MANAGER, PERCEPTIONS 0F DIFFERENCES ' [IN HIGH AND LOW CREATIVE PERSONNEL . z . IN BROADCASTING STATIONS- SOME DIMENSIONS Thesis for the Degree of PhD MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 7 _ ELDEAN BENNETT I970 L f F"- E Michigan State University ‘. "' J'h " -‘ '~ Inn-I --‘~Nnd-v.l. .319" bl?” ,,$mg R A R V i l. This is to certify that the thesis entitled M:‘II\IA(}I11I*I PBhCEi'TIONb‘ UI- UIFI‘EHE‘EIKC II‘V HIGH mat) LON Ciif'lA'l‘I‘xftfl ES E'LIRQCNI‘EEL IN BHUI‘IDCASTING bL‘ATIUch b‘Oi-QIL‘. UTIVLEN S ION S presented by ElDean Bennett has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Communieat ion elm; 6’- ewéw Major professory DmeNov. 10, 1970 0-169 ABSTRACT MANAGER PERCEPTIONS OF DIFFERENCES IN HIGH AND LOW CREATIVE PERSONNEL IN BROADCASTING STATIONS- SOME DIMENSIONS by ElDean Bennett High—creative and low-creative personnel may frequently be found working in the same company. Managers of a company may have different perceptions of each type of employee and the work they do. In addition, managers may be identified by their style or type of leadership, either autocratic or democratic in nature. Because of these leadership styles and the different perceptions of high- and low-creative personnel, the study proposes that managers may act toward or communicate with each of these groups of employees in a different manner. The study sought to do four things: (1) identify any differences in the manager's perceptions of employees in high- and low-creative positions; (2) to identify a relationship between these differences and managerial or leadership style; (3) to determine if managers act towards or communicate with personnel in these positions in different ways; and (N) to corroborate the findings of the survey with managers by conducting a similar survey of people who work for those managers. ElDean Bennett The method for conducting the study was a questionnaire, submitted to managers of radio and television stations in the United States, designed to identify the proposed perceived differences and to determine managerial style. A second questionnaire, similar to the first, was submitted to a group of six employees who worked for each of the manager subjects to see what, if any differences occurred in the employee and the manager ratings of the manager's style, methods of commun— ication and interaction with employees and his perceived differences among employees. Members of the sales department of the station were classified as the low-creative personnel and members of the program department were classified as high- creative personnel. The results were analyzed by obtaining correlations between items of the questionnaire, and on difference scores between sales and program personnel as perceived by the manager. In addition a factor analysis probed the dimensions of the differences observed. Managers and employees from a total of 21 radio and television stations were studied. It was found to be impossible to break out leadership style because of the inability of the instrument to distinguish adequately between autocratic style and democratic style. One important finding, however, was that employees consistently saw the manager as more autocratic in style than the manager saw himself. Perceived differences were identified, especially in the area of salary and Special incentives paid to the two areas of sales and programming. Other differences were minimal. ElDean Bennett The factor analysis provided three dimensions of the differences for the manager group and four for the employee group. Those for the managers were the dimensions of self satisfaction, efficiency and satisfaction with work done. For the employee group, the dimensions were efficiency, more work monitoring by the manager, awareness and work motivation. It was concluded that managers do perceive some difference between members of departments were the amount of creativity involved is either high or low. However, these differences need to be better defined. It is suggested that more study is needed on a manager's perception of creativity, what c nstitutes high- and low-creativity, and whether the positions studied are indeed considered high- or low-creative in nature by the manager and the employees. Employees see the manager as perceiving greater differences than the manag r reports he sees, which is in line with the predictions of the study. The greatest difference for both managers and employees is seen as being in the area of compensation for w rk done and incentives paid to stimulate the employee. II MANAGER PERCEPTIONS OF DIFFEHENCES IN HIGH nhD LOL CREAEIVE fiERbONhEL IN BROhUCASTInC STATIONS- SOME DIMENSIONS by Eeran Bennett a ThEbIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of UCCTUR UF rhILUSOPHX Department of Communication 1970 CCWI‘IS‘ Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Communic- ation, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree. - ’/’. fl - 7 .4: / {iv/“CM L. O] U12 thew-i ‘6’”th Director of Thesis ,/ . [I 4:8 ,‘ -‘\ B .I Z . . ._~ ,I , . . Guidance Committee: erAgyx t.. ’£C¥¢Cq .Ehi , Chairman ' , . I. / I L-’ . -// ”I (_ (u ‘ .‘ 5' L/ "‘ '.. ; 4- 14; c’lfiufl'fivk ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people have had a role in the writing of this thesis. They are those who have given encouragement, support, advice, inspiration, sustenance and other forms of help for which there is no adequate description. This writer has a debt for which there is no adequate payment to many: To Dr. David K. Berlo for having enough faith in background and potential to accept the writer as a student even at his "advanced" age in the first place. To Dr. Erwin Bettinghaus who has given direction, encouragement and comfort, all occasionally laced with sympathy in the develOpment of the thesis. To members of the committee Dr. Thomas Baldwin, Dr. Lawrence Barbaugh, Professor Leo Martin and Dr. Winston Oberg, for contributions beyond count, "thanks” seems hardly enough. Appreciation is due to other members of the faculties at Michigan State University, but most particularly to Dr. Verling C. Troldahl, whose guidance in methodology for the study has been invaluable. However, in the final analysis, reSponsibility for that contained herein is solely that of the author. This work, modest as it is, is dedicated to my wife, Maralin, and six children, their patient understanding so appreciated and well recognized. But more than this, the future is also dedicated to this family, in hopes that somehow, a little may be made up to them. E.B. ii CHAPTER TABLE OF CONTENTS I. The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . A B. C. D. E. Background Rationale Development & Literature 1. Management Type 2. Communication The Problem Rationale and Hypotheses l. Assumptions 2. Hypotheses Summary II. Methods and Procedures . . . . . . . A. B. C. The instrument The Subjects 1. Managers 2. Employees summary III. Analysis and Findings . . . . . . . A. B. C. Testing the hypotheses 1. Correlations 2. Factor Analysis Nature of Factors Summary IV. Discussion . . o . . . . . . . . . . A. B. The Hypotheses Implications V. Bibliography 0 o o o o o o o o o o o APPENDICES: A. B. D. E Manager Instrument Employee Instrument survey Comparative Ratings-Leadership Style Correlations on Variables Participating otations iii PAGE l-l \‘H-4 31 33 3H 37 #7 H8 51 60 7O 73 76 79 82 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 Description of the Samples by Age Group 38 2 Description of the Samples by Years in 39 Broadcasting 3 Description of the Samples by Time in the #0 Present Position 4 Description of the Samples by Salary Earned A2 5 Description of the Sample by Education Level HA 6 ”escription of the Sample by Satisfaction 45 with Present Salary 7 “escription of the Samples by satisfaction #6 with Promotion Policies of Company 8 Mean Differences, All Managers, Each Variable 52 9 Mean Differences, n11 Employees, Each 5% Variable lO Factor Structure for kanager Subjects 58 ll Factor Structure for Employee Subjects 60 12 Mean Salary, Sales vs. Programming 67 13 Comparative Ratings, Manager vs. Employees, 98 Leadership Style 1% Correlation Matrix - all Variables with 100 Every Other Variable - Manager Subjects 15 Correlation Matrix - all Variables with 101 Every Other Variable - Employee Subjects iv FIGURE LIST OF FIGURES McQuitty Elementary Linkage Analysis Design - Manager Subjects McQuitty Elementary Linkage Analysis Design - Employee Subjects PAGE 56 59 CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM "I know of no subject that deserves more extensive exploration than the relationship between effective communication and the executive career. . .Ideas are valueless if they cannot be conveyed. The executive must know how to convey ideas succinctly for the slightest obscurity in his directives will result in confusion. . . .He must know the power of language." In this way the importance of the communicative abilities of management is emphasized by one who manages. In the past two decades management has been made increasingly aware of the fact that communication is probably the number one tool in administering the affairs of an organization. From 75% to 95% of a manager's time is spent in some form of communic- ation. Yet the emphasis placed on this facet of administration all too frequently fails to produce improved behavior in the organization. Maier and hoffman (1961) report: "Findings in general provide empirical evidence that substantial communication problems exist at high management levels in organizations, problems which one can expect to be reflected in poor organizational efficiency and distortion of organizational goals at lower levels in the hierarchy.” 