such as influence, trust, respect, olidarity, group cohesion, and organizational dependability or the xtent to which employees believe the organization can be counted on 0 promote their interests (Buchanan, 1974; Cook 8 Wall, 1980; rebiniak, 1971, 1974; Maehr 8 Braskamp, 1986; Martin 8 O'Laughlin, )84; Patchen, 1970; Steers, 1977a; Welsch 8 LeVan, 1981). 3. Perception of personal investment and personal importance to 1 organization (Buchanan, 1974; Marsh 8 Mannari, 1977; Sheldon, 1971; .eers, 1977a and the realization of expectations (Buchanan, 1974; usky, 1966; Schneider et al., 1971; Steers, 1977a). 4. Group attitudes toward the organization: the extent to which ployees sense that their co-workers maintain positive attitudes ward the organization (Buchanan, 1974; Marsh 8 Mannari, 1977; :chen, 1970; Steers, 1977a). In their work entitled The Motivation Factor: A Theory of sonal Investment, Maehr and Braskamp (1986) found that commitment associated with interpersonal relations. Workers who can assist era in their work feel a greater loyalty to and express a greater :e of ownership in the organization.1 Further, they found that satisfaction is closely aligned with task and power dimensions, 1According to the authors, although the two opportunities of uence and affiliation are sometimes viewed as contradictory, this not be the case. The two orientations may, in fact, be viewed as Lementary. Those with the greatest formal authority often are in aest position to assist and to be supportive and at the same time .rect others toward the organizational goals. 34 whereas commitment, is closely associated with the interpersonal dimensions of social concern and affiliation. They wrote: "Looking at these results more closely, a strong and positive stress on supportive social relationships in the workplace apparently is important in eliciting workers' commitment to the organization" (p. 148). For Hrebiniak (1971), the level of interpersonal trust is fairly significant in understanding organizational commitment. He speculates hat The existence of a high level of trust, then, must indicate previous favorable individual-organizational interactions, the result of which quite naturally is aa greater organizational attachment than could be expected when interactions have been unfavorable, unrewarding or affectively negative, as under conditions surrounding lower levels of trust. (p. 247) Treating organizational commitment as one outcome of formal 1nd informal organizational socialization, Buchanan (1974) peculated that gratifying the individual's needs for guidance, eassurance, and ultimately for reSpect, trust, and affection robably exerts a lasting influence on individuals' attitudes toward he organization. At the same time,.individuals who believe hemselves to be making significant contributions and who sense that neir contributions are appreciated (the degree of attraction they ave for the group) are likely to be attached to the organization. Irren (1966) stated: Once an individual has his own social acceptance and participates fully in the socializing of the group, this very interaction converts the behavioral confbrmity to attitudinal conformity, i.e., a change from compliance to inner acceptance, i.e., commitment. (p. 450) Other types of experiences have also been found to be related to anizational commitment (Hrebiniak, 1971). Hrebiniak and Alutto 35 (1972), for example, found that the best predictors of commitment for their sample were role tension, years of organizational service, and issatisfaction with the bases of organizational advancement. Additional factors relating to commitment, which may themselves e a result of status in the organization, are job satisfaction, '06 challenge, job achievement, and cohesiveness with fellow employees Marsh 8 Mannari, 1977). All of these factors have been found to be ositively related to organizational commitment (Angle 8 Perry, “1983; rief 8 Aldag, 1980; Buchanan, 1974; Hall 8 Schneider, 1972; Hrebiniak Alutto, 1972; Martin 8 O'Laughlin, 1984; Steers, 1977a). Lee (1971) ound organizational identification to be determined in part by a ense of work accomplishment, relations with supervisors, and length f organizational service. Several of Buchanan's (1974) organizational-experience ategories (e.g., realization of expectations, first-year job mallenge, self-image reinforcement) seem clearly to be aspects of uployees' satisfaction with how they have been treated by the ‘ganization. Buchanan (1974) concluded that the desire for hievement and for the recognition that goes with it are the factors st likely to influence commitment. Most influential are those 1Job-satisfaction theorists have cited a number of aracteristics that are important to work satisfaction. Those racteristics can be categorized as: (a) working conditions or the personal circumstances of the job (e.g., pay, physical working ditions, organizational structure, and environmental variables; and interpersonal relations (e.g., with supervisor, superior, and workers). However, Porter et al. (1974), and Mowday et al. (1979) onstrated that job satisfaction and organizational commitment are tinct concepts. One of the most striking distinctions between the is that commitment is presumed to be a relatively stable ribute. (For further discussion, see Chapter VI, p. 159). ) 36 experiences that reinforce the individual's sense that he is making a real contribution and carrying his own weight, i.e., the reinforcement of personal significance or importance. Thus, eXperiences that einforce the worker's occupational self-image may well contribute to he growth of organizational commitment. These might include nteraction with a supportive peer group, which anchors favorable ttitudes toward the organization, or reassurance from superiors. Marsh and Mannari (1977) reported that the most important ariables influencing commitment were job satisfaction, employee ohesiveness, perceived job autonomy, and organizational status. The uthors noted that social interaction with peers and superiors rresponded to peer group cohesion and group attitudes toward the ganization. Seashore (1954) found length of service to be related > cohesiveness, suggesting that the duration of social interaction as 111 as its frequency formed a basis for significant group influence ited in Pheysey, Payne 8 Pugh, 1971:67). Finally, researchers have empirically identified positive Lationships between the following aspects of work experience and :anizational commitment: 1. The c00perative relationships which are developed among loyees teamwork serve as an important attachment mechanism menbaum, 1969; Welsch 8 LeVan, 1981). 2. Leadership style and consideration behavior (Brief, Aldag 8 en, 1976; Penley 8 Hawkins, 1985; Tannenbaum, 1969; Welsch 8 n, 1981). 3. Organizational climate conducive to the positive forcement of role-related activities, interaction, lack of 37 tension/ambiguity, and overall job satisfaction (Goldhaber, Porter, Yates 8 Lesenia, 1978; Hrebiniak, 1971; Welsch 8 LeVan, 1981). 4. Power relationship and overall patterns of participation (Antonovsky 8 Antonovsky, 1974; Etizioni, 1975; Franklin, 1975a; Pheysey et al., 1971; Sheldon, 1971; Welsch 8 LeVan, 1981). According to Pheysey et al. (1971), organization members who must carry out decisions in which they have not participated are not likely to have a "high sense of involvement in the group's activities and goals and therefore are not likely to take great satisfaction in this work" (p. 62). In summary, the studies reviewed in this section suggested that various work experiences encountered by organization members may explain considerable variance in the dependent variable of organizational commitment. The implication of these studies is that interpersonal relations are important in facilitating organizational commitment. Positive interpersonal relations lead the individual member to associate social satisfaction with organization membership (Patchen, 1970). Structure, Job Characteristics/ Wbrk EXperience and Commitment Link The idea that organizational context may affect job characterisitcs and work experience is clearly present in organizational theory and literature.‘I Several scholars have noted 1Jones and James (1979) summarized writers' concerns in terms of three broad categories: 1) writers' concerns with the relationship between technologies and job characteristics, 2) writers' concerns with the relationship between "anatomical" structure and job characteristics, and 3) writers' concerns with the relationships Jetween operational structure or the structuring characteristics of arganization and job characteristics. 38 mpirically the links between organizational attributes and job haracteristics and some have attempted to explain these relationships eoretically (e.g., Hall, 1982; Hall, Haas 8 Johnson, 1967a, 1967b; dik, 1963; O’Reilly 8 Roberts, 1977). For example, Hall, Haas and Johnson (1967a, 1967b) pointed out at formalization (e.g., many written rules and well-defined ocedures) can severely limit the amount of individual freedom and scretion at work. Thus, the organization's structure limits ssible interaction among group members (O'Reilly 8 Roberts, 1977). 11 (1982) indicated that considering structural variables such as ntralization and formalization is important in predicting ganizational performance. He reasoned that highly centralized ganizations. often limit the contribution that employees can make in -rying out their work. Several of these theoretical relationships have received support Im empirical studies (Aiken 8 Rage, 1968; Pheysey, Payne 8 Pugh, 1). For example, recent studies by Pierce and Dunham (1976), ton and Rousseau (1979), and Oldham and Hackman (1981) showed that ralization and formalization relate significantly and negatively job characteristics such as the amount of autonomy, identity, back, and variety as they are described by employees of the nization. On the other hand, Aiken and Hage (1966) examined the tionship between two types of alienation--alienation from work and nation from expressive relationsuand two structural properties of ization--centralization and formalization—-in a comparative study 6 welfare organizations. They found that both alienation from 39 work and alienation from expressive relations were more prominent in highly centralized and highly formalized organizations than in less centralized and formalized ones.1 Further, the French bureaucracy is described by Crozier (1963) as having almost obsessive reliance on routines and procedures (high degree of formalization). This organization is characterized not only by workers' dissatisfaction ith the conditions of employment, but also by little worker olidarity (Aiken 8 Hage, 1966:499). The Mediating Effect: Concluding Statement Only recently have scholars begun to view characteristics of the iob and work experience as possible links between organizational :tructure and individual responses (Brass, 1979, 1981; Oldham 8 Tackman, 1981). The common theme in these studies has been that tructural properties of the organization influence employees' sections by shaping job characteristics. For example, Oldham and ackman (1981) argued that the structural properties of organizations nfluence employees' reactions by shaping the characteristics of their bs. Their explanation of this effect had two dimensions: 1. Organization structure was viewed as significantly affecting e overall amount of challenge and complexity (autonomy, skill 1In some research, alienation has been seen as a consequence of mitment, and in others it has been viewed as an antecedent of mmitment. According to Etzioni's (1975) compliance theory, plian‘ce achieved through the use of coercive power will produce an ' ienative form of involvement by organizational participants. ever, sociologists have focused on alienation and psychologists on involvement when studying organizational phenomena such as mitment. Kanungo (1982), though, considered these two psychological structs to be at opposite poles of the same continuum. 40 variety, task identity, task significance, feedback) in the employees' jobs. 2. Job challenge and complexity were seen as directly influencing employees' reactions to the work and the organization. In his investigation of the role of job characteristics and interpersonal variables as possible mediating variables in the relationships between the organization's structural context and the attitudes and behaviors of individual employees, Brass (1979, 1981) found that job characteristics did, in fact, mediate the relationship between structure and individual responses.1 The basic assumption underlying these findings was that individual reactions or responses are a function of the mediating effects of job characteristics. On the other hand, Wiener (1982) suggests that it is possible that job satisfaction serves as an intervening variable in the job characteristics—commitment relationship. Some support for this possibility was found by Hall and Schneider (1972)(Wiener, 1982:49). 1Structural content is defined here as "the arrangement of task positions into an integrated workflow, and into differentiated subunits" (p. 12). That is, a relational approach to structure or a network analysis in which structure is considered "as resulting from both the strategic decisions made by the formal organization and from the informal interactions, or patterns of behavior of the individual workers. In short, each is viewed as affected by the other (p. 13). In this research, four structural relationships were investigated: 1) centrality, the degree to which a task position is central to the workflow; 2) criticality, the extent to which there are alternative routes through which the work may flow; 3) transaction alternatives, the extent to which a focal position has alternative sources for the cquisition of inputs or distribution of outputs; and 4) boundaries rossed, the extent to which workflow transactions cross unit oundaries. These structural relationships are viewed as relational ather than as constant attributes of objects (Brass, 1981:333; see 130 Brass, 1979:13-14). 41 The studies reviewed and discussed above lead to the conclusion that structural properties of an organization influence employees eactions or attitudes by shaping the characteristics of their jobs. onsequently, the kind of work experience they have will be molded by he structural characteristics of the organization. Therefore, one ould argue that interpersonal relations, which may be the focal mployee experience with significant others in the organization, might otentially determine when job characteristics will have their most ubstantial effect on organizational commitment. In other words, the resence of satisfactory interpersonal relations allows other ndependent variables (structural variables) in the commitment lationship to flourish. In this sense, good interpersonal relations e necessary for high commitment. Thus, the crucial assumption aderlying the proposed study will be that interpersonal relations at >rk is an outcome of organization structure or of other more specific [aracteristics of the job such as job-related interaction which is self an outcome of structure, an argument we pursue in the following apter. :th: Organizational Commitment fps-Culturally Considerable attention has been given to studying the ecedents of organizational commitment cross-culturally. Most of se studies have been undertaken to explore the differences between 'ican and Japanese workers, in an effort to explain the widening between the productivity growth rates of the two countries hans, MbCaul, 8 Dodd, 1985). 42 In contextual comparisons between the West and the East, "one iliar account holds that, with industrialization, the mizational attachment of Western workers has become instrumental role-specific while the employment relationships of the Japanese : remained particularistic and diffuse" (Lincoln, Hanada, 8 Olsen, :93). Japanese management fosters close and c00perative relations veen supervisors and workers (Cole, 1971). In addition, the nese have been found to evidence a taste for personal, inclusive 1vement with superiors and the company as a whole (Dore, 1973). According to Lincoln, Hanada and Olson (1981), the data do not so this interpretation, even though they hardly confirm all its d implications. Cole (1979) concluded that "Japanese employees lly have a strong identification with the company but not issarily high job satisfaction or strong commitment to the armance of specific job tasks" (p. 241). Marsh and Mannari (1977) found that job satisfaction, employee iveness, perceived job autonomy, and organizational status "as edents of commitment" were universal, not distinctively Japanese. similar study with a sample of Chinese workers, Mobely and Hwang ) found that the strongest predictors of organizational tment were age and gender. Tenure was found not to be ficantly related to organizational commitment. However, the 1 results supported the findings of Marsh and Mannari's study, ich the relationship between commitment and its antecedents was to be universalistic rather than culturally bound. In their study of work organization of plants and work force ment of employees in the United States and Japan, Lincoln and 43 Kalleberg (1985) concluded that "participatory work structures and employee services are more typical of Japanese plants yet function in both countries to raise commitment and morale" (p. 738). Further, Luthans et al. (1985) found differences in levels of arganizational commitment among American, Japanese, and Korean employees; Japanese and Koreans both seemed to be less >rganizationally committed than Americans, although the differences were not statistically significant. Their findings verified the 1ositive relationship of organizational commitment to age and tenure. 'hey also discovered that organizational commitment was not based on ulture—specific norms and values, a finding consistent with a number f previous studies. Cultural variables and attitudinal or behavioral outcomes as onsequences cannot be overlooked. Both similarities and differences nong cultures do exist. And it is important not to be fascinated alely by differences in- behaviors among cultures, but to consider 3th similarities and differences simultaneously. Thus, it is Jestionable, for example, to generalize findings from the most 1ericanized Japanese factories to other kinds of Japanese industry toberts, 1970). Hence, considerable effort needs to be devoted to evising reliable, sophisticated techniques for assessing the iversalistic notion of organizational commitment or other related ncepts cross-culturally. In such assessments, culture would be ewed as an intervening variable, modifying and being modified by her phenomena. As Roberts (1970) concluded from his evaluation of oss-cultural research related to organizations, "more effort uould] be invested in understanding behavior in a single culture, ill! evelOping middle-level theories to guide explorations, and seeking he relevant questions to ask across cultures" (p. 3147).1 Summary Studies reviewed in this chapter present a rich collection of indings with respect to the antecedents of organizational ommitment. Various variables have been identified as being related some way to organizational commitment. These variables can be ouped into four categories: (a) characteristics of individual mbers of the organization; (b) structural aspects of the ganization; (0) various job characteristics; and (d) various work periences encountered by organization members. Whereas the literature contained many clues as to the nature of mmitment-relevant eXperience, few writers have addressed the rlative importance of particular experiences in influencing ganizational commitment. However, a common theme emerging from the view' was the important role of interpersonal relations in the ~kplace as a commitment-related work experience (e.g., interaction :h supportive peers, trust, and respect). Because close interpersonal relations are considered a major tural characteristic of Saudi people and society, it is reasonable expect that such relations will be important in stimulating mitment among Saudis in relation to the type of organization for ch they work. However, if just the: major individual and job I; 1Roberts (1970) suggested some resources that. may' offer new 'oaches to investigating organizational phenomena cross-culturally. s also the work of Kiggundu, Jorgensen, 8. Hafsi, 1983, on Lnistrative theory and practice in developing countries, which 'ides useful guidelines.) v—u..,_~. ..__i , 145 were considered, this would severely limit an haracteristics nderstanding of the relationship between workers and their vironment. To reflect more accurately the actual organizational rk experiences, organizations' structural characteristics should so be incorporated in this type of investigation. An attempt was de to do so in this study. CHAPTER III THEORY AND ARGUMENT The Basic Model A basic conceptual model is developed for this study based on a synthesis of ideas from organizational theory and literature. It >rovides a way of systematically exploring a person's attitudes within I formal organizational context: his attitude toward others with whom 1e associates at work, and the resultant attitude toward the working Irganization to which he belongs. Specific individual and rganizational variables are included in the accounting. However, the odel heavily emphasizes interpersonal relations as critical ariables. A discussion of the theoretical argument which is \ epresented by the basic model follows. asic Assumption The primary concern in this study, as stated earlier, is the elationship between organization structure, interpersonal relations d organizational commitment. It attempts to extend and refine the e of research on the organization structure-commitment link by estigating the possible role of interpersonal relations in a work ting as a mediating variable in the relationship between an anization's structure and an individual's commitment. Our point of arture is that knowledge of the ways in which organizational 1&6 L17 uctures differ from one organization to another could usefully be lied to the study of organizational commitment, assuming that each e of organization has its own unique structural properties which facilitate or impede the development of' desired interpersonal ations for its members. If this is so, then we could propose that lity of interpersonal relations would mediate the relationship ween the organization's structure and commitment to that particular anization. The general implication here is that interpersonal Itions are initial preconditions that influence the extent to which organization's structure will be able to bring about positive tudes toward the organization on the part of its members. pization Structure and {personal Relations Our argument regarding these effects is twofold. The first part 3 on the work of Burns and Stalker (1961, 1962), Lawrence and ch (1967, 1969), and Morse and Lorsch (1970) concerning the ic-mechanist typology of organizations. For the individual, the rtant part of' the difference between the mechanist and the nistic is in the degree of his commitment to the working ization (Burns 8: Stalker, 1966). In a mechanist environment, ty and obedience to organization and superiors is highly valued, as in an organic one commitment to tasks and progress and sion of the firm is highly valued (see Figure 2, page 29). It is uded, however, that organic organizations tend to have an izational structure that is less formalized (Burns 8: Stalker, 118 966; Lawrence 8: Lorsch, 1967, 1969; Morse a. Lorsch, 1970).1 coording to Burns (1983:"9): In organic systems, the individual is expected to regard himself as fully implicated in the discharge of any task appearing over his horizon. He has not merely to exercise a special competence, but to commit himself to the success of the concern's undertakings as a whole. The interpersonal orientation of these organizations also shows :rong tendencies to be less task- and more relationship-oriented. mat is, in these organizations tasks are not distributed among >ecialists' roles within a clearly defined hierarchy, but duties and esponsibilities are redefined continually by interaction with others Irticipating in tasks (Milne, 1970). Hence, an individual's eSponsibilities are more diffuse and usually extend beyond the rson's formally assigned task (Westrum 8: Sanaha, 1984). However, ,ere exists a high degree of trust and openness; conflict resolution trough confrontation and joint problem solving and open [— 1a)Burns and Stalker (1961) studied twenty industrial firms ated in Scotland and England. These firms were classified along a tinuum ranging from "mechanistic" to "organic" (Wexley 8: Yukl, 7:40). In 1962 they published their book entitled The Management Innovation, in which they set out the differences between organic mechanistic organizations. They suggested, however, that the hanistic form might be adequate for organizations with a stable ironment, while the organic one is more adequate for a rapidly nging environment or technology. b)Lawrence and Lorsch (1969). in their work entitled anization and Environment, described two major forms of conflict solution (differentiation and integration) in organic and hanistic organizations. Woodward (1980) confirmed the importance the mechanic/organic dichotomy. c)Morse and Lorsch (1970) studied the effective fit between the units' internal structure and their functionally specialized tasks. found essential differences between the effective organization the ineffective ones. The effective organization had a chanistic" structure, with centralized authority and precisely ned rules, procedures, and performance standards. The ineffective terparts had a low degree of centralization and formalization and "inorganic" in character (Morse & Lorsch, 1970). 119 aunication (House 8: Rizzo, 1972), as a dominant pattern of :rpersonal communication. One major implication drawn from the organic organization is t less formalization, and high decentralization, participation, aral communication and other organic characteristics are conducive favorable interpersonal work relations since these characteristics facilitate more considerate behavior1 (Likert, 1967; Argyris, 1), and such socio-emotional behavior facilitates the development trust, mutual respect for work-group members' ideas, and feelings support and closeness among work-group members. It can be argued, then, that in such organizations the quality interpersonal relations experienced by organization members (e.g., degree of trust, mutual reapect and solidarity they have for their workers) would be positively related to structural variables (e.g., nalization, centralization, and participation). Burns and Stalker 51, 1962), Lawrence and Lorsch (1967, 1969), and Morse and Lorsch 0) have shown that mechanistic types of organizations tend to have eater formalization of structure. According to Burns and Stalker 6), the ideology of formal bureaucracy seemed deeply ingrained in lanistic organizations. Burns (1983), for example, wrote that: l‘ 1Consideration is often used to define a style of supervision as treating all employees alike, knowing each man's problems, and g reasonable in expectations. Consideration is associated with vior indicative of friendship, mutual trust, respect, and warmth :he relation between superiors and subordinates (see Tannenbaum, ”72). Consideration is operationalized in terms of an vidual's interpersonal concern and emphasis on human relations, of which have often been associated with communication behavior Lin, 1979; see also Penley & Hawkins, 1985). 50 Mechanistic systems tell him-«the individualuwhat he has to attend to, and how, and also tell him what he does not have to bother with, what is not his affair, what is not expected of him—what he can post elsewhere as the reSponsibility of others. (p. 49) a result, greater emphasis is placed on accomplishment.1 oblems and tasks are broken down into specialist roles; each ividual pursues his task as something distinct from the tasks of organization as a whole (Milne, 1970). Hence, the individual nds to consider only the interests of his segment of the anization (Westrum 8: Samaha, 19811). There may be low mutual trust ong members. Conflict resolution is based on win-lose bargaining rategies, and communication is predominately top-down (House & 320: 1972). Another major implication here is that high formalization, ntralization of authority, type of participation in an ganization's task, vertical communication and other mechanist aracteristics are conducive to unfavorable interpersonal work .ations, since these characteristics may not lead to more Isiderate behavior which facilitates the development of erpersonal relations desired by organization members. Following 3 line of reasoning, one could also argue that the quality of I‘ 1Mechanistic organization is bureaucratic in character as bsed to organic organization (Westrum & Samaha, 1984:23). In other 3, mechanistic organizations have a structure like that prescribed :he classical organization theories, where, for achieving internal nization efficiency, tasks are divided into specialized roles, e are detailed rules and procedures, and there is an established archy of authority with elaborate controls to insure that the s and procedures are followed. In contrast, organic organization onsistent with the humanistic organization theory, where there are ible roles, Open communication, coordination by committees, and * features (Wexley 8. Yukl, 1977:40). 51 erpersonal relations (e.g., the degree of mutual respect, trust, idarity) experienced by members of these organizations would be atively associated with some structural variables (e.g., malization and centralization) and positively associated with ers (e.g., participation).1 nization Structure and Communication Structure generally is used to describe the formal or required archical and lateral linkages between organizational positions. 'ncludes the bureaucratic constraints on communications required or itted between occupants of the positions in the organization uss & Bass, 1982). Hage, Aiken and Marrett (1975) investigated the effect of such nizational factors 'as formalization and. centralization on unication. Generally, they discovered that in less formal and decentralized organizations, communication was greater than in al, centralized organizations. The concentration of authority was to diminish the participation of actors in the decision- making ass, thereby decreasing their communication. The effects of structure and control of communication have been :ubject of much laboratory investigation. In their review of such IT 1An argument similar in its general point to the first part of :rgument is that of Peter Nicholson, Jr. and Swee Goh (1983) in work entitled "The relationship of organization structure and personal attitudes to role conflict and ambiguity in different environments." Their work drew on the contingency theories of and Stalker (1961) and Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) outlined . But it seems to differ from our own position in several ways: :tically and methodologically, the scOpe of the study and the :ional procedures are quite different from ours. However, we Iledge that their work was a great deal of help for us in [ting our project. 52 vestigations, Klauss and Bass (1982) concluded that high morale and tisfaction were usually associated with unrestricted, open mmunication. The implication for ongoing work organizations is that eating structures to increase communication flow is likely to hance satisfaction as well as performance (p. 33). Thus, it is reasonable to suppose that organization structure only constrains the process of interpersonal relations but also ovides substance to interaction. That is, in mechanist anizations, interaction within management tends to be vertical ween superior and subordinates (Milne, 1970). Mechanist anization (where positions and interrelationships among positions 2 fixed and unchanging) is characterized by vertical communication terns with decisions centered at top levels (Burns 8: Stalker, 6). Therefore, relatively brief and limited exchanges within a ited network of co-workers and superiors exist; exchanges between atively isolated workers and relatively overloaded superiors, each 1 different communication patterns. In contrast, interaction occurs laterally as well as vertically ne, 1970) in organic organizations. Organic organization with rigidly defined positions. tended more toward lateral unication patterns (Burns 8. Stalker, 1966). Therefore, extended anges occur over a wider range of topics within a broad network of rkers and superiors. Keeping in mind this assumption and the fact that the basic data nterpersonal relations are face-to-face interactions (Blau, 197’4; ro, 1979, 1987; Jablin, 1979; Kahn et al., 1964; Klauss 8: Bass, Penley 8: Hawkins, 1985; Zaleznik, 1965), the differences in 53 interaction patterns at these types of organizations will influence the amount of opportunities given to their members. Each individual nember tacitly or explicitly tests and explores the ways and limits in vhich he could trust, respect or even cooperate with others. Applying this perspective to the problem of commitment to the rganization, we would think that organizational commitment is much igher in flexible/organic organization than it is in formalized/ echanistic ones. Through the characteristics of flexibility, centralization, and absence of rigid bureaucratic structure, organic ganization facilitates the develOpment of greater commitment by eating norms of trust, mutual respect, and solidarity among its mbers based on an accumulation of interactions, since these periences have been shown to be antecedents of organizational mmitment (Buchanan, 1974; Martin a. O'Laughlin, 1984; Patchen, 1970; eers, 1977a). In contrast, a mechanist organization may not facilitate such a rel of commitment, since its structure and the resultant kind of lrning experiences tend to lead to somewhat superficial working erpersonal relations. In short, organization structure shapes the ception each member has of other members in terms of interpersonal ations, and this percpetion in turn mediates the extent to which organization's member commits himself to the work organization. ification of the Content of Interaction the Resultant Interpersonal Relations We can extend our argument a step further to look for other of the mediating effects of interpersonal relations. Until now, iscussion of the context of interpersonal relations has focused 511 the structuring characteristics or prOperties of an organization at may constrain or influence interpersonal relations, with little phasis on the role of the content, the amount of interaction in the rk setting, and the resultant interpersonal relations in the ve10pment of organizational commitment. It has been emphasized that e rigidity of organizational structure results in a deterioration of terpersonal bonds. we should also expect such bonds to be strongest en the parties talk with each other frequently (Kahn et al., 1969). is is particularly true given that the basic elements of terpersonal relations are face-to-face interactions (Zaleznik, 65:575; Blau, 1974; Gabarro, 1979, 1987; Goldhaber, Porter, Yates, Lesenia, 1978; Jablin, 1979; Katz 8: Kahn, 1978; Klauss 8: Bass, 2; Penley & Hawkins, 1985). Interpersonal variables such as shared trust, mutual respect and derstanding are influenced by the opportunity for interaction garding common problems and outcomes over a period of time (Gabarro, '9; Goldhaber et al., 1978; see also Kahn et al., 196”). In his cription of the development of interpersonal relationships as a ult of routine interaction in everyday life, Gabarro (1979) states: In an important sense, these everyday incidents provided «opportunities in which each person tacitly or explicitly tested and explored the ways and limits in which he could trust the other. When this kind of learning and tacit testing had not taken place, the relationship tended to be somewhat superficial or one in which there was no real basis for trust (p. 12). arro proceeded to maintain that interpersonal influence also rloped (or failed to develop) in much the same way that trust and a1 expectations deveIOped, over time, with each person's influence 55 a other increasing or waning On the basis of each person's s and what each learned about the other. An important implication is that accumulated experiences of ction may protect the person from the emotional consequences of ve interpersonal relations. (Hence, in more enduring relations a balanced appraisal may result because increased interaction les additional cues for judgment. Support for this theoretical .on can be drawn from the findings and implications of several as (Gabarro, 1979; Jablin, 1979; Kahn et al., 1964; Penley 8 is, 1985; Tannenbaum, 1969; Vroom, 1964). Kahn et al. (1964) that: High frequency of communication is associated with close interpersonal bonds (trust, reapect and liking for their associates) when there is little conflict, but these bonds become severed when conflicts are intense (p. 209). .ong history of research in industrial psychology and sociology 1130 indicated the importance of peer interaction in at least ally meeting the socio-emotional desires of the participants , 1982:199). Blau (1974), for example, states: Social associations establish the networks of interpersonal relations that integrate individuals into cohesive social units. Regular face-to-face contacts in groups socialize new members, furnish continuing social support, create interdependence through social exchange, and thereby make individuals integral parts of groups. (p. 620) Also, social interaction with others in the organizational g has been identified as among the important variables directly ing organizational commitment (Buchanan, 1974; Eisenberg et al., Martin 8 O'Laughlin, 1984; Marsh 8 Manneri, 1977; Sheldon, 1971; , 1977a), under the assumption that greater social interaction 56 ms stronger social ties. As a result, the individual member as further committed to his organization. elated Interaction and personal Relations Following the line of reasoning put forth by Eisenberg, Monge Miller (1983), one could argue that there is good reason to :ct that social interaction in the work setting without further .fication does not present the total picture in accounting for :izational commitment. Specification of the topic of interaction istinction (Eisenberg et al., 1983; also Penley & Hawkins, 1985), »e an important factor affecting the development of any tionship is the behavioral setting itself, and the expectation people bring to it as an interpersonal setting (Gabarro, 1987). Larly, Vroom (1964), in his study of the role of interaction in formation of interpersonal attitudes toward others at the work ation, found that "Although there may be a general tendency for ‘action to be pleasant and satisfying, a more complete explanation the effects of interaction on attraction would require a Lfication not only of the amount of interaction but also of its ant" (Vroom, 1964:122). As is well known, network interaction is mt specific (Eisenberg et al., 1983),1 therefore our focus is ob-related interaction and the resultant working interpersonal .ionship. I; 1Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson (1967, cited in Penley 8: 03. 