1President of Steuben Glass, Inc. Quoted in Aurner, d. F. Effective Communication in Business. #th Ed. Cincinnati: Southwest Publishing Company. 1958. p. 14. 2Norman R.F. Maier and Richard L. Hoffman. "Superior- Subordinate Communication in Management." AMA Research Study £5 0 1961. 2 Prior research in management has dealt with immediate problems, the end result being a solution to a specific problem at hand. Once that problem is out of the way, there is little incentive to expend more time and effort. Little is done until the next problem appears. Much of the writing on the subject of administrative and organizational communication is based on the personal philosophy of "experts” in the field who have gained their knowledge from a working acquaintance with management and its problems. Relatively little is based on empirical research or on behavioral science theory, though this body of knowledge is growing. It is in this light that the rationale for this study was conceived and developed. Assumptions made about management and management/employee relationships have come from twenty- three years of practical experience in the field of radio and television by the author. This experience is drawn on heavily in establishing the foundations for the study, along with the theory and study of other writers and researchers in the field. The greatest difficulty with communication problems in business is not the solving of such problems, but the recognition of them in the first place. The behavioral scientist attempts to put such problems in proper perspective, providing data to help recognize them as communication problems and the tools with which to deal with them, correctively or preventively. Some organizational problems that need attention of the behavioral scientist today include: trust, or lack of it, between manager and the employee; the problem of creating interdependence among people, i.e., common goals and agreement between the superior and subordinate about the means of achieving them; the distribution of rewards for work done; agreement about the social structure of the organization, and so forth. Communication is related to each of these problems.3 Even with identification of communication problems, there remains among managers a discrepancy between the amount of knowledge of communication processes, theories, techniques and skills, and the manager's willingness to allocate time and company resources for communication development. It seems natural to equate effective communication and effective administration. Likert (1961) maintains that high producing managers are those who are more likely to pay greater attention to better methods of communicating with employees. They are the ones who recognize the importance of good communication, upward as well as downward in the organization, and who work to have an effectively communicating organization. They are willing to use company time and resources in developing effective communication skills and techniques among the personnel of the organization, and in turn use effective communication for further growth and develOpment of the company. It follows that low-producing managers may also be less effective communicators. Such managers would find it 3Jay M. Jackson. ”The Organization and Its Communication Problem." Advanced Management. February, 1959. 1+ difficult to recognize communication problems as such, or be unwilling to accept them as communication problems. Thus, they are less able to solve the problems. Most administrative communication is preplanned in nature. It flows through the formal or planned channels of the organ- ization. It contrasts with spontaneous communication, epitomized by the "grapevine" in most companies. While most informal relationships are based on the ease with which participants communicate, the function of the formal structure of the company requires communication between those who might not otherwise be inclined to interact with one another. Problems occur, based on personality factors as well as communicative abilities. Man is by his very nature a communicative being. He appears to need social interaction with his peers and with his superiors in order to function most profitably for the firm. The Western Electric studies by Mayo, et al, showed that, isolated the worker becomes frustrated and when his communication contacts with his peers are reduced or cut off job dissatisfaction is a likely product. This has been borne out by other studies including works by French and Lander (19H9), Mathewson (1931) and Stouffer, et a1 (1914-9).l+ Pope (1956) points out that failure to communicate "is not a matter of vocabulary but of emotion."5 This may be true in groups as well as between individuals. L“ELF. Hefferline. ”Communication Theory: 11. Extension to Intrapersonal Behavior.” gtrly. Jrnl. of Speech. Vol.Hl. 1955. 5J.B.Pope. "Communication, The Mystery of Management." The ControlLer. January, 1956. Communication systems in organizations are often taken for granted. Systems have been researched on direction of the flow of information, upward, downward or horizontally. There is substantially more information available on the downward flow, consisting of orders, policy, commands, etc. There is less on the upward flow from the subordinate to his superiors. Poor communication, upward or downward, can produce costly waste, misunderstanding, inefficiency and personal frustration for all involved in the process. In a Masters thesis, this author investigated the relationship between manager type, autocratic and democratic, and the communication behavior peculiar to each type. An effort was made to determine what part personality or leader- ship type plays in managerial communication behavior. Fifty- two managers of radio and television stations in the United States were used as the subjects in the study. Typology studies are difficult at best. The accurate determination of a managerial "type" or "style" is subject to many variables and unknown conditions and is not easily measured. Likert (1968) says management style is often indicative of the organizational system operating in the firm, or within a department of a larger organization. But in the experience of the author, it is quite possible for the firm to reflect the personality of the manager, for the manager to leave his stamp on the organization. Every manager has characteristics of each leadership style. Different situations within the firm will likely call forth that 6 characteristics which most adequately cope with the problem at hand. Yet it is only logical to assume that each manager is basically one or the other type in his personality makeup. The premise of the Masters thesis was, that being more strongly autocratic or democratic, there should also be some specific communication behaviors common to that management type. Application of this thesis was also made in the present study. The interest of the present study is in whether a manager perceives a difference in members of his organization who work in somewhat different capacities, i.e., the sales department vs. the program department of a broadcasting station. These two departments will be described later as low—creative, or high-creative in nature. The study further sought to determine whether in perceiving such a difference, the manager would act communicatively in a different way toward each and the personnel in the Specific department. A further attempt was made to determine whether such differences in perception could be identified as belonging to a particular style of management, i.e., the classifications of autocratic or democratic styles. Since this portion of the study was to consist of self- identification by the manager, a further attempt to verify the findings was made in a similar study with the people who work for each manager. Little has been done in the past in investigation of such a problem. as was pointed out, the greatest amount of effort 7 in the past has been in response to existing needs, or of problem solving. Research results have been used in developing a manager into a more competent writer, a better Speaker, a more acceptable representative of the firm to the community. Such results are spelled out in "how~to" formulas. The development of a theory of organizational communic- ation based on research to give solid foundation to the techniques and skills of communication has been slow in coming. New communication patterns and methods of working among managers must be develOped and submitted to evaluation by systematic research. Rationale Develonment and Survey of the Literature At this point the variables of interest in the problem should be defined and discussed. A. Management type. The author was influenced in develOping the typology study for the Masters thesis by the behavioral approach to managerial style of Jennings (1962). This approach has since been tempered by exploration into the studies of Likert and his associates at the Center for Human Behavior Research at Ann arbor and the leadership behavior studies of dtogdill, Coons and others at Columbus, Ohio. Jennings perceives the organization as being influenced by a strong leader who is able to place his stamp on nearly all phases of the organization. The three management types which Jennings defines are as follows: 8 l. The Autocrat. The concept of one-man rule is basic to organization theory. It derived from proprietary rights where the owner was also the manager. autocracy in many ways is synonymous with power, but a distinction must be made between authority and power. Authority implies the ”right" to administer, a right vested in formal rules and regulations of the firm, recognized and accepted by all who contract to work for the company. Power, on the other hand, implies the ”ability" to do things in the organization, even though formal authority to do so may be lacking. Authority has the essence of legitimacy whereas power may or may not have. The ideal situation is to have both power and authority vested in the same individual. The autocratic administrator must of necessity place great faith in himself and his abilities. He sees himself as a masterful individual, unusually competent in his abilities. He is the key to all that goes on about him, seeking to control through the power and authority that is his and which he sees as the dominant factor of management. 2. The Bureaucrat. Differentiating between autocracy and bureaucracy is difficult. Both are power systems and overlap considerably. As Jennings points out, ”Theoretically one is to vauire the power of authority, the other the power to order."6 Bureaucracy is different from autocracy in that the bureaucratic manager is concerned that his power be based 6Eugene Jennings. The Executive: Autocrat, Bureaucrat, Democrat. New York: Harper and Row, Pub. 1962. p. 120. 9 on authority. The autocrat is only concerned that he has power. But the bureaucrat, unlike the autocrat, is somewhat fearful of the consequences of decision making. 80 he turns to the rule book to support his decisions and to committees to share the burden of decision making and its consequences. As might be expected the bureaucrat is highly concerned with order, i.e., a place for everything and everything in its place. He views spontaneity and impromptu action as sources of much inefficiency. 3. The Democrat. Oriented to the group, with a philosophy based on the idea of sharing, information, time, company resources, etc., with all about him, the democrat seeks to make power and authority of the autocrat and bureaucrat tolerable, to reduce their negative effects. To this end, he encourages freedom of discussion, a lack of formality, initiative on the part of subordinates and a realization of the necessity for developing the desire and ability to act responsibly and productively in behalf of the organization. He seeks the participation of the employee in as many facets of the company as possible. Aware of the tendency to abuse and misuse the positions of authority in the company, the democrat uses the participation of the subordinates to establish the guidelines for responsible channeling of activity, keeping a watchful, but friendly, eye on all company activities. The above descriptions are not to say that one style or type of management is more desirable than another, or more productive. Indeed, each will accomplish essentially 10 the same ends for the company, each with strong points and weak points. For example, the autocratic manager, because of his intensive drive, may prove to be the most productive manager. But on the other hand, he may have more frequent turnover of personnel than the democratic manager in the prodess of managing. Likert, contrasted to Jennings, sees the manager as having his leadership style thrust upon him, or formed or dictated by the organization in which he operates. He reflects the company, rather than the company reflecting his style or type. As an example, the army consistently produces author- itarian leaders, presumably because it takes an authoritarian approach to lead men into such an event as war. Government produces the bureaucrat, fearful of taking responsibility for his actions and their consequences, yet desirous of power. Religious organizations produce democratic (or theocratic) leadership, where the password is ”love thy neighbor.” Yet each leader brings to his position, something that is distinctively his, a unique, individualized approach to his position as a leader of other human beings. In the experience of the author, it is possible for a man to stamp his personality on the company he heads. The great leaders of the media, past and present, have done so, men like Bennett, Greeley, Hearst, Scripps, Paley, Stanton, Sarnoff and others. Their companies reflect the men. The reasons for this would appear to be centered around the size of the group the leader initially controlled, the 11 great sense of responsibility that comes with working in the mass media industry, the felt responsibility to the community and its people and other similar reasons. All may play a part in aiding the manager to leave his personal stamp on the company. It may be that type of leadership is not as easily recognized under the labels of autocratic, bureaucratic and democratic. There are in actuality many labels given to the management systems and leadership styles of business. The manager may be authoritarian or permissive, charismatic or low-key, tough minded or humane. As an example, consider briefly another approach to the situation under different labels, authoritarian, permissive and integrative. 1. Since World Mar 11, authoritarianism has been a tOpic of extensive discussion and study, in part stemming from recognition of the impact which a single dictator could have on a large portion of the world. another factor is the considerable experience a large percentage of the male pOpulation of the world has had with authoritarian military figures and organizations. The authoritarian personality has been studied and documented extensively, but the authoritarian leadership role has been less frequently examined, especially in relation to communication practices. Like the autocrat, the authoritarian manager is the one who runs the show himself, reacting personally to each problem as it arises, rendering decisions as to what is to be done. His own values and those of the company often become indistinguishable. He exercises most control in the 12 organization. He is generally unaware or unconcerned with employee needs and values and may frequently be unpOpular. He reflects short term values and strategies, prefering simplicity, reliability and order. In playing the manager role, he is primarily concerned with tradition and precedent, following the role as precisely as he can. He seeks rules and prescriptions of the role and performs them, in this way approximating the bureaucrat. 2. The permissive approach to management is essentially experimental. Under it employees become either very dependent or very self-sufficient, a situation that is not at all uncommon with a democratic manager. The manager presents himself as a blank slate and the employees are forced to write upon that, from their own fund of knowledge, experience, temperament, values and skills. It is a useful technique for producing employee learning, but puts more strain and pressure on the worker than any other style. The permissive manager turns full responsibility for detail and control over to others, requiring only proof of results. He is generally concerned and highly sensitive to employee needs and values, reacting to and accommodating them in timely fashion. He is usually pOpular with employees. He has an ability to manage complexity, challenge, novelty, and ambiguity. In his performance of the managerial role he acts according to personal preference, being Opposed to form and tradition. l3 3. Somewhere between the authoritarian and permissive styles of management lies the integrative style. With this approach the manager serves as a link between his organization and its' market and customers. He becomes the center for the gathering, processing and dissemination of information and data about the relationship between the organization and the outside world. This style is a technique in building team commitment as a step toward dealing effectively with the market in all its complexity. The manager is the chief strategist and coordinator who Operates in an Open system in which conflict is healthy, adaptive and innovative. He uses selective key controls, but leaves most detail and decisions in the hands of others, in many ways approximating the bureaucrat. He is aware of employee values and needs but is primarily concerned with other matters so is relatively uninfluenced by these needs. He tends to be distant with employees. He is aware of traditions in playing the manager role and acts accordingly. But he is also prone to experiment with fresh approaches to the role and personal variations. The above styles are basically strategies, used by the manager in dealing with the organization, its personnel and the relationship between the company and the community. Likert's (1968) four systems of organization approximate the styles described above. He divides them into two major categories, authoritative and participative. The authoritative category is further subdivided into "exploitative authoritative,” "benevolent authoritative” and "consultative." The participative 14 category has only one division, ”participative group." These appear tO be four discrete types of organizational systems, but this oversimplification is deceiving. The four systems may blend into one another and may form a continuum with many intermediate patterns. Likert orders them along a continuum based on the kinds Of controls and motivational forces instituted by the manager, and the attitudinal responses each evokes. In the leadership studies from the literature, one of the primary concerns is the effective Operation Of the organization and how this is affected by the compatibility Of manager and subordinate. Social scientists engaged in research on management and organizational performance initially expected to find a marked and consistent relationship between management systems Of the leader and the attitudes and loyalties Of the employees, and the production Of the organization. Some studies have found a sizable relationship (Likert and Willits, 