1985:311-312), for example, suggest that there are two levels ammunication: (1) the content level that is informational or al, which corresponds to what is being said, and (2) the :ional level that defines role relationships among the micators and correSponds to how it is said. 57 Results from a number of investigations indicate that the ajority of superior-subordinate interactions concern task issues and hat superiors and subordinates talk more about impersonal (focus of pics external to self) than about personal (directly' related to If) topics (see Jablin, 1979 for a review). Mbreover, studies that plored the interacting patterns between superior and subordinates d managerial communication indicate that the dominant mode of teraction is oral, face-to-face discussion, and such discussion is ncerned with task issues (Jablin, 1979; Klauss 8 Bass, 1982). However, one could argue that job-related interaction can have a sonal quality to it, but the longer range process still falls short being personal interaction unless one chooses to move it in that rection (Williams, 1984). Further, job-related interaction relates ~e to the social roles of the individual involved rather than to the ecific motives and needs of the individual (Eisenberg et al., 1983). .es and role expectations are part of the context of all social erection (Gabarro, 1987). Focusing on content of interaction makes instrumental role of communication in organizations, clearer ley 8 Hawkins, 1985:310). Interaction on the job may influence an individual's sense of clarity. This would seem to be especially important in a work p where the task performance depends on the individual's role ity or where the task of the individual members are highly rdependent (Klauss 8 Bass, 1982:42).1 1For a more extensive theoretical discussion on the role- unication linkage, refer to the work of Katz 8 Kahn (1978). ff , 58 There is, however, a fair amount of research that links role arity and functional interdependence to job-related interaction and a resultant interpersonal relations (e.g., House 8 Rizzo, 1972; Kahn al., 1964; Klauss 8‘Bass, 1982). For example, Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, eck 8 Rosenthal (1964) argued that restricted communication in an anization may cause role ambiguity, and influence the resultant erpersonal relations. Using a role sender and the focal person to cribe their role episode model for role conflict and role ’guity, Kahn et al. (1964) suggested that role senders (e.g., ow workers, supervisors) communicate expectations of behavior to focal person. These expectations are perceived by the focal on with varying levels of role conflict and role ambiguity. Low conflict and/or ambiguity received by the focal person will cause focal person to augment his involvement in the relationship with role senders because the focal person's levels of trust, respect, liking for the role senders increase. Increased involvement is ciated with continued communication with role senders. This ts in even less role conflict and ambiguity (Schuer, 1979). A element in removing discrepancies would seem to be the lication that takes place between role sender and role receiver 18 8 Bass, 1982). Katz and Kahn (1978) characterize an organization as a system of where peeple are tied together in terms of the functional ependency of roles they assume. Functional interdependencies fluence the amount and content of interaction: "Where group are highly interdependent, individuals may be involved in task-interaction (Mowday et al., 1982) which, in turn, may 59 rve to shape the quality of interpersonal relations among group mbers. For example, we would expect that each group member will cept and respect directions from those colleagues with whom he siders himself more acquainted regarding what he should do, how he uld perform the task, and the priorities to be observed in pleting the various tasks. 0ur expectation is that the resultant erpersonal relations will be task-based, non-trivial, and of tinuing duration, with fewer affective components than the purely ial ones; experiences that Gabarro (1979, 1987) has shown to be cific characteristics of interpersonal relations at work. These resultant interpersonal relations, as defined by Gabarro 7), are a substantive type of social relationship. They employ Lal modalities, develop between two social beings and exist in mizational contexts that are themselves social structure. These erpersonal relations are also the consequences of task-based eractions among individuals in organizations, but they differ ifically from the more purely social relationship in several ways: (1) They are more segmental in nature than intimate or personal tionships; they do not necessarily involve all aspects of a >n's life. The relationship development is more likely to involve l of mutual understanding concerning task-related issues rather breadth along a fuller range of issues. (2) Openness concerning task-salient issues can be expected to re important than self-disclosure per se. (3) Specific competencies that are task-relevant will be an :ant influence on attributions, liking and evaluation. In a year longitudinal study of the evolution of managerial 60 elationships, Gabarro (1978) found that initial liking and attraction rere not predictive of the long-term strength of the relationship. 1ther more instrumentally relevant attributes such as) judgment, ompetence and task consistency were far more important to the evelopment of a: working relationship and its resulting quality, but 'hese attributes did not emerge until after the two parties had worked ogether for some time. (4) Role definitions can be expected to temper Openness, trust, nd self-disclosure as well as a working relationship progresses Gabarro, 1987:181). Gabarro contends that Roles and role expectations are part of the context of all social interaction, but they are even more pervasive and more explicitly defined in working relationship, particularly when they occur within or across organizational hierarchies. Most working relationships develop between people by virtue of their roles. 1 PeOple begin with an institutionalized role relationship, often before they have begun to develop an actual working relationship. (p. 180) eOple's reactions to each other and the attributions they make about ach other are clearly influenced by role expectations (Triandis, 977. in Gabarro 1987), within the context of interaction on the job. Thus, it seems plausible to expect that job-related interaction 3 a moderator of interpersonal relations at work. In other words, alking about onefls job or talking as part of one's job may provide atisfying interpersonal communications which may help to generate the Jality of interpersonal relations desired by the organization's mber, and in turn works to enhance his feelings of personal portance to the organization; a work-experience that Buchanan (1974) d Steers (1977a) (also Maehr 8 Braskamp, 1986) have shown to be lated to commitment. 61 Deutsch (1958) found that communication was a central variable the development of trust in a series of laboratory studies. ever, he did not directly examine the specific kind «of munication behaviors that apply in an ongoing organizational ting (Klauss 8 Bass, 1982:40). Gabarro (1979), tracing the development of interpersonal trust, nd that judgment about how much and in what ways one could trust ther were based on an accumulation of task-related interactions. instance, the discovery that one party has intentionally withheld >rtant information may create discontinuities in a relationship's eIOpment by calling into question whatever trust had already eloped (p. 12). Jones, James and Bruni (1975) found that the presence of 1rdinates' confidence and trust in a superior is positively related the superior's success in interactions with higher levels of Igement. Similarly, a person's ability to perform effectively uences a number of interpersonal outcomes regarding the other on's willingness to grant autonomy, the develOpment of trust, and other person's evaluation--all of which are important to the ess of interpersonal relations formation at work (Gabarro, 1979). intance with such ability can be obtained through job-related action. Thus we can conclude that job—related interaction (by which each can be evaluated through personal acquaintance) could lead to a tion in negative interpersonal outcomes which is an important t of the satisfaction with work. Hence it is possible such fying experiences will determine the extent to which attachments 62 formed with the organization. A somewhat similar position was gested by March and Simon (1957. cited in Marrett, Rage 8 Aiken, 5): "Through planned interaction could come a reduction in the rust that so often reduces satisfaction with work and an increased e of involvement in the organization" (p. 371; see also Cook 8 , 1980; Hrebiniak, 1971; and Penley 8 Hawkins, 1985). Therefore, is expected that aspects of an organization's structure which er positive interpersonal relations through increased interactions he job may contribute to a sense of organizational commitment. An implicit assumption here is that when the work organization as group members depend highly on each other and interact well with 1 other on a regular basis, it is desirable for them to develOp erpersonal relations that are mutual and robust enough to be arding and effective. Face-to-face interactions furnish continuing .31 support, create interdependence through social exchange and 'eby make individuals integral parts of groups (Blau, 1974) ruse, "A friendly, cooperative, supportive relationship may lead a on to perceive things in common with, perhaps also a sense of rdependence with and thus a sense of solidarity with co-workers" chen, 1970). The extension of this framework to the problem of organizational itment would suggest that work groups would be attractive to the er to the extent to which the nature of the situation permits or [res interaction (Vroom, 1964:180). Furthermore, the degree of “personal relation between two members. of the group should be :tly related to the extent to which they interact with one another a performing their work. However, the content of interaction can 63 kc forms which are irrelevant or destructive for organizational nctioning (Katz 8 Kahn, 1978). Irrelevant task-interaction might ad organization members to band together, hence, produce high lidarity in opposition to organization management. If a person has relevant task-interaction or warm interpersonal relations with his ediate work group, he may come to identify with that group, and the neralization of such identification to the larger organization pends in part on whether the interests of the immediate group are en as congruent with or opposed to those of the larger organization atchen, 1970). Thus, job-related interaction may prevent potentially unterproductive interaction from arising through generating working terpersonal relations which may facilitate the development of sitive orientation to the organization. Since interaction among rk group members tends to be based on common understanding (Hall, 82) and since continued interaction builds up the integration of the Jup (Blau, 1974), we» would expect each group 'member to develOp sitive attitudes toward his organization as a function. of the ality of interpersonal relations (trust, respect and solidarity) he >eriences with other members during his tenure in working at this :anization. In sum, an individual's orientation toward an organization would affected by the quality of his working interpersonal relations with er members. Moreover, the specification of the interaction topic gests an important distinction between our study and earlier ones; interpersonal relations variable makes most sense to 'us as a iator of the relationship between organizational structure and 64 itment. To the extent that interaction networks of co—workers alize the work organization for the individual, the quality of rpersonal relations with co-workers might be expected to affect itment to the larger work organization. The nature of rpersonal relations, which alone may be enough to encourage :itment. to the organization, may' be met via participation in icular types of interaction between members of the organization. related interaction, which is in itself the effect of the rrization's structure, moderates the relationship between lizational structure and interpersonal relations. That is, the ity of interpersonal relations increases where there are rtunities to be involved in interaction related to the job. :, interpersonal relations may produce a pattern of increased .tment as job-related interaction increases. Further, it was felt that lob-related interaction would more ~ately reflect the effects of organization structure that nization members actually experienced in their daily activities. IS posited that the structuring characteristics of formalization, alization, and participation would have more direct effects upon ~personal relations (in the predicted direction) through elated interaction than other types of interaction. In turn, the tant interpersonal. relations will mediate the relationship of action to organizational commitment. personal Relations and Organizational Commitment Our review of previous research suggests that interpersonal ions such as trust, respect, supportive peer groups, and 65 .surance from supervisors are related to organizational commitment ;., Buchanan, 1974; Cook 8 Wall, 1980; Lee, 1971; Maehr 8 Braskamp, ; Marsh 8 Mannari, 1977; Patchen, 1970; Penley 8 Hawkins, 1985; Welsch 8 LeVan, 1981). Consistent with this view is the major lusion of a study of organizational communication by Goldhaber at (1978). Their results indicate that perceptions of the quality of ionships in the organization and perceptions of the quality of unication have a potent impact on members' satisfaction and vement with the organization. These perception qualities are of an overall evaluation of the communication "climate" of the nization. In general, where others are perceived to be open and snsive, willing to interact, sensitive to emotions, skilled in snication, and trustworthy, the communication climate is perceived svorable. Positive perceptions of overall climate are related to ers' feelings of involvement and their overall satisfaction with system (Goldhaber et al., 1978; see also Penley 8 Hawkins, 1985; Velsch 8 LeVan, 1981). So job satisfaction and organizational tment, especially, are related to the quality of the social be associated with the place of work (Maehr 8 Braskamp, 1986). yees who trust, respect, and feel respected and close to each and help each other out in their work feel a greater loyalty to express a greater sense of psychological attachment to the .zation. Since the quality of these interpersonal relations tends to vary the structuring characteristics of the organization, it is ed that organizational commitment will vary accordingly. In formalized/centralized but highly participative structures, 66 iduals may be more interdependent with others in their work, so interact more with each other on the job. As a result, their ng relationships with each other may be more cooperative, dly, and characterized by a sense of trust, mutual respect, and rity, compared to those individuals of a highly formalized and lized structure, whose working relationships with others are likely to be superficial or strained and might even be hostile. is, hostility and opposition are replaced by more c00perative ides (Tannenbaum, 1969). Individuals who eXperience cooperative ily relations with co-workers would come to feel more a sense of n interest and solidarity with those co-workers than with .duals whose relationships within the organization were strained 'en hostile. In other words, less formalized/centralized and highly ipative structure can be ego-enhancing under the conditions of ing norms of trust, mutual reSpect, and feelings of tiveness and closeness, since participation enhances employee tion of being valued, the perception of common goals and tion, and the feelings of enthusiasm for work (French, Israel 8 as, 1960; Patchen, 1970; Tannenbaum, 1969). Hence, with these e work experiences, one may expect an organization's members to re of their social worth (or "the degree to which one is vely valued by other members of the work group")(Vroom, 1964), eir personal importance to the organization (Buchanan, 1974; 9 1977a). Moreover, these characteristics of their job ons, coupled with the recurrent interaction among group members ey participate on the tasks, increase the feeling of 67 sibility among members of a group, a characteristic that ik (1983) indicated increased commitment. As a result, the dual member becomes further commited to the organization. Moderating Effects So far we have emphasized the influence of the structural bles, interaction, and interpersonal variables on the ual's commitment to his organization. One could also argue he quality of the desired interpersonal relations is affected by ual variables such as age, marital status, education, position, gth of service and job satisfaction, which have also been shown related directly 1x) organizational commitment (e.g., Buchanan, Cook 8 Wall, 1980; Hall 8 Schneider, 1972; Penley 8 Hawkins, Steers, 1977a; and Welsch 8 LeVan, 1981). This version of our ing is set forth more on an exploratory level because of the y of empirical data available for reference. Figure 3.1 shows the order of priority for the variables in a sual sequence. This causal model or scheme involves an mplified model in the sense that the model takes into account he variables that are of interest for this study, its Specific ch question, and related hypotheses. The model, however, ates a number of direct and indirect relationships and is :1 into independent, intervening, and dependent variables. ening variables may also serve as independent or dependent es. In the next chapter, a research strategy is outlined to rious aSpects of the model for the suggested relations. ommxcfiq pcosuwseoo new HmcomnmagoucH I Hmcsposnum “deco: Hmowuocomchllp.m shaman \w HH :OauomgoucH [Q Aapficmofiaom .uooanom aways: .umscav :oHquHofiume \ ucosufiesoo Alllll moanmwgw> HmcomuoanoucH Au :oHumNHHmLucwo is m: 6 H OHuMNHcmmgo >H :oHumNHHmn—Lom > mHanLm> meoopao moanmwcm> Hmcsuoscum > HHH Hm>oq :ofiumuwcmmgo oow>gmm mo camcoq >Lmamm coaumosom magnum Hmufinmz om< > 4.0334 > 4334. Argument Summary In the context of the proposed mediating effects of erpersonal relations between organizations' structure and nizational commitment, our argument is, basically, centered around basic causal sequences: 1. The first sequence (Figure 3.2a) suggests that the quality of interpersonal relations existing in certain types of organization structure will be directly associated with the level of organizational commitment of its members based on the assumption that organizations differ in terms of the structural properties of each, which may facilitate or impede the quality“ of' the interpersonal relations desired by 'its members. The second sequence (Figure 3.2b) suggests other directions of the mediating effects of interpersonal relations, based on the same basic assumption mentioned in the first argument, "which relates interpersonal relations in organization to its structure," except that these structural effects in relation to interpersonal relations would be' obtained through the specific type of interaction in ‘which the (organization's member is involved. Since such interaction is affected by the organization's structure, it is assumed that interaction will have its impact upon the quality of interpersonal relations which, in turn, will be directly associated with organizational commitment. «mzoaaom mm cognac: on has ucoesmcm was» a“ moanmwcm> mo Looco Hmsoasmu Lo pcosmpmpm cmocwa och .mcoHumHog HmcomLoQLou:H no mpoommo mcwumwoms com oocoscom Hamsmo ocooomllnm.m mismwm §\\ :oHpmaHoHucmm Azuwcmowaom .pooammm .pmsghv A. ucospfleeoo A, All :oHuomLoch :oHumNHHmnucoo HmcoHpmNficmmco mcoHpmHmm Hmcomcoacoch oopmHmmlnow 7O unzoaaom mm copuwcz on zme ucossmgm was» :a moanmfigm> no Loogo ngoasou Lo ucosopmum cmocwa :oHumNHHmELom moanmwnm> Hmcsuoscum one .ncofipmaon Hmcomgoagopcw ho muommmo mcflumwooe Lou oocosvom Hmmsmo umcfimllmm.m wizmfim sxxx. consmaaonuima Amusemeafiom .pooammm .umziev A. ucosufiasoo A1 :oHumNHHmLucoo Hmcofiumuficmmco mzofiumaom HmcomcoagoucH ar/Ir :oHpmNHAmELOu ananLm> ngsuoaium rel: coma inte to I by 1 bee 71 The earlier variables (formalization, participation and centralization) may affect a later one (commitment), not only through the mediating relationship cn‘ interpersonal variables, but also directly. But in both conditions, the structure-commitment link. is preconditioned by the relationship of interpersonal variables to the characteristics of the organization's structure. If the latter facilitates the development of interpersonal relations desired by the organization's members, then we assume the link to occur. aterpersonal relations function as a mediating variable in the nship between organizational structure and organizational an», In both cases the implication is that satisfaction with sonal relations affects the level of commitment the member has xer organization. If the interpersonal relations experienced nember are satisfactory, high organizational commitment would ted; the opposite is expected if they are not satisfactory. spe str th( th by re tc if. or he CHAPTER IV WORKING HYPOTHESES rom the general pr0position included in our argument, several 0 propositions and related hypotheses concerning the suggested re—interpersonal- commitment linkage can be stated. Because esent study is exploratory in nature, the hypotheses are ed as working hypotheses. irst: Formalization -- Interpersonal Variables and Commitment Hypothesis n many ways, formalization is the key structural variable for lividual because a person's behavior is substantially affected degree of such formalization (Hall, 1982:95). Formalization to what one is asked to do, how one is to do it, and when it is lone. In this respect, the amount of individual discretion is ly related to the amount of preprOgramming of behavior by the stion (Hall, 1982). However, in a highly formalized situation, he highly differentiated and specialized roles are specifically Each member's rights, obligations, and technical methods are ved. We expect that an increase in formalization in the work n leads to increasingly unfavorable interpersonal relations in ituation. is proposition assumes that members of a work organization one another on the basis of different role expectations for 72 beh kno les the and cri les he dex his to» Ce de me I‘e ir ’“h‘ --'~..'-- - -_.-. 73 vior and expertise. Since each member is more apt to be edgable concerning only his role and technical methods, he is likely (a) to recognize the importance of others in determining ay of doing his job, (b) may have less regard for their opinions, less confidence in their willingness to help out in times of s, (0) may see his associates as less supportive, and deserving reSpect in terms of knowledge and judgment, and (d) as a result, ay even hold others surrounding him in lower esteem. The opment of negative interpersonal relations, if it occurs in y formalized organizations, may contribute to a negative attitude the employing organization. Thus, we can formally hypothesize that: IA. The interpersonal variables (trust, mutual respect, and solidarity) will be associated negatively with the degree of organizational formalization. IB. The interpersonal variables (trust, mutual reSpect, and solidarity) will be positively associated with organizational commitment. IC. The relationship between formalization and organizational commitment will vary depending upon the value of interpersonal measures. Second: Centralization -— Interpersonal Variables and Commitment .esis Centralization is closely aligned to formalization. slization here refers to the hierarchical authority to make ons (Hage 8 Aiken, 1967). In a highly formalized situation, the s are viewed as incapable of making their own decisions and ing a large number of rules to guide their behavior. Likewise, ghly centralized situations, they are not trusted to make decisio because and in1 toward primar: and re best ( organi social inform import a big? Partit 0f th emplo be 1a Where 1968) this There iner. impor deing 000p¢ 74 isions on work or even evaluate themselves (Hall, 1982). Moreover, ause of indoctrination via standard operating procedures, manuals, informally stated rules, we tend to shift behaviors and attitudes ard centralization. In highly centralized situations, communication consists marily of instructions and decisions by superiors and information requests for decisions by subordinates. The chief executive knows t (Steers, 1977b:90). The differences in power and status among an anization's members inhibits recurrent communication. Hence, the ial distance between organizational levels reduces the free flow of ormation. Consequently, the potential for feedback, which is an srtant factor for improving interpersonal relations, is reduced by igh degree of centralization. Further, highly centralized organizations actively discourage sicipative activities. .A suggestion may be underestimated because the low status of its source, and contributions of lower status .oyees may not be adequately acknowledged. Formal recognition may Lacking. An inferior employee's suggestions are seldom adopted and re adopted, he is not credited with the contribution (Lowin, 1). Hence, employees may experience conditions of inequity and I might affect their subjective evaluations of those around them. 'efore, we would eXpect that increased centralization leads to ~easingly unfavorable evaluations of others in terms of the vrtance of their knowledge, expertise in determining one's way of .3 work, respect for such knowledge, and even suspicion about their »eration. org oft Com pri any sit of par fe. 0P 10: at in‘ in 75 Thus, we can formally hypothesize the following: IIA. The interpersonal variables (trust, mutual reapect, and solidarity) will be associated negatively with the degree of organizational centralization. IIB. The interpersonal variables (trust, mutual respect, and solidarity) will be mositively associated with organizational commitments. 110. The relationship between centralization and organizational commitment will vary depending upon the value of interpersonal measures. Third: Participation - Interpersonal Relations and Commitment Hypothesis In a less formalized and centralized organization, tasks are interrelated, continually readjusted and redefined as lizational members interact. Duties and responsibilities are more 1 redefined by interaction with others participating in the task. unication is both vertical and horizontal; the content of it is Irily advice and information. The best knowledge may be located ere in the network (Steers, 1977b). In contrast to a highly formalized situation, a less formalized tion indicates a lower level of centralization and a higher level articipation, where cooperation involves a larger part of cipants' personalities. ‘The exchange of information, ideas, and ngs provides the opportunity for resolving differences in «ans, thus reducing discrepancies in perception, ideals, and ies. Hostility and opposition are replaced by more c00perative udes (Tannenbaum, 1969). The acceptance of common goals and of dependent goals should lead to better communication and mutual 1This hypothesis (IIB) is identical to hypothesis IE but is ied here to clarify the structure of the argument. 11k per it can con poi ari the bet ex; 8V2 re: th: ma; th. ch pa fe hi tr th 00 6V 76 ng and hence to an increased understanding of each other. Thus, a eption of shared characteristics is more likely. Each individual job takes on more meaning and importance because 3 a necessary part of this function and because the relationship be seen and appreciated by all members of the work group, which ributes to a better understanding of each other's problems and ts of view and facilitates resolution of working difficulties that 3. Moreover, members' evaluations of each other participating on job will be based on shared role expectations for appropriate Iior, since each individual is in need of the knowledge and ~tise of others. Therefore, uncertainty about the way one is sated by his associates is reduced (Vroom, 1964). It follows that each member is likely to receive more favorable mass from other members. So there is apt to be an indication others are looking out for one's welfare; the individual member well expect that his associates would be willing to go out of way to help him and he may also hold them in higher esteem. Because of the effect of participation on feelings of shared cteristics as well as the satisfaction which may result from cipation, greater employee participation may lead to stronger ngs regarding the importance of others around him in determining ‘ob, confidence in their willingness to help out in times of le, as well as being supportive and deserving of respect. Also, ature of a participative work environment makes people ‘very ned with having associates who are competent, supportive, and rotective in times of trouble. Our who see for wou org trt wil 0D! wot thi en} im 01‘! bu 77 Thus, we hypothesize that: IIIA. The interpersonal variables (trust, mutual reSpect, and solidarity) will be associated positively with the degree of organizational participation. IIIB. The interpersonal variables (trust, mutual. respect, and solidarity) will be positively associated with organizational commitment. IIIC. The relationship between participation and organizational commitment will vary depending upon the value of interpersonal measures. predictions here are straightforward. It is expected that persons have no recognition of the importance of others in their work, and these others as unreliable in time of crisis, or who lack respect others in their work or have associates who are not supportive, .d be more negative in their subjective reactions to their working mizations. If an individual member of an organization does not :t, or respect, or feel respected by the people he works with, he have low morale exhibited in lower level of commitment; the site is also true. In addition, recurrent interaction among -group members establishes the networks of interpersonal relations integrate individuals into cohesive social units, which may nce their morale and consequently increase their commitment. fign Reciprocality A comment may also be made here about our suggestion that ‘personal relations may serve as a mediating variable between nizational structure and commitment. l__. 1This hypothesis (IIIB) is identical to hypotheses IB and IIB 3 included here to clarify the structure of our argument. comm; (not and intm suffi the job-1 that inte1 true beca Vari: does aSpeq two medi: will indi are haVe Stru‘ Witt Orgm 78 first: There is the possibility that prior differences in itment among organization members would lead to more participation directly but through its direct effect on interpersonal relations also through the effects of interpersonal relations on job-related ration). Thus, one could assume that these two variables exercise eciprocal influence upon each other. It may be that once a Lcient level of commitment is present (in part generated through effects of participation on interpersonal relations and the 'elated interaction) a reciprocal pattern of effects occurs such more participation leads to greater commitment (through 'personal relations) which leads to more participation. Second: We do not expect that these reciprocal effects will hold for the structural variables of formalization and centralization Ise the basic assumptions underlying the negative effects of these bles does not permit one to assume such reciprocal effects, nor common sense suggest that interpersonal relations affect these ts of organizational structure. One could only assume that these variables exercise a one-way effect through the suggested ting effects of interpersonal relations. The three hypotheses discussed earlier are the major ones that be tested in the dissertation. Subsidiary hypotheses involving Ldual characteristics and job-related interaction variables that uggested by Figure 3.1 will also be tested. These hypotheses in the past, been tested independently' of' interpersonal and rural variables for the most part. This study will be concerned how the relationship between individual variables and zational commitment may be influenced by interpersonal relations and c effect variat One has dimer whic char to " (Jab strl cent rul obs to su] co- a1 00 8C 79 1d organizational structure, i.e., how the suggested mediating ’fects of interpersonal relations may be moderated by the individual riables as well as the job-related interaction. Definitions of Variables Involved in the Basic Model and Related Hypotheses anization Structure The term "structure" embodies a variety of concepts. Structure 8 been atomized into component parts, referred to as structural mensions (Dalton et al., 1980:51). One of the major dimensions upon ich we are focusing in this study is the formal structuring aracteristics of organizations. Formal structuring properties refer "policies and activities occurring within the organization members" ablin, 1982:338; also Dalton et al., 1980:51). Specifically, the ructuring dimensions under study here include formalization, ntralization, and participation: 3. Formalization: Formalization is defined in terms of the les in an organization including job codification and role servation. The variable of job codification represents the degree which the job descriptions are specified, whereas the variable of le observation refers to the degree to which job holders are pervised in conforming to the standards established by job dification (Hage 8 Aiken, 1967). Job codification is closely Lgned to rule-observation. b. Centralization: Centralization generally refers to a wentional hierarchical mode of operations in which decision and sion functions are segregated in terms of authority (Lowin, 1968). most often involves the locus of decision-making authority'in orgar inst rela This cent deci the dis; near acti deci How the of anc se; the 80 anizations. In other words, it is a type of social power. If, for tance, the power to make decisions is exercised by one or atively few individuals, the structure is considered centralized. s is consistent with Dalton et al. (1980): "The minimum degree of tralization (decentralization) would exist in an organization if ision-making authority were exercised equally by every member of organization. Degree of centralization, then, refers to the persion of decision-making authority throughout the organization" 59). c. Participation: In contrast to centralization, participation s a mode of organizational orientation in which decisions as to ivities are arrived at by the very persons who are to execute those isions (Lowin, 1968). Participation is here perceived by the employee as what Vroom 60) called "psychological participation." Psychological ticipation is the perception of the amount of influence one has on ntly made decisions associated with his position. That is, ‘ticipation through a more immediate arena in which an employee may some influence--the work group under more immediate supervisors" chen, 1970:191). Thus it is a type of social influence (French et , 1960), whereas centralization is a type of social power. ver, as participation shifts the locus of some decisions downward, contrast between participation and centralization becomes only one egree rather than of kind (Lowin, 1968:69). While participation centralization are obviously related conceptually, there are rate measures that are used in the organizational literature and e measures have somewhat different corrrelates. the : their orgar organ nean' perc real: coor: wort orge actt orga orga the how org are al. int In not or; th 81 It must be stressed, however, that we are more concerned with as individual member's perception of these variables rather than seir actual existence as structuring characteristics of the “ganization, although these variables can be experienced by an 'ganization's members in a comparatively direct and operationally aningful way. An important assumption here is that members' rceptions regarding these variables constitute, for them, the ality of how structural prescriptions are used to organize and ordinate work (Porter, Lawler 8 Hackman, 1975). Although we are rking at an individual level of analysis instead of an ganizational one, we assume that these perceptions reflect the tual organizational structure. Further, such perceptions of ganizational structure may be perceptions of certain segments of the ganization (e.g., departmental differences) which are only part of e view people have of organizational life. These perceptions are, wever, likely to be embedded within a larger view of the ganization. Similarly the perceptions of relationships with others a part of the views people have of organizational life (Goldhaber et , 1978). What peOple believe about an organization may influence erpersonal relations whether or not it is an accurate perception. other words, it is a belief which makes a difference, whether or it is the actual representation of interpersonal relations or Inizational structure. {personal Variables Generally, interpersonal relations refers to the orientation of rrganization's members toward each other in terms of trust, mutual respect intern contint outli: multic of int workgr offer DGPSOI their among w memb. link inter Im head 0P3; his 82 espect, and solidarity. These constructs are used here to mean an interpersonal relationship that is task-based, nontrivial, and of :ontinuing duration (Gabarro, 1987:173). In order to remain consistent with the theoretical model sutlined in the previous pages, and to avoid problems of lulticolinearity with other study variables, the following dimensions pf interpersonal variables were selected. a. 1193—13., or the organization member's confidence in his rorkgroup1 members' occupational abilities, and their willingness to »ffer support in times of trouble. b. Mutual Respect refers to the member's occupational and ersonal respect he has for his workgroup members, and his feelings of heir respect toward him. c. Solidarity refers to mutual support the member feels exists mong the workgroup members, and his feelings of closeness to them. Qb-Related Interaction Interaction here refers to the extent to which an organization's ember maintains direct communication contact with other members inked to his job performance. It is the frequency of such nteraction that is at issue. gdividual Characteristics These characteristics may be classified under two major eadings: '— 1Workgroup members refers here exclusively to the people the rganization's member works with in his department or unit. They are is immediate superior, his coworkers, and his subordinates. tttttttttttttt member status his pc Organi combit 1983). of an organ inclu Ferri the c attac work affec of a Willi in n 83 a. Personal or Demographic Variables, which the organization's mber brings to the organization or work, such as age, marital atus, and education. I b. The Conditions of His Membership in the organization, such as 3 position, salary, and length of service. ganizational Commitment Researchers have tended to define this concept in terms of a nbination of attitudes and behavioral intentions (Ferris 8 Aranya, 33). However, it is attitudinally defined as "the relative strength an employee's involvement in and identification with the particular ganization" (Mowday, Steers 8 Porter, 1979:226). This definition sludes some aspects of commitment-related behavior. According to 'ris and Aranya (1983), attitudes include (1) identification with 3 organization (acceptance of its goals), which are the basis for ;achment txs the organization; (2) involvement in the organizational ~k role (assessing the strength, of attachment); and (3) warm, ‘ective regard fer, or loyalty to, the organization (the evaluation attachment). The behavior-intention variables include: (1) a .lingness to exert effort; and (2) a desire or willingness to remain the organization (see Hall, 1979 in Ferris 8 Aranya, 1983:88). exami betwee applie model derit organi basic CHAPTER V SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT Introduction The purpose of the study, as described in Chapter I (p. 2) is to amine the possible mediating effects of interpersonal variables tween an organization's structure and organizational commitment as plied to a sample of Saudi Arabian employees. A causal theoretical del or scheme was constructed based upon a synthesis of ideas rived from current and past theories and literature on ganizational settings, and described in Chapter III (p. 46) as the sic model of structure-interpersonal relations and commitment nkage. This model represents the individual member's attitude ward his employing organization as an ultimate outcome of particular *ces acting on the individual to determine his organizational mitment. This chapter aims to eXplain the methodological procedures which 2 used to test the theoretical path model. This includes a cription of the research setting and a discussion of the survey trument and how the data were collected. This is followed by the n of analyzing the data, including a discussion of the assumptions erlying the path model. Since the underlying assumptions of path lysis were mostly met, the model suggested by our theoretical an frame simult operat the “s colle< also constl 85 ramework can be tested and many variables can be handled imultaneously. The path model described in this chapter is an perational model employed to test the causal schemes represented by e "structure-interpersonal relations and commitment" model. The nature of the sample, its size, as well as the tools for llecting data are mostly determined by the purpose of the study, but so by the available human and economic resources, and time nstraints. Typically, in any social science research, we are faced with a number of trade-offs: eXperimental control, the capture of the basic real-world conditions in which a problem exists, the costs (time and money) in being able to carry through on a particular research design, as well as topportunity' and feasibility. (Klaus 8 Bass, 1982:61) Research Settings Subjects were drawn from two different types of work ganizations. This was done to ensure greater heterogeneity in ganizational structure, since the structural variables are the heart this research and all the structural effect measures are derived am it. 1. Industry-Oriented Organizations: Three large organizations which operated oil industries in Eastern and Middle regions of Saudi Arabia participated in the UM. It is well known that the economy of Saudi Arabia is heavily 'ndent on oil income. Therefore the oil industry is the most king feature of its industrial deveIOpment. 