19%0; Katz, Maccoby and Morse, 1950) but others (Parker, 1963) have found no relationship between the manager's leadership style and organizational productivity. It appears the original expectation may have been tOO simple a relation- ship. Many studies found a positive relationship between employee attitudes and productivity, but again, others obtained negative results. Industry spends large sums on training supervisors and managers in human relations skills, yet the results, according tO some studies, (Fleishman, et a1, 1955; Foundation for 15 Research on Human Behavior, 195%; Mann, 1957) are Often disappointing. One Of the difficulties appears to be a wideSpread, but erroneous, assumption ttat there are Specifically ”right" and ”wrong" ways tO manage. As was pointed out earlier, an autocratic manager may be more productive than his democratic counterpart, though his style has drawbacks, such as a more frequent turnover of personnel. In another study on manager-employee relationship Pelz (1951; 1952) found that for most supervisory practices there was only slight relationship between the behavior of the supervisor, as reported by the supervisor, and the attitudes and morale Of the employees. However, when such population variables as size of work group, kind Of work and length of employment were held constant there was an increase in the number of relationships which were statistically significant between supervisory behavior and subordinate response. However, many Of these relationships were negative, or in the Opposite direction of what was predicted. Since the present study involved a self-rating by the manager, the Pelz findings appear to be relevant. In a review Of studies done on leadership in various fields, Jenkins (1947) reported that: "The situation does not appear to be a particularly happy one with regard to the deriving of general principles Or of setting up a systematic theory of leadership from available information. Leadership is Specific to the particular situation under investigation. Who becomes the leader Of a given group engaging in a particular activity and 16 what the leadership characteristics are in a given case, are a function of the specific situation including the measuring instruments employed. Related to this conclusion is the general finding Of wide variations in the characteristics of individuals who become leaders in similar situations and even greater divergence in leadership behavior in different situations.” One reason for the lack Of consistent pattern between supervisory practice and behavior as reported by the supervisor and the response by the subordinates, is the discrepancy that exists at times between what the supervisor says he does and what he actually does. Often a supervisor may not even be aware Of the contradiction which Pelz and others have Observed. The subordinate's reaction to a supervisor's behavior depends upon the relationship between the supervisory act as perceived by the subordinate and the expectations, values and interpersonal skills of the subordinate. This generalization appears valid for every level in an hierarchical organization and for all kinds Of organizations. It is also consistent with Lewin's field theory (1951) and is supported by research in social psychology, which has demonstrated the importance Of intervening variables and interactional effects. B. Communication. In organizational communication, three areas are of general major concern: 1. The function which the communication serves. It may be to inform, evaluate, instruct, influence or affect. It may have to do with the protocol or etiquette Of the group. But communication serves a purpose, related to socializing a member of the organization. l7 2. The form of communication used. Managers may prefer to use written messages, reports, memos, personal notes and so forth to accomplish their ends. Or they may choose the face-tO-face, verbal approach. This is the channel chosen by the communicator to carry the message. 3. Who is involved in the communication situation. It may be management-subordinate, management-union, or management-community. It may take place between peers, horizontally within the organization, or it may take place with a broader leap in the organizational hierarchy. It is the ”who talks to whom and for what purpose” of organizational communication. This was the attempt Of the Masters thesis, to relate specific practices or processes in communication to the style of managers in broadcast stations. TO a degree, it may be possible to reverse the process, typing the manager by the form of communication channels, the functions Of communication and the parties involved when he communicates. Research in communication has fairly well documented the downward flow of communication in an organization, e.g., orders, policy, information, commands and so forth. It has studied communication meSSages funneled through the formal channels of the organization. This is a form of preplanned communication, as opposed to spontaneous communication, that which travels through the company "grapevine.” Some Of the results of studies have shown that the further down the hierarchy a message must travel, the greater 18 the distance between the origination point and the receiver, the less likely with the content Of the message be understood or passed on accurately through the levels Of the organization to its eventual intended goal. In contrast, the upward flow of information, from the subordinate to the superior, is much less well documented. Previous studies have indicated that managers, and eSpecially employees, do not see such upward flow of information as having the same impact or the same degree Of success. In order for sound decisions to be made in an organization all the relevant information and technical knowledge existing on a particular problem must flow to the point where decisions on that problem are to be made. The manager's very position exercises influence in this flow and his personality may also have important consequences on the freedom with which information does gravitate to his position. So the leadership style Of the manager would appear to be a point Of important influence on the effective flow of communication within the organization. His perceptions of the members of his organization, the positions they hold and the relationship to them based on those perceptions, would be capable of hindering or aiding the communication process which facilitates the movement of information through the organizational structure. The expectations, norms and values of each individual in the organization are important variables affecting response to behavior of others. The kinds Of supervisory behavior which are apprOpriate and responded to favorably by subordinates 19 but also vary with the traditions Of the working situation, such as Office worked in, type Of work done in the organization, and such as whether that work is highly-creative Or low—creative in nature. A social value affecting response Of the subordinates to a supervisory act, then, is the personality of the supervisor. Subordinates eXpect a superior to behave in a manner or pattern consistent with his personality, and when he behaves in ways other than those that fit his personality, communic- atively or in any other way, it tends to create confusion and conflict in the employee. Borgatta (1959) determined that the high power-status individuals, i.e., those of higher ranks in the hierarchy, initiate more communication than do lower status persons. The study found that persons who were told they were the boss and could tell others what to do in the experimental situation sent more messages. These findings were substantially confirmed by Gerard (1957). A positive relationship between power—status and the number of communications initiated is supported by a number of studies. Hurwitz, Zander and Hymnotitch (1953) reported that the power—status hierarchy influences the flow and content Of communications in face—tO-face situations. When there is a recognized power-status hierarchy all group members will direct more communication to a high power-status individual than to a low power-status one. However, this author prOposes that the type Of personality or leadership style exhibited by the high power-status leader 20 may influence the quantity or the willingness, or even the content, of the message sent to him from his subordinates. Mussen and Porter (1959) found that the content of communication from low to high order power-status persons depends in large part on what the low—status person has learned is most likely to Obtain reinforcement. Again, the author here proposes that the leadership style of the leader may influence the employee's perception Of how readily he may gain reinforcement from his superior. After all, might not a highly authoritarian leader exhibit a different willingness to receive certain kinds of messages than a permissive style leader, and each produce a different subordinate reaction because of their personality style? The receiver has been the subject of other studies in communication. Zajonc and Burnstein (1959) of the University Of Michigan explored some of the distortions which occur in the receiver, measuring the effect of uncertainty on the acceptance Of new information. Uncertainty is a possible product Of the type Of manager the receiver works for, and the eXpectations developed, based on leadership style, would reflect the degree Of uncertainty the employee perceives or develOps. Uncertainty appears to affect the way people distort what they hear or see. Lawshe and Bolda at Purdue (1959) have also studied the receiver. They were concerned with the sensitivity of the executives in industry toward their employees and the use of role playing as a training device in increasing the sensitivity Of the executivesto cues about human relations. 21 Relating to earlier material, there is a possible measure here of the difference between autocratic and democratic management styles, since, according to Jennings (1962) the democratic manager is more sensitive to the needs and values of his employees. Maier, Read and Hooven (1959) examined the amount of agreement and disagreement between superior and subordinate on the nature of the subordinate's job. Included were reports of the kind of breakdowns that occurred at middle management levels and some of the aSpects of the subordinate's job which are communicated least successfully. Likert (1968) indicates that such agreement on the nature of the employee's job is an indicator of how successful the manager's division or department may be, and that in high producing, or successful, organizations, there is high agreement between superior and subordinate. Triandis (1959) concerned with why breakdowns occur in business communication, examined similarities in thinking between people and the impact of similarity and dissimilarity on communication. he reported finding ”people who think the way I do" or ”peOple who operate on the same wave-length” to be a gratifying experience to most administrators. Communication with such people comes easier and appears to be more rewarding for the manager. Triandis also found that different levels of the organization produced different frames of reference about people, using different criteria for making judgments. For upper-level 22 managers, class criteria and background were important. For lower-level managers, the supervisor or department head, power was the key. For the workers, reliability, authority and pay received were the important criteria. This difference in values at the different levels could also be carried over into the frames of reference about jobs and job performance. Managers communicating with a particular group, Triandis concluded, can increase the effectiveness of their communication by taking the criteria and values characteristic of that groups thinking into consideration. Interpersonal relationships in organizational communication was the subject of Shepherd and wechsler (1955) who concluded, substantiating an assumption generally made, that people tend to associate with those with whom they experience the least communication difficulty, a conclusion similar to Triandis' above. The attempt to summarize some of the studies in the area of leadership style and organizational communication most pertinent to the present study, by no means exhausts the possibilities. In this respect, other areas, mass communication, the sociology of communication and communication technology may at times be highly relevant to the subject. The Problem Historically we have seen autocratic organizations in which pure coercive power determined who controlled the behavior of others. We have also seen benevolent autocracies 23 paternalistic organizations and egalitarian ones which deliberately distributed power wisely among the membership and used a rational-legal basis for authority. There is no one right way for an organization to be managed. It depends instead on the fit between management's assumptions about people and the actual characteristics of the organizational members. 'Whether conscious of it or not everyone makes some assumptions about what people are like, what motivates them and how, therefore, they should be dealt with. The manager's assumptions not only determine to some degree the form of organization to be utilized in fulfilling a task, but also will determine his management strategy concerning employees. The kinds of expectations or perceptions the manager has about people, e.g., his employees, will be primarily an expression of his assumptions about them. But as has been pointed out, employees have eXpectations too. They make assumptions about the organization, assumptions about the people who manage them. Therefore, the actual inter- action between the employee and the organization can be, as Schein (1965) has put it, ”the working out of a psychological contract." Every manager makes assumptions about people who work for him. It may be personal, based on the individual himself, or more general, based at least in part on the position which the individual occupies within the framework of the organization. The manager's effectiveness in dealing with his employees will depend in part on the degree to which his assumptions fit reality. 2% It is prOposed as part of the rationale of this study that some of these assumptions may be based on the manager's perceptions of a difference between high-creative and low- creative personnel in his organization. It is generally assumed that an employee may be classified as "creative" or not, and whether the position which he fills is considered either a creative or a non-creative position. For this study members of the sales department of a radio or tv station are labeled as "low-creative" when compared to those employees who work in the program department in such activities as on-air work, writing c0py, composing music, activing and conceiving new and different program ideas. It is the reSponsibility of the program department to produce, to create new and better solutions to the problems of the station, i.e., how to get higher ratings than the competition. Sales, meanwhile, has the charge of implementing and applying these solutions to produce the revenue on which the station is able to operate. It is admittedly a teamwork situation, but the sales techniques are fairly standard while novelty is of prime concern with programming, or the creative end of the organization. But what is creativity? How can it be determined? Creativity has been defined a number of ways in the psychological literature, in business discussion, in the arts and sciences. One distinction seems central to all these definitions: Creativity has to do with the develOpment, prOposal and implementation of ngw and better solutions. In contrast, productivity has to do with the efficient 25 application of current solutions and/or methods. In 1964 a University of Chicago School of Business sponsored seminar on creativity produced the following characteristics of tie ”creative individual." A. Intellectual Characteristics. 1. Conceptual fluency: able to generate a large number of ideas rapidly. Conceptual flexibility: ability to dis card one frame of reference for another, spontaneously. Originality: ability and/or tend.ency to gi_ve unusual, atypical (probably new) answers to questions, reSponses to situations, interpretations of events Preference for complexity: exhibiting a preference for complex, and to them intriguing, ideas and processes. Personality Characteristics. 1. 4. Independence of judgment: more apt to stick to their position when found in disagreement with others. Deviance: seeing themselves as more different from their peers, and ir fact they ap ear to be more different in any number of Slfnlflpdpt as well as trivial characteristics. sometimes feel lonely and apart with a sense of mission which isolates them, in their minds, from the average man and corcerns. attitudes toward authority: less likely to view authority as final and absolute, but as conventional and arbitrary, contingent up on continued and demon- str ble su113eri01it' * Impulse acceptance: more willing to entertain and express personal while and impulses Approach to Problems. 1. Motivation: more perceptive to and more motivated by the interest inherent ir the problem and its solution. accordi ng ly get me re involved in the task, work harder and longer in the absence of external pressures or incertive. Generally place relatively greater value on "job intere st” versus such extrinsic rewards as salary or status. by, to accept dependence on authority as a matter of expeoience and view autrority as tenlorer Y- 26 2. Orientation: more apt to think in terms of a larger community, both residential and professional, to view themselves as more of a profession than as members of "Company X," to take their cues from the larger professional community and attempt to rise within it. 3. Pace: often spend more time in the initial stages of problem formation, in broad scanning of the alternatives. An interpretation is that highly creative persons have less anxiety to produce, confident of their eventual success, thus able to step back and take a broad look before making commitments. The appearance of the creative process, especially in its early stages, poses a problem to most administrators. Up to a point, it may be hard to distinguish from totally non- productive behavior, undisciplined disorder, aimless rambling, even total inactivity. For creativity is rarely a matter of gradual, step-by-step progress. It is more often a pattern of large, and largely unpredictable, steps or leaps after relatively long periods of no apparent progress. The Chicago seminar concluded that management should prize and reward creativity, increasing the chance of maximizing creativity. However, most administrators are more highly concerned with productivity first. Berelson, a participant in the seminar, pointed out that the concern is with the ”sowing and reaping aspects” of an organization, thus greater rewards are given for work that shows immediate results, e.g., sales, as against that which may pay off only in the long run. Somewhat aware of this, many organizations offer a sop in highly structured ”research and develOpment” 7Gary A. Steiner, ed. The Creative Organization. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. 1965. ppg. 7 - 9. 