2. Research-Oriented Organizations: Four relatively mid-size and small organizations involved in , applied, and development research participated in the study. These (independent largest of t the servic industrial effort of e industries. petroleum authorized and transpo for energy a 2. R ’undertaken (Petromin) t crude oil ar 3. §A fully owns preparing projects it these areas Saudi Arabi size or wer The ‘ were: 86 These types of organization are all public enterprises ndependent bodies within the Saudi government). They are among the rgest of their types in Saudi Arabia in terms of size, mission, or e services they provide. Specifically, the three selected dustrial organizations are involved in a large industrialization fort of export-oriented, large-scale hydrocarbon and mineral-based dustries. These are: 1. Aramco (1933): An internationally known oil company now fully ned by the government. In addition to its central mission of troleum exploration, production, and exportation, it has been thorized to design and build an extensive gas-gathering, treatment, d transportation facility to provide industrial projects with fuel r energy and.feedstock. 2. Riyadh Refinery (1970): One of the largest projects rdertaken by the General Petroleum and Minerals Organization etromin) to develop the important natural resources of the Kingdom's ude oil and natural gas. 3. M, or the Saudi Basic Industrial Corporation (1976): A Lly owned holding company that is entrusted with the task of sparing and implementing a number of petrochemical and metal jects in cooperation with several foreign firms specializing in se areas. Only eight out offifteen of its first-stage plants in Ii Arabia were sampled because the others were either of very small or were just newly operational. The four research-oriented organizations selected for the study 1. The (1977): This formulate the to draw up conduct appli part of the Saudi Arabi fundamental industry, and technology, energy econom 3. San fully by the engineering, government investors. ‘our sample c: in the West a 4. .13! organization mission is 1; 0f the Civil cooperate wi The headquar and Dammam. 87 1. The King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST) 77): This is an independent scientific organization established to mulate the national policy for science and technology development, draw up the strategy and plans for its implementation, and to duct applied scientific research programs to further promote Saudi 'elopment in both public and private sectors. 2. The Research Institute (RI): The Institute is an integral ’t of the University of Petroleum and Minerals (1963) in Dhahran, ldi Arabia but is semiautonomous in operation. It provides ldamental and applied research under contract for government, tustry, and the general public. Activities cover petroleum and gas thnology, energy resources, geology, standards and materials, and rrgy economics and industrial research. 3. Saudi Consulting House (SCH)(1979): An organization owned ly by the government, providing professional consulting services in ;ineering, economic, industrial, and management as well as to ernment agencies, private establishments, and individual stors. Its headquarters office is located in Riyadh, from which sample came, and other branches are located in Jeddah and Dammam, he West and East regions of Saudi Arabia, respectively. 4. The Institute of Public Administration (IPA)(1961): This anization is an autonomous body of the Saudi government. Its major sion is to design and implement educational programs for all levels the Civil Services, and to conduct administrative research and to serate with the government agencies in which research is conducted. headquarters are in Riyadh and there are two branches in Jeddah Dammam. The activities of the branches are confined to the middle management, consultation Both t deve10pment self-supporti related secto Our 3: involved in Parts of the selected on branches were was newly e3 some of the Dammam. The 33 and depart resPonsibij °r88nizati°n; management. °rganizatio organiZatio organization \ 1 The f dr awn from . Bibliography 88 nagement, clerical, and supervisory training programs and the nsultation services. Both types of organization can be seen as part of a wider ve10pment process with the objective of a more balanced and Lf-supporting growth in the oil and non-oil sectors as well as Lated sectors of science, technology, and management.1 Our sample came from those male Saudi individuals who are rolved in carrying out the core mission in each of the critical 'ts of these organizations. If the organization had branches, we Lected only the subjects from the headquarters. Subjects at inches were excluded because of being few in number, or the branch 1 newly established, or even difficult to reach, as in the case of .e of the SABIC's plants, the IPA, and SCH branches in Jeddah and mam . SamplingiProcedures The sampling procedures divided the organizations into levels departments or divisions, i.e., the person's level of ponsibility in the organization determined whether the anizational member was part of the top, middle, or first-line agement. The department to which the member belongs in his anization determined how closely the person's role in the anization is associated with direct accomplishment of the nization's task (cf., Westrum 8 Samara, 1984:22). l—_¥ 1The information mentioned above about these organizations is .1 from informational books published by these organizations (see lography). Responde the following a) All department or and superinte selected ind: included and Supervi they are no organizations the organi: important, 5 Characterist: responsibil SUDSrvision increased co b) I] Professional Sampled a1 intimately and are lik 8‘ Aiken, 17 cate3°ry of c) Nc both tYpes directly it have littl. 89 Respondents within each organization were selected according to 2 following criteria: a) All male Saudi supervisory personnel were included (including .artment or unit heads, supervisors at both types of organizations, I superintendents, and foremen in the industrial type). In the .ected industrial units, middle managers (division managers) were ;luded and were sampled along with the supervisory personnel. Supervisory level personnel were exclusively selected because 'y are most likely to be key decision makers and to determine anizational policy. Therefore, understanding the factors affecting e organizational commitment of supervision may be especially ortant, since the key determinants of commitment are found in racteristics of the job that increase the employee's feeling of .ponsibility (Mowday et al., 1982). Hence, we assume that ervision will increase the feeling of responsibility required for reased commitment. b) In the research and development organizations, the fessionals (such as specialists, researchers, and trainers) were pled along with the supervisory personnel because they are .mately involved in the achievement of the organization's goals, are likely to have organizational power (Aiken 8: Hage, 1966; Hage iken, 1969). Supervisory relationships still exist within this gory of an organizations' employees. c) Non-supervisory level and supportive division personnel (in types of organization) were excluded because they either are not 3tly involved in the achievement of organizational goals or they little or no power (cf., Aiken & Hage, 1966:497-507). This minimize levels. A establi organiz than t] persor organi: industl reaso Conseq level next depart there ldevel< 0f bo analy at tr This diffi W0ul< rand Prep indu Tabl 9O 'nimizes the influence on our results of the lowest organizatinal vels. Another consideration is that the sampling goals were tablished separately for each type of organization, in relation to ganization type and size. The industrial organizations are larger an the professional ones. So we decided to take both supervisory rsonnel and professionals at the research and develOpment ganizations. and limit the selection to the supervisory level at the dustrial organizations since they are large. This is also done for asons of cost, limited resources, and time constraints. onsequently, a majority of respondents were from the supervisory evell in the production sections of industrial organizations. The ext largest group of respondents were professionals in different apartments at the research and develOpment organizations. Finally mere were respondents from the supervisory level at the research and evelOpment organizations, and respondents from the managerial level P both types of organizations. Since a relatively large number of cases was desired for the ialysis, it was decided to administer questionnaires to all subjects 3 these organizations who met the criteria rather than to a sample. 118 was done to maximize the number of reaponses and to overcome the Lfficulty of obtaining access to a complete list of subjects, which >u1d be required for the process of randomization. The subjects were andomly selected only in ARAMCO, which comprised the greatest 'oportion of the total sample. It accounted for 51.6 percent of the idustrial sample and 36.2 percent of the total sample, as shown in able 1. % Table 1--l Organiz # Industr ARAMCO Riyadh Refine: SABIC Total nu Industry Research m T Partici theSe Sometim 1 Dartic °fficia key in the d °°dif1 91 >le 1--Summary of the distribution of the sample along the different types of organization. )rganization type Percent Organization type Percent of total of total Industry-Oriented sample Research-Oriented sample LRAMCO 141 KACST 38 (51.6) 36.2 (32.5) 9.7 {iyadh (efinery 24 UPM 16 (8.8) 6.2 (13.7) u.1 SABIC 108 SCH 18 (39.6) 27.7 (15.u) ”.6 IPA #5 (38.5) 11.5 273 70.0 117 30.0 iustry-Oriented cases :al number of cases = 39 search-Oriented cases = O 273 (70%) 117 (30%) Measures and Instrument The primary structural dimensions are' formalization, ticipation, and centralization. The most common measurement of se variables involves one of two basic approaches (although etimes both are used at the same time): 1. Objective Measures. The variables of formalization, ticipation, and centralization are operationalized by using icial records and documents from organizations, or information from informants about the organization, to determine such matters as definition of rules, what occupants of positions do (job ification), and whether or not the rules are employed (rule observ of in object of f0] define of on used and c. on th beari next measu Jame: measu accuh actua Hall adval as ; perc. orga (Hal Ofga Pugh Turn 92 servation). Also, the degree of hierarchy of authority, the amount influence members have on work decisions, can be determined jectively. 2. Subjective or Perceptual Measures. The structural variables formalization, centralization, and participation are Operationally fined by asking the members of organizations to respond to a series questions bearing directly on these issues. Their responses are ed to determine the extent to which the organization is formalized d centralized, and the amount of influence the individual member has the decisions made in the organization. (A series of questions aring directly on these structural variables is described in the xt section concerning the instrument.)1 While recent research suggests that subjective and objective asures of structure are not always equivalent (e.g., Jablin, 1982; mes 8: Jones, 1976; and McKelvey 8: Sekaran, 1977), subjective sures were employed because it was felt that they would more urately reflect the degree of structure that organization members ually experienced. in their day-to—day activities (Jablin, 1982). l (1982) contends that the use of perceptual measures has the antage of recognizing the existence of informal procedures as well allowing validity checks for the objective ones. "Scores on ceptual scales may thus represent an accurate portrayal of an anization's degree of formalization or other structural features" 11, 1982:99). 1 . For more information about these measurements of an anization's structure, see: Aiken & Hage, 1966; Hall, 1982; Inkson, h 8: Hickson, 1970; Miller, 1970; and Pugh, Hickson, Hinings 8: ner’19690 or per contac availal access are co other perce; depen measur acros: Instr infor into tech membr inte Pres inte used 1975 our 93 The choice was made to use the second measures, the "subjective perceptual ones.". In addition, the difficulty of reaching key ntacts about organizations for preliminary interviewing, the ailability of written data, and the possible difficulty in getting zess to the written information, if any is available, with which we 3 concerned make the use of objective measures a difficult task. In oer words, it was posited that the structural variables that these rceptual measures assessed would have a more direct effect upon the pendent variables involved in this study than would objective asures. Further, "the perceptual measures do allow comparisons ross the organization" (Hall, 1982:99). strument The primary data for the present study were obtained from formation collected via anonymous questionnaires. Beside taking to account time and resource limitations, the choice of this chnique was made because of the possibility that organization bers might be reluctant to express unfavorable opinions if the erview technique were used, i.e., it might have placed inordinate ssure upon the respondents to search for answers they believed the erviewer would find pleasing. This questionnaire is an outgrowth of reviews of questionnaires d in related studies (Kahn et al., 1964; Marriet, Hage, & Aiken, 5; Mowday et al., 1979; Patchen, 1970; and Vroom, 1960). The translated version of the questionnaire was administered to sample at their work site. It was stressed that questionnaire respons and par inform: the st their the Qt their 9H .ponses are confidential, anonymity of respondents was guaranteed, participation was completely voluntary. The major areas covered in the questionnaire included 'ormation about the background characteristics of the respondents, : structural characteristics of the organization in which they work, sir satisfaction with their jobs, their interaction with each other, 2 quality of interpersonal relations they have with each other, and :ir attitudes toward that organization. I. II. III. Individual Characteristics Variables (ICV): Certain individual information about the respondents was collected in order to allow comparison of the findings with other studies and to take into account the characteristics that might be expected to contribute to the problem at hand, such as age, marital status, education or years of schooling, years of service or tenure, salary, and so on (Questionnaire, Section I - Items #1 - #17 in the Appendix). Job Satisfaction (JS) Scale: A measure was develOped based on items measuring the same variable from earlier studies and upon the participants' comments during the pretest stage (Questionnaire, Question 18 with 22 items). The overall measure reflects the individual member's evaluation and affective reactions to his working conditions and organization. Job-Related Interaction (JRI) Scale: The job-related interaction scale (JRI) reflects task communication or the interaction linked to performance. The Th' 00: th st 95 major types of interaction are measured by Items #19 - #22a in Section II of the questionnaire. These items are modified items based on a communication questionnaire developed by Marriet et al. (1975). The major types of interaction (unscheduled - scheduled) are intended to give an indication of the content and frequency of the job-related interaction in the organization. Items 22b and 22c were eliminated from the scale computations because of excessive missing data. IV. Structural Variables (SV) Scale: An organization's structure is conceived in terms of its operational aspects which include: 1) Index of Formalization Formalization, or the use of rules in an organization, including: a. job codification and rules b. rule observation e two dimensions of fOrmalization may be specified as job fication, the degree of work standardization; and rule leniency, measure of the latitude of behavior that is tolerated from dards (Miller, 1970:286). These items are drawn from a Idardized instrument developed by Rage and Aiken (1967) stionnaire, Section III - Items #23 - #30). 2) Index of Centralization Centralization or the reliance on the hierarchy of authority is measured by a S-item standardized scale which measures the degree to which the organization member participates in decisions involving the tasks associated 96 with his position; developed by Hage and Aiken (1967). (Questionnaire, Section III - Items #31 - #34). 3) Index of Participation Participation on the job is measured by a ll-item standardized scale developed by Vroom (1960). (Questionnaire, Section III - Items #35 - #38). From an operational standpoint, structural variables such as ‘these (1, 2 and 3) constitute a "system" of potential influences on an organization member's perception and responses (Morris & Steers, 1980). V. Interpersonal Relations (IR) Scale: Interpersonal variables such as trust, mutual respect, and solidarity were measured on an 8-item scale (Questionnaire, Section IV - Items #39 - #47). In addition, Item #18 from the JS scale was added to the analysis of the overall measure of the interpersonal relation variable. These items were a combination of standardized and tailor-made items. VI. Organizational Commitment (0C) Scale: Commitment is measured by a 15-item standardized instrument (OCQ) developed by Porter et al. (1974). Each item asks the subject 1x) express his or her agreement or disagreement with the item on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly' disagree". (Questionnaire, Section V - Items #118 - #62). The 15 items reflect a combination of attitude and behavioral intentions, and emphasize the employees' moral involvement with the organization. This instrument has been the most widely utilized to date, and its subje respc own dimer mean: Tran the Engl cons King schc whi par the mem agr one on OPE 97 result tend to suggest that it produces a more efficient measure of organizational commitment (Ferris & Aranya, 1983:96). Multiple-sample psychometric data are available for this instrument (see Mowday et al., 1979). Thus the questions in the questionnaire cover a variety of the bject-related matters. Most are of the fixed-alternative type. The spondent was asked to select the reSponse that best describes his n views. This is done to ensure that the responses cover the mensions under study and to simplify response and analysis. (The ans and standard deviations of all variables are shown in Table 2.) ~anslation and Pretesting The survey was conducted in Arabic, the indigenous language of ,e participants. Therefore, the questionnaire was translated from glish to Arabic by the author. In some cases, the author sought nsultation with some faculty members of the psychology department at ng Saud University (the University which has granted the author‘s holarship). In particular, the consultation involved a few items ich were Open to interpretation. The author provided each ~ticipating member with more than one written translated meaning it was thought to correspond to the English item, then asked the ther to choose the one closest in meaning. The closest one that was ’eed upon by the participative members was chosen as the correct The questionnaire was then tested. Two pretests were conducted a small sample randomly selected from the two types of anizations involved in the study (28 subjects from the industrial Table Scab Vari 0C IT IR IS JRI OIR CV FV PV JS LS AV MS EV SV MS MP SP PP Key oxmzwru—a (I) 98 Fable 2--Means and Standard Deviations of All Variables. Scale Standard Number Variable Mean Deviation Minimum Maximum of Cases )C 81.772 13.973 35 105 390 [T 26.053 4.407 8.40 35.00 390 IR 38.252 4.556 18.00 45.00 390 [3 11.738 1.681 5.00 14.00 390 JRI 31.563 6.416 13.50 45.00 390 DIR 76.043 8.546 39.40 94.00 390 CV 15.026 5.916 4.00 28.00 390 FV 32.106 7.173 13.00 49.00 390 PV 14.415 2.798 5.00 20.00 388 JS 78.154 13.521 40.86 110.0 390 LS 4.615 1.778 1* 7* 390 AV 34.979 8.549 20 58 390 MS .874 .332 0** 1** 390 EV 4.959 1.377 0*** 7*** 390 SV 12.508 3.157 4**** 15***' 390 MS 12.508 3.157 4 15 390 AP .679 .467 .00 1.00 390 SP .090 .286 .00 1.00 390 PP .231 .422 .00 1.00 390 (ey to Variables: | OC = Organizational Commitment 10 J8 = Job Satisfaction 2 IT = Interpersonal Trust 11 LS = Length of Service 1 IR = Interpersonal Respect 12 AV = Age Variable L IS = Interpersonal Solidarity 13 MS = Marital Status JRI = Job-Related Interaction 14 EV = Education Variable OIR = Overall Interpersonal 15 SV = Salary Variable Relations CV = Centralization Variable 16 MP = Managerial Position FV = Formalization Variable 17 SP = Supervisory Position PV = Participation Variable 18 PP : Professional Position *1 = less than one year, 7 = more than 15 years **0 = single, 1 = married ***0 = no education, 7 = more than 15 years of schooling completed ****4 = 4501 SR-5000 SR, 15 = more than 10,000 SR (SR = Saudi rial, approximately = 26.66 cents U.S.) org: two to Con: addl incq the ind: the aft! the and var: Eng que: Var rev Ste. 99 organizations and 25 subjects from the research organizations). The two groups were asked to comment on any item which seemed ambiguous or to suggest something related worth adding to the instrument. Consequently, a new constructed scale-ma job satisfaction scale--was added to the final questionnaire, and questions that appeared to be incomprehensible or vague were changed or reworded. In this study, the job satisfaction scale will be considered as part of the member's individual characteristics, reflecting his general satisfaction with the working conditions in the organization he belongs to. The final items of each scale in the questionnaire were selected after the two samples tested the initial questionnaire. As noted in the next section, the questionnaire scales have been proven reliable and the questionnaire seems apprOpriate for measuring the different variables involved. The Arabic version was then translated back into English by the author and appears in the Appendix. he Final Questionnaire: Reliability As indicated at the beginning of this chapter, the final uestionnaire is an outgrowth of reviews of other questionnaires. arious established scales measuring the variables involved were eviewed prior to the construction of the final questionnaire. opular scales'such as the "Organizational Commitment Scale (Mowday, teers & Porter, 1979), the "Formalization" scale, a version of the Centralization" scale (Hage 8: Aiken, 1967, 1969), and the Participation" scale (Vroom, 1964) were chosen because they best fit iis study's research design. These standardized scales have a .story of popular use and a record of high validity and reliability 100 (oi: .90, (X: .88,o<= .70, and 0(=.90, respectively). Other scales were a combination of standardized and tailor-made items. The reliability of these standardized scales, and the tailor~ made scales, as parts of the questionnaire, was tested. Factor analysis was used to estimate the internal consistency of each scale. A higher alpha coefficient indicates a reliable instrument. The reliability coefficient for the Job' Satisfaction (JS) Scale was at: .89, for the Job-Related Interaction (JRI) Scale was o<= .65, and for the Structural Variables (SV) Scale as follows: Formalization Index o< = .66, Centralization Index 0( = .74 (after deleting Item #30), and Participation Index ck: .74. The reliability coefficients for the Interpersonal Relations (IR) Scale were Trust Index cX: .60, Mutual ReSpect Index d: .79. Solidarity Index o<= .64, and Overall Index (X: .83. Finally, the reliability coefficient for the Organizational Commitment (OCS) Scale was 0(= .86. The reliabilities of the standardized scales for our sample compare favorably with reliability coefficients reported in previous research (Hage & Aiken, 1967; Morris 8: Steers, 1980; Mowday et al., 1979; Ferris 8: Aranya, 1983; Luthans et al., 1985; Morrow 8: McElroy, 1987, respectively). This suggests that these instruments are ‘eliable ones. 101 Data Collection After permission to distribute the questionnaires was obtained from the organizations' authorities, questionnaire data were collected from subjects of the two types of organizations based on the criteria set for the sampling goals. Given the potentially sensitive nature of the variables involved in the study, and in order to promote spontaneous answers and to overcome resistance to the questionnaire, the steps described below were taken. The final Arabic version of the questionnaire was designed in a well—organized, easy to understand, and clear fashion, in 16 pages of offset printed style. A cover letter was attached to the questionnaire. It was basically a brief appeal to the participants, urging them to fill out the questionnaire and mail it back as soon as possible to the predetermined appropriate place. The participants were told briefly about the purpose of the study and were reminded of the importance of the study for them and for the country. They were assured that the data they provided were confidential and would be used solely for the proposed research purposes. Anonymity was guaranteed; no names or other identifying marks were to be included, and their organizations would have nothing to do with the present study. The letter was signed by the researcher with his address included. In addition, general directions on how to fill out the questionnaire were provided n a separate page and also in the questionnaire. Participants were furnished with self-addressed return envelopes or direct mail return to the researcher or his assistants at the 102 redetermined place. A statement appeared on the envelOpe asking them 0 seal it once they completed filling it out. No code identification as used. All these efforts were done to assure the participants that he questionnaires would remain confidential and that the participants ould remain anonymous. Personal distribution was adopted to overcome the problems ssociated with mail services in Saudi Arabia, to maximize the eSponses, and because of the difficulty of getting access to accurate nformation about the participants' addresses from their ganizations. All questionnaires were presented directly to the participants rough the assistance of an internal communication system of each ganization represented by' persons assigned, by’ either the public elations or similar offices in each organization, to help the esearcher in the distribution, follow-up, and collection of the lestionnaires. Care was taken that none of those who were in the .ain of authority (with respect to the participants) in each ganization became involved in the distribution or collection of the estionnaire. As a matter of COOperation, in some cases participants were sent Letter from their organization, along with the questionnaire, via organization's internal mail system. This letter was a brief eal to the participants urging them to 000perate with the earcher as best as they could, and to indicate that the nization had nothing to do with the proposed study. Participants completed the questionnaire on their own time, rr at work or at home. 103 Mail-back questionnaires were sent to the appropriate offices, La the: organization's internal mail and then handed 1K) the :searcher. Very few cases were mailed directly to the researcher by 1e participants themselves. In most cases, there was no direct contact between the rticipants and the researcher, therefore the follow-up techniques ed were telephone calls and postcards sent to the research-assigned sistants with a strong appeal for encouraging their employees to operate. In some cases, visits were made to the agencies, for the same ason, in addition to the first visits to all organizations at the me of distributing the questionnaire, which lasted from a few hours a few days depending on the size and the location of the ganizations. The distribution of the questionnaires to the organizations an on September 15, 1987 and was completed on November 28, 1987. By the predetermined cutoff date, a total of 622 (out of 1630 tributed questionnaires) questionnaires had been. returned. This stituted a return rate of 38 percent, which is better than average such studies but, of course, leaves the possibility of nonresponse s. The issue is addressed in the concluding chapter. The researcher checked the questionnaires for errors (omissions, omplete answers, contradictions, and so on). Six responses showed omplete answers; 34 had no response at all. Additionally, 192 stionnaires were eliminated because they did not comply with the pling rules by either not meeting the criteria set for the sampling cedures (e.g., the subjects were non-supervisory or supportive 104 vision personnel in both types of organizations) or by being presented in one organization rather than the other, as the case of e quality-control departments in the industrial organization. Since the study sample is represented disprOportionately by rticipants within each organization and across the organization pes, the sample cannot be considered either random or presentative. It is, however, diverse. For this reason the results rit reporting, although extrapolation of‘the findings to ganizations in general should be done with caution. In addition, e primary focus of this study 'was on conceptualization and the tension of the existing research into a new area. Therefore, it was lt that the representativeness of the sample would not be as crucial its heterogeneity with respect to the investigated variables.1 Thus, the nature of the selected sample--as described above--was pected 1x3 provide a particularly sensitive test of the relationship tween the commitment variable and its correlates. Also, it permits valid test of the theoretical framework, although it does not permit description of the actual distribution of any of the variables or neralization to any predefined population. Plan of Analysis The unit of analysis in this study is the individual member of ch organization, not the organizations themselves. Therefore, formation collected from each individual's questionnaire was edited, l‘ 1The same justification was given by Thornton Russell in his k, "Organizational Involvement and Commitment to Organization and fession," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 15, 1970:417-426. 105 oded (as described above) and processed for analysis using the SPSSX omputer program. The analysis rests on the major research question (Chapter I), he theoretical argument and its related hypotheses, as delineated in hapter III, and the discussion in Chapter IV concerning structural ariables, interpersonal variables and commitment linkage. The object of the analysis is to determine the adequacy of the ostulated causal schemes of the model presented in Chapter III p. 68) by referring to the observable relationships in a set of test odels. To provide the possibility for causal determinations among the lets of measured variables we are concerned with in this study, the lata analytic technique of multiple regression with some ,haracteristics of path analysis was used. The evidence can result in ; description of the relative degree of explanatory power for each of ,everal predictor variables on a dependent variable. Moreover, a lajor advantage of this approach is that it provides flexibility egarding the presence or absence of possible causal links (Franklin, 975b:426). The traditional procedures in using multiple regression nalysis were fbllowed: my, a pattern of association between the variables in the heoretical scheme (Figure 3.1) was established to translate it from a onceptual framework into quantitative estimates. A correlation trix was calculated utilizing the Pearson correlation coefficient r all variables in the model (Table 6.1). These include the tructural variables of "formalization," "participation“ and centralization"; the job-related interaction variable; the 106 interpersonal variables, both separately and as a combined set; and the individual characteristic variables. Particularly, the analysis attempts to note any large intercorrelations between the independent Iariables (multicolinearity), since such correlations can substantially affect the results of multiple regression analysis [Norusis, 1985). Histogram frequencies and a separate analysis of scattergrams were done to determine whether the variables are normally iistributed. Second, the path coefficients were calculated. In contrast to narrelation coefficients, path coefficients reflect the amount of iirect contribution of a given variable on another variable when the effects of other related variables are taken into account (Miller, 7970:190). Path coefficients are calculated using a multiple 'egression program that takes raw data and computes partial :oefficients from standardized input data. Hence, the standardized >artial regression coefficients (betas) used here are identical to >ath coefficients (see Hall & Hall, 1976; Miller, 1970). As a means to test the path models, each path model represents a :ystem of full equations, since all possible paths in the model are tostulated 1x) exist. The significance of the regression coefficients tetermined In! the F-test indicates which variables are significant in ach equation in the system and, hence, which paths are significant in he model. The object is to arrive at the most parsimonious equations ithout losing significantly explained variance (Barnes, 1975:67). A stepwise regression program is used to determine which ariables, and hence which paths in each system, are statistically ignificant at the probability level of 0<< .05, Then the test models 107 are trimmed accordingly. The determination as to which paths could be deleted in the test models is made, based upon the stepwise regression runs, and the F—test is employed to delete any variables which are not significant at the desired probability level of 0<< .05. One reason for using the stepwise procedures is to examine the size of path coefficients to see whether they are large enough to warrant the inclusion of a variable or path in the model, and to evaluate the ability of the model to predict correlation coefficients that are not used in computing the path coefficients themselves. An important part of any statistical procedure that builds nodels from data is to establish how well the model actually fits CNoursis, 1985:17). The partial regression coefficients in standard :‘orm (betas) and the coefficients of determination for specified :ombinations of variables (R2) are essential for applying the goodness of fit" between observed data and the basic theoretical Iodel. Each analysis yielded multiple coefficients (R) describing the ffect of a set of predictors on each dependent variable and tandardized regression coefficients (B) indicating the unique effect f each predictor on each dependent variable. Since the number of ariables used as predictors in these analyses varied from five to ourteen, the multiple correlation coefficients were adjusted for the umber of predictors used. In addition to these statistics, a esidual value was determined for each dependent variable to indicate 1e amount of variance not accounted for by variables included in the >de1 (Franklin, 1975b:426). For example, Tables 6.23 and 6.2b show that the coefficient of etermination (R2) for all selected variables significantly directly 108 affecting the ultimate dependent variable of commitment is .37; i.e., .37 percent of the variation in the organizational commitment variable may be accounted for by these variables: centralization, interpersonal variables, and the characteristic variables of job satisfaction and tenure. The unexplained variation is due to variables or measurement error not included in the model. For the sake of completeness, the square root of these (1-R2) values are ascribed to the residual variables, as shown in Tables 6.2a and 6.2b. "The importance of the residual is not its size, rather whether the unobserved factors it stands for are properly represented as being uncorrelated with the measured antecedent factors" (Miller, 1970:192). After each full path model has been trimmed to correspond to the parsimonious equations, it is used to render a calculation of direct and indirect effects. The object is to study the linkages of all variables in the given trimmed system of Figures 6.13 and 6.1b, and to determine the extent to which the assumptions and related hypotheses regarding the mediating effects of interpersonal relations hold true. (These assumptions and hypotheses were discussed in Chapter III and Chapter IV under the basic theoretical causal models, pp. 46 and 72). In other words, using the path analysis technique we determined whether the structural variables (formalization, participation and centralization) were related to organizational commitment independently of any relationship they might have with the interpersonal variables or whether the interpersonal relations variables mediate the relationship between the structural variables and the organizational commitment variable. 