27 departments who are then "commanded" to "create." Studies of formal channels of advancement in organizations show that those who produce more immediate results generally are advanced faster, given greater status, greater financial and economic rewards. Thus it is that most of the managers in broadcasting in the past two decades have come to their position from the ranks of the sales department where the emphasis is on immediate results as a consequence of the work sales people do, and where the results are more easily measured and recognized, e.g., in the profit-loss columns. As an example, of the 21 managers who became subjects for this study, 12 listed their previous position as a sales position, generally in broadcasting. Eight listed other managerial positions as the previous job, and only one listed his previous position as a program director. The study did not seek beyond the one previous step to the managerial spot so it is possible that those who listed managerial positions may also have come from the sales ranks earlier. It is the above rationale for creativity that has helped determine the dimensions of the problem to be studied here. Do managers see much difference, as described above, for the creative persons in the organization, as compared to persons in other, less creative roles? Greater freedom is needed for maximization of creativity and the development of satisfactions that are important to the creative individual. But the problem of keeping the creative person's work relevant to the immediate problems of the firm is difficult. The problems of a creative person 28 rarely match the day-to-day Operating pace and objectives of the organization. Thus the person in the "creative position” is ordered to create, to provide solutions, and when he does not do so on schedule, there is disappointment on both sides. Potential creators, the seminar pointed out, need free and Open channels of communication. They need, and will seek, relevant information wherever it may exist. Ideas wither for lack of a grapevine. Any idea or possible approach must be able to be communicated to someone with the power to evaluate, authorize and implement. Channels which become bogged down, clogged with paper work, create an air of neglect and apathy, which is stifling to the creative individual. Rationale and Hypotheses As described earlier, the prOposed intent of the present study was to determine whether a manager perceives a difference in members of his organization who are working in high- and low-creative capacities. Specifically, the personnel are described as those who work in the sales department of a broadcasting station, who implement and apply the solutions worked out by members of the program and promotion departments, whose primary responsibility is to produce the new and better solutions to programming and more creative approaches to selling. Further interest is in whether or not the manager of a radio or TV station, in perceiving such a difference in his personnel, might not respond to them in a different manner, especially in a communication setting. 29 A further attempt was made to determine whether differences could be identified on the basis of the manager's style of leadership, autocratic or democratic. The approach to the investigation was made by studying managers of radio and TV stations, and also conducting a similar study with employees who work for those managers. This provided a check on the self-identification process used with the manager subjects and should provide a more objective and abstract view of the problem. because of the exploratory nature of the study, it was not deemed advisable to formulate highly Specific hypotheses. Rather the investigation of the problem is made from the standpoint of seeking answers to questions of a general nature, and testing some tentative assumptions. However, two formal hypotheses have been developed, based on the assumptions about the area of interest. Those assumptions are as follows: 1. Monetary and status rewards will be higher and more frequent for sales department personnel than for program personnel. 2. Written memos, reports and other highly structured forms of communication will be rated more effective for getting information to sales department personnel than program department personnel. 3. Informal reporting, staff meetings and other verbal and personal forms of communication will be rated more effective in getting information to program department personnel than to sales department members. a. bonuses and special incentives will be offered more often to sales department personnel than to program department personnel. 5. Members of the program department will feel more free to discuss matters about their jobs and its aSpects with the manager than will members of the sales department. 3O 6. The manager of the station will find more time to listen to and interact personally with members of the program department than with sales personnel because he recognizes the need of creative people for this type of interaction. Based on the foregoing assumptions, which will be tested in the study, the first main hypothesis is developed. H1: The manager of a radio or television station will perceive a difference between members of his organization employed in the sales department and those employed in the program department, such differences based on the low-creative and the high-creative nature of the work done in the two departments. Further, that because of this perceived difference, he will act differently toward these personnel, especially in the forms of communication used with them. The differences expected are established in the set of assumptions which preceded the hypothesis. Preference for formal, structured forms of communication as Opposed to the less formal, usually verbal approach to communication will be one measure of the difference in communicative practice. The difference in level of pay and frequency of bonuses is a measure of the differenCes perceived by the manager in the two departments. The second part of the study, concerning the employee perceptions of the manager, produces the second hypothesis. Likert (1968) says the subordinate does not always see the situation exactly as the manager does. For example, he sees the manager as willing to part with less authority than the manager believes he gives to others. On this assumption, as well as those that preceded the first hypothesis, the second main hypothesis is produced for this study. 31 H2: Employees of a radio and television station will recognize a greater difference in the manager's perceptions of employees in the sales and program departments than the manager himself perceives. Such differences will be based in part on the low-creative and high-creative nature of the work performed in the two departments. It should be emphasized again that the assumptions used above are at least in part the product of twenty-three years experience in the commercial broadcast field, in positions ranging from the beginning employee to management, tempered by the studies of the works of Jennings, Likert, Stogdill, Coons and others in the course of four years in the departments of Communication and Management at Michigan State University. It remains to be seen if the perceptions of the author about management style and communication in organizations are given strength by the results of this study. Summary In this chapter a problem is posed. It is recognized that high—creative and low-creative personnel may be found working in the same company, and that managers may have different perceptions of each type of employee and the work they do. In addition, because this perception of differences the manager may act differently in his work relationships with the personnel in each area, eSpecially in those relation— ships which involve communication. Further assum1tions have been made about personality types of leadership and the impact that the difference in leadership style may have in a manager's approach to the 32 problems of the company. The perception of people who work for them may be a function of their own personality type. It is proposed that those types can be identified. Given these assumptions, the problem posed consists of four parts: (1) to identify differences in a manager's perceptions of employees in high—creative and low-creative positions in the organization, in this instance, a broadcast station with program and sales department personnel representing the high-and low-creative positions; (2) to identify a relationship between these differences and manager- ial or leadership style, i.e., identified as autocratic and democratic; (3) to determine if managers interact with or communicate with personnel in these positions in different ways; and (H) to corroborate the findings of the survey of a group of broadcast managers with a similar study of employees of the stations managed by the manager subjects. The methods and procedures for testing these hypotheses will be presented in the next chapter. CHAPTER 2 METHODS AND PROCEDURE The purposes of this study are four-fold, as stated in the previous chapter. The study was conducted with the managers and employees of 21 radio and television stations of a total of 70 approached through a written questionnaire. (See Appendices A and B) The questionnaire was sent with covering letter to the managers of the stations located throughout the United States which were large enough to have a diversified employee group in the sales and program departments. Nine radio and 12 television stations are represented. (See Appendix E for list of responding stations) As was stated above, 21 stations of 70 contacted responded with questionnaires returned from both the managers and employees of the same station. There were three stations which returned employee questionnaires but no manager questionn- aire, and five stations which returned only the manager questionnaire. This provide 21 managers for the study and a total of 88 employees representing 21 stations. Although the stations and the subjects approximate a national sample, there was no attempt to approximate national distribution patterns of broadcasting stations in selecting the sample nor to represent every kind and size of station. 33 34 Thus, though the sample is not randomly selected, it is representative of broadcast managers, based on type and size of station chosen for the study. The reason for more employees than managers is that a set of six questionnaires asking the same questions asked of the managers were mailed with a covering letter to the Program Director of each station. The Program Director was asked to distribute a questionnaire to each of the following: (1) a local account executive (salesman); (2) an on—air personality; (3) the director of continuity or a staff writer; (4) a member of the sales department other than a salesman; (5) the Sales Manager; and (6) the PrOgram Director. The questionnaires were gathered following their administration and returned together. However, not every employee was willing to fill out a questionnaire, so the number of questionnaires returned from a single station varied from three to the full six. In only three instances were both manager and employee questionnaires returned unused, with the explanation that the station could not or did not wish to participate. Others may not have been able or desirous to participate, but simply chose not to say anything and ignored the request for information. In any event, every station included in the study is represented by a manager and members of both the sales and the program departments, though the overall percentage of return for the study was relatively low, 30%. The Instrument The develOpment of the instrument made use of some 35 previous work done in the management-employee relation field by Likert and his associates at the Center for Research on Human Behavior at Ann arbor, Michigan, and on work done on leader behavior at Ohio Dtate University by dtogdill, Coons and others. The questions were scored on a five-item scale with the exception of the last group of questions which were designed to gather information of a demographic nature on people in broadcasting. One of the concerns in develOpment of the questionnaire was that of requiring two answers on a single scale for most of the questions. One answer was for the manager/sales department relationship, the second for the manager/program department. Since each question sought the same information on both departments, it was felt that by indicating each of the answers on one scale, one by an ”S” for sales, the other by ”P” for programming, would prove no real problem. Likert in some of the ann arbor studies has used a similar procedure. Results from this questionnaire seem to indicate the attempt encountered no serious problem. Only three questionnaires returned were unusable because of confusion or failure on the part of the reSpondent to adequately handle the two answers on the same scale. There were also wide differences in ratings by one manager on a single scale for sales and programming while they rated the two the same on other questions. The differences that occurred on nearly every questionnaire gives hOpe that the combining of two ratings on a single scale did not bias the data in any way. 36 The first section of the questionnaire, encompassing questions one through seven was used to identify the managerial type. They related to material discussed earlier on the identifying characteristics of autocratic and democratic types of managers. Again, it is difficult to accurately identify a personality type, and individual managers are expected to have characteristics of both autocratic and democratic style in their makeup, though being dominantly one or the other. The second section of the questionnaire, questions 8 through sixteen, were designed to identify a difference in the manager's perceptions of his sales and program department personnel. admittedly the hypotheses are dealing with an idealized situation, sharply defining a difference between high— and low—creative personnel. tho is to say that a highly creative person has not been caught up in a low-creative position as it is defined here, or vice versa. but this is a chance which must be taken, and hopefully, over a larger group of employees the distinction will hold. The third portion of the questionnaire relates to the kinds of relations, interactions and communicative procedures of the manager with his employees. This section, including questions seventeen through twenty—three, is concerned primarily with the follow-up proposals found in the assumptions given in Chapter One. The fourth section sought general demographic information on people in broadcasting, and follows generally that 37 information gathered by the research study conducted by the Association for Professional Broadcasting in Education and the National association of Broadcasters released in 1962. The information, however, is much less detailed here than in the APBE-NAB study. The Subjects All twenty-one subjects used in the manager's portion of the study held the position of General Manager or Station Manager of a radio or television station in the United States. Some held dual titles such as Vice President and General Manager, or President and General Manager. The important criterion was that the individual be actively engaged in the managing of the affairs of a broadcasting outlet. The eighty-eight employee subjects were all people working for the manager subjects defined above. In some instances there were slight deviations from the Specified list of employees given in the letter to the Program Directors and as pointed out above, not all questionnaires were returned from each station. But in all stations where a change was made, the alternate chosen, e.g., a promotion department director or employee for a continuity writer, closely approximated the requested position. And in each station represented, the sales and program departments both are represented by questionnaires that were returned. Following are descriptions of the sample subjects Specified by the three groups, the managers, the employees and the total, combined managers and employees. 38 TABLE 1.--Description of the Sample by Age Group AGE GROUP NO. % Manager Subjects 20-29 0 00.0 30-39 5 23.8 new» 3 1n. 3 H5-k9 3 14.3 50-54 h 19.0 55-59 2 9.5 60-+ i o O 21 100.0 Employee Subjects 20-29 10 11.4 30-39 38 L+3-2 HO-Hh 21 23.9 50-5% 3 3-“ 55-59 5 5-7 60-+ 1 1.1 No Answer _1 1 88 100.0 4g All Subjects (Manager and Employees) ._n 20-29 10 9.2 30-39 L+3 39-” 40—h4 2h 22.0 #5-h9 12 11.0 7 a _ 9 7 - 60-+ 5 H.6 No answer 109 100.0 The age group table indicates that men in broadcasting rarely (we cannot say ”never) become managers before the age of 30. This again bears out the information gained in the Masters thesis study by the author. The managers are grouped in a bi—modal pattern with equal groups in the #0 to 50 and 50 to 60 age group brackets. The largest 39 concentration seems to be between ages 50 to 5%. There appears to be a strong group of younger managers between the ages of 30 and #0, coming up, a fact which emphasizes the recent youth movement in management develOpment in the U.S. The employee group on the other hand has its greatest concentration in the 30 to H0 bracket. Few employees are in the above-50 age group, as expected. The factors of experience and background are borne out by the following table having to do with the amount of time Spent by the individuals in the broadcasting field. TABLE 2.--Description of the sample by Years in Broadcasting YEARS IN BROADCASTING NO. % A Manager Subjects 0 - 5 O 0.0 6 - 10 3 14.3 11 - 15 2 9.5 16 - 20 3 1M.3 21 - 25 2 9.5 26 - 30 7 33-3 31 - + _E .1212 21 100.0 Employee Subjects 0 - 5 8 9.1 6 - 10 15 17.0 11 - 15 22 25.0 16 - 20 23 26.0 21 - 25 11 12.6 26 - 3o 3 3-# 31 - + 5 5.7 No Answer .;1 1.1 88 H C) :0 ‘c> i I 1 #0 TABLE 2.-—Continued _All Subjects (Manager and Employee) 0 — 5 ' 8 7-3 6 - lo 18 1605 ll - 15 2H 22.0 21 - 25 13 11.9 26 - 30 10 9.2 31 - + 9 8.3 No Answer __;L .9 109 100.0 g Managers have had between 21 and 25 years eXperience in broadcasting while employees have had just under 15 years experience. The largest single group of managers had had better than 26 years experience. The largest Single group of employees had had about 16 years, with another group of almost the same size reporting 11 years eXperience. But a somewhat different picture is given when length of time in the present position is reported for both managers and employees. The data here bears out the concept of mobility in the industry, with frequent job changing the rule rather than the exception TABLE 3.—-Uescription of the Sample by Time in Present Position rsaas 1w rassswr POSITION N0. % __ ,__ __ ____-_________ ___.____,___,_L’-—' Manager Subjects o - 5 13 6 — 10 a 19.0 11 - 15 2 9.5 16 - 2o 1 4.8 21 — 25 1 4.8 26 - 3o 0 0.0 31 - + _o 0.0 21 100.0 \_ 41 -TABLE 3.