109 For interpersonal relations to mediate the relationship between an organization's structure and organizational commitment, BEES iecessary conditions must be met: 1. Each of the organization's structural variables-- ?ormalization, participation, and centralization--must have a significant effect cut the interpersonal variables (combined or taken separately), either directly or indirectly, through'the significant iirect effects of each of these structural variables (Hi the job-related interaction variable which, in turn, has its direct influence upon the interpersonal variables as a combined set or taken separately. 2. The interpersonal variables, as a combined measure or separately (trust, mutual respect, and solidarity) must, in turn, have a significant direct effect on the ultimate’ dependent dvariable rof >rganizational commitment. 3. The relationship between each of the structural variables 7forma1ization, participation, and centralization) and organizational :ommitment must vary depending on the values of the interpersonal 'elations variables (as combined or separate measures). These conditions involve testing two completely identified path .odels, as shown in Figures 6.1a and 6.1b. These basic path models 'ere computed using the following regression equations: a. Structural variables, interpersonal variables, the job-related interaction variable, and interpersonal variables (combined or taken separately) were regressed cm organizational commitment as the dependent variable. 110 b. Structural variables, the job-related interaction ‘variable, and individual characteristics were regressed on interpersonal variables. (as a combined set or taken separately) as the dependent variable. 0. Structural variables were regressed m a ecuuoauoacH wouaao snow" and m o a AN co Aaosem u Am A «AnNAANA coAAaAAoAAANA u :oAAAnom Accounnouogm n mm A an magnum #auALa: u m: «— oHnoALa> coAAmuAAaEAom u >m AAALao How Aaconcoccoucu m mH coAAAnom Agonu>gocsm u an MA oAnaAAa> om¢ n >< «— canaAAm> coAAauAAagueoo u >0 you no: Aaconcoqcoaca m an coAAAnom anAom-coz a a: A 00 oA>uom A0 cannon a an AA ncoAucAom punch Aacongo Lowcu AH N oAnuAta> ALNAam n An NA: ojsoAAnAAam nos . mu oA AcconAoaLoscA AANAvo u «Ac 0 scoasAseou AacoAAAAAc. . co A AnoAnaAAa> o» aux Aoao.A NAA.n Am AA Acco.A Aooo.A cmA.c pmo.r . A2 AA Aooo.A Awoo.A Aooo.A omm.n AAA. mma. Am «A Aooo.A A o.A co ooo Aoa. MMN. A Nmm.n AooA.~ AA AA A o .w Aoop. A Ac 0. A 00 .A Aooo Mo. moo. A N. A=~ . m-.w m: mA Aoomr A Ann—.A Aoo .A Aooo. A Acco.A Aooo. A emo. o. . com. m==.: 0mm. >4 NA A oo. Aow o . coo.A coo. A 00 a Ms». W %m AMAm.A Avo. AAA». .n A am A A %m as AA oo o . o. No . AAA... 2.... AA... AA... A? A... AA... AA A. 2 .. o coo oo . No oo o o. coo. . 3.. as is... A. .. As... 2A.... .. ... .3... AAA. .. . ooo as. o o. A c o. om. ooo. co. . a . AoAN.w AmNA. A Ao N.A Aamo.A AMMN.N AMNo.A AAo~.A AmoA A A” .w Awom.w AA A Amoo. A Aooo. A Aw— .A Awoo. A “Map. A Amoo. A Amoo.s A Aooo. A o— co co .A A o . Ac o.A pop. a o. I om.l mo.I Np. mp. 35—.3 momw.t om.w m —. >0 5 Aooo Aooo.A AAAN. A ANao.A Aooo.A Aoao.A AAAN.A Aooo.A Aooo.A .A Aaoo. A AAom. A AAAo. A AAA.- ANA. AAA. AAN. AAA.- AAA. AAN. AAN. Nam. AAA. mNo. AAA. . AAo A Aoo A A as. A Aooo.A Aooo.A Amos. AA 0. Aces. A As. co . co . AAA. AAo Aoo . gm- ”8 AAN. AAN. oNA.w mmo.A AoN.A moA. A AmN .A Aomm.A AmoA. A AAAa. w mAm.A AAA m Aeoa. A AooA. A AAoo. A Aooo.A Aooo ANNo.A Aooo. Aooo. Aoo A As . ANAA.A Am o.A Aces. Aooo.A ANN. moo. AAA. AmN. AAA.A NoA. AAA. A AAN. A om. smm.A Aoo. AmA.- AAm.A AAN. AA A Am A. AAA soo.A AANo. A Am A. AmAA AA. AAA. coo Aoo . A N. AM A. sea. Aooo. Ao o.A :m A sow. A AoNA. moA. N o.w ANA.A Aw? A AAAA.A A AAN.A NA .A Ame. A A mo. .w AAAA.A msN. AmA. AA A Aeoo.A ANAm.A AMNo.A Aooo. A Aooo.A AAAA. A Aoo .A Aooo.A Aooo.A Aoo .A Ammo. A AAao. A Aooo.A Aooo. A Aoom. A Aooo.A e~—.I —~o. pop. mmp. OON.I m—c. :' . mam. new. a— . poo. amp. I oww. oaw moea. hm N Aooo. A Asoo. A m o.A Aooo.A Aooo. Aooo.A Aoo . Aoo .A as. Aoo Aooo. A Acso A Aooo. A Aooo. A Aoo .A Aoo A Aoo .A ANN. . AN1 AAm . ANA. AAA.N AAA. mam.A AAm. AM: A Nam A Ame. AAN. . ANA. omN. Im so A AA an A2 An AN m: AA as AA AA AA AA AAo AAA ”A AA AA so AA AA A. m. A. AA. NA AA AA A A A A m A A N A zusum 0:» :H vo>Ho>CH mmHanLm> 0:» HH¢ ho xucumz :OAQmHoLLooIIA.© manna 122 initial results suggest that a combination of interpersonal variables may be necessary in order for a sizable effect on in organizational commitment to occur. Most important, the structural variables of participation and centralization are both correlated with organizational commitment in the expected direction (r := .382 and r- = -.288, respectively), while the structural variable of formalization is in the predicted direction, although slightly and insignificantly (r = -.056). For the correlation of participation with organizational commitment, our finding is consistent with previous research findings based on the same measure, but this is not so for the formalization variable (cf., Morris 8: Steers, 1980). Job-related interaction is positively and significantly- correlated with organizational commitment (r = .250, I) < .001). Finally, the individual characteristics of age, salary, position, and (to a lesser extent) education and marital status are all significantly correlated with organizational commitment (r = .395, r = .329, r = -.227, r = -.191, and r = .1u7, respectively). The second through fourth rows of Table 6.1 report correlations with interpersonal variables (trust, respect, and solidarity) taken separately. Again, the pattern of association is as it was expected. As Table 6.1 indicates, job-related interaction correlates positively and significantly with solidarity, trust, and respect (r : . 286, r = .2u9. and r = .2u5, respectively). On the other hand, the structural variable' of’ centralization correlates negatively, with only a slight relationship, with trust (r = -.159), solidarity (r = -.137), and mutual respect (r = -.094). In contrast, participation as a structural variable has a strong positive 123 correlation with the variables of solidarity, trust, and mutual respect (r = .378, r = .314, and r = .312,‘ respectively). The correlations of formalization with these interpersonal variables are all weak and not in the expected direction, with the exception of mutual respect, although it is not statistically significant. It is not surprising that the set of three interpersonal variables--trust, mutual respect, and solidarity--are positively correlated among themselves. They are, of course, highly correlated with the interpersonal relations variable as a combined measure (respectively, r = .861; trust, r = .826; solidarity, r = .586). A reliability test of these three measures as a combined set yields a coefficient of .83, which means that these variables are loading highly on each other when they are combined in a single measure. The pattern of association for interpersonal relations variables, when they are taken as a combined measure, with job-related interaction and structural variables, is as eXpected. Correlation coefficients are generally higher than for the individual interpersonal variables and in the predicted direction, with the exception of the structural variable of formalization. Generally, interpersonal relations as a combined set is positively and significantly correlated with participation (r := .378), and with job-related interaction (r = .315). In addition, they' correlate negatively and significantly (though moderately) with the structural variable of centralization (r = -.161). However, there are no significant associations for these variables as a combined set with the structural variable of formalization (r = .025, p = .301). 1211 The interpersonal variables, either as a combined set or taken separately, are significantly correlated with the individual characteristic variables. The highest correlation is with job satisfaction (r = .362). The exceptions are the interpersonal relation as a combined measure with marital status (r = .0111); the trust variable with marital status (r = .015); and the mutual respect variable with years of service or tenure, age and marital status, and education. Finally, the job-related interaction variable correlated significantly and positively with the structural variable of participation (r = .358), and positively but with a weaker relationship with the structural variable of formalization (r = .105, p = .019). However, there is no indication of a statistically significant correlation with the structural variable of centralization, although it is in the predicted direction (r = -.074). Additionally, Table 6.1 demonstrates the pattern of associations between the major independent variables in this study. Centralization and formalization are positively and significantly correlated (r = .195, p < .001). In contrast, centralization and participation are strongly but negatively correlated (r = -.307, p < .001). Formalization has no statistically significant correlation with participation, but it is in the predicted direction. In summary, Judging from the above-discussed simple matrix correlations in Table 6.1, our data do not differ significantly from the findings of the previous studies from which our theoretical scheme or model (Figure 3.1) was developed. 125 The primary importance of the initial analyses reported above lies in their contribution in translating the theoretical framework (Figure 3.1) into quantitative estimates, since such quantitative estimates are required for the calculation of path coefficients when using multiple regression programs. Correlational coefficients yield important relations but they do not demonstrate causality, although causality can be inferred (Miller, 1970:188). It is possible to test the theoretically postulated causality among the variables involved in this study by computing the standardized regression coefficients in a multiple regression analysis. The relative contribution of certain variables to the explained variation in other particular variables will be analyzed by controlling for all related variables involved. The results are more straightforward when the multiple regression analysis contains a manageable number of independent variables, as was done in our model. The preliminary condition for running a multiple regression analysis to compute path coefficients is testing the variables for their linearity and multicolinearity. Theoretically, variables should be normally distributed. Also the independent variables should be correlated with the dependent variables but not with one another. In practice, multiple regression is recognized as a robust technique that can include non-normally distributed variables if their variations from normality are not extreme (Hedderson, 1987:107). Frequency analysis revealed no evidence of extreme nonlinear relationships, and the correlational matrix revealed no high multicolinearity (r => .80) among the independent variables. 126 The Independent Direct Effect on Commitment of All Variables Involved All the variables in the causal model depicted in Figure 3.1 were studied for their direct and indirect effects upon the ultimate dependent variable, namely, organizational commitment. One approach to do so would be to deal with the complete unreduced model presented in Figure 3.1 measuring all its variables and estimating all its parameters. If the general scheme shown in the model is correct, it would be expected that all the related variables, either independents, exogenous, or endogenous, would have significant direct effects on the ultimate dependent variable of organizational commitment. So all the related variables were entered in the regression equations using the method of stepwise multiple regression with organizational commitment in the role of dependent variable. Thus the order of entry of the variables was left to the stepwise regression procedures. The variables of interpersonal relations are entered as both separate measures (trust, respect, and solidarity) and as a combined one. Table 6.2a presents the results of path coefficients, in which organizational commitment was designated as the dependent variable and the structural variables, job-related interaction, interpersonal variables of trust, mutual respect and solidarity, and the individual characteristics variables as independent variables. Table 6.2a shows that the most striking factors having significant direct effects on organizational commitment are job satisfaction and tenure, with path coefficients of .318 and .194 reSpectively. Thus, with an increase in job satisfaction and length 127 Table 6.2a--Direct Effects on the Dependent Variable of Commitment When Interpersonal Relations Are Taken Separately. Path Coefficients Independent Variables Dependent Centrali- Trust Solidarity Job Length R2 *Rd Variables zation Satis. Service Commitment -.104 .173 .142 .318 .194 .374 .626 (.016) (.0001) (.0014) (.0000) (.0000) **(.366) (.634) F = 45.689 p = < .0001 No. cases = 390 df = 5 Table 6.2b-~Direct Effects on Commitment When Interpersonal Relations Are Combined Path Coefficients Independent Variables Dependent Centrali- Overall Interpersonal Job Length R2 *Rd Variables zation Relations Satis. Service Commitment -.108 .247 .311 .221 .373 .627 (.013) (.0000) (.0000) (.0000) **(.366)(.634) F = 57.057 p = < .0001 No. cases = 390 df = 4 *RD = residuals **(-) adjusted R2 of stay (tenure), an increase in organizational commitment is predicted. This is followed, in descending order, by the interpersonal variables of trust, with a .173 path coefficient, and solidarity with a .142 path coefficient. All of the variables have a positive relationship with commitment except for the structural variable of centralization, with a path coefficient of -.104. 128 When other variables are controlled, none of the other background characteristics, such as age, marital status, education, salary, and position, has a significant direct effect. Neither the job-related interaction variable nor the structural variables of formalization or participation have significant direct effects on organizational commitment when controlling for other variables, although all are in the predicted direction. Since none of them alter the position of the significance of other variables as the dominant factors directly affecting commitment, they were consequently omitted from the tables. Replacing the case in which the variables of interpersonal relations were taken separately (trust, respect, and solidarity) with the case of being an overall measure (Table 6.2b) results in no major change in the coefficients from interpersonal variables taken separately, for all related variables in the regression equation. As a combined measure, interpersonal variables became a stronger predictor of organizational commitment, having a significant direct effect with a .247 coefficient, which is stronger than any of the interpersonal variables when taken separately. There are also some slight significant increases in the coefficients related to the variable of length of stay or tenure (.221), the structural variable of centralization (-.108), and a slight decrease in the coefficient related to the job satisfaction variable (.311). Some overall patterns in the' results concerning the independent direct effect on organizational commitment for the selected factors in this study are worth noting. Most noteworthy is that although the eighteen variables were included as possible factors directly 129 affecting organizational commitment, only five of the eighteen have a significant direct effect, explaining .374 percent of the variance in organizational commitment. Moreover, these five significant factors are characterized as being at least partly situational (tenure and job satisfaction) and interpersonal rather than personal (e.g., age, marital status, education) or structural (formalization and participation) with the exception of centralization. With the interpersonal relations variables as a combined measure, the explained variation in the dependent variable of organizational commitment dropped slightly from .373 to .365 when all structural variables and job-related interaction were omitted from the regression equation, but all other related variables were entered. At the same time, however, the path coefficients of interpersonal variables (as a combined set), the job-satisfaction variable, and tenure are slightly increased (.251, .345, and .228, respectively). No change occurred in the value of eXplained variation of the dependent variable (R2) or in the path coefficients for all the dependent variables involved when the job-related interaction variable is the only variable omitted from the regressions, either for the case where variables of interpersonal relations were treated as separate measures or as one combined measure. Finally, it is clear that many of the variables shown to be correlated with organizational commitment in previous studies do not have as great a direct effect as might be eXpected. Variables such as age, salary, marital status, education, position, formalization, and participation yield no significant direct effects on organizational 130 commitment as might be expected from a glance at the simple correlation matrix in this study or as shown in previous studies. Obviously, multiple regression equations with the stepwise method make a difference, the independent effect of any particular variable is less likely to be incorrectly attributed to the specific effect of this particular variable when all of the other related variables in the same regression equation are controlled. In contrast, correlational techniques which have been reported by most studies on organizational commitment have not controlled for the effects of other variables. So the significant effects related to certain variables in those studies might be attributed to uncontrolled contamination of the effects of other variables. The results of these obtained coefficients should provide a preliminary indication of the value of our theoretical models depicted in ‘Figure 3.1. The (absence of direct significant. effects on commitment for the variables of interest, particularly the structural ‘variables of formalization and participation, and the job—related interaction variable, may' mean that their effect. occurs indirectly through the mediating effects of the variables of interpersonal relations as suggested by the theoretical models examined in this study. Possible Mediating_Effects of Interpersonal Variables on the Organization Structure-Commitment Relationship Conditions for the Mediating Effects In the context of the proposed mediating effects of the variables of interpersonal relations between sum organization's 131 structure and organizational commitment, our twofold theoretical argument is basically centered around two assumptions. first, the quality of interpersonal relations existing in certain types of organizations will directly affect the level of organizational commitment of its members and the quality of interpersonal relations which exist will be influenced by the structural characteristics of the organizations. Second, job-related interaction will have its impact on the quality of interpersonal relations which, in turn, will directly influence the level of organizational commitment and job-related interaction will be affected by the organization's structure. (These assumptions have been fully discussed and summarized in Chapter III, Chapter IV, Figure 3.2a, and Figure 3.2b). In both cases, the structure-commitment link is conditioned by the relationship of interpersonal variables to the characteristics of organizational structure. Thus, interpersonal relations function as a mediating variable in the relationship between organizational structure and organizational commitment. In operational terms, it is important to determine the effects of each of the structural variables on the variables of interpersonal relations (combined or taken separately), either directly or indirectly through the effects of these structural variables on the variable of job-related interaction. It is also important to determine the effects of the variables of interpersonal relations as an overall measure or taken separately on the ultimate dependent variable of organizational commitment. 132 The effects of each of the structural. variables. on organizational commitment are hypothesized to vary depending on the values of these interpersonal variables as mediating variables. Effects of Structural Variables on Interpersonal Variables As a necessary condition for the mediating effects to occur, the structural variables of participation, formalization, and centralization must have significant effects on the variables of interpersonal relations, either directly or indirectly through their direct effects (n1 the variable of job-related interactions which, in turn, directly affects the variables of interpersonal relations. This major condition remains to be tested in the following order: .E; Direct Structural Effects on the Variables of Interpersonal Relation Tables 6.3a and 6.3b present the results of this analysis. The path coefficients obtained in these tables illustrate that with all variables entered the only structural variable which has a significant direct effect on the variables of interpersonal relations (either as a combined measure or taken separately) is the structural variable of participation. Variables having non-significant coefficients were omitted from the table. Table 6.3a indicates that participation has a significant direct effect on interpersonal variables as a combined measure, with a path coefficient of .246 at the probability level of .00001. Table 6.3b indicates that participation also has a significant direct effect on interpersonal variables when indexed by the variables of solidarity, trust and mutual respect. There were significant 133 m edsmznum Auvww mamsoamdl u cm. a u cs mom u mamas .02 Face. v" d op_.mm u a ANFw.c swamwa.v neoco.v Asooo.v Aoooo.v mom. mm_. 1 1 mo_. 1 her. mum. sswlmefiaom Aoem.c wwfiom_.v Ammoo.v AoFo.v Amoco.v mom. sma. u u 1 amp. mmp. m¢_. goddamn Aomm.v *.A=NP.V Ammoo.v Aoooo.v Ao_o.v Aoooo.v mew. «mp. Pmr.l owm. 1 1 omF. arm. awash gum m mzpmpm cw< oofi>nom cowuommmfiumm cofipomngCH cofiuquoHume moanmflcm> m Hashim: no spaces new now uzmucoddo moanmfium> pcoccogoccH mucdfiowccdoo spam hacumnmaom :mxmh c023 mcofiumamm HmcomcchoucH mo moanmanm> on» so macemgm poocfinllnm.o magma m woumzhom Alva: mamzvfimog u 0mm m u mu mmm u mommo .02 P000. vu Q >ma.om u m Awsp.v aahmmm.v Aosooc.v Aoooo.v Aomoo.v Aoooo.v moanmficm> no». mmm. mNF.n asp. mmp. cam. HmcomcwqcmucH HHmLm>o mum m scapmosum codpomcmfipmm coHpomcoucH :oHmeHowpcmm moanmacm> m now now ucmwcocmn mmHanLm> unoccoacncH mucoaduccmoo sums cocwnsoo cos: neoHumHmm HmcomcoagoucH mo ananLm> on» no muoommm poogwaulmm.o macaw 134 direct effects on solidarity and trust, with path coefficient values of .275 and .219, respectively, and a somewhat weaker direct effect on mutual respect, with a path coefficient of .193. Similar findings have been noted in other related studies when interpersonal variables such as these have been included in studies of participation (Vroom, 1964; Nicholson & Goh, 1983). Neither' of' the other structural variables-~formalization or centralization-~has a direct significant effect on the variable of interpersonal relations (either as a combined measure or taken separately). Their effect may be obtained, however, from the cumulative indirect effects through their effects on job-related interaction which, in turn, influences interpersonal reflations directly. These cumulative indirect effects are significant with the exception of centralization, as will be shown below. g; Indirect Effects of Structural Variables on Interpersonal Variables It was suggested in Chapter III that the structural effects on interpersonal variables might be obtained through the specific type of interaction in which the organization's member is involved. That is, another aspect of the effects of an organization's structure on interpersonal variables is through job-related interaction, since this variable is assumed to be determined in part by the structural variables involved in this study. Direct Effects of Structural Variables on Job-Related Interaction From the perspective of cnn' theoretical argument, an organization's structure not only constrains the interpersonal 135 relations process, but also provides substance to interaction. Table 6.4 illustrates that the structural variables have significant direct effects on the variable of job-related interaction, with the exception of the centralization variable. Specifically, participation as a structural variables has a highly significant direct effect on the job-related interaction variable, with a path coefficient of .366, at a probability level of .00001. The structural variable of formalization has a lower but still significant effect on job-related interaction, with a path coefficient of .133, significant at the .005 level. Centralization as a structural variable has neither a direct nor an indirect effect on the job-related interaction variable. Table 6.4-~Direct Effects of Structural Variables on Job-Related Interaction Path Coefficients Independent Variables Dependent 2 Variable Centralization Formalization Participation R Rd’ Job-Related .0199 .133 .366 .146 .854 Interaction (.69) (.0051) (.0000) i"'(.141) (.859) F = 32.812 p = < .0001 No. cases = 399 df = 2 *Rd = residual **(-) adjusted R2 Job-related interaction is assumed to be a primary determinant of the variables of interpersonal relations, especially if we consider the fact that interaction is the basic data source of interpersonal relations. 136 Direct Effects of Job-Related Interaction on Interpersonal Variables Table 6.3a shows that the variable of job—related interaction has a significant direct effect on interpersonal variables as a combined measure, with a path coefficient of .153 at the probability level of .0020. In addition, Table 6.3b indicates that the job-related interaction variable has significant direct effects on the interpersonal variables when taken separately. The job-related interaction variable has direct effects on the interpersonal variable of solidarity, with a path coefficient of .167; on the variable of mutual respect, with a path coefficient of .125; and on the variable of trust, with a path coefficient of .120. These path coefficient values are significant at the .0007, .016, and .OHS levels, respectively. It is not surprising to note such significant direct effects of the job-related interaction variable on the variables of interpersonal relations, especially’ if‘ we consider the fact that interpersonal relations not automatically materialize in our lives but require development, as Williams (1984) precisely' describes it. Williams (1984) talks about a similar concept, i.e., communication as the basis of interpersonal relations, when he states: Two individuals must know a great deal about one another before trust develops. And becoming acquainted requires the exchange of information about. one another, the, ability to understand one another's needs, and the willingness to develop mutually satisfying goals. All of these requirements are a part of the communication process underlying the development of interpersonal relations. Effective communication is the basis of interpersonal cooperation whether the relationship grows into a friendship or marriage, or becomes simply an effective working relationship between a manager and an employee. (p. 16) IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII::————————————————+———F*“*s”" 137 Additionally, interaction with other members in the organization has been identified as among the primary determinant variables of organizational commitment (Buchanan, 1974; Eisenberg et al., 1983; and Marsh 8: Mannari, 1977). The findings of our study, reported at the beginning of this chapter, show no indication of such a direct effect of job-related interaction on organizational commitment, But the effect of job-related interaction on organizational commitment can be explained through the mediating effect of the interpersonal relations 'variables,l since job—related interaction has a significant direct effect on the interpersonal variables and these same variables, in turn, have significant effects on organizational commitment. We HmcomcoqcoucH uo nooomum wcdpmficoz Lou Hoco: uoEEHLHIIm—.o oczmwm 93.5 mo_.1 consausaslscmu amo. :oHpomcoucH cosmammnnoe h has. mm". ucoEUHEEOU 1|] mcowumaom coHumNHHNELom HmcomcoaLoQCH FNN. and. ooa>com com. co cameos _Pm. coHpommnHumm . , nos cossdasosslmm_ coaumosum 142 .muflcmpwaom ocm .uooamom amass: .pnge I moismmoz oumcmqom mm moanmficm> Hmcomcoqcoch mo mooommm mcfiumwooz Lou Hocoz noeswiellnp.o ocsmflm omm. # cofiumuwamgpcoo_ noP.I - A cofioomcoucH nonmaomlnow =3..— mrm. soF. mmr. N=_. _ ucosuwseoo _>ufigmnfiaom coflpmNHHmSLom osw. com. moF. mew. amp. - mmp. mos. co_:umedc arm. cenumsHoHscmE cofiuommwapmm Pm—.1 now cam. om< maumsm Haunts: 143 vary depending on the values of the variables of interpersonal relations. The assessment of this condition will help us to sum up the mediating effect on each structural variable separately by noting the path coefficients of the significant cumulative indirect effects of each variable in contrast to the insignificant direct. effects. While subsumed ix: the preceding discussion, what follows is evidence bearing on each of the hypotheses presented in Chapter VI regarding mediating effects of interpersonal relations. Mediating Effects for the Structural Variable of Participation Our theoretical argument states that the structural variable of participation would affect the dependent variable of organizational commitment through the mediating effect of interpersonal variables (either as a combined set or taken separately). This can be formally stated as follows: The interpersonal variables (trust, mutual respect, and solidarity) will be influenced positively by the degree of organizational participation and, in organizations with high rates of participation, interpersonal variables will increase the level of organizational commitment. As noted previously, participation has its own positive effects on the variables of interpersonal relations both directly and indirectly through its effects on the variable cfl‘ job-related interaction, which, in turn, has its direct effects on the interpersonal variables. At the same time, the variables of interpersonal relations have significant direct effects on organizational commitment. 144 As illustrated in the trimmed models, Figures 6.1a and 6.1b, there is no direct path showing a significant effect of participation on organizational commitment. Nevertheless, the cumulative indirect effects are significant: F_ir__s_t, the structural variable of participation directly influences interpersonal variables as a combined set, with a‘ path coefficient of .246, and when taken separately, with path coefficients of .275, .193, and .219 for each of the variables of interpersonal relations (solidarity, mutual respect, and trust), respectively. (Figures 6.2a and 6.2b illustrate the direct mediating effect of interpersonal relations; Tables 6.5a and 6.5b, path models 1a and 1b, summarize these results). These interpersonal variables, either as a combined set or taken separately (with the exception of the mutual respect variable), in turn, influence directly the dependent variable of organizational commitment with a path coefficient of .247 for the combined set and path coefficients of .142 and .173 for the variables of solidarity and trust, respectively. These results support the hypothesis stated earlier concerning the participation-interpersonal variables and commitment link. Second, the structural variable of participation indirectly influences interpersonal variables, as a combined set or taken separately, through the significant direct effect of participation on the job-related interaction variable with a path coefficient of .366 in both models (Figures 6.20 and 6.2d). As shown in Figures 6.2c and 6.2d, the job-related interaction variable, in turn, influences the interpersonal variables as a combined set with a path coefficient of Participation .246 145 Interpersonal Relations Organizational .247 Commitment Figure 6.2a--Direct Mediating Effects for Participation When Interpersonal Relations are Combined (Path Model 1a) .219 Trusti [Participation .275 .193 - 4' Respect Solidarity .142 Organizational vCommitment .173 Figure 6.2b--Direct Mediating Effects for Participation When Interpersonal Relations are Separate (Path Model 1b) 146 Table 6.5a-Direct Mediating Effects for Participation, Path Model 1a. Path Coefficients - Path Model 1a Independent Variables Dependent Interpersonal Variables Participation Relations Interpersonal Relations .246 - Organizational Commitment - .247 Table 6.5b-—Direct Mediating Effects for Participation, Path Model 1b. Path Coefficients - Path Model 1b Independent Variables Dependent Variables Participation Solidarity Respect Trust Trust .219 Mutual Respect .193 Solidarity .275 Organizational Commitment - .142 - .173 147 Organizational Commitment Participation Interpersonal Relations .247 0366 Job-Related Interaction Figure 6.2c-Indirect Mediating Effects for Participation When Interpersonal Relations are Combined (Path Model 1c) Trust ‘ .173 .120 [Participation] Respect _ Organizational ' ’ ' Commitment .366 Job-Related .125 Interaction .142 .167 Solidarity Figure 6.2d--Indirect Mediating Effects for Participation When Interpersonal Relations are Separate (Path Model 1d) 148 Table 6.5c--Indirect Mediating Effects for Participation, Path Model 10. Path Coefficients - Path Model 1c Independent Variables Dependent Job-Related Interpersonal Variables Participation Interaction Relations Job-Related Interaction .366 - - Interpersonal Relations - .153 Organizational Commitment - - .247 Table 6.5d-Indirect Mediating Effects for Participation, Path Model 1d. Path Coefficients - Path Model 1d Independent Variables Dependent _ Job-Related Variables Participation Interaction Trust Respect Solidarity Job-related Interaction .366 Trust - .120 Mutual Respect - .125 Solidarity - .167 Organizational Commitment - .173 - .142 149 .153. When taken separately, the path coefficients for solidarity, mutual respect, and trust are .167, .125, and .120, respectively. In turn, these interpersonal variables (either combined or taken separately) directly influence the dependent variable of organizational commitment with the exception of the mutual reSpect variable, as mentioned earlier. Tables 6.5c and 6.5d, path models 1c and 1d, summarize these results. The results for both directions of effects support the theoretical argument of this study. Mediating Effects for the Structural Variable of Formalization It was also hypothesized that the structural variable of formalization would affect organizational commitment through the mediating variables of interpersonal relations. This can be formally stated as follows: The interpersonal variables (trust, mutual respect, and solidarity) will be influenced negatively by the degree of organizational formalization and, in a highly formalized organization, interpersonal variables will reduce the level of organizational commitment. As noted in Figures 6.3a and 6.3b, the structural variable of formalization has its only effects on the interpersonal variables (combined or taken separately) indirectly through its positive direct effect on the variable of job-related interaction which, in turn, has its direct effect on the interpersonal variables. At the same time, the interpersonal variables as an overall measure or taken separately (with the exception of the mutual respect variable) have significant direct effects on the ultimate dependent variable of commitment. Tables 6.6a and 6.6b, path models 2a and 2b, summarize these Formalization .133 150 Job-Related Interaction Interpersonal Relations Organizational Commitment .24 7 Figure 6.3a-Mediating Effects for Formalization When Interpersonal Relations are Combined (Path Model 2a) Formalization .366 Job-Related1 Interaction .167 Respectl .125 SolidarityJ .173 Organizational Commitment .142 Figure 6.3b--Mediating Effects of Formalization When Interpersonal Relations are Separate (Path Model 2b) 151 Table 6.6a—-Mediating Effects for Formalization, Path Model 2a. Path Coefficients - Path Model 2a Independent Variables Dependent Job-Related Interpersonal Variables Formalization Interaction Relations Job-Related Interaction .133 - - Interpersonal Relations - .153 Organizational Commitment - - .247 Table 6.6b-Mediating Effects fOr Formalization, Path Model 2b. Path Coefficients - Path Model 2b Independent Variables Dependent Job—Related Variables Formalization Interaction Trust Respect Solidarity Job-related Interaction .133 Trust - .120 Mutual Respect - .125 Solidarity - .167 Organizational Commitment - .173 - .142 152 results. Since we hypothesized a negative effect of formalization on interpersonal relations, the ewidence is clear that support for this second hypothesis is lacking. The theoretical argument concerning the indirect effects of formalization through job-related interaction is supported, although not in the predicted direction. MediatinggEffects for the Structural Variable of Centralization Centralization, as a structural variable, was also expected to affect the ultimate dependent variable of organizational commitment through the mediating effects of the interpersonal relations variables. This can be formally stated as follows: The interpersonal variables (trust, mutual respect, and solidarity) will be influenced negatively by the degree of centralization and, in highly centralized organizations, interpersonal variables will reduce the level of organizational commitment. As previously noted, none of the structural variables has .a direct effect on organizational commitment except for centralization. As illustrated in Figures 6.4a and 6.4b, path models 3a and 3b show a ;significant direct and negative effect of centralization on organizational commitment, with path coefficients of -.108 and -.104, respectively. Although the effect is negative, as expected, there is no direct effect of centralization on interpersonal relations or indirect effect through the influence of centralization on job-related interaction. Tables 6.7a and 6.7b, path models 3a and 3b, summarize these results. So the results support neither the earlier stated hypothesis nor the propositions upon which our theoretical framework is based. 153 -.108 Organizational Centralization Commitment ‘Interpersonal Relations .247 Job-Related Interaction Figure 6.4a--Mediating Effects for Centralization When Interpersonal Relations are Combined (Path Model 3a) .174 Centralization Respect Organizational ' Commitment . Job-Related Interaction .142 .167 \Solidarity -.104 Figure 6.4b-Mediating Effects for Centralization When Interpersonal Relations are Separate (Path Model 3b) 154 Table 6.7a--Mediating Effects for Centralization, Path Model 33. Path Coefficients - Path Model 3a Independent Variables Dependent Job-Related Interpersonal Variables Centralization Interaction Relations Interpersonal Relations - .153 Job-Related Interaction - Organizational Commitment -.108 .247 - Table 6.7b-Mediating Effects for Centralization, Path Model 3b. Path Coefficients - Path Model 3b Independent Variables Dependent Job-Related Variables Centralization Interaction Trust Respect Solidarity Job-related Interaction - Trust - .120 Mutual Respect — .125 Solidarity - .167 Job-Related Interaction -.104 - .173 - .142 155 Therefore the theoretical argument and its related hypotheses should be reconsidered. A further discussion is provided in Chapter VII. Effects of Individual Characteristic Variables on the Interpersonal Variables So far we have emphasized the mediating effects of interpersonal relations on the relationship between structure and commitment, which is the primary focus of this study. It was also predicted that the quality of interpersonal relations desired by organization members is influenced by several aspects of their individual characteristics (such as age, marital status, length of service, and job satisfaction). We begin analysis of this relationship by examining the effects of these individual characteristics on the interpersonal relations variables, as illustrated in Figures 6.1a and 6.1b. As shown in Figure 6.1a (p. 141), there’ are direct paths indicating significant direct effects of job satisfactflna and education on the variables of interpersonal relations as a combined measure, with a positive path coefficient of .178 and a negative path coefficient of -.123, respectively. Job satisfaction also has a significant direct effect on the organizational commitment variable, as shown in Figure 6.1a. None of the other individual characteristic variables except for length of service has a significant direct effect on either interpersonal relations as a combined set or on commitment. With the variables of interpersonal relations taken separately, the story is quite different. In Figure 6.1b (p. 142), the direct paths show that job satisfaction has a significant direct effect on interpersonal relations only when indexed by the variable of mutual respect, with a path coefficient of .153. Length of service has a 156 significant direct effect on interpersonal relations only when indexed by the solidarity variable, with a path coefficient of .169. The personal characteristics of age and marital status show significant direct effects on interpersonal relations only when indexed by the trust variable. In Figure 6.1b, the direct paths show that age has a significant positive effect on trust, with a path coefficient of .286, and marital status has a significant but negative direct effect, with a path coefficient of -.131. None of the other individual characteristics variables except these have significant direct effects on the interpersonal relations variables. Education, for example, which was included in model 6.1a, drops out of this model. Although our expectation was that the desired interpersonal relations would be influenced by the individual characteristic variables, the apparent differences in their effects require some comment. On the one hand, the effects on the interpersonal relations variables as a combined measure are exclusively for two aspects of the individual characteristic variables. That is, job satisfaction and education were the only predictors of interpersonal relations among individual variables, with an increase in job satisfaction predicting an increase in the quality of interpersonal relations, and with an increase in education showing a decrease in the quality of interpersonal relations. Direct paths in Figure 6.1a are the source of this conclusion. On the other hand, the effects on interpersonal variables as separate measures are mixed. Each of the characteristic variables of job satisfaction and length of stay affect individually the interpersonal respect and solidarity, respectively. Thus, job 157 satisfaction is only associated with the variable of mutual respect, whereas the solidarity variable is associated with length of service. In contrast, interpersonal trust is affected by the personal characteristics variables of age and marital status. These patterns of findings are both more pronbunced and more consistent across the different studies of commitment (Brief & Aldag, 1980; Buchanan, 1974; Hall & Schneider, 1972; Hrebiniak, 1971; Penley & Hawkins, 1985; and Welsh & LeVan, 1981). Presumably the effects of these variables (”1 commitment reflect processes of growth and change in the development of commitment. It. is possible that job satisfaction serves as an intervening variable in the interpersonal relations—commitment relationship in the sense that it would be difficult for individuals to embed their ego identity and growth in an satisfaction and commitment) are related to and the period of time required for such a relationship to develop in order to establish the order of priority for these variables in a processual sequence. Job satisfaction has been conceptualized as an independent, mediating and dependent variable in relation to commitment. Wiener (1982) suggests that job satisfaction. may serve as 2"] intervening variable in the job characteristics-commitment relationship. Hall and Schneider (1972) found that job satisfaction served as a mediating variable in the relationship between job challenge and commitment. We will therefore examine evidence bearing on our expectation that job satisfaction serves as an important mediating variable between organizational structure and commitment, as a supplementary model. It 161 is necessary, however, to identify a conceptual model that helps integrate and ’tie together previous research into a more coherent framework before determining such mediating effects. Mediating Effects of Job Satisfaction According to Wiener (1982), an important conceptual deficiency has been the failure to specify theoretical relationships in the link between commitment and job satisfaction. Both variables represent affective aspects of individual attitudinal responses to organizations, and seem to be linked to similar antecedents and consequences. Mowday, Porter and Steers (1982) also stated: "The general theoretical ambiguity associated with most previous research on commitment is evident when it is considered that many, if not all, of the antecedents of commitment have also been investigated as determinants of job satisfaction" (p. 58). As for the possibility that differences in characteristics other than job satisfaction and length of service account for the explanation of variation in organizational commitment, we must recognize that controlling for the characteristics of age, marital status, education, salary and position made no significant independent contribution to explain the variation in organizational commitment. It may well be that an organization's members, throughout their service in an organization, will continue to perceive and evaluate their experiences with work conditions in terms of how much these (experiences contribute to their overall job satisfaction. They will continue to use general work conditions as their reference criteria 162 for such evaluation, since these conditions are considered to be the main source of work experience. In their analysis of the commitment construct, based on available theory and research, Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979) indicated that commitment as a mode of orientation to an organization can be distinguished from other apparently similar modes, such as job satisfaction, in five ways: 1) Commitment as a construct is more global, reflecting a general affective response to the organization as a whole. 2) Job satisfaction, on the other hand, reflects one's response either to one's job or to certain aspects of one's job. 3) Commitment emphasizes attachment to the employing organization, including its goals and values. 4) Satisfaction emphasizes the specific task environment where an employee performs his duties. 5) Commitment is more stable over time than job satisfaction. The level of job satisfaction may be influenced by day-to—day events in the work place, but these events should not cause one to reevaluate his continuing participation in an organization (Mowday et al., 1979:220; see also Mowday et al., 1982; and Porter et al., 1974). Maehr and Braskamp (1986) sum up the differences between these constructs in terms of the pattern of significant personal incentives in the sense that they are not identical for commitment and satisfaction. Commitment is more closely associated with the interpersonal dimensions of social concern and affiliation whereas job satisfaction is nmre closely aligned with task and power dimensions. 163 Also, commitment is more closely associated with. a high sense of self-reliance than is job satisfaction (Maehr & Braskamp, 1986:121). In sum, job satisfaction means an evaluation of the work or organization, i.e., the individual's affective state and evaluation of organizational structure, practices, procedures and/or evaluation of the outcomes derived from organization participation. The affective and evaluative aSpects include satisfied, dissatisfied, good, bad, ‘just, and unjust kinds of reactions to structure, practices and procedures (Schneider, 1975:464). However, job satisfaction is more transitory in nature than commitment (Welsch & LeVan, 1981). In light of this conceptual analysis, organizational commitment should be related to but‘distinct from job satisfaction. Porter et al. (1974), Mowday et al. (1979), and Maehr and Braskamp (1986) demonstrate that job satisfaction and organizaitonal commitment are distinct concepts. Of equal importance is Marsh and Mannari's (1977) and Welsch 8: LeVan's (1981) proposition that job satisfaction is a determinant of organizational commitment. They' also support this proposition empirically (see also Bluedorn, 1982; Ferris & Aranya, 1983; Goldhaber et al., 1978; and Wiener, 1982). Thus it would seem that the results of the research to date indicates that it is possible to operationally distinguish job satisfaction from organizational commitment and that job satisfaction may positively affect commitment. Coupled with our previous reported result we can safely conclude that job satisfaction exerts a reasonably powerful role as a determinant of organizational commitment. It remains important to identify the influence of organizational structure on job satisfaction as a necessary condition for the mediating effect to occur. 164 Organization Structure and Job Satisfaction As for the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment, our view, so far, is that commitment is more likely to follow job satisfaction than the reverse. This means that an employee is committed to the organization to the extent that he derives satisfaction from his job. Job satisfaction, as mentioned earlier, refers to the evaluation of organizational structure, procedures and practices or the outcomes attained from organizational participation (Schneider, 1975:464). This suggests that the person's satisfaction with his job will be influenced by his work environment and may form more rapidly than his commitment, which requires global evaluations about his relationship to the working organization over a longer period of time (Porter et al., 1974; Mowday et al., 1979; also Mowday et al., 1982). The argument makes the most sense when we recall that the role of organization structure on job satisfaction has been of interest to social scientists in. the same manner in which structure affects attitudes such as commitment, although less work has been done with respect to the latter (commitment). Compared to the extensive research on job satisfaction, there have been relatively few attempts to operationally define and systematically investigate the effect of structure on commitment. A rich literature suggests how structural variation can affect job satisfaction and employeer‘behavior (Bluedorn, 1982; Cummings 1& Berger, 1976; Oskamp, 1984; Porter 8: Lawler, 1965). The structural variables of participation, decentralization, centralization and 165 formalization are aspects of working conditions that contribute to satisfaction and dissatisfaction on the job (Cummings & Berger, 1976; Hall, 1982; McGregor, 1960; Patchen, 1970; Vroom, 1960; see also Mohr, 1982 for review). I Most commentators agree that employees desire and gain satisfaction from increased involvement in matters of direct relevance to their own work activities (Lischeron & wall, 1975:501). Advocates of "participative management" (Argyris, 1964, 1970, 1971; Likert, 1967; McGregor, 1960) share the assumption that the extent of participation in decision making has a substantial impact upon employee attitudes, beliefs, and motivations (Siegel 8: Ruh, 1973:318). McGregor (1960) contends that participation provides an opportunity for employee satisfaction by integrating employees into the organization. He further sees this as contributing to a sense of controlling one's destiny and gaining satisfaction and recognition from peers and superiors. Participation also enables personal needs to be satisfied. French, Israel and Dagfinnas (1960) comment that participation "satisfies such important social needs as the need for recognition and appreciation and the need for independence. These satisfactions and, in addition, the improvements in their jobs that are introduced through participation lead to higher job satisfaction" (p. 5). Further, participation can be ego-enhancing because it satisfies such important social-psychological needs as the need for recognition, appreciation, consideration and the need for self-determination or interdependence. "In fact, those who are in positions of power often elicit behavior on the part of others which implies respect and 166 consideration (Tannenbaum, 1969). Thus, it would be difficult for individuals to embed their ego identity and growth in a job with which they are not satisfied (Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1975). Participation, in other words, facilitates their ego involvement and the development of positive attitudes toward the organization through the mediating effects of job satisfaction. Consistent with these assumptions, the research literature reveals evidence of a positive relationship between participation and job satisfaction. In an extensive review of the relationship of structure to job satisfaction, Cummings and Berger (1976) concluded that: "Decentralization (which can be regarded as a measure of participation) has been shown to generate less alienation from work, less dissatisfaction with work, greater satisfaction with supervision--evidently job satisfaction increases as decentralization progresses" (p. 46). Aiken and Hage (1966) found that employees in the more participative organizations express higher levels of satisfaction with respect to their work and their supervisors. In assessing the usefulness of trust and participation in predicting satisfaction among a college faculty, Driscoll (1978) found that increasing level of participation is associated with greater overall satisfaction with the organization as well as with specific satisfaction with participation itself. Satisfaction in the organization is also thought to be negatively related to centralization and formalization because opportunities to participate in decision making, identification with overall organization goals, and a sense of identifiable achievement decreases as centralization increases, and because formalization may 167 limit job scepe which results in boredom, alienation, and, in turn, job dissatisfaction (Forehand a. Gilmer, 1964; Hackman a. Lawler, 1971). Moreover, the degree of formalization and centralization in an organization indicates management's view of its members. In a highly formalized organization, the members are viewed as incapable of making their own decisions and requiring a large number of rules to guide their behavior. Likewise, in a highly centralized organization, the members are not trusted to make decisions or evaluate themselves. In contrast, less centralized situations indicate a greater willingness to permit the members to carry out their activities in a more autonomous way (Hall, 1982:115). Hence, the result will be as described by French, Israel, and Dagfinnas (1960): When management accords the workers participation in any important decision, it implies that workers are intelligent,- competent, valued partners. Thus participation directly affects such aspects of worker-management relations as the perception of being valued, the perception of common goals, and cooperation. It satisfies such important social needs as the need for recognition and appreciation and the need for independence. These satisfactions, and in addition the improvement in their jobs that are introduced through participation, lead to higher job satisfaction. (p. 5) Knowing that organization structure and job satisfaction are related in the same manner in which structure affects commitment is a conclusion with important theoretical and empirical implications. In addition to these theoretical and empirical considerations, it is logical to assume that structural variations may affect commitment through their effects on job satisfaction, since commitment is influenced by job satisfaction and job satisfaction is influenced by organization structure. Alternatively stated, job satisfaction will mediate the structure-commitment relationship in the same manner it 168 was suggested, originally, for the mediating effects of interpersonal relations. The consistent relationship between organization structure and job satisfaction strongly supports the inclusion of job satisfaction in the process leading to organizational commitment. Mediating Effects of Job Satisfaction Because correlations between the structural variables (participation and centralization) and job satisfaction are significant, a test of the supplementary model (where job satisfaction mediates the structure-commitment relationship) begins with Table 6.8. The significant explained variation in job satisfaction (R2 .-. .337) accounted for by these structural variables, when other variables which are considered to affect satisfaction are held constant, indicates support for the supplementary model. Table 6.8 indicates that participation has a significant direct effect on job satisfaction, following in descending order by monthly salary, centralization, interpersonal relations, and job-related interaction with positive path coefficients of .237 and .182, a negative path coefficient of -.173, and positive coefficients of’ .162 and .131, respectively. When controlling for only background characteristics, participation has a significant direct effect. on job satisfaction, followed in descending order by monthly salary and centralization, with positive path coefficients of .340 and .209, and a negative path coefficient of -.169, respectively, and the explained variation in job satisfaction decreased slightly to .288. When other variables, namely, background characteristics, job-related interaction and interpersonal relations are uncontrolled, 169 m eooashea Auvee afloaemmoe u see m 0mm u momma .02 m u we ooo. vu m :zm.wm u m Amso.v weAmmm.v Amoco.v Aooo0.v Apooo.v APooo.v Aoooo.v cofipommmficmm moo. 5mm. homom. Nor. Fme. mpp.u smm. now rum m zpmamm mcofiumaom cowuomcoucH cofiumuaammpcoo :ofipmcHOHucmm oHanLm> m Hmconnoapoch now pcovcoaon moanmanm> ucovcoaoccH mueoaomaeooo noes .eomooeeaapem see so mooocem oooeaonum.o oases 170 the effects increased dramatically, with significant coefficients of .406 for participation and -.204 for centralization, but the explained variance decreased dramatically (R2 = .257). Formalization and other background characteristics yield no significant effects in either case, as mentioned above. Since formalization is proposed to lead to lower satisfaction (Forehand 8: Gilmer, 1964; James & Jones, 1976), and at the same time is reported 1x: have moderate interaction with centralization (Hage & Aiken, 1967, as well as in this study), one may suggest that the effect of formalization on job satisfaction may be obtained through its effects on centralization. We consider that formalization is described as deleterious to satisfaction when important task characteristics were deleted from jobs because of high task prescription or lack of autonomy (James & Jones, 1976:106). While this possibility cannot be ruled out completely, it seems very unlikely that the causal relations should go in this direction. We cannot confirm such a suggestion since there is no tangible evidence of direct effects of formalization on job satisfaction. House and Rizzo (1972), however, have reported findings that suggest role clarity is an. important intervening variable linking formalization with job satisfaction. This particular study may provide an alternative explanation concerning the effect of formalization on job satisfaction. Moderating Effects on Job Satisfaction Ritchie (1974) summarizes several conditions moderating the effects of participation on satisfaction such as the individual having 171 relevant information, experiencing little status or expertise differential, and benefiting from the trust and support of their superiors. Ritchie and Miles (1970) hypothesized that the main effects of participation on satisfaction with the supervisor would be mediated by the supervisor's confidence in his subordinates. Klauss and Bass (1982) argued that communication style creates a credible image in the eyes of others which, in turn, increases satisfaction with the communicator. At a broader level, interpersonal communication is also seen to influence general satisfaction with the job. That is, credibility of the communicating person is conceived as an intervening factor (the degree of being trustworthy, informative, dynamic) that determines the nature and extent of the effects of the communication style on the individual's general satisfaction. Their argument was supported (see also Penley 8. Hawkins, 1985). Moreover, Driscoll (1978) and Roberts and O'Reilly (1974) found a positive relationship between trust and job satisfaction. Consistent with these cited assumptions and related studies are our results regarding the direct effects of job-related interaction and interpersonal relations on job satisfaction, since job satisfaction is influenced by participation and centralization. At the same time, it has its direct positive effect on organizational commitment. In other words, job satisfaction mediates the relationship between organizational structure and commitment. We suggest, however, that interpersonal. relations and job-related variables influence the mediating effect of job satisfaction on organizational commitment. With high interaction on the job and positive interpersonal relations, the level of job satisfaction 172 increases. In turn, commitment to the employing organization increases. Another striking result is the effect of salary on job satisfaction. Salary is the only individual characteristic which has a significant direct effect on job satisfaction. On the other hand, it has no significant direct effect on commitment. Thus, the absence of direct effect may be explained through the salary effect on job satisfaction since salary is defined empirically as 23 major determinant of job satisfaction and job satisfaction, in this study, has a significant direct effect on commitment. There are theoretical reasons to doubt that increases in salary will always be associated with high, commitment” In general, any characteristics of a person's job situation which reduce the responsiblity he feels will reduce his commitment (Salancik, 1983: 205). According to Salancik, many job situation characteristics can affect. a person's .perceptions of responsibility. Some positions simply carry more responsibility and persons in higher positions tend to be more committed because these positions offer more discretion and self-determination. Moreover, Salancik suggested that when instrumental rewards (such as pay) for work are salient it reduces the person's felt responsibility. As a result the person becomes less committed. Because of higher pay, workers were attached to larger firms. Consequently, this instrumental orientation, led to little personal involvement with the organization (Ingham, 1970, cited in Salancik, 1983:206). Salary, however, is predicted to be positively associated with job satisfaction and commitment. Yet, even here there is conflicting 173 evidence. Empirical support for such a prediction is weak, suggesting that better-paying positions are not necessarily associated with higher commitment in organizations (Mowday et al., 1982:60). In addition, there is some research to suggest that perceived pay equity is a more important determinant of commitment than level of pay (of. Mowday et al., 1982). Such a statement implies that satisfaction with pay may determine the person's level of commitment rather than the pay itself. Since pay is one of the most important determinants of job satisfaction (Oskamp, 1984), and job satisfaction, as we argued previously and supported empirically, is a major determinant of organizational commitment, we could conclude that whether or not pay will lead to greater commitment depends on whether or not the person is satisfied withhis level of pay. Hence, we suggest that pay or salary may serve as a moderating variable in the job satisfaction- commitment relation. Higher pay increases satisfaction which, in turn, increases one's commitment to his organization. Our results support such a proposition. Moderating_Effects on Job-Related Interaction Many studies have shown significant direct effects of age, organizational level, and education on organizational commitment, but our present study did not. In an effort to reconcile this apparent failure, the present study sought to examine the possible moderating effects of these variables on job-related interaction as an alternative explanation of their effects on organizational commitment. As evidenced by our argument and the related results, the relationship between organizational structure and interpersonal 174 relations was moderated by a third variable, namely, job-related interaction. However, interactions among, organization -members are heavily permeated by the effects of individual characteristics (Gabarro, 1987). Personal characteristics and needs of interactants in task—oriented communication seem to mediate their desire for and perceptions cn? superior-subordinate communication (Jablin, 1982:1203; Eisenberg et al., 1983; Rothwell & Costigan, 1975). For example, Rothwell and Costigan (1975) wrote: "The use of instrumental communication tends to vary inversely with age and status of the persons involved. The older and the higher the status a person has, the more he tends to request [or demand] of others" (p. 22). The same thing can be said about job-related interaction, since job-related interaction seems to be relatively directive in nature in the sense that it functions to a great extent on the instrumental level with supervisors delegating responsibilities and sending directives to subordinates. In this analysis, Table 6.9 indicates that, with the exception of education, the characteristics of job satisfaction, length of service, organizational level or position, and age, besides the structural variable of participation, have significant direct effects on the job-related interaction variable. It is thus possible that the amount and content of job-related interaction is a function of both one's age, position in the hierarchy, length of service, satisfaction with the job, and participation in the work; Our discussion is limited to the moderating effects of age and position. Since job—related interaction has been reported to have its effects on organizational commitment through its direct effects on the 175 Table 6.9-—Direct Effects on Job-Related Interaction. Path Coefficients Independent Variables Dependent Partici- Job Length of Mg. Suprv. 2 Variable pation Satis. Service Post. Position Age R Rd Job- _ Related .21985 .1473 -.260 .315 .142 .193 .238 .762 Interaction (.00001) (.005) (.0002) (.00001) (.009) (.003)(.226)(.774) F = 21.931 P =< .000 df = 5 No. Cases = 390 *Rd = residuals **(-) adjusted R2 interpersonal variables, the effects of age and organizational level on commitment might be explained through their moderating effects on job-related interaction. Ina essence, Table 6.9 suggests that age and position. have direct effects on. job-related interaction, i.e., the older and the higher the position a person has, the more he tends to interact with others on the task. Thus, the pattern of the relationship between age and job-related interaction is similar to that obtained for position. There is an overall trend for job-related interaction to increase with age and this trend holds across different types of positions. The content and frequency of interaction will affect the quality of interpersonal relations desired by the organization member. Increasing the quality of interpersonal relations is assumed to bring about increased commitment to the organization. In the same manner, we could explain the failure to obtain significant direct effects of education level on organizational commitment. Table 6.3a indicates that the level of education 176 has a negative direct effect on the variables of interpersonal relations as a combined set with a path coefficient of -.123. Regardless of the organization structure, the interpersonal relations variable has been defined as one of the most determinant factors of organizational commitment. Increasing the level of education leads to a decrease in the quality of interpersonal relations, thereby leading to decreased organizational commitment. This reverse relationship may result from the fact that the more highly educated individuals have higher expectations that the organization may be unable to meet. In our case, we assume that among these expectations is the quality of interpersonal relations desired by organization members of a high education level. Parenthetically, it should be noted that the individual characteristics shown in Figure 6.5 may interact with one another, for example, age, education and length of stay may influence one's position which, in turn, may affect job—related interaction. This is because older people have been with the organization longer; they probably occupy higher positions, and this leads to a high degree of involvement in job-related interaction by virtue of their authority. In turn, their interaction with others will influence the quality of interpersonal outcomes which influence, finally, their commitment to the work organization. In their discussion of the effects of age, education, and seniority on the communication process, Klauss and Bass (1982) comment: Such factors as age, education, and seniority, however, present some difficulties in that they may not represent critical distinctions of importance. For example, education may in some instances act somewhat as a surrogate for status 177 or other considerations. Thus, Allen (1967) found that in small R A D labs, Ph.D.s formed tightly knit groups and seldom met with non-Ph.D.s socially or regarding technical matters. In this instance, education may have taken On a status value, which in turn influenced communication patterns. Similarly, age and seniority may incorporate many interrelated elements including experience, organizational level, and motivational needs [Goldhaber et al., 19781. (p. 26) Since the mediating effects of interpersonal relations on commitment are our primary concern here, these variables are relevant only as they individually influence factors affecting commitment; namely, job-related interaction, which influences commitment through its role as a moderating variables between organization structure and interpersonal relations. Thus, we could conclude that the apparent failure to find direct effects of age, position, and education level on organizational commitment can be reconciled by the explanation that the effects of these variables on commitment can be obtained through the moderating effects of age and position on job-related interaction and the 'moderating effect of education on the interpersonal relations variables as a combined set. Figure 6.5 supports our position. Analysis of all of the effects of individual characteristics is clearly beyond the scope of this study. It is, however, worth noting that controlling for the individual characteristics on job-related interaction results in the absence of direct effects of formalization on job-related interaction and in the decline of the effect of participation on interaction from .367 to .220. One may conclude that formalization has little effect on job-related interaction (.133) if individual characteristics are not controlled; when controlled for individual characteristics, such effects dramatically diminished. 178 This may be an example of a suppressor effect (Darlington, 1968), in which Two variables have a small zero-order relationship but when additional variables positively related to each of them are entered into the equation their partial relationship becomes negative, thus suppressing or cancelling out the positive relationship between them created by the introduction of the additional variables. (Kalleberg, 1974, p. 315) The correlation matrix in Table 6.1 supports such a notion. For example, formalization has appositive relationship of .105 with job-related interaction and organizational position has. a positive relation of .065 and .2T7. But the positive effect of formalization on job-related interaction is cancelled out by the introduction of the third variable, namely, position. A substantive interpretation for this is that formalization has two types of effects on job-related interaction--a positive direct one, in that higher formalization leads to higher involvement in job-related interaction, or a positive indirect effect through organizational level, which is a function of the degree of formalization in the organization, especially if we conceive organizational structure in terms of the formal or required hierarchical and lateral linkages between organizational positions (Klauss & Bass, 1982). Figure 6.5 shows the supplementary model of mediating effects of job satisfaction on organizational structure and commitment, and the moderating effects of other variables on such effects. Figures 6.6a and 6b show the mediating effect of job satisfaction on the structural variables of participation and centralization, respectively, and Table 6.10a, path model 4a, and Table 6.10b, path model 4b, summarize the coefficients of these effects. oHomHLm> cofiumosuo coHpHmoQ snomfi>comsm "mm cofiugmoq Hmwcommcms oofi>nom mo summed oaomwpm> omm oHomHLm> sunfish .moaooaso> eoueaom eoeoo co ueoaem meaoeeoeoz on» cam coHuommmHnmm now mo muoommm wcwpmfico: on» mo Homo: >nmucosoaqosmllm.c oczmwm >< m: >m “moaomHLm> on mom aoP.I €Z1" 961° lZVI' 918' 179 >m. > In: 0.. (D Ea cofiuomnoucH oopmaomlnow nuamitmmog suoiieIaH {BUOSJadJaiuI ¢om. cowuomhmfiumm now >:—. CNN. ozm. cam. Participation .237 180 Organizational Commitment .311 Job Satisfaction Figure 6.6a-—Mediating Effects of Job Satisfaction for Participation (Path Model 4a) Centralization Organizational Commitment .311 Job Satisfaction Figure 6.6b--Mediating Effects of Job Satisfaction for Centralization (Path Model 4b) 181. Table 6.10a-Mediating Effects of Job Satisfaction for Participation, Path Model 4a. Path Coefficients - Path Model 4a Independent Variables Dependent Variables Participation Job Satisfaction Job Satisfaction .237 - Organizational Commitment - .311 Table 6.10b-Mediating Effects of Job Satisfaction for Centralization, Path Model 4b. Path Coefficients - Path Model 4b Independent Variables Dependent Variables Centralization Job Satisfaction Job Satisfaction -.173 - Organizational Commitment - .311 182 Evidence of Reciprocal Effects In the preceding sections we attempted, where feasible, to examine evidence bearing on our expectations that interpersonal relations as well as the supplementary variable of job satisfaction may serve as mediating variables in the relationship between organization structure and commitment. In both cases, the basic and the supplementary, the expectations held true for the structural variable of participation. Because of its impact on interpersonal relations as well as job-related interaction which may result from participating, greater employee participation will lead 1x: stronger feelings of commitment to the organization. Also, participation leads to higher job satisfaction and hence increases one's commitment to the employing organization. For the structural variable of centralization, the mediating effect held true only for job satisfaction in the relationship between organization structure and commitment, in the sense that increasing centralization in the working organization leads to less satisfaction. A low level of satisfaction reduces the employee's sense of commitment. No evidence of a mediating effect on the relationship between formalization and organizational commitment was found in HO>CH WOHQQHLG> Own—wme HH< Lou mafiaaocucoo .moanmanm> Lona: m.zospm on» w:o&¢ mpoomwm HmooLquomnup.o ocsmfim oanmficm> cofipmufiamnucoo oanmwcm> coHpmNfiHmsLom oHanLm> cofiamcwofiunmq >0 >m >m "moaomflgm> on mox cOHuommmHumm now 9 I saw . oNH. L coauomuopcw woumHmHIQOth me. mcfi. Juamiimmog uoiqetag Iauosxadlaiul mom. 185 commitment is present (in part generated by participation through the mediating effects of interpersonal relations or job satisfaction), a reciprocal pattern of effects occurs such that more participation leads to greater commitment which leads, in turn, to more participation through the same mediating paths. The exception is that the higher satisfaction leads to lower centralization; i.e., higher commitment leads to a low level of centralization through the mediating effects of job satisfaction. Further discussion of this result is provided in the following chapter. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION The present study involved identifying a major variable among explicit in the antecedents of organizational commitment, namely: interpersonal relations, as well as specifying its relation to the effects of organization structure by determining whether interpersonal relations, as an outcome of organization structure, serves to increase or to reduce organizational commitment. A series of individual variables also were explored to measure their impact upon the attitudinal outcome of commitment. We have attempted to integrate the available evidence into a systematic conceptual model of organizational commitment. In essence, it is suggested that the nature of the organization structure (degree of participation, formalization, and centralization) interacts with employee expectations (reflected by quality of interpersonal relations of organization member) to determine commitment to organizations, under the assumption that the variations in organization structure, in terms of degree of its formalization, centralization, or participation, will contribute to the quality of interpersonal relations of its members. In turn, the quality of interpersonal relations will determine the individual's commitment to his organization. Alternatively stated, interpersonal relations are assumed to mediate the structure-commitment relationship. The general argument 186 187 developed in the present study was that the quality of interpersonal relations and the amount of job-related interaction eXperienced by the organization member will be, to a great extent, influenced by the type of organization structure he encountered. In turn, the quality of interpersonal relations, either directly or through the moderating effects of job-related interaction, were expected to be of particular importance in encouraging commitment to continuing participation in the employing organization. It was expected that organization structure with a high degree of centralization and formalization will lead to negative interpersonal relations experienced by the organization member while the exact opposite quality of interpersonal relations is suggested for organization with less centralized and less formalized but more participative structure. Positive interpersonal relations will lead the individual to be more committed to his organization than the negative ones. Also, we tentatively argued that the quality of these interpersonal relations on the work place will be moderated by the individual characteristics of individual members in the sense that individuals may differ in their personal and social needs and desires. With some exceptions, the findings of the present study were generally consistent with the basic argument and the results suggest that the model may be a reasonable means of describing the way in which organization structure is linked to organizational commitment. With respect to the hypotheses involved in the basic model, the findings suggested that: First: Regardless of organizational structure, interpersonal relations (combined or taken separately) had independent direct 188 effects on the ultimate dependent variable of organizational commitment, as indicated by increasing commitment to organization as the quality of interpersonal relations increases, but such impact cannot. be generalized to all aspects of interpersonal relations, particularly the interpersonal variable of mutual respect. However, the components of interpersonal relations are highly intercorrelated and have mutual effects upon each other. Second: With one exception (centralization), the structural variables had little direct influence on the individuals' commitment to their organization. The independent direct effects of participation and formalization on organizational commitment were found to be insignificant. Centralization, on the other hand, has a significant direct effect on commitment, although it is slight. But it has no direct effects on interpersonal relations or indirect effects through the moderating effects of job-related interaction, as was suggested by our basic model. In contrast, formalization was found to have a significant effect on interpersonal relations, not directly but through its effect on the level of job-related interaction, although the effect was slight and positive, which is contrary to what we expected. On the other hand, participation has significant positive and larger effects on interpersonal relations both directly and indirectly through the moderating effects of job-related interaction, and the quality’ of interpersonal relations, particularly' when they are combined, have significant and positive direct effects on the ultimate dependent variable of organizational commitment, as mentioned earlier. 189 Job-related interaction has a significant positive direct effect on the variables of interpersonal relations, but not directly on organizational commitment. In addition, the structural variable of formalization only has a significant direct effect on job-related interaction, whereas the variables of interpersonal relations and job-related interaction are influenced significantly and directly by the structural variable of participation. We confidently conclude that interpersonal relations function as a mediating variable in the relationship between organization structure and commitment, either directly or indirectly through the moderating effects of job-related interaction. These findings highlight the suggested theoretical model of the effect of interpersonal relations as a mediating variable between organization structure and commitment, but such effects cannot be generalized to all aspects of organization structure measured in our study, especially if we consider the failure of obtaining such effects for centralization and the absence of the effect of formalization on job-related interaction when controlling for the background characteristics of organization members. While the findings were not conclusive, they did suggest that organization structure is related to commitment under the conditions of facilitating interpersonal relations either directly or through its impact on job-related interaction which, in turn, moderates such an influence on interpersonal relations. This is particularly true in the (case of the structural variable of participation. Participation in decisions related to a person's work creates a sense of commitment to his organization through the impact of this participation on the 190 quality of interpersonal relations he experiences during his experience at work with others. Participation is assumed to be a positive experience since it enhances one's self-worth and dignity (his opinions are valued and his company is desired), and also through the moderating effect of the interaction he is involved in as a result of his continuing participation, by which he can verify his work relationship with others. M: Individual characteristics, in general, were found to be diverse in their effects on organizational commitment. On the one hand, organizational commitment is significantly and directly influenced by the characteristics of job satisfaction and length of service. Increases in these variables tend to increase the probability of obtaining a high level of organizational commitment. These results are consistent with previous findings in which job satisfaction and length of service were both more pronounced and more consistent as determinants of commitment across the different studies of commitment (cross-culturally oriented studies among them)(see Chapter II, sections 1 and 3). On the other hand, organizational commitment was not directly influenced by the differences among organization members with respect to their personal characteristics such as age, marital status, education, salary, and organizational level or position. However, the findings related to these characteristics have been mixed and entirely inconsistent across previous studies (see Mowday et al., 1982 and Ferris 8: Aranya, 1983 for review). Results of research exploring the relationship of these variables to organizational commitment are equivocal, with some studies indicating that these variables are 191 directly related to commitment (e.g., Angle & Perry, 1981; Morris 8: Steers, 1980) while other studies suggest an indirect relation or no relation at all (e.g., Hall A Schneider, 1972; Steers, 1977a). Additionally, individual characteristics were explored regarding their effects on the mediating variable of interpersonal relations and the moderating variable of job-related interaction. They function as a moderating variable in the relationship of the independent and dependent variables we are interested in. However, those variables which moderate the effect of interpersonal relations differ in their effects on the variable of interpersonal relations when the interpersonal relations were combined and when taken separately. Explanation and Discussion There are two general directions in which we may seek possible explanation for the failure to find certain expected effects. One involves the assumption that the data are valid and reliable; i.e., the structural variables and the interpersonal relations and individual characteristics were measured with reasonable accuracy. On the basis of this assumption, we would conclude that the structural variables of formalization and centralization, as well as some personal characteristics, yield no significant influence on organizational commitment in the manner suggested by the basic theoretical model of this study. The other possible explanation lies in questioning the adequacy of our basic model and the theoretical and empirical considerations upon which it is based in order to formulate an supplementary model by which we can justify our results. Testing a sujplementagy model 192 should be preceded by a thorough re-examination of the basic model. Two possibilities present themselves: (a) substituting factors in the basic model thought to be inconsistent; and (b) adding new factors to the basic model (Miller, 1970). Since the first cption is the only possibility available to us, it remains possible that other factors may be of overriding importance, that the level of organizational commitment is based on other contextual factors rather than on interpersonal relations, although interpersonal relations are important in themselves as well as in their relation to the suggested alternative factor, job satisfaction. Thus, we incorporate into our account of organizational commitment the available contextual variables which are more likely to mediate a particular set of findings we are interested in. The contextual variable of job satisfaction was introduced to function as a mediating variable in the structure-commitment relationship, since it has significant direct effects on commitment and also is influenced directly by the organization structure. Our supplementary model revealed that participation, salary, and centralization, interpersonal relations, and job-related interaction are the only determinants of job satisfaction among the variables studied. Since job satisfaction was the most striking variable in this study affecting organizational commitment, we concluded that job satisfaction is an alternative mediating variable in the relationship between organization structure and job satisfaction. Additionally, we might consider the finding of our study that indicates job satisfaction is a major determinant of interpersonal relations and is also influenced by these variables. At the same 193 time, interpersonal relations and job satisfaction are determined by job-related interaction. If this is the case, then we may further conclude that the mediating effects of job satisfaction on commitment reveal the importance of interpersonal relationships themselves as a mediating variable. Job satisfaction especially is related to the quality of the social climate associated with the place of work (Maehr 8: Braskamp, 1986; Oskamp, 1984). Moreover, co-worker relations have generally been found to be quite strongly related to general job satisfaction (Mowday et al., 1982) which, in turn, has been found to be related to organizational commitment. Thus, the mediating effects of job satisfaction can be perceived as another aspect of the mediating effect of interpersonal relations. In order to offer an explanation for the results obtained, it is necessary to describe these results further. Centralization and Commitment The most striking result associated with centralization is its significant direct effect on commitment and the mediating effects of job satisfaction on such effects. The direct significant effects of centralization imply that as the degree of control increases, commitment decreases. Centralization reduces the potential for autonomy and feedback because of the greater social distance between those who have control and authority and those who do not. The literature on perceived decentralization and participation in decision making consistently points to increased employee involvement and commitment resulting from decentralization (Morris 8: Steers, 1980; Hall, 1977; Vroom, 1960). That is, employees experiencing greater 194 decentralization felt more committed to the organization than employees experiencing this factor to a lesser extent (Mowday et al., 1982). Since the empirical justification or explanation for the effects of centralization or decentralization on commitment often has been lacking, the mediating effects of job satisfaction on centralization may help to fill this gap. In this study, centralization was found to have significant effect on commitment through the mediating effect of job satisfaction. A possible explanation which is not included in the basic model but is consistent with the supplementary one is that employees who are more satisfied with their jobs are more committed and, since job satisfaction is influenced negatively by centralization, it is possible that increasing centralization reduces commitment as a result of the mediating effect of individual satisfaction with jobs. Other studies suggest that satisfaction of individuals in the organization is. thought to be negatively related to centralization because opportunities to participate in decision making, identification with overall goals, and a sense of identifiable achievement decrease as centralization increases (Cummings a. Berger, 1976; James & Jones, 1976). These consequences are also identified as antecedents and correlates of both job satisfaction and organizational commitment. A common theme linking many variables such as job challenge, autonomy, feedback, opportunity for social interaction, group attitudes, and organizational dependability is their traditional role as antecedents and correlates of both job satisfaction and 195 organizational commitment (Mowday et al., 1982; Wiener, 1982). If a high degree of centralization does, in fact, lead to low satisfaction (and it did at least for this study), then the job characteristics and work experiences identified above would tend to be reduced or lost in the centralization processes (James 8: Jones, 1976). As a result, the level of organizational commitment will be reduced. Formalization and Commitment Like centralization, formalization was predicted to influence negatively the interpersonal variable and the resultant negative interpersonal relations was expected to reduce the level of commitment to the organization. However, the result associated with formalization most nearly conforms to an a posteriori argument relating negatively formalization to the interpersonal variable through the moderating effects of job-related interaction. Formalization was found to be related positively to interpersonal relations through job-related interaction. The significant positive effects, although small, of formalization on job-related interaction was unexpected, since it does not support the specific hypothesis relating formalization negatively to interpersonal relations. The lack of support for the hypothesis indicated by the positive relationship with formalization and interpersonal relations may be due in part to weaknesses in the assumption upon which the argument and its related hypothesis were made. It was basically assumed that formalization will affect negatively interperSonal relations either directly or indirectly through the moderating effects of job-related interaction (since formalization presumably constrains the quality of 196 interpersonal relations and restricts the frequency of interaction). In turn, commitment to the organization was expected to be reduced. However, the result was in the opposite direction. Thus it is possible that this assumption was incorrect. The findings indicate that with a high degree of formalization, job-related interaction increases, resulting in positive interpersonal relations and, consequently, a high level of commitment. With greater formality of rules and procedures, interpersonal relations experienced by individual members may develop favorably, especially for those who have a chance to interact more. As a result, employees feel more committed to the organization. Clear-cut definitions of rules, procedures, regulations, and responsibilities may make the work settings well suited for establishing a relationship of considerate behavior based on trust, mutual respect, and enduring personal obligations to each other. But, as previously noted, when controlling for the individual background characteristics (particularly position), the formalization effect declines, reaching the nonsignificant level. In contrast, organizational level cu: position, which might be considered as being 1~elated to the formalization process, has a significant positive direct effect on job-related interaction. This positive effect of position on job-related interaction may be due to the slight positive correlation between formalization and position. Higher position holders, who must engage in authority relations with others (since they are assumed to be the initiators of decisions), have a chance to interact more. Throughout their interaction at work, they will also have the opportunity to verify the 197 perceptions of others toward them, which is more likely to be favorable, at least from their perspective. As a result, they then feel more trust in others, mutual respect, and solidarity with others. In fact, the positive reactions of others, reflected in the positive interpersonal relations, may be attributed largely to their positions in the hierarchy. Employees in positions subordinate to them know that, by obeying the boss (which results in respect and cooperation with the boss), their own position may be enhanced or may initiate other benefits. The employee may find satisfaction in several important interests and needs such as recognition from the boss, independence, and group belongingness (Mohr, 1982). That is, "Organization members tend to perceive those with greater power as instrumental to the need satisfactions, hence 'lows' behave toward 'highs' in a manner designed to maximize good relations and minimize feelings of unease in their interactions with high-power persons (Read, 1962:3). This conclusion, although highly tentative, is supported by the positive correlation between formalization and position, and the positive direct effect of position on job-related interaction. This positive direct effect of position is true whether controlling for the structural variables alone or controlling for both the structural variables and other individual variables such as age, marital status, education, length of service, or job satisfaction. When controlling for the structural variables only, the effect of position is stronger than when controlling for both the structural variables and the individual characteristics; i.e., the effect decreased from .335 to .225 for the managerial position, for example. 198 Furthermore, increased formalization may influence commitment to some extent by facilitating both job and role clarity. It is interesting to note that Morris and Steers (1980) attempted to justify the direct effect of formalization on commitment in the following way: Since highly committed employees are, by definition, desirous of working hard to accomplish organization goals, the presence of written rules and procedures may help to ameliorate otherwise ambiguous situations and thereby provide a means to achieve these goals. (p. 56) Lack of formalized role descriptions have also been shown to lead to role stress, conflict, and ambiguity (House 8: Rizzo, 1972; Kahn et al., 1964; Moch, Bartunck, 8: Brass, 1979; Schuer, 1977). Confusion may center around organizational rules and regulations. The person may be uncertain about the scope of his responsibilities, about what is expected of him by others, and about what behaviors will be effective in meeting these expectations (Kahn et al., 1964; also Nicholson 8 Goh, 1983). Kahn et a1. (1964) contend that: Uncertainty about the way one is evaluated by his associates-~how satisfied they are with his behavior--is significantly related to trust, respect, and liking. The socioemotional flavor of ambiguity about interpersonal evaluations makes it a source of emotional strain and a deterrent to close supportive social relations. (p. 90) The effects of low formalization may be moderated by leadership behavior, such as providing structure in ambiguous situations (House & Rizzo, 1972), and by individual differences in reactions to (or tolerance for) ambiguity and conflict (see James 8: Jones, 1976, for review). The implication is that the negative consequences of low formalization can be avoided by the exercise of considerate behavior among work group members, which is reflected in a positive working relationship among them, i.e., display of warm personal relationships, 199 trust, respect, and willingness to explain his actions as a superior, willingness of the manager to listen to subordinates, and so forth. As for the supplementary model, we have no strong basis to suggest that formalization should predict job satisfaction. The relationship between formalization and job satisfaction is better understood if role variables are treated as intervening. Prediction of job satisfaction as a dependent variable from formalization can be improved by considering its relationship to role perceptions (House 8: Rizzo, 1972). An example would be to state that formalization should predict job satisfaction if it were associated with reduced role conflict and ambiguity. House 8: Rizzo (1972) support this assumption empirically. Hence, the absence of effect of formalization on job satisfaction may be attributed to the lack of information related to the role perception which may moderate the relationship between formalization and job satisfaction. Therefore, we were cautious in suggesting that job satisfaction may function as a mediating variable on the formalization- commitment relationship. Even our results have no indication of such a relationship. Still, high formalization is found to be related to less ambiguity, conflict, and anxiety (e.g., House 8: Rizzo, 1972; Kahn et al., 1964) and at the same time to limited job scope, resulting in boredom, alienation, low group involvement, and job dissatisfaction (Hackman 8: Lawler, 1971; Kahn et al., 1964; Pheysey et al., 1971). Thus, there may be an optimal level of formalization that reduces role ambiguity yet maintains reasonable levels of job scOpe. Such an optimal level may be functional for the individual members and the 200 organizations. (For more extensive discussion of such effects, the reader is referred to House 8 Rizzo, 1972, and Hall, 1982.) Participation and Commitment Participation's effects on interpersonal relations were as predicted, both directly and through the moderating effect of job-related interaction, and participation was found to significantly and strongly affect job satisfaction. Participation in decision making is likely to be satisfying to many organizational members, as the work of Vroom and Tannenbaum indicate. Vroom (1960) suggests that greater participation in decision making leads to employees becoming more ego-involved in their work-related outcomes. Similarly, Tannenbaum (1969) suggests that participation can be ego-enhancing. However, in his discussion of the dynamics of participation and its effects on job satisfaction, Tannenbaum states several kinds of satisfaction can be obtained from participation at work. Some of these can be summarized as follows: (1) Psychological or "symbolic" satisfaction. Individuals may derive satisfaction because of their need for self-determination or independence or power—-or as a result of whatever satisfying meanings the exercise of control may have for them. It may, for example, imply to a member that he is important, or superior or successful. In fact, individuals in positions of power often elicit behavior on the part of others which implies respect and consideration: In sum, participation reduces some of the frustrations attached to positions of low rank. It does this by increasing the authority and status of these positions, by broadening the activities of these positions and by leading the decisions that seem less arbitrary and disadvantageous. It adds some of the qualities of the managerial role to 201 nonmanagerial jobs. Participation, to some degree, brings workers into management. Thus, it affects more than their job satisfaction; it affects their motivation. (p. 99) (2) Intrinsic satisfaction: Participation is often intrinsically satisfying; for example, it may consist of group meetings that discuss interesting tOpics and make important decisions. Furthermore, it may include challenging activities that draw upon intellectual, technological, and human-relations skills. Workers may apply their knowledge and abilities to the deve10pment of new and better ways of doing their jobs. Not only is this a source of satisfaction, but it can be a source of' many practical suggestions that contribute to efficiency, safety, or improved working conditions (pp. 98-99). In other words, it would be difficult for individuals to embed their ego identity and growth in a job with which they were not satisfied. The association of satisfaction with participation in the work place may further increase the quality of interpersonal relations as well as loyalty to the organization. Participation reduces disaffection and increases the identification of members with the organization. Individuals are more likely to feel some sense of commitment and responsibility relative to tasks that are brought before them in their capacity as decision makers. . . . Participation also encourages the exchange of feelings and ideas, thus reducing discrepancies in perceptions, ideals and loyalties. (Tannenbaum, 1969:99) Frequent consultations by the boss or some say in how things are done on the job draw upon one's unique experiences and expectations. Thus, the employees are more likely to have positive interpersonal relations and satisfaction with the job depending on the adequacy of the degree of participation involving these expectations or experiences. 'Experiences of positive interpersonal relations and 202 satisfaction resulting from a high degree of participation should also lead the individual to associate important social satisfaction with organization membership. Regarding the earlier report that job satisfaction and interpersonal relations are interrelated, the operational definition of job satisfaction includes questions about an employee's satisfaction in his relations with co-workers, and that question was also added to the overall measure of interpersonal relations, it is, then, a foregone conclusion and possibly an artifact of the measures used that members having interpersonal attraction to one another will be more satisfied than those who are not. However, both measures contain many items and it is unlikely that the inclusion of one common item would entirely account for the correlations between the two variables. A Comment on Reciprocal Effects A comment may also be made here about the reciprocity that seems to exist between participation and commitment through the mediating effects of interpersonal relations and job satisfaction. More participation leads to greater commitment which, in turn, leads to more participation; not necessarily directly, but through the suggested mediating effects. While this possibility cannot be ruled out completely, it seems unlikely that the causal relation should go primarily in this direction. There seems to be ample theoretical justification for our contention that the causal effects point more forcefully in the other direction (suggested by the basic model). Participation, specifically defined in a qualitative way to mean the perception of the amount of 203 influence one has, may determine the quantity of interaction on the job and the quality of interpersonal relations. As indicated in our basic model, we were proposing that it is the level of participation on the job that influences a person's amount of interaction with others, how he trusts, respects or is respected, and the extent to which he feels close to others and that others help him. Since participation, in general, means the total process of interaction and social influence in decision making (French et al., 1960), and "the quality of interpersonal interaction is the most direct and immediate mechanism whereby people establish positive or negative feelings toward others" (Klauss 8 Bass, 1982), then participation shapes the image or perception one has of others. In turn, the resultant feelings determine the level of commitment one has for the employing organization. Commitment is affected by) the interpersonal relations experienced by the individual member, which are basically the outcome of the amount of control and influence he can exert within his own immediate workgroup. This justification is also supported by the absence of direct effect of participation on commitment and the direct effect of commitment on participation. The same concern can be applied to the reciprocal effect of commitment. on centralization through the mediating effect of job satisfaction, though the effect of job satisfaction on centralization seems unlikely to go in this reverse direction. If we are obligated to argue that everything is mutually interactive in the realm of organizational behavior, this makes the assessment of causality a difficult task (Klauss 8 Bass, 1982:44). 204 Finally, although the findings of our research concerning the moderating effects of individual characteristic variables are interesting and important, on the whole they tend to lack theoretical foundations and empirical support from other studies. Therefore, we have limited our discussion to those aspects which have such foundations. CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSIONS, SUGGESTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS This study of organizational commitment of a sample of Saudi employees at different work environments has focused on the complex relationships among organization structure, interpersonal relations, and organizational commitment. The author wishes to emphasize that the findings of this study were relatively complicated, and their interpretations are open to considerable conjecture. Alternative explanations of findings were given where possible, whether the findings were in the predicted direction or not. The study attempted to establish a causal linkage between variables where apprOpriate, although it is in large measure exploratory. The predictive power of the tested models was stronger for some of the structural variables than for others. Specifically, the basic model best predicts that interpersonal relations mediate the relationship between participation and commitment and such patterns of mediating effects increased as job-related interaction increased, since "the quality of interpersonal communication is the most direct and immediate mechanism whereby people establish positive or negative feelings toward other people" (Klauss 8: Bass, 1982:33). But these results do not hold true for the other structural variables of formalization or centralization. 205 206 Correspondingly, the predictive power of the supplementary model indicates that. job satisfaction mediates the ‘relationship between participation and organizational commitment, and the negative direct effect of centralization on commitment can be best explained by such mediating effects since centralization has its negative effect on job satisfaction. However, the supplementary model yields no support for the mediating effect on formalization. Thus the safe, conservative conclusion must be that participation causes commitment by facilitating the development of interpersonal relations and job satisfaction and these constructs, either separately or combined, explain how participation affects commitment. As peOple participate more on the job, they experience a higher quality of interpersonal relations and derive satisfaction from their jobs. In turn, these antecedents affect the degree of commitment they have for their employing organizations. Still, the findings must be viewed in tentative terms until subsequent research can more thoroughly test similar models through longitudinal designs, larger samples, and additional variables. Suggestions for Further Research Efforts directed toward model construction in this field may benefit from the findings of this study. Many studies support the finding that job satisfaction is significantly related to commitment (e.g., Buchanan, 1974; Ferris 8 Aranya, 1983; Grusky, 1966; Hrebiniak, 1971; Martin 8 O'Laughlin, 1984; Penley 8 Hawkins, 1985; and Welsch 8 LeVan, 1981). Others suggest that job satisfaction serves as an 207 intervening variable in the job characteristics-commitment relationship (Hall et al., 1972; Wiener, 1982). Apart from confirming that job satisfaction isa traditional organizationally related predictor of commitment (of. Mowday et al., 1982; Martin 8 O'Laughlin, 1984), this study adds job satisfaction as a mediating factor in the structure-commitment relationship. Further, job satisfaction intercorrelates with other mediating factors, i.e., interpersonal relations, which is traditionally perceived as an independent predictor of commitment. The need for further investigation to determine the priority effect of each is obvious. Another logical step in the model construction process would be to delineate how personal characteristics and situational factors (such as age, marital status, education, salary, and length of stay or tenure) rest within the constructed models. In. general, findings regarding the effects of these factors on organizational commitment have been mixed. Some studies indicated direct effects and others indicated indirect effects. In our study, we found only direct effects of tenure on commitment, and we attempted to explain the effects of other factors through their moderating effects on interpersonal relations or job-related interaction or even on job satisfaction (as in the case of age, marital status, education, position, and salary, respectively). Some inconclusive results obtained in prior commitment studies may be attributed, in part, to the use of different methods to measure these factors. Until these measurement issues are resolved, research involving personal and situational characteristics is apt to yield more inconclusive findings similar to the results produced to date. 208 With respect to the improvement of our models and the development of better ones, we notice that the elements of the tested models here represent many important aspects of organizational life. At the same time, many determinants of organizational commitment and other related variables involved in the study are missing. As the size of the residuals indicates, much of the variance in the path models for each set of variables is not accounted for by variables included in the model. Notably lacking are such variables as job or role-related characteristics, other work experience, even other structural characteristics. Based on the results of prior research, as well as the present study, it would seem most fruitful, for example, to examine variables which moderate the mediating effects of interpersonal relations and job satisfaction on the structural variable of formalization. Among such variables might be the characteristics of the job; more specifically, characteristics such as the degree of role ambiguity and role conflict. Some evidence for the impact of formalization on role ambiguity and role conflict as well as the impact of these characteristics on interpersonal relations and job satisfaction exist. (See, for example, House 8: Rizzo, 1972, and Nicholson 8 Goh, 1983; refer also to our discussion in Chapter VII, p. 195, concerning formalization and commitment link.) However, it should be noted, as Miller (1970) states: It must not be assumed that the size of the residual is necessarily a measure of success in explaining the phenomenon under study. The relevant question about the residual is not really its size at all, but whether the unobserved factors it stands for are properly represented as being uncorrelated with the measured antecedent factors. (p. 192) 209 Beyond this, the major factors included in the tested models are treated in a rudimentary manner. In essence, each factor represents an aggregation of many facets of organizational life which in themselves are considered to be independent factors contributing to the problem at hand. For instance, the organizational commitment scale (OCQ) includes such factors as job involvement or occupational commitment and intent to stay. Similarly, the formalization scale includes job codification and rules observation factors. Also, the job satisfaction scale has the intrinsic and extrinsic facets of the job variables, which is also true for the interpersonal scale» and the job-related interaction scale. The interpersonal scale includes the three dimensions of interpersonal relations (trust, mutual respect and solidarity) whereas job-related interaction includes scheduled and unscheduled interaction (Hage 8 Aiken, 1967; Kahn et al., 1964; Marriet et al., 1975; Mowday et al., 1979; and Patchen, 1970). All of these factors have been treated as separate facets of organizational life affecting the attitudes and behaviors cn‘ individual members (see Cummings 8 Berger, 1976; James 8 Jones, 1976; Marrett, Hage 8: Aiken, 1975; Morrow 8 McElroy, 1987; Newman, 1975; Porter 8 Lawler, 1965). Thus the aggregation of these facets in cumulative measures obscures some relationships and, hence, "limits the amount of detail provided" (Franklin, 1975b:432). The expansion of this model and others to include both a wider variety of variables and more detail for those variables which are included holds promise for greatly increasing our understanding of how and why individuals hold certain attitudes and behave in a certain way 210 in their interaction with others at work settings. However, "a more complete development of such models requires larger samples, more variables, longitudinal designs, multivariate analysis, and greater time and expense" (James 8 Jones, 1976:97). As mentioned previously, the variance in organizational commitment explained by interpersonal relations, job-related interaction, and job satisfaction has been inadequate. The large residuals in models eXplaining organizational commitment as well as interpersonal relations and job-related interaction may represent measurement error but more likely result from explanatory variables not included in the models. As pointed out in the previous chapters, organizational commitment and job satisfaction appear to reflect affective motivational responses to the organization (see also Mowday et al., 1979; Mowday et al., 1982; Porter et al., 1974; Wiener, 1982), whereas interpersonal relations appear to reflect social psychological dimensions of the individual's needs. In future research it is suggested that more of the variance in the former might be explained if the models include more psychological variables as antecedents to these factors, whereas more of the variance in the latter might be explained if the models include more socio-cultural variables as antecedents to this factor. Further, the explained variance in job-related interaction might improve if the model encompasses other dimensions of interaction, including the quality of interaction (accuracy, filtration, Openness, and so forth) and social dimensions of interaction. Another variable that should be included in future research, organizational level or position, may play an important role in 211 determining organizational commitment, although, in this study, there was no direct effect of organizational level on commitment. However, this might be attributed, in part, to the relative homogeneity of the sample studied with reSpect to this variable (i.e., most were at the supercisory level). Still, there were effects of organizational level on commitment obtained through its effects on job-related interaction, as was explained in Chapter VI. Further studies are needed to determine the causal basis for the relationship which has been found between organizational level and commitment, through a research design which considers broader differences in organizational level within organizations and across different types of organizations. A characteristic of Saudi society mentioned in Chapter I should also be examined in further studies. Saudi society is a developing society. A shortage of skill, deficiencies ‘in training, lack of resources, and poor communications constitute obstacles to effective administration. But more important may be the cultural factors which hinder attempts to introduce administrative practices (Milne, 1970: 62). Thus, there is a great possibility that loyalty to one's own interests, family, clique or friends transcends loyalty to an organization. Questions 14-17 in our questionnaire dealt with these issues. However, the pattern of responses obtained for these questions was diverse and the majority of responses did not correspond with the required format for answering the questions, particularly questions 16 and 17. In some cases, these questions were not answered. But in most cases, the subjects selected only one or two responses which seemed to correspond to the objective criteria in the 212 selection or promotion of employees (e.g., qualifications, seniority) and ignored the possibility of influence of traditional cultural values. There are two general directions in which we may seek explanations for this pattern of responses. One involves the possibility that the responses were accurate, to some extent, and indicated the relative absence of cultural influence, especially if we consider the nature of the organizations selected. These organizations are all public enterprises. They are autonomous in their missions and operations. So they must be distinguished from public bureaucracies in the sense that there is greater harmony between the expectations and interests of the individual member and the goals and interests of the organization, which may positively affect commitment and lessen traditional cultural influences. Such influences may characterize more the public bureaucracies (see, for example, Al-Awaji, 1971). The other possible direction has to do with the adequacy of our questions. The questions proved to be sensitive and should be constructed in such a way that yields the desired reSponses without arousing suspicion or sensitivity. As is well known, extensive follow-up procedures are needed in survey research to offset such problems as misinterpretation of the questions and low return rates. These problems are particularly acute when working with populations of employees in the Third World. As previously noted, 38% of the eligible subjects returned usable questionnaires in this study. Only general impressions of the extent of bias due to non-returns, or response error could be ascertained, partly as a result of the 213 sensitivity of the topic to the subjects involved. At least from this perspective, questions about a person's attitudes toward others associated with him (particularly if those are significant, such as his supervisors, superior, and so on) at work and his attitudes toward the employing organization carry a threat to his self-interest at work and even his employment. Because of the strong possibility that we did not get valid responses to questions 14-17, the answers to these questions were deleted from the analysis. Still, the question of the possibility of commitment to an organization transcending loyalty to one's interests, family, clique, or friends remains important and unanswered. Research is needed to determine such effects and other effects on commitment related to the most crucial variables that characterize Saudi society which may be important in stimulating commitment among Saudis in relation to the type of organization for which they work. It would seem to be most fruitful to identify other potential determinants related to Saudi culture. Religious commitment, for example, has an immediate impact upon Saudi life which may include work involvement and attachment to certain types of organizations. IIt is a vital yet unexplored aspect of organizational commitment. But the author emphasizes that there should be a distinction between religious values and other cultural traditions, especially if we consider that Islam as a religion is a comprehensive way’ of life. People» mix Islamic values with their traditional practices, so those who have an interest in explicating the concept of commitment within such a sphere must be cautious in distinguishing what is or is not religious and how it contributes to the problem at hand. 214 A considerable amount of recent organizational literature has been concerned with the topic of organizational climate. But there is disagreement concerning the components of organizational climate. On the one hand, climate dimensions have included both structure and interpersonal relations. On the other hand, there are studies in which a distinction between structure and climate (e.g., support, morale, satisfaction) is made. The assumption is that if practices or structure creates a climate, then there should be a separate climate for each distinct set of practices or structure (see Poole, 1985:82). In our case, the findings seem to correspond with the latter view. That is, organizational structure creates climate (interpersonal relations and job satisfaction). Therefore, it is important to distinguish between them. Finally, in any study of causal linkages between any set of variables, the use of cross-sectional data is admittedly a poor man's substitute for longitudinal data (Barnes, 1975; Klauss 8 Bass, 1982). The latter is, of course, both costly and difficult to obtain in survey studies, particularly so with Saudi pOpulations. Nevertheless, it would be fruitful in future research to retest similar models using longitudinal data and a cross-cultural sample. Major Contributions The findings of this study seem to add some to organizational literature that has relied primarily on organization structure as a predictor of organizational commitment. The theoretical models developed for this study are simple logical approaches that organize previous concrete findings and extend and formalize some basic 215 concepts of organizational literature and research which have been shown to have inconsistent results with respect to the relationships involved. The tested models, on the other hand, extend our knowledge of the relationship between organizational situations and individual attitudinal and behavioral outcomes by exploring and confirming the resultant outcomes of the structure-attitudes relationship. A major consideration is the nature of previous evidence supporting the structure-commitment relationships. There are .primary differences between the nature of the relations in this study and most previously examined relations. Most previous studies (e.g., Morris 8 Steers, 1980; Stevens et al., 1978) only examined the direct effects of structure on commitment. This study includes work experiences of interpersonal relations and job satisfaction as mediating variables to look for an explanation of the direct effect. The most important findings of this study are as follows: 1. Regardless of organization structure, job satisfaction, interpersonal relations and length of service are independent in their effect on organizational commitment. In other words, they are affecting commitment directly. 2. Participation seems to contribute to the quality of interpersonal relations among employees in formal organizations and interpersonal relations can be further enhanced by increasing the amount of job-related interaction as a result of participative work organization. 3. Centralization seems to contribute negatively to organizational commitment and this negative effect on commitment is 216 partly a function of decreasing satisfaction with the job as a direct result of centralization. 4. The enhancement of interpersonal relations by increasing participation at work, and the enhancement of job satisfaction by increasing participation would contribute significantly to commitment to organizations on the part of the individual member, since these variables are assumed to increase one's sense of importance, enthusiasm and responsibility. 5. Formalization seems to have no effect on interpersonal relations or job-satisfaction and no direct effect on commitment, which implies that any mediating effect on the relationship between formalization and commitment may be based on other contextual factors rather than those considered here. Thus, this study indicates that participation and, interpersonal relations may not be clearly independent. (The same result was reached by Nicholson 8 Goh, 1983). In the same manner, participation and job satisfaction as well as centralization and job satisfaction may not be clearly independent. Also, there is no direct effect of either participation or formalization on commitment. We concluded that the effect of structure on commitment can be partially explained by structural effects on interpersonal relations and job satisfaction. Since interpersonal relations and job satisfaction are influenced by these structural variables, and, at the same time, they both directly influence commitment, we further concluded that they mediate the relationship of structure to organizational commitment. Moreover, interpersonal relations and job satisfaction are significantly intercorrelated, and both are influenced by job-related interaction. 217 Therefore, we tentatively conclude that the mediating effects of job satisfaction can be perceived as another aspect of the mediating effect of interpersonal relations under the assumption that a satisfactory level of interpersonal relations leads to a high level of organizational commitment. In conclusion, although the study may provide relatively parsimonious predictive models of commitment and its correlates, which have accounted for a reasonable amount of variance in organizational commitment, the above conclusions must be tempered by certain methodological limitations that characterize this study. First and foremost, the study is cross-sectional, with a relatively small sample. All of the variables were measured by subjective perceptual measures at one point in time. The statistical technique used (path analysis) may be contributing to the clarity of the explanation of the observed associations. Thus, the results could have been strengthened if the variables had been measured using a set of alternative methods. Future research is needed to verify the results of this study using longitudinal designs, a larger sample (within and across organizations), and comparison of subjective measures with objective ones 0 Theoretical and Practical Implications Although the findings of this study may not be generalized beyond the limits of the data and the particular sample studied, one is free to draw some tentative implications which, as suggested above, may be pursued in future research. 218 The primary focus of this study was to examine the mediating effects of interpersonal relations on the relationship between organization structure and commitment, and the related research question was how interpersonal relations differ with regard to structure and what effects the resultant interpersonal relations have on employees' commitment to their organization. rAlthough the findings of this study were not entirely conclusive, specific results suggest that the models may be a reasonable means of describing the way in which organization structure is linked 1X) organizational commitment. Organizational structure is related to commitment under the conditions of facilitating interpersonal relations and the enhancement of such relations through its effect on job-related interaction or through creating a high level of job satisfaction with the job as an alternative condition. However, the differences of these conditions with regard to organization structure are obvious. With a highly participative structure, the quality of interpersonal relations increased as well as the level of job satisfaction. In turn, commitment u: the organization increased. In contrast, with a highly centralized structure, the level of job satisfaction decreased. As a result, organizational commitment decreased. In short, interpersonal relations and job satisfaction mediate 11m: structure-commitment relationship. Thus, as an exploratory effort, the study simply demonstrates the usefulness of viewing the impact of organizational structure on commitment through the mediating effects of interpersonal relations or 219 job satisfaction rather than the direct effects of structure on commitment. Following recommendations made by Newman (1975), we can say that the underlying theoretical implications of the mediating effects of interpersonal relations and job satisfaction on organization structure involves the perception of the work environment by the organization members. In order to really understand and predict the effects of organization structure on commitment, it is not enough to just know how the employee perceives the structural characteristics of his employing organization (e.g., policies, activities, level of participation, and so forth), but it is also important to know how he feels toward others with whom he associates at work (e.g., in terms of trust, respect, and solidarity), and his affective feelings toward the work environment and organization surrounding him. Another theoretical implication of knowing that interpersonal relations and job satisfaction are clearly interdependent in their effect on organizational commitment, or that they mediate the structure-commitment relationship, is that an organizational problem does not have to be classified as either a personal problem or a work organization problem. Rather, a given organizational problem (e.g., low commitment) can be construed as a person-organization problem. Whether we choose to solve it as a people or organization problem or as a person-and-organization problem depends on the situation (Newman, 1975). Also, there seems to be an apparent indication that prior differences in organizational commitment among employees would lead to differences in perception about interpersonal relations and job 220 satisfaction which, in turn, affect participation. While these findings cannot be ruled out completely, it seems unlikely that the causal relations go primarily in this direction, as discussed in the previous chapter. If there are reciprocal causal relationships, then the study can direct attention to the ways in which firmly established behavior patterns may serve to modify organizational structure. Hence, organizational commitment largely becomes "a matter of reciprocation between individual and organization" (Angle: 8 Perry, 1983:143). Thus, an understanding of the processes involved Inay reconcile what appears to be conflicting results of prior research and contribute to bridging the macro-micro gap in organizational theory. In addition, our analysis verified the relationship of commitment to the situational variables of length of service or tenure and job satisfaction, a finding consistent with a number of previous cross-cultural studies (Luthans et al., 1985; Marsh 8 Mannari, 1977). - But the relationship of commitment to personal characteristics of individual members is still inconsistent. This may suggest that variables as predictors of commitment are universal in nature while others are culture-specific. In view of these results, the question of whether organizational commitment is based on culture-specific norms and values remains unanswered. Further, the present study may have implications for those who are concerned with organizational change. The characteristics of organizational members are important, as are organizational characteristics. To solve organizational problems successfully requires changes in the work organization in light of the characteristics of present organizational members. Knowing that work 221 organization or environment has a considerable influence on the attitudes of organizational members through the perceived resultant work experiences (e.g., interpersonal relations, job satisfaction, actual flow of information and interaction), management can use the work environment as a management tool for change and improvement. That is, "A change in the work environment which would change the stimulus pattern of’al particular work setting should be expected to have ramifications for employee reSponses in that setting" (Herman, Dunham 8 Hulin, 1975:231). APPENDIX 222 "In the name of Allah, most benevolent, ever-merciful." Dear Brother: Enclosed is a scientific questionnaire which is part of a scientific study on Saudi employees at their work settings. The purpose of this study is to develop basic information concerning employees in formal organizations: their interaction with each other, their interpersonal relations, the rules that govern their behavior, and the feelings they have for the organization they work for. The data being collected are to be used only for scientific purposes in order to complete my-Ph.D. dissertation in social psychology at Michigan State University, U.S.A. Your cooperation and concern in responding to the content of this questionnaire will greatly contribute to the success of the study and, in turn, to the fulfillment of my ambitions. I am trusting that you would not hesitate to cooperate, especially that you are aware of the importance of such studies and their positive consequences on the individual and on society in terms of improving the work environment for everyone. Also, I would like to remind you that I am conducting this study personally. Your organization is run: a party to it. It did not suggest doing the research, nor is it supervising the research. I wish to assure you, at the same time, that the responses to the survey will be kept completely confidential. The final analysis will not identify the responses of specific individuals, and you are asked not to mention your name. 223 I appreciate your frankness and precision in answering each question included in this questionnaire. Thanking you for your quick response and generosity in giving of your time, Your Brother, Dakheel A.S. Al-Dakheelallah Psychology Department King Saud University Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 224 Directions Dear Brother: In the following pages you will find a number of questions with a brief explanation of the way you should answer them. -Try to answer all of the questions. Do not leave any question without an answer because this will affect the results. Again, I wish to emphasize that the success of this research depends on your accurate and precise answers. oMost of items in this questionnaire can be answered by circling (0) or checking (V) a response where appropriate. A few items require a short written answer. oPlease indicate the one response that most closely represents your situation or, in other cases, the response that most closely describes your feelings. oReply to each of the questionnaire items from your own view, and personal observations, as it is represented by your behavior and career experience. ' oDo not reply as you think others might reply, or as you feel that others would want you to reply or which they would find pleasing. Please take your time to respond to all the questions. I appreciate, again, your cooperation, frankness and quick response, since the research must be completed in a very limited amount of time. 225 THE QUESTIONNAIRE - FIRST - Here are a number of general questions. Please give the most precise and appropriate answer: Age? Marital status? ____Single ___Married ___Divorced ___Widowed How many children do you have? Three or more None ____One Two How many years of school did you complete? -——192:3 _.._’4,5.5 .._7,8,9 __..10,11,12 ___,13,14,15,16 ____17,18,19 ____20 and more What is the highest degree you have obtained? (with your majo areas of study) ‘ What is the name of the department to which you belong in this organization? Your present job title? What do you do in this job? To what extent do you think that your present job is socially accepted? Highly accepted _____ Accepted Somewhat accepted 1 Not accepted Not accepted at all Is it important for you that your job is socially accepted? _____It is very important _____It is important Somewhat important I don't care; either it is accepted or not I do not care at all 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 226 To what extent does your education or your academic training correspond with the typical specialty of your job? Not appropriate at all Somewhat appropriate Appropriate Very appropriate How did you obtain your present job? (Check "~J" all that apply) I was directed to it, after my graduation, by the Civil Service Bureau. .___.I_app1ied for it personally, and I was directly admitted as long as the employment conditions in this organization were met. - I applied for it through a relative or friend. I was promoted to it from within the agency. ____.I moved to it from another agency. I entered into a public contest and I won the job. What is your monthly salary? Less than 3500 SR -———3501 to 4000 SR .____4001 to 4500 SR ____.4501 to 5000 SR ____5001 to 5500 SR .____5501 to 6000 SR .___—6001 to 6500 SR .__.6501 to 7000 SR .____7001 to 7500 SR .___.7501 to 8000 SR .__.8001 to 8500 SR ____8501 to 9000 SR .___.9001 to 9500 SR -——-9501 to 10000 SR ,____more than 10000 SR How long have you been in your present organization? Less than one year ~____1 to 2 years .___.3 to 5 years .____6 to 8 years _____9 to 12 years _13 to 15 years More than 15 years Do you have relatives or friends who are working for this organization? Yes ____No Where do your closest friends work? Outside this organization. ____.Within this organization. Both outside and within this organization. 16. 17. —--.4.--........., . 227 What factors do you consider the most influential in the selection of employees in this organization? (Rate these factors according to their relative effect: (1) the most influential, etc. Put "No effect" for the one factor that you think has no effect.) Qualification and ability. Social status. Kinship or personal relations. _____Regional affiliations (prefering one from a certain area over another area). Tribal attachment. What factors do you consider the most influential in promotion from job to job or from position to position? (Use the same method as in Question 16 to determine their relative effect.) Qualification and ability. Seniority. Social status. Kinship or personal relations. Regional affiliation. Tribal attachment. 228 - SECOND - Each job has its own components, so the individual's job satisfaction depends upon the extent to which he is satisfied with these components. 18. How would you describe your job satisfaction, based on your satisfaction with the following features which represent components of your job as a whole? Very Satis- Some Dissat- Very Satis. fied Dissat. isfied Dissat. - The basic salary ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Compensations related to the type of work or speciality ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - The total salary as it corresponds with your vocational abilities and your practical qualifications ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Work conditions (lighting, office, air-conditioning, etc.) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Wbrk hours (regular work hours or swing-shift) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Vacation system in the organization ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Daily permission to leave work and the ease in obtaining such permission ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Penalties, rules, and regulations ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Monetary motives: cannual raises ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) oincentive bonuses ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Non-monetary motives: Receiving praise and encouragement or support and aid, in case of good achievement ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 229 Very . Satis- Some Dissat- Very Satis. fied Dissat. isfied Dissat. Opportunities for advance- ment such as training programs or scholarships ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Other features: °Providing free housing or housing allowances ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ~Medical insurance for your and your family ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) -Future relation with the organization in terms of providing pension benefits in case of disability or death ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) The extent to which necessary information related to organizational policies are" available which help you to be familiar with work rules and regulations ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) The type of your work as it relates to the required . efforts or challenges ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Morale advantage that you feel in your job achievement ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Accepted amount of responsi- bility available which helps in performing your duties perfectly ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Nature of the relations you have with those with whom you work ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Existence of non-Saudis working with you ( ) ( ) ( )‘ ( ) ( ) Nearness of the work place , to your residence ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 230 - THIRD - In every position it is sometimes necessary in fulfilling one's job to have contact with other people in the organization other than at formal scheduled committees or meetings. 19. How often do you talk with each of the following people in your organization outside of meetings regarding business matters? Several Once or Several A Few Almost Times Twice Times Times Constantly a Day a Day a Week a Month - Managers ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Supervisors/ Foreman ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Immediate Supervisors ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Co-workers ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Subordinates ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 20. How many times in a typical day do you confer with the following people in your department? Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never - Managers ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Supervisors/Foremen ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Immediate Supervisor ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Your co-worker ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Your subordinate ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Note: If any of the above-mentioned titles are not applicable to your organization, write the word "None" in front of the title or write the applicable title used in your organization. 231 21. If any of the following committees or meetings are present in your organization, how many times per month do they meet? Note: If any of these meetings are not present, or you are not familiar with the name, write the word "None" in front of it. - Organization-wide committee meeting - Departmental or unit meeting - Meeting of the entire staff - Case conferences Three Four Once a Twice Times Times Month aMmmh aMmmh aMmmh Four or more times a month 22. Consider the frequency of these meetings in your organization: a. How often do you have a chance to attend these meetings? - Organization-wide committee meeting - Departmental or unit meeting - Meeting of the entire staff - Case conferences Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never b. How many members attend each type of meeting you attend? - Organization-wide committee meeting - Departmental or unit meeting — Meeting of the entire staff - Case conferences Less than 5 5-15 16-25 26-30 Above 30 232 c. Who are the majority of members usually attending these meetings? Organization-wide committee meeting Departmental or unit meeting Meeting of the entire staff Case conferences Managers ( ) Super- Super- Co- Subor- Counse- visors iors workers dinates lors 233 - FOURTH - The following are a series of statements that represent some of the given or observed behavioral practices by the organization's members, for which they work. I would like to know the possibility that these practices take place in the organization for which you work. Please rate your response on a 7-point scale, which looks like this: (Low) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (High) For example, select a "1" if you think the action described has a very low possibility of taking place or being observed. Similarly, select a "7" if you think the action has a very high possibility of being observed or taking place. Circle the number which reflects the exact degree of your feeling about the possibility for each of the following practices to take place in your organization. 23. I feel (in this organization) that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am my own boss in most matters. 24. A person here can make hiw own 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 decisions without checking with anyone else. 25. How things are done here is left 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 up to the person doing the work. 26. People here are allowed to do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 almost as they please. 27. Most people here make their 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 own rules on the job. 28. The employees are constantly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 being checked on for value violation. 29. People here feel as though they 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 are constantly being watched to see that they obey all the rules. 30. There can be little action taken 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 here until a supervisor approves a decision. 31. A person who wants to make his 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 own decisions would be quickly discouraged here. 32. Even small matters have to be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 referred to someone higher up for a final answer. 234 33. I have to ask my boss before I 1 2 '3 4 5 6 7 do almost anything. 34. Any decision I make has to have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 my boss's appproval. The statements that follow express different feelings you may have experienced concerning various aspects of your job. Please indicate the answer which best describes your feelings by checking (\/) one of the alternatives in front of each given question. 35. In general, how much say or influence do you feel you have on what goes on in your department or unit? A very great deal of influence _____A great deal of influence Quite a bit of influence Some influence .____Little or no influence 36. If you have a suggestion for improving the job or changing the set-up in some way, how easy is it for you to get your ideas across to your immediate superior? It is very difficult to get my ideas across It is difficult to get my ideas across Somewhat difficult It is easy to get my ideas across ____It is very easy to get my ideas acrossv 37. How frequently does your immediate superior ask your opinion when a problem comes up that involves your work? He always asks my opinion _____Often asks .____ Sometimes asks Seldom asks He never asks my opinion 38. To what extent do you feel that you can influence the decisions of your immediate superior regarding things about which you are concerned on your job? I can influence him to a very great extent To a considerable extent To some extent To a very little extent I cannot influence him at all 235 - FIFTH - Here are some questions about the type of interpersonal relations with others around you with whom you share a common experience. 39. How important is each of the following persons in determining how you do your job? Of no Not very Somewhat Quite Extremely Importance Important Important Important Important - Manager ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Supervisor/ Foreman ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Immediate Superior ( ) ( ) . ( ) ( ) ( ) - Your Co- worker ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Your Sub- ordinate ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 40. Suppose you were having some sort of difficulty in your job. To what extent do you feel each of the following would be willing to go out of his way to help you if you asked for it? Not To Very To To To a Very at Little Some Considerable Great All Extent Extent Extent Extent - Manager ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Supervisor/ Foreman ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Immediate Superior ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Your Co- worker ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Your Sub- ordinate ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 236 41. We all respect the knowledge and judgment of some people more than others. To what extent do you have this kind of respect for each of the following? (especially in relation to their knowledge of the type of work). Not To Very To To To a Very at Little Some Considerable Great All Extent Extent Extent Extent - Manager ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Supervisor/ Foreman ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Immediate Superior ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Your Co- worker ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Your Sub- ordinate ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 42. In turn, to what extent do you feel that the following persons have respect for your knowledge and judgment? (in relation to the type of work). Not To Very To To To a Very at Little Some Considerable Great All Extent Extent Extent Extent — Manager ( ) _( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Supervisor/ Foreman ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Immediate Superior ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Your Co- worker ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Your Sub- ordinate ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 237 43. To what extent do you feel that the following persons have respect for you as a person? Not To Very To To To a Very at Little Some Considerable Great All Extent Extent Extent Extent - Manager ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Supervisor/ Foreman ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Immediate Superior ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Your Co- worker ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) - Your Sub- ordinate ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 44. To what extent do you think that your colleagues of the admini- strative personnel in this organization do not have any kind of qualifications which may enable them to understand the nature of your work and, consequently, this may cause a difficulty in your efforts to perform your work perfectly? To a very high extent To high extent To some extent To little extent To very little extent, or not at all 45. In general, how much do the people you work with in your present job help each other? Not at all To a very small extent To some extent To considerable extent . To a very great extent 46. How close do you feel to the people you work with in your present job (department or unit)? Not close at all ____.A little close .___.Somewhat close Closer than to many people Very close 238 47. Do you feel lonely or alienated once you come to work in this department or unit? ____ Always I feel it __ Often Sometimes Never 239 - SIXTH- Listed below are a series of statements that represent possible feelings that individuals might have about the particular organization for which they work. With respect to your own feelings about your organization, please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement on a 7-point scale (as it reflects your actual feeling toward your organization). The Scale: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Moder- Slightly Neither Slightly Moder- Strongly disagree ately disagree disagree agree ately agree disagree nor agree' agree For example: The number "1" indicates that your strongly disagree with the statement as it represents your feelings toward the organization for which you work. Similarly, the number "7" indicates that you strongly agree with the statement and, in fact, it represents your actual feeling toward the organization. The numbers "2", "3", "4", "5", and "6" indicate different degrees of agreement or disagreement, as shown above. 48. I am willing to put in a great deal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful. 49. I talk up this organization to my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 friends as a great organization to work for. 50. I feel very little loyalty to this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 organization. 51. I would accept almost any type of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 job assignment in order to keep working for this organization. 52. I find that my values and the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 organization's values are similar. 53. I am proud to tell others that I am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a part of this organization. 54. I could just as well be working for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a different organization as long as the type of work was similar. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. There are no more questions. 240 This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance It would take very little change in my present circumstances to cause me to leave this organization I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for over others I was considering at the time I joined There is not very much to be gained by staying with this organization indefinitely Deciding to work for this organization was a definite mistake on my part Often I find it difficult to agree with this organization's policies on important matters relating to its employees I really care about the fate of this organization For me this is the best of all possible orgnaizations for which to work Thank you for your help. 241 5243-8-4' seer-J! €31.41 4,3... “I he) ;.,..rul [—35 I .w we .a—3 Op ”.114 NJ“ “Elf-31:3 angadl 9.93.25“ C315 Q; Uni—S 0119—15.: ill—“JM H (assassin! aw.» ale—51 .31 J35..." ch «1” .195 J35); 32.-.023” en- 4431' a“ e—3 J’I—n dill and? fi-—.- 23' P\‘AV_.‘\I, 0A 242 8?)" P)” 4" e-a- :kylgéi i—L-d' «Lu :4- J-HJ' rel-z ~‘-.- ,3 ;auae-J' Leila," c”: J‘ 1:4; U): Jr ")ex‘u-l 34‘ J‘s-L" :24»: =45 3;: a—r-‘e L" Lee.- H-ee-r c. H-L‘L": flee-)4 éh-F' .3 0:359‘ chi-:4 5h: ia-U abs-Lu J‘ Jrei-J‘ H .i. as; :3th .13.. amiss: ,1 ,au. :4 .:..L_....;,il an: Lad, 31,2, ;.,ss. .:.L.,L~:, .z._.L.'.r, Emu 5,. 2,214,311,431! rl‘ J1,» Q3 31,,zslll is“ J.‘ Jr‘s-114.155 Lea-.3 {A15 gap.) (5.3.5.2.; 4,... ;.L..,.L:_LI .3... 3.4.- x)" Jae-3- 72": '94-? .‘r new g assault... mu, ;.,... 3,13 3,1: 3.9.?! Ila ;.L, fiauJ‘ 14.911 ; sun-lit, 41;,Ln.‘..3'l.a .9! Cum L. 5,1,; jun, , 1.5.41.9 can,” fies-1' ;- 595-” '52 J‘- le-ei.» 3s,” .2» is): JHUB' 34': Lab 445 ,3 .9"? ;-1 4141-.- aL-e' .F-a .qlligs, up, tau. in»; ”Le-.113... ;.,—>3 an.» ;3 (1.4.11, 4,31}; 19.-J! JFUJfigafiiipJJgJQyUkaL—u‘,” WUip‘l—ebdl ahJ‘fim'JLd’fiiQi 3.91“ .ain—Jew!Mb‘fibfiL—fi';b,fl|zg}ajlwuéifilJJJ'JSPWalfi‘l‘gpfi .sL-lfiufihbfibéfigh,.%plcimuwy ;e .4». 4:25;: stage: ;‘r‘ #4 55L: les-w 1'» _3 a... J'3- J5 is 1.4—)?“ _3 we, crate eu )4-3‘ - .45, 45.51 an pin CJLa 81:131.; J35; 2mm aes- Jew r“ r-5 J’s—u .‘J—LLI obs-L? sat—.- in 243 :ENIRB 1.5.1.... 1.,va 113,53,ng Lillian! ;. glad! 93—3,...QLae3—4J‘ ;.szei we? tum- '24.)" amends-ii" .5" bzfim‘l'aLAJ-S' .gssigup . rte ) P, .1) F“ )1 J‘. _, 1+2,st euMIe-aiewe' Gale—339w“: cents-M 3» i421! .e-w ;m' at )i-‘M ,-. (o > 3914 cal-Le: LL?“ ;se -~'1:-'-: ;.-.- aw ones-u" .-_.. :5-3 e-Léi . LFS‘ ‘14-." #394914. J‘ .JfiLfilLLaLfiYl 1.581593 ;Yb3,.‘.'.a.é,J‘,L:LS’;S\." was! 31,2135; . .atirléfl' JP, JSQ-J magi—435.11.:5LbL’LL' ebb-13+?) ;.a Jg—Y‘ 'LJ 4,43 _aa'aJSJ-‘Q' O Maleraieb'ée-PJJ'Ji-Jziar-P' leaf-”SJ 5):->34:- .;-:.~'>)".‘.~'—‘33-3—‘4-5>JLA5-3-?5"1 0 15)..» 3.15))”, .‘L’LL‘JLLL—éxmépi 3P4” 13.33:.1LY' JS 4...: 3.1934196 LL33 41.—Lab" )L'aJ O Sagas-11...} 3,11; 4:3..de ;L’N 3 .A ,V \\.\A.\\’ ;.SLA ~ )U 244 .. Y,‘. 3:)“ - J‘Ji \‘,,\ :_\ £,\\' v.2 -- -~.‘-3.:.>a . a. ..,5 5-, _ _. .719... '1 EL—h" '1 J...3 LsL—IJ' L—u '6 3" ;.a ..'..'..:. Lu :fi.‘mL.'."-‘JI - \ 1.8L»: not..." .. v a" .~_>1}' T.\'.\ \Y,\\,\° ’——LSUY' ( lwrgalngmlor Jes'Li 'L_..__.J “‘3' “'3" a; J51;4J Lat-1' p.211 - 3 ZL‘JN'M,J§-—a -‘ :(MUL‘1m-Lxfi'ab -v igmsl MyLLJN! #315,353; J1 -A 3.191.... _ 11.... _. mince; __ was: — w “rim?" — 245 Nests-e1 widowsifisi deal E‘L‘?‘ linker-:43; .‘.-‘ '=-.> 4““ Lasts-fl iii-“u _f—aa 3:55 3' 44": L. .1.> J' fang:- E-eL-i-r' iii-Lair 31,12. 3:53 3' sm- ;-'-.-- 's-‘Lde' dra- 3.63 J '4' w :_‘-' SMJmnfylMfiLSYlglflJfi’iaLfiuhifimhgub 3:12:11 .1‘ Lr-L'H .4 LI... (an: 5.1.3;ij}: \/ 3.9.1.: 3.3193,.de14133333 43:31.31; 194' 1.2.1513. .1: .34 ;e 3.43 4*! lea“ see: Li,“ .3 4:533 :55” 433: 3.3-9- 39 e3: L-e-r— '+1 ~35; Cash-'1' -.-:.~3..E:.~'4 ;ng93: 1‘49“ E's—r «'5’; 1.2.1:", 33'9“ L139 '+| ~125- s.—'>' “.1... ;.a La“ -’-'-'5-‘-3' 14.9.1.8 13..ng ;.LSJ :§}+S'J1;l_..3|) sés—HJE;5"'J“’=" — .s-s—JLe;":";-‘J3' JJH—JE;="‘J‘5=" — J-fi-JE;5:"J‘£"‘ .. J1__:,‘.\---J1::-\ _ .. JP~:"'J‘="‘ . J1___.;v---J1‘,:.\ _ .. JL—s;":"J'-“" n Jl__:;A"'J|V2-\ _ .. JL_,'.\’:--J‘V-'\ . JL__.;\---J1.\:-\ _ .. !L__,;;\:--J|A--\ _ JL—t-“"'J";" __ .. JL—g;‘3"J'\"‘ #911911 LadyéjwabwgfllinaéSu 4.1;... gal... J12... _ ;.1,-...._....s‘ _11 331:. -. .. , . . 5‘ : - . ..... .. fl..- 3" -—.A.> J‘ 3).—5 -11.: — “3‘“ a“! J. :un-o 5.... ”.4 _....> ;.,.51 -\' _\\ _\Y _\'1' 246 2...‘ 511.18.133.83 .m....1,1__.,131.-uj.1- Y— 1h”. _ :Luguaiujxlamuqs»;1913;.sy1ugusfmja1p1u- .1.~'11-1.-.:1=.2S~:1.1eL-111111-3.-11-= 1.1.1.1 ensue-1511.441 _;.--'-” 11.5w 1211 1:11:11» 41.-1 .14 .311) 3.1-s 441:2- wean-11411:»- soc—181s): d121, 11.-5:1: lit/12.13111 e121» (*1 3,411, 3433.11 _ .Q‘Lss‘fl 1.1le ,1 2.15.1.1 _ .wi suzw ,i,_.11iixa '_ 15,31 anal..u.1_l.ai._.....f1.3iai..L-..1 $.55) fins?! .Lgsi'l _. ._,L....:1 Amp ,1 {5,11 __ 9 al.,... 44391.11 14121110111 11.5» a» 113,211 ,‘1 1915,1511 1......» ‘ {1111.19.18 ‘(J‘U‘J' 34+] 9419311,»:1(\3)5.L.JIJ13_J13 4N)“ vPY' .45- pix-1') 3.1.1311 , 3,1111 _ La...” 3 1,1,..3’1 ,‘1 9.151111 _ .gmisv1 11an 91.15.11 _ Lisa-.11 aux...“ ,‘1,...1113~l: ._ . Jenn .uzm _ .J_.i11au,v1 ,1 01,11 _ (M?) V. \3 \‘l \V 247 = eta-14' 413;; .14, saJ-e e... ;.a w: ;e 1.4“ Lb: fife .1 1+1»;- 149.19 331.3311, 31.11.31,”?! ;.aJSgdea, ,1.» ”Ls 9.92191 du,¢as.i._15 ..-.L.1 L9“?- \A :(JLNI 4.1.“) :13... 131.433.: (4.53.9. $52-$14.“ .15') £3 45': L‘ “)5 J": ‘4? J": . . ' .rL—uYI $.31)” .. I 1 .VA-fi'fiu' 3.1.9". 831A.“ 913 1.373..” _.. 1:411 4:114 a» «+445: 41411 41.41 — 1 11 1E 4L 7L 1 91.3.3.8, -_'1._.$:- ;.Ls1)J.._..11_.e._._....1 _ 11.3,,2141 .. 1 11 71 11 31 1 1:11-43: 1.1-1» 99"“ .315 '5' Lei) Jae-1' 5:395 34L: 23‘ - (1.54“ r'1-U' 1 31 1 fiL fiL 1 .11....3113a131gs1lva. ._ 1111—1 lea-11 3,.11... see-1' se.—5.44 - ewe-=41 é'JE-r 9'21 1111111 3“)?" c—‘JH: 1.42.1 - -J----" .3 JL-J' 1' 2.4;: :L'yul 3.31,)“ - 1___:1___1 1__. .1___ ,1 were. 1__ F_— «31.9.; ;.ULS. 0 9‘2." ,1 c9231, sLLUlS ‘13 3.11.“ 3.31531.“ - F 11 11 1L 1L 3 _g__,_:131__...-.*11UL>;3J.1_L1, :..1,,_~.11_<. liq... ",.11 c._'-,.11_;_._..s.._ ‘ gag - 1 1Fj1 11 ~11 —] gwfiflg ‘62-5'5'3-3‘ - L__ L___. L— 11u1'ech11itelle;S—-119;.s. 1 | 1 sum: 3,533.11 341.3131 . .21: z...» ;- 1...-,::. Less—41 Luau - 1 11 JF 41 IL J lidleeilbger-Fweuymaulam 1.111 ,3 Y)_'1:L3, ,1_-1.;1,.. «1.4.5.11, 1:: .-:.-'=-“ ;L‘rL‘J' .41.: .5-_. .. 11 Jr J L Jr J rm" 3.131.531, We" ems—IL.- 8.31.1.4; 3 (.4531, #1 5,1,1, ,1..Lo’ 49;.09L'43LA, MM .- .a’ur-l’ A); 1 41 41* 11 JF J 1 11—JF 41 1F 1”’““'4"L"‘”“"m*”“m.:fi' asses-war ;e'm'f'éfi- 4r JP 4r 1F J" “‘J’ 38:33,... 3.1.) J (sq—La Jan-"34.1.11 _uUL J34“); M _ 1L JFJ1 J1 J .i...-,11 ~J—“J—‘J ;.gafi-J1fi .9), .. r——1‘ —‘ [—‘—‘ '——" ._1._<...- ,—»“ 9.1—.“- ' 314. on _ — F-fi pus—q 248 - '1_T1JL’3.. ny‘lbl‘ulLaYLaU MJI-MQJ‘UJr—J- armé),rfl1;aup1 EQ’BQ‘JS‘; :SJJa-u QM” 13“)” bum—yymr‘J1JL—aiy1 'J‘LfiiJfi-‘gfi'Q—n}; Eda-11 Jan-13413:- 1+9 111-91 1111 al.“;‘f‘ Jab-o 3.1-6 ’1‘). ;.,-.34.: 111-‘4' .3 arr-7' 1} (:3 .‘a‘r‘ rat-1' .3 rhfl J1EE] 1111 1.11: 1111111 1 141.11? ‘1 3.1—IA siren- xiii—e: .332-3L? “~31 ‘L‘j 5,—3.9 'leLMLfiQ(M§)JNY|JhL¢ EJ’UIL'Ssi $91.55 gsLdl Pfi'ésf‘ 35-1“ _— 1).)“ L491 LAL: 11 1 11 1111 11 3H1 1 11311 ,__..:1.1 21,5111 /..'1,:.11 r39“ -"--.-'-J 411-36 d—oir :34 'L1J1’11L3;,SLLIJA—L'?Lal.(J?”Y)wcé;L-P$ 1.11.3914...‘ .1», HS 3.11.) E3 22.5,»6 3911931 2634.344» AlaoJatflfiJ-HQJa—n his: 3,495.;5.m§s;iia.33._4m1auwy1313w13giguul-n 1(9):?) “113-~45 J' 19‘ L- 4‘ J»?! 2' «ex? {Li-.94 5'5 I51') é'rcn' 103-1'3 sheik: n-‘J'J .3 .3":- .-+-‘1-|' )Ii—‘J' ;3 3;.- J_;‘1 ,‘1 — 1———1 1 F _1 ”_T 1.— r— h—J '_'1 1_ fiJ F1 L—I F J F—WP—fi (ti-:1 LLLL "'1"? LL. ”77‘ _L 9b.” tLJSYl o L—‘fi' .144 PL" {1.41.1 . 3H ,J1 ,1 .t r-‘r 8‘4" ' .145 ;.,11 3,01.” ;.LsLoisYl o 249 :Luygjlpgfiaouqu mama! - W 1 ;.LgLagI «I... ,,...J _"_J 3.9;“ 1.1;: 9.4.1..- i i...._.i i ,JL'. mgi ‘23 3.41., L L..." Lép‘l‘o fiLfiLfiLWLfi 13mg.“ _1 (.511 ft. LJLiLiLiILi] 5:3,} LTLiLiLiLi “”13“"; S [_i L i. L i Li qmugumgu m,“ fl‘ékm?7'gntfi§i3)éafl ;.,.Ui .mm H' 44.1.“ (5.9 9,5351 V'-YW Y=_\\ \:_: JoJSi Q1311 L.....'-. p 7 [_i L *1 Li_L i “"Z'ffij- LiLTLiLiLi “it“? 0.1—.» ". L 1L7LflLfiL—I ”’11:; L 7 Li L j [_i L i. L,L2.J1.:.L;L.;>m. Jun;- $49-33). 1 :3va .1. LL; ”,6, ;gm 44511 gt; P. 5... C A...” #:1319- 49.-*- JJ-‘b‘h 2‘ ‘54:. ;.,!)IJ' Li Li (114-":14?“ o L7 L7 _JJ e—JJI {Lat-p1 o 3.3—)?“ ,i fr“ Li Li - psi-.111 Li [‘7‘ flJ gum ;.uugyl o 311413.571 Mmswnw-y'a-sy-am :1-1-11 31.11;»; paw easy-1421.9 4‘94-‘5-3' c1333.; 3.3»; QIJLgJI «In J; ALDI beafi g... .344“: 4:11 ;L...‘,.J.l Q Lhzbka ( -) .mwgggwaygaufimmfigg 1:36.“ C"! 250 'hLBCh—JaCJALJJgLr‘IAL-Ldédyu};UJQ+£ (asp \ = z r r \ (43:4,) 311-» d2»; ;‘J'x-ifivhifl'uw'aJééfibkfl dbM—w J)»; J J'g—ie(‘)¢-3:J’ 1m ,1 .11.. a,» 1.41111 L-L-s JJr-‘JJ'J‘VL: «11.-)1: git-"9 wl-ri-L' Js .4141 J» 33:14 a,» «2:11:11 4.2-1.3- 3...)“ alué_r|.ii - YT (2,334,30rmé, v ‘\ = 1 1' Y \ arm-.453 ‘ .‘.-Ji-u_- .;II.S--Y£ {921‘ .324 ‘10-! 111-‘4' 6:123 V ‘\ .1 t Y Y \ Pi.‘-"‘-3J' muguuug,s_n 351.5“- L—B-U 13* ;- JuJ‘e v ‘1 a 1 Y Y \ MI.I;L_.,,3_.§;JIJ¢.LU v... 1...;41 m; 41,391... n JflrL-h: JQUU- HJ V -\ ; z r r \ m—J fill-2"” JJQ- LU- 4'9.“ U“ - ‘V . : 1 r v \ (+43 5... ;.,}...u 3.1,; 924-?- .}:359' c453 - ‘A \ . 1 r v \ ;.,..uhrlg ,3 3.1,; Hm L51 we 1-..311 a» 3 m1— *1 fiLfl‘ _J'P“. L! .13”? H415) V '\ = 1 V Y \ lauJ' giggly” (554...): J‘Hdfi' 553‘ JS-s - "' '(P‘J' ‘ 'J'fi-fi 1L ‘ ,s'JE-fi) J‘Jrfl’ Siam-3) v - 1 : t r v \ L...,_..Ls,.l,$ JiJ1b2§3'-U- Jdi-‘J‘ - V‘ JhE'L-PQe-“J'fil‘: ZMIJHI ,ijr’yl ~é, _ n P .3" J‘ li-J c—n: Ji -—-7*: 1.9111}; Jpn J‘i v \ a z r v \ ;._;,L,._ul (C‘!) 251 JJJ—é;JLi_-,i}‘uu_rr v x : g r T \ .4; $53451 Agivfiwia'fié‘3-fl ;ebLz-“H ‘ .9 am.“ Wag}: .-_1.- ;‘Fug'fiifil'éfi .13.; 5.1: 14.1.», Jimg‘mun;.;x.£i~.ltfi ;.I,L,._n, _zs apflhfihgfl, 1mm ;.I;L_.'..n 9.5.34.1, f.L.i(~/) mu 34,4114, J,.:L:.Lx__*_.:.;_sm 3,4911 V ‘\ 9. E Y Y \ 1J'3- ‘5 ASLJ .‘JLLFZSEQJI’ .439, 33 M}: 533M 9L: (EL; 53 Yfi))§ml3l4§a 1;};st 53.41. - 1': .14.:- +4243 — -J’—3-‘-‘.‘::h — .__.':'L.n 4.3., _ 233131" .F :33 ‘5 3‘ Jr“ 9'5 — “ac—~53“ 111132211:- @fiQfidirxfiji Jan-1' MSU-fiehgcbfi-S‘ 1121-1-15“ ‘3' - 1" 1:13.391 4.9;) J! an (ugh/xblfil) 4,6313}; (bf-519193593” ;fl-‘J‘ ;.--" 5;" '4.» -.—-1-a -- 92-19 mi ;5' v-u ~— _,.... Lug _ (9,-uiu-gb1.w) 4:195:11 ~;-" .11 Je— — (bf-3'“ #5593” .5953“ ;r‘i .L-i '-‘-? Ji- - 9410-939131'5'5 mix-'1 “43‘ 43‘) J‘ 41:39“ ‘L-hfi) J’P 64-“ - W £1; Jenni..- __.. Q; 413111.93 — ,3: 91'9“?“ — ..:‘; .3“ JL-: L' ‘34“ ~— ' '49} gei: b“ JL-z-Y — :3 ‘11-“; 4114+”- .13“ ‘95“: 51311: ugfigt 4-1-3-3: 0‘3'25 J“ 5954-1wa 5» 9“ J' - "1 ,1: (avg 41.9133»: .ain—13+: '-‘-?.~_-.-$.5-'-J":1&.-.3tj — Jri-u J-‘a J' $44,233:! — 'an' ska-:34 — 'éifiJaJ‘fii‘étJ — JN'MJ 31w], 3"“: (IA-51L; ;.,-5], ‘UP if)?!y$u3142~-JC.§-1VA~JHU;34, 252 ‘: .‘LLUJ .‘JJIJI 318:5 45.-Du J *Lbj 39.1...» gum Joli-3‘.“ Qua-33 I.) .. I" J' .L-H» J‘ ;u—o 1‘ '4:- 1.5—; Anal? max-$1.» 3351-»; ;-.~~—- IDLrHP 1:414 I:._I I:_J [Li I i L I H111 I I | I Ii i IL I L I 2,1111,ng I J I J I I L i L i AMA-.4) I I I I I J I I I I 411—93 I I I J I J L I L I 4...,3, HigugmldaléfiYIéagiggfisaiflJI.MQQ’MJIQaLSQQJJJIJaJSJI_£‘ t .‘JI; gleam int... JI 3,4g1341muw {.33}; $3593: 49,... saJ' »J1 »J1 J—.-5 J-£.-_-l um: Jim 1—- u—.» 31111 I I I II I L i L T H.111 I I I II a L I I I bun/4911 I J I II I I 1 I ] fi‘el'éL-é: I J F JI I I J I j ell—9) F_J F JI j L_j I | 4—,s.« sagi J' #11 MMIP' :mf-S? «13>aaauwwuéwab': 11;» eFDeU-oJ-S- 11 «Maine 943%“ 31421. 1141-5) 1659““ Q-JL‘J' 4197‘ .>- J54 9125—53“ 5* a—U' '5—1 424-1 €(Jqu s-uJ‘ é-‘J‘ 9J‘ J—fi J‘.-:-' Lam-S J21:- L‘ 11.—r 3mm I J I J h I I J I I ,__._.u I J fiJI I I I J I I but/4,2: F I V JI J I I F I fiU-‘cl-é: I I I J I J I I I I 411—.»3 F I I J F I h J I J 4—33)» £53”, duals}?! I453)! 3,35:- 9939a» 755‘.“ JON'YI $924-$549“ gu é? JI .JaLLLLa .. {Y ‘(JHJ'i-Eeheé-LQL‘L‘G’) JuJ' DJ‘ 9.1‘ J—.-I-3 J‘J‘rl um: J:—1~ 1... '11—.» 3111' I I I JI J r J h J H111 I J I J Ii J F J r J bM'/'J,.‘J| I J I J r I I J I I riU-I-‘L-é) L J F J F I r j r J 41...; I I r J I J F J I J ~'-I—-:3r' 253 QNJJLJI‘DIJfiefi‘aW 3.9m yam 319,»: ;.‘J 54.9? J1- 1.? J-HJ' »J' »J‘ .1143 Ju—A 193-S ina- La 1.1—;- 51va II: :3 E I____I DJ Hm I I I :I I I I—_—_I I——_I 291113.3ng F J I J I I L I I J fit-114+) I I I J I I I j I J —"—.-3 F I V I F I L I F j d—g.» 4.7.1! SsLiSllQavsél 339...}? myimégfifiawydabuj 39.5,};91 5a.; ~__;I 3|. 1.1. 29,451pmgbwgmfimfiygagdmmw.yyfim Ice-2) ‘33 5:1 I4? .295" JI — -.~.-.-$-'>J‘ — .I_a»_II .— .J_._..I.3.‘.9JI _— 144111591311a+r£1>w .— YWWQNI WQWMEI JIJK‘II SJMJIJaI-a .LUS;,A.3_ £3 531.21,; _. -"—? JrIJJa J‘ — .I_..:.;J| _ -J>3~-'>J‘ —- -"—> :35» J‘ — 1139,41539.411{gygwlxqaéfiuwymfiw;auegfi34§_n . 3313.31 34., 9;...1 _ Jrua+h .325 — . warn-“‘5‘ -— -.-U' 98-5 Sr Hr” v)“ -— .IJ—? .50).; _— ‘1399133 FJJI ngnudfié> 4).}... 433%,! 39,19;,~54ng;_ tv #539” 1' 38,1192»; 452:9“ L4“ — Jar-.3! L. I215 _— Her-1‘ #9 3;» J:- — .1441; ;.,...LL. _ :a-u 9,211.. a)»: m 11.1 anus 1.11m: aw war-'19 J:'-> - .__. ‘3! 14.1,»: {m 1;,an - \ «.4413 1.121 1.11 .1: gm up“ - Y PPJ-W‘ H419»; 431"“)qu ' " .4133 __ .;,.:.w_-:r.um_-13L_.,31 ._ .a...-,;: .9 g H... 3...: gm _..L-.n _ 254 54.23%;.93....3!;bylgrrlgwwgzrgufimpgm;.IJLJI3w“; L-rI QHWSJVJscaH-madfiwwg—Boi d-‘um' Q‘I‘H-sJu-‘ofl‘ lupus-41 314-39 4cm «“15“ 31?)“ «“31” C.» Wu“ 932-" 8’: 32 .1" Cr‘ 415: (kins. J)»:- 21;» .L-‘rr‘r ~53 v \ a t 9'9 55W 33')- ~13th ‘1 343-9 I-o 4» J‘ 1.43 55")“ : 2 “L153“ Y \ J’fi-‘I 9")“ L- A.) JI 34.3.3 $3.3» 1-'-.-.- 1.» Ju: .311—ms AM 3...: 111-11¢- 33.-115511113411 J',-.-=-.- .4441 .v- (1) 9,41 .1 111*)1139113»; --r-3-.~>s-I,»-“~i.-z> Jaw-3,3,1»! an.» 511,- 11 we (V) 9,11 v \ a t V V \ v '\ c L T T \ V W a t Y Y \ V X a 1 Y ‘r \ Ic’e)‘ _\1.. J34 j JihlJ‘ui .. M ”Lufihgslw Subiyg 3.1L; cific nggu 1.3” .3 Hill»)! WI {LL- 1‘ 111.141.? IQJPJOY”)ASI-°° 1......311 .3; .Lg. ughwqée-M 4,131! t‘fi‘ktfgi QJi-IJIJr-Qfl' Lylww ( cm: ) c“ 255 '5“ H3: a“. .113 54?: 411- °" L3,.J.‘i ,2" 1....3n 1.32:... «5352': 33:4 3A3» 31 .31- 4" 3.» fut-e3»?! ..—'»i J 2......311..h _°,.. 33.7.9? QJaigigagaJeLY- 0% b-.h,:¢6,311._3. dug Ml a); P" L.._.L::.._.-u:, 31.3!Lyg‘g..-” wuss-MM L‘ég-W-L‘Jfiii'x' o'a‘I'nggsl»; #533,591 323-333»: m kw‘gwg3 ‘6‘: 'CL. ;PIlegéfiguu av ;3-H»J--U L-w «'u 4545639 éL-3-;-: :3“ny g @353 3.4» 3w?! ‘fl'dmc-Jdéfie-M gfgngml Luploi‘QMgJifi—°\ kgeifiy‘lhi _315 256 cute-es“ 3‘ 3L9.- Y Y \ ‘Lilif‘.’ ‘9‘: " NJ! 51311;-“ O - 1......311 .333 gfifié-‘V GPiQL-ekxkfly‘ .34 r v \ wwyfiefibw- Wfigolmxfll,1&u‘llfi¢m J—l-t-‘J—J‘?J-‘r" BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Aiken, M. and J. Hage. "Organizational alienation: A comparative study." American Sociological Review, Vol. 31, 1966:A97-507. Aiken, M. and J. Hage. "Organizational interdependence and intraorganizational structure." American Sociological Review, Al—Awaji, I.M. "Bureaucracy and society in Saudi Arabia." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Virginia, 1971. Ali, A. and M. Al-Shakis. "Managerial value systems for working in Saudi Arabia: An empirical investigation." Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2, June 1985:135-51. Al-Nimir, S. and M. Palmer. "Bureaucracy and development in Saudi Arabia: A behavioral analysis." Public Administration and Development, Vol. 2, 1982: 93-1ou. Alutto, J.A., L.G. Hrebiniak & R.C. Alonso. "On operationalizing the concept of commitment." Social Forces, Vol. 51, 1973:”48-454. Anastos, D., A. Bedos and B. Seaman. "The deve10pment of management practices in Saudi Arabia." Columbia Journal of world Business, Vol. Summer 1980:81-91. Angle, H.L. and J.L. Perry. "Organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness: an empirical assessment." Administrative Science Quarterly, 1981, Vol. 26:1-u. Angle, R.L. and J.L. Perry. "Organizational commitment: Individual and organizational influences." Wbrk and Occupation, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1983:123-146. Antonovsky, H.F. and A. Antonovsky. "Commitment in an Israeli kibbutz." Human Relations, Vol. 27, 197fl:303-319. Arabian American Oil Company. "ARAMCO 1986." Dammam, Saudi Arabia: Al—Wafa Printing Press, 1986 (in English). Aranya, N. and D. Jacobson. "An empirical study of theories of organization and occupational commitment." The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 97. 1975:15-22. 257 258 Argyris, Chris. Integratingpthe Individual and the Opggpization. New York: Wiley, 196A. Argyris, Chris. Intervention Theory and Method: A Behavioral Science View. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970. Argyris, Chris. Management and Organizational Development. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. Barnes, C.R. "A study of the processes of attitudes formation and change as applied to foreign students." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1975. Becker, H.S. "Notes on the concept of commitment." American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 66, 1960:32-40. Blalock, H.M., Jr. Causal Models in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Aldine, 1967. Blau, P.M. "Presidental address: Parameters of social structure." American Sociological Review, Vol. 39 (October), 1974:615-635. Blau, P.M. and R.A. Schoenherr. The Structure of Organizations. New York: Basic Books, 1971. Bluedorn, A.C. "The Theories of Turnover: Causes, Effects, and Meanings." Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 1, Bradburn, Norman. ”Interpersonal relations within formal organizations in Turkey." Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 19, 1963:61-67. Brass, Daniel Joseph. "Effects of relationships among task positions on job characteristics, interpersonal variables, and employee satisfaction and performance." Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1979. Brass, Daniel Joseph. "Structural relationships, job characteristics and worker satisfaction and performance." Administrative Science Quarterly, 1981, 26:331-48. Brief, A.P. and R.J. Aldag. "Antecedents of organizational commitment among hospital nurses." Sociology of work and Occupations, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1980: 210-221. Brief, A.P., R.J. Aldag, and R.A. walden. "Correlates of supervisory style among policemen." Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 3, 1976:263-271. Buchanan, Bruce II. "Building organizational commitment: the socialization of managers in work organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly, 1974, 19:533-46. 259 Burns, T. "Industry in a New Age." In D.S. Pugh (ed.), Organization Theory: Selected Readings, pp. n3-u9. New York: Penguin Books, 1983. Burns, T. and G.M. Stalker. The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock, 1961, 1962, 1966. Campbell, J.P., D.H. Brown, N.G. Peterson, and M.D. Dunnette. "The measurement of organizational effectiveness: A review of the relevant research and opinion." Report TR-71-1 (Final Technical Report). San Diego: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, 19?”. Cole, R.B. Japanese Blue Collar: The Changing Position. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971. Cole, R.B. work, Mobility and Participation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979. 6 Connor, Patrick E. Organizations: Theory and Design. Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1980. Cook, J. and Toby wall. "New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfillment." Journal of Occupational Psychology, 1980, Vol. 53:39-52. Crozier, Michael. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1963. Cummings, L.L. and C.J. Berger. "Organization structure: How does it influence attitudes and performance?" Organizational_2ynamics, Autumn, 1976:34-49. Daft, R.L. "Bureaucratic versus nonbureaucratic structure and the process of innovation and change." Research in the Sociolpgy of Organization, Vol. 1, 1982: 129-166. Dalton, D.R., W.D. Todor, M.J. Spendolini, C.J. Fielding and L.W. Porter. "Organization structure and performance: A critical review." Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1980:49-64. Darlington, R.B. "Multiple regression in psychological research and practice." Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 69, 1968:161-182. Deutsch, M. "Trust and suspicion." Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 2. 1958:265-279. Dore, R. British Factory - Japanese Factory: The Origins of National Diversity Industrial Relations. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. Driscoll, J.W. "Trust and participation in organizational decision making as predictors of satisfaction." Academy of Management 260 Dubin, R., J.E. Champoux and L.W. Porter. "Central life interest and organizational commitment of blue-collar and clerical workers." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 20, 1975:A11-21. Eisenberg, E.M., P. Monge and K.I. Miller. "Involvement in communication networks as a predictor of organizational commitment." Human Communication Research, Vol. 10, No. 2, Winter Eldridge, J.E.T. and A.D. Crombie. A Sociology of Organizations. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1974. Etzioni, Amitai. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations rev. and enlarged ed. New York: Free Press, 1975. Farrell, D. and C. Rusbult. "Exchange variables as predictors of job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover: The impact of rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments." giganizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 27, No. 98, 1981:78—95. Ferris, K.R. and N. Aranya. "A comparison of two organizational commitment scales." Personnel Psychology, Vol. 36, 1983:87-98. Forehand, G. A. and B. Gilmer. "Environmental variation in studies of organizational behavior." ngchological Bulletin, Vol. 62, 196”: 361—382. Franklin, J. L. "Power and commitment: An empirical assessment. " Human Relations, Vol. 28, No. 8, 1975a: 737-753 Franklin, J.L. "Relations among four social-psychological aspects of organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 20, ‘ September 1975b:422-433. ‘ French, J.P., Israel, J. and Dagfinnas. "An experiment of participation in a Norwegian factory." Human Relations, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1960: 3—19. Gabarro, J.J. "The development of trust, influence, and expectations." In Interpersonal Behavior, ed. A.G. Athos and J.J. Gabarro, p. 270. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1978. Gabarro, J. J. "Socialization at the top: How CEO's and subordinates evolve interpersonal contracts." Organizational Dynamics, Winter 1979: 3-23 Gabarro, J.J. "The development of working relationships." In Jay W. orsch (ed), Handbook of Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, 1987. Goldhaber, G.M., D.T. Porter, M.P. Yates and R. Lesenia. "Organizational communication: 1978." Human Communication Research, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1978:76-95. 261 Grusky, Oscar. "Career mobility and organizational commitment." Administrative Science Quarterly, 1966, Vol. 10, No. #:989-503. Hackman, J.R. and E.E. Lawler. "Employee reactions to job characteristics." Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, Vol. 55, 1971:259-86. Hackman, J.R. and C.B. Oldham. "Motivation through the design of work: Hage, Hage, Hage, Hall, Hall, Hall, Hall, Hall, Hall, test of a theory." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16, 1976: 250-79. J. and M. Aiken. "Relationship of centralization to other structural properties." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. J. and M. Aiken. "Routine technology, social structure and organizational goals." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 14, 1969:366-76. J., M. Aiken and C.B. Marrett. "Organization structure and communication." American Sociological Review, Vol. 36, 1971:860-871. D. and F.S. Hall. "The relationship between goals, performance, success, self-image, and involvement under different organization climates." Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 9, 1976:267-78. D. and T. Benjamin Schneider. "Correlates of organizational identification as a function of career pattern and organizational type." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, 1972:340-50. D., B. Schneider and H.T. Nygren. "Personnel factors in organizational identification." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 15, 1970:176-190. R. Organization: Structure and Process. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1972, 1977. 1982. R., J.E. Hass, and N.J. Johnson. "An examination of the Blau-Scott and Etzioni typologies." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 12, 1967a: 118-139. R., J.E. Hass, and N.J. Johnson. "Organizational size, complexity and formalization." American Sociological Review, Vol. 32, Hedderson, John. SPSSX: Made Simple. Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1987. Herman, J.E., R.B. Dunham, and C.L. Hulin. "Organization structure, demographic characteristics, and employee responses." Organization Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 13, 262 House, R.J. and J.R. Rizzo. "Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior." Organization Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 7, 1972:A67-505. Hrebiniak, Lawrence G. "A multivariate analysis of professional and organizational commitment orientations among teachers and nurses." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1971. Hrebiniak, Lawrence G. "Effects of job level and participation on employee attitudes and perceptions of influence." Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 17, 197A:649-662. Hrebiniak, Lawrence G. and J.A. Alutto. "Personal and role-related factors in the development of organizational commitment." Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 17:355-73. Indik, B.P. "Some effects of organization size on member behavior and attitude." Human Relations, Vol. 16, No. A, 1963:369-38fl. Inkson, J.H., D.S. Pugh, and D.J. Hickson. "Organizational context and structure: An abbreviated replication." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 15, 1970:318-329. Institute of Public Administration. "Statement of Objectives and: Activities." Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 1985 (in English). Ivanoevich, J.M. and J.R. Donnelly. "Relation of organizational structure to job satisfaction, anxiety-stress and performance." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 20, June 1975:272-280. Jablin, F.M. "Superior-subordinate communication: The state of the art." Psychologlcal Bulletin, Vol. 89, 1979:1201-1222. Jablin, P.M. "Formal structural characteristics of organizations and superior-subordinates communication." Human Communication Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, Summer 1982:338—347. James, L.R. and A.P. Jones. "Organizational structure: A review of structural dimensions and their conceptual relationships with individual attitudes and behavior." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16, 1976:47—113. Johnson, M.P. "Commitment: A conceptual structure and empirical application." The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 1A, Summer 1973:395-406. Jones, A.P. and L.R. James. "Psychological climate: dimensions and relationships of individual and aggregated work environment perceptions." giganizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 23, 1979:201-50. 263 Jones, A.P., L.R. James and J.R. Bruni. "Perceived leadership behavior and employee confidence in the leader as moderated by job involvement." Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, 1975:146-149. Kahn, R.L., D.M. Wblfe, R.P. Quinn, J.D. Snoeck, and R.A. Rosenthal. nganizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969. Kalleberg, A.L. "A causal approach to the measurement of job satisfaction." Social Science Research, Vol. 3, 1974:299-322. Kanter, R.M. "Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment mechanism in utiplan communities." American Sociological Review, Vol. 33. No. 4, 1968:”99-517. Kanungo, R.N. Wbrker Alienation. New York: Praeger, 1982. Katz, D. and R. Kahn. The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978. Kiesler, C.A. The Psychology of Commitment: Experiments Linking Behavior to Belief. New York: Academic Press, 1971. Kiesler, C.A. and J. Sakamura. "A test of a model for commitment." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 3, ' 1966:349-353. Kiggundu, M.N., J.J. Jorgensen and T. Hafsi. "Administrative theory and practice in developing countries: A synthesis." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, 1983:66-8“. King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACSAT). "Eighth Annual Report: 1985-86." Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 1986 (in English and Arabic). Klauss, R. and B.M. Bass. Inteppersonal Communication in Organizations. New York: Academic Press, 1982. Knoke, David. "A path analysis primer." In Robert B. Smith, A Handbook of Social Science Methods: Quantitative Methods: Focused Survey Research and Causal Modeling, Volume 3. New York: Praeger, 1985. Kohn, M.L. and C.-Schooler. Wbrk and Personality: An Inquiry into the Impact of Social Stratification. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing, 1983. Lawrence, J. and J.T. Mortimer. "Job involvement through the life course: a panel study of three age groups." American Sociological Vol. 50, October 1985:618-638. Review, Lawrence, P.R. and J.W..Lorsch. "Differentiation and integration in complex organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 11, 1967:1-47. 264 Lawrence, P.R. and J.W. Lorsch. Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Boston: Harvard University, 1969. ' Lee, S.M. "An empirical analysis of organizational identification." Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 1”, 1971:213-226. Lichtman, C.W. and Raymond G. Hunt. "Personality and organization theory: A review of some conceptual literature." Psychological Likert, R. The Human Organization: Its Management and Value. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Lincoln, J.R. and A.L. Kalleberg. "Wbrk organization and workforce commitment: A study of plants and employees in the 0.3. and Japan." American Sociologlcal Review, Vol. 50, December 1985:738-760. Lincoln, J.R., M. Hanada, and J. Olson. "Cultural orientation and individual reactions to organizations: A study of employees of Japanese-owned firms." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, March 1981:93-115. Lischeron, J.T. and Toby D. Wall. "Attitudes toward participation among local authority employees." Human Relations, Vol. 28, No. 6, 1975:499-517. Lowin, A. "Participative decision making: A model, literature, critique, and prescription for research." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 3, 1968:68-106. Luthans, F., H. McCaul and N.G. Dodd. "Organizational commitment: research notes." Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28, 1985:213—19. Maehr, M.L. and L.A. Braskamp. The Motivation Factor: A Theory of Personal Investment. Lexington, MA: Heath and Company, 1986. Marrett, C.B., J. Hage and M. Aiken. "Communication and satisfaction in organizations." Human Relations, Vol. 28, No. 7, 1975:611-626. Marsh, R.M. and Hiroshi Mannari. "Organizational commitment and turnover: A prediction study." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, 1977:57—75. Martin, T.N. and M.S. O'Laughlin. "Predictors of organizational commitment: The study of part-time Army reservists." JoUrnal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 25, 1984:270-283. Maslow, A. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row, 1970. McGregor, J.G. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. 265 McKelvey, B. and U. Sekaran. "Toward a career-based theory of job involvement: A study of scientists and engineers." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, 1977:281-305. McPhee, R.D. and P.K. Tompkins. Organizational Communication: Traditional Themes and New Directions. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1985. Miller, D.C. Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement, 3rd edition. New York: David McKay Company, 1970. Milne, R.S. "Mechanistic and organic models of public administration in developing countries." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 15, Mobely, W.H. and K.K. Hwang. "Personal role, structural, alternative and affective correlates of organizational commitment." ONR Technical Report No. 2, Department of Management. College Station: Texas A & M University, 1982 (cited in Luthans, McCaul and Dodd, 1985). Moch, K.M., J. Bartunek and D.J. Brass. "Structure, task characteristics, and experienced role stress in organizations employing complex technology." nganizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 2A, 1979:258—268. Mohr, L.B. Explaining_0rgapizational Behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1982. Morris, J.H. and R.M. Steers. "Structural influences on organizational commitment." Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 17, 1980:50-57. Morrow, P.C. and J.C. McElroy. "Wbrk commitment and job satisfaction over three career stages." Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 30. 1987:330-316 Morse, J.J. and J.W. Lorsch. "Beyond Theory - Y." Harvard Business Review, May-June, 1970:61-68. Mowday, R.T., L.W. Porter and R. Dubin. "Unit performance, situational factors, and employee attitudes in spatially separated work units." nganizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 12, 1974:231-248. Mowday, R.T., L.W. Porter and R.M. Steers. Employee-Opganization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover. New York: Academic Press, 1982. Mowday, R.T., R.M. Steers and L.W. Porter. "The measurement of organizational commitment." Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 1“, 1979:22A-47. Muchinsky, P.M. Psychology Applied to Wbrk. Chicago: The Dorsey Press, 1987. 266 Newman, J.E. "Understanding the organizational structure-job attitude relationship through the perception of the work environment." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 14, 1975:371-397. Nicholson, P.J., Jr. and 3.0. Goh. "The relationship of organization structure and interpersonal attitudes to role conflict and ambiguity in different work environments." Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1983:148-55. Norusis, M.J. SPSSX: Advanced Statistics Guide. New York: McGraw»Hill Book Company, 1985. Oldham, G.R. and R. Hackman. "Relationship between organizational structure and employee reactions: Comparing alternative framework." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, 1981:66-83. O’Reilly, C. and D. Caldwell. "The commitment and job tenure of new employees: some evidence of postdecisional justification." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, 1981:597-616. O'Reilly, C. and K. Roberts. "Task group structure, communication and effectiveness in three organizations." Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 62, 1977:679-81. Oskamp, Stuart. Applied Social Psycholpgy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 198A. Ouchi, W.C. and H.T. Harris. "Structure, technology, and environment." In G. Strauss, R.B. Miles, C.C. Snow and A.S. Tannenbaum (eds.). Organizational Behavior: Research and Issues, pp. 107-1A0. Madison, Wisconsin: Industrial Relations Research Association, 1974. Parsons, T. "The professions and social structure." In Essays in Sociolpgical Theory, rev. ed., pp. 35-43. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1959. Patchen, M. Participation, Achievement and Involvement on the Job. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, 1970. Penley, L.E. and Hawkins. "Studying interpersonal communication in organizations: a leadership application." Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28, No. 2, 1985:309-326. Pfeiffer, J. and E.E. Lawler. "The effects of competition on some dimensions of organizational structure." Social Forces, Vol. 52, Pheysey, D.C., R.L. Payne and D.S. Pugh. "Influence of structure at organizational and group levels." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16, 1971: 61-73. 267 Pierce, J.L. and R.B. Dunham. "Task design: A literature review." Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 83, No. 1, 1976:2u8-77. Poole, M.S. "Communication and organizational climate: Review, crituque, and a new perspective." In R.D. McPhee & P.K. Tompkins (eds.), giganizational Communication: Traditional Themes and New Directions, Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1985. Porter, L.W., W.J. Crampon and F.J. Smith. "Organizational commitment and managerial turnover: a longitudinal study." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 15, 1976:87-98. Porter, L.W. and Edward E. Lawler III. "PrOperties of organization structure in relation to job attitudes and job behavior." Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 6H, No. 1, 1965:23-51. Porter, L.W., E.E. Lawler and J.R. Hackman. Behavior in Organizations. New York: McGraWbHill, 1975. Porter, L.W. and R.M. Steers. "Organizational, work and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism." Psychological Porter, L.W., R.M. Steers, R.T. Mowday and P.V. Boulian. "Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians." Journal of Applied Psycholagy, Vol. 59. No., 5, 1974:603-9. Pugh, D.S., D.J. Hickson, C.R. Hinings and C. Turner. "Dimensions of organization structure." Administration Science Quarterly, Vol. Pugh, D.S., D.J. Hickson, C.R. Hinings and C. Turner. "The context of organization structures." Administration Science Quarterly, Vol. 1A, 1969:91-114. Read, W.H. "Upward communication in industrial hierarchies." Human Research Institute, University of Petroleum and Minerals. The Ultimate Resource, 2nd ed., 1985 (in English). Ritchie, J.B. "Supervision." In G. Strauss, R.B. Miles, C.C. Snow, and A. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Organizational Behavior: Research and Issues. Madison, Wisconsin: Industrial Relations Research Association, 197". Ritchie, J.B. and R.B. Miles. "An analysis of quantity and quality of participation as mediating variables in participative decision making process." Personnel Psychology, Vol. 23, 1970:3M7-359. Ritzer, G. and R.M. Trice. An Occupation in Conflict. New York: Cornell University, 19698. 268 Ritzer, G. and H.M. Trice. "An empirical study of Howard Becker's Side-Bet Theory." Social Forces, Vol. 47, 1969b:475-79. Roberts, K.H. "On looking at an elephant: an evaluation of cross-cultural research related to organizations." Psyphological Bulletin, Vol. 75, No. 5, 1970:327-350. Roberts, K.H. and G.A. O'Reilly. "Failures in upward communication: three possible culprits." Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 17, 1974:205-215. Rothwell, J.D. and J.I. Costigan. Interpersonal Communication: Influences and Alternatives. Columbus, Ohio: Bell & Howell, 1975. Rousseau, D.M. "Characteristics of departments, positions, and individuals: Contexts for attitudes and behavior." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23, 1978:521-540. Russell, Thornton. "Organizational involvement and commitment to organization and profession." Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, Vol. 15:417-426. SABIC. "Saudi Basic Industries C00peration." Riyadh: Saudi Arabian Printing Company, Ltd., 1986. Salancik, G.A. "Commitment and the Control of Organizational Behavior and Belief." In B.M. Staw, Psycholagical Foundations of Organizational Behavior. Glenview, Illinois: St. Clair Press, 1983. Saudi Consulting House. A Guide to Industrial Investment, 6th ed. Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 1981 (in English). Saudi Consulting House. SCH: Function and Services. Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 1987 (in English and Arabic). Schneider, B. "Organizational climate: An essay." Personnel Psychology, Vol. 28, 1975:447-979. Schneider, 8., D.T. Hall and H.T. Nygren. "Self image and job characteristics as correlates of changing organizational identification." Human Relations, Vol. 24, No. 5. 1971:397-416. Schuer, R.S. "Role conflict and ambiguity as a function of the task-structure-technology interaction." Organization Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 20, 1977:66-74. Schuer, R.S. "A role perception transactional process model for organizational communication-outcome relationships." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 23, 1979:268—291. Scott, W.R. nganizations: Rational, Natural! and Open Systems. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1981. 269 Seashore, S. Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1954. Sheldon, M.E. "Investment and involvements as mechanisms producing commitment to the organization." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1971:142-150. Siegel, A.L. and R.A. Ruh. "Job—involvement, participation in decision-making, personal background and job behavior." nganizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 9, 1973:318-327. Smith, P.B., M. Moscow, M. Berger and G. Cooper. "Relationship between managers and their work associates." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1969:338-45. Staw, B.M. and G.R. Salancik. New Directions in Opganizational Behavior. St. Clair Press, 1977. Steers, Richard M. "Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitments." Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 1977a:46-56. Steers, Richard M. Organizational Effectiveness: A Behavioral View. Santa Monica, California: Goodyear Publishing Co., 1977b. Stevens, J.M., J.M. Bayer and H.M. Trice. "Assessing personal, role and organizational predictors of managerial commitment." Academy of Management Journal, 21, 1978:380-96. Stone, E.E. and L.W. Porter. "Job characteristics and job attitudes: a multivariate study." Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, 1975:57-64. Sutton, R.L. and D.M. Rousseau. "Structure, technology and dependence on parent organization: organizational and environmental correlates of individual responses." Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64, 1979:675-87. Tannenbaum, A.S. Social Psychology of the WOrk Organization. Belmont, California: wadsworth Publishing Company, 1969. Tompkins, Phillip K. and G. Cheney. "Communication and unobtrusive control in contemporary organizations." In R.D. McPhee and Phillip K. Tompkins (eds.), Organizational Communication: Traditional Themes and New Directions, pp. 179-210. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications Ltd., 1985. Triandis, H.C. Interpersonal Behavior. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole, 1977. Vroom, V.H. Some Personality Determinant of the Effects of Participation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, 1960. Vroom, V.H. Wbrk and Motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1964. 270 Warren, D.I. "Social relations of peers in a formal organization setting." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 11, 1966: Weber, M. Essays in Sociolagy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1946. Welsch, H.P. and H. LeVan. "Interrelationship between organizational commitment and job characteristics, job satisfaction, professional behavior and organizational climate." Human Relations, Vol. 34, 1981:1079-1089. Westrum, Ron and Khalil Samaha. Complex Organizations: Growtpl Structure, and Change. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1984. Wexley, K.N. and G. Yukl. Organizational Behavior and Personnel Psychology. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1977. Wiener, Y. "Commitment in organizations: A normative view." Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1982:418-428. Williams, F. The New Communications. Belmont, California: Wedsworth Publishing Co., 1984. WOodward, J. Industrial Organization: Thegpy and Practice, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980. Zaleznik, A. "Interpersonal Relations in Organizations." Handbook of nganizations. James March, ed., Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965. V. LIBRARIES 11H 1 694496 . ; yfiICHIGHN BIQTE UN \IHHHHIHHIHHIHWIIHHIHH ,, 31293995