--Continued _Employee Subjects 0 ~ 5 59 67.0 6 - 10 1H 15.9 11 - 15 9 10.2 16 - 2O 3 3.H 21 - 25 1 1.1 26 - 30 0 0.0 31 - + 1 1.1 No Answer _1_ 1.1 g_ 88 100.0 All Subjects (Manager and Employee) 0 - 5 72 66.1 6 - 10 18 16.5 11 - 15 11 10.1 16 - 20 a 3.7 21 - 25 2 1.8 26 - 30_ 0 0.0 31 - + 1 .9 No Answer __1 .9 109 100.0 Better than 80 percent of the managers have been in their present positions less than 10 years. However, eight of the twenty-one managers had come to the position from other managerial positions, either managers of other stations or assistant managers of the present or another station. Twelve managers arrived at the present managerial post through a position in sales° Only one had been in a programming position prior to becoming a manager. Employee time in the job now held approximated that of the manager, with better than 82% having held their jobs less than 10 years, and 66% less than five years. In the broadcast industry mobility appears to be even greater in the early years as experience is gained and better Opportunity 42 in bigger stations located in larger markets is sought. Higher salaries are paid in larger markets. The bigger salary is also reflected in years of experience in the industry. TABLE 4.--Description of the Sample by Salary Earned SALARY RANGE NO. % ‘— Manager Subjects 810,000 - 20,000 1 4.8 21,000 - 29,000 1 4.8 30,000 - 39,000 2 9.5 40,000 - 49,000 2 9.5 50,000 - 59,000 3 14.3 60,000 - + 2 9.5 No desponse 4_Q 42.6 2] 100.0 Employee Subjects 810,000 - 20,000 26 29.5 21,000- 29,000 30 34.1 30,000 - 39,000 8 9.1 40,000 — 49,000 0 0.0 50,000 - 59,000 0 0.0 60,000 — + l 1.1 No Response 23 26.1 88 100.0 All Subjects (Manager and Employees) 810,000 - 20,000 7 24.8 21,000 - 29,000 31 28.4 30,000 - 39,000 10 9.2 40,000 - 49,000 2 1.8 50,000 - 59,000 3 2.8 60,000 - + 3 2.8 No desponse _33 30,3 109 100.0 _.. _._...,._ .. a. Unfortunately a great many of the respondents chose not to reveal their present salary bracket. This was especially true of the manager respondents with nearly 50% of the subjects declining to disclose their salaries. Some 26% of the employees 43 did not reveal what they were making as a salary in their present position. Managers earn relatively greater salaries than employees reflecting not only position, but also years of experience and perhaps to some extent the fact that they have attained their position through the sales ranks, where they had a high income before becoming managers. As expected, employees salaries ranged in the lower brackets, though the 34 per cent who earn between twenty and thirty-thousand probably reflects the fact that a number of supervisors and department—head-level respondents were included in the sample. The one employee who indicated he earned better than $60,000 a year is an on—the-air performer who commands a tOp price in a major market. Education is also a good indicator of success in the broadcasting field. The educational level of management is quite high with better than 95% of the respondents indicating college or post-graduate educational eXperience. a third of the managerial respondents indicated at least some post- graduate training. But employees too had high education levels, with more than 85% indicating college or beyond. Approximately 20 percent of the total respondents had some post-graduate education. This is undoubtedly a reflection of the greater number of students who are taking their broadcast training in the many departments of dadio and Television, advertising or one of the related fields toaay. 41+ TABLE 5.--Description of the Sample by Education Level EDUCATION CATEGORY NO. % Manager Subjects High School 1 H.8 Vocational/Technical Schooling O 0.0 College 13 61.9 Post-Graduate _2, 33.1 21 100.0 Employee Subjects High School 8 9.1 Vocational/Technical Schooling 3 3.4 College 62 70.5 Post-graduate 1 15.9 No Response _l 1.1 88 100.0 All Subjects (Manager and Employees) High School 9 8.3 Vocational/Technical Schooling 3 2.8 College 75 68.8 Post-graduate 21 19.3 No Response ._;L .9 109 100.0 9 In connection with the question on educational background another question was asked of the respondents as to the nature of broadcasting eXperience or background which would be recommended for people interested in entering the field. Response generally was strongest where the following categories were concerned: small market eXperience in broadcasting, liberal arts education, college radio and television courses, business management and marketing background, either in school or through practical experience. Of less importance, but still mentioned by some of the subjects were the traditional subjects H5 such as English, journalism, Speech and other Specialized areas such as engineering and accounting. about half the subjects mentioned communication courses as such, emphasizing the theory as well as the practice of communication. Two other questions asked of the subjects are worthy of reporting here. They concerned the degree of satisfaction of the subject, manager or employee, with present compensation procedures and with promotion policies in the company. TABLE 6.--Description of the Sample by Satisfaction with Present Salary QB L DEGHEE 0F SnTlSFACTION R0. % Manager Subjects Very Satisfactory 8 38.1 Satisfactory 10 H7.6 Unsatisfactory l 4.8 No Response _g 9.5 _ 21 100. 0 Employee Subjects Very Satisfactory 16 18.3 Satisfactory 63 71-5 Unsatisfactory 7 8.0 No Response _; 2.3 88 100.0 all Subjects (Manager and Employee) Very Satisfactory 2H 22.0 Satisfactory 73 67.0 Unsatisfactory 8 7.3 No Response 4 __3;Z 46 TABLE 7.--Uescription of the Sample by Satisfaction with the Company Promotion rolicy. g L [DEGREE OF SATISFACTION NO. % “Manager Subjects Very Satisfactory 9 42.9 Satisfactory 9 42.9 Satisfactory with reservations 3 14.3 Unsatisfactory 0 0.0 No Response _9_ 0.0 L_ 21 100.0 Employee Subjects Very Satisfactory 25 28.4 Satisfactory 43 48.9 Satisfactory with reservations 13 14.8 Unsatisfactory 4 4.5 No Response _3, 3.4 88 100.0 All Employees (Manager and Employee) Very Satisfactory 34 31.2 Satisfactory 53 47.4 Satisfactory with reservations 16 15.0 Unsatisfactory 4 3.7 No ReSponse __3, 2.8 109 100.0 kg ‘ Obviously there should be few managers diSpleased with the promotion policies of the company since they have reached one of the top rungs on the organizational ladder. It was suSpected some might have been slow in getting there, a situation which may have provided some unhappiness with the promotion policy. As for the employees, those who expressed dissatisfaction with advancement policies were older employees who had been with a company for many years and were still making only moderate salaries. For the most part, satisfaction was evident. 47 Summary The questionnaire appears to have provided the necessary means of gathering the information sought to test the hypotheses, as well as some vital information on the subjects themselves. As was pointed out at the beginning of this chapter, the sample is not a randomly selected sample of managers and employees in the broadcasting industry, but it is representative of the kind of station which should produce the variety of personnel needed for the study. Data from the questionnaire was analyzed in the Michigan State University Computer Institute for Social Science Research on a CDC 3600 Computer. Tests applied sought correlations between items of the questionnaire, and differences between sales and program perceptions of the managers, from both the manager and employee viewpoint. In addition it was decided to do a factor analysis to probe the dimensions of any differences observed. The results of these tests are tabulated and discussed in the next chapter. CHAPTER 3 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS In this chapter are presented the findings of the study. They include a test of the means of the difference scores between sales and programming on the two main hypotheses, factor structures obtained through factor analysis to delineate the dimensions of the differences and the scales which are most descriptive of these structures, and an informal test of the assumptions of the study through a matched-pairs design using a ”t”-test for equality of means. First, an important finding that had an impact on the study should be reported and discussed. One of the concerns of this study was with the leadership style of managers of broadcast organizations. Attempts were made to identify two types of leadership style, autocratic or authoritarian, and democratic or participatory. Items one through seven of the questionnaire were coded for this identification. High scores led toward the autocratic type and low scores toward the democratic type. This allowed a range of scores for each subject with a maximum of 35) most autocratic, and a minimum of 7, most democratic. 48 49 In tabulating the scores from the manager group, the range of scores was very small, the scores grouping from a low of 13 to a high of 20. Though the indication was that most of the 21 managers fell in the direction of the democratic style, there was not enough variabion to give strong identif- ication between autocratic and democratic styles. It thus became impossible to rate each manager individually as one type or the other. However, though such a distinction was not possible, it was felt that comparisons should be made, according to the hypotheses, with or without the use of the leadership style variable. Thus, the discussion of the hypotheses becomes an informal, more general approach to the manager's relationship with his employees. When employee scores on managerial leadership style were considered, the range of scores changed but little, ranging from a low of 13 to a high of 27, for individual employees. But when employees were matched as a group with their managers and a mean score was drawn from the data, the range narrowed greatly, from a low of 15.33 to a high of 21.83, once again making it impossible to break the managerial group into a leadership style difference. What was apparent, however, was the fact that the employees see their manager as much more autocratic than the manager sees himself. 0f the 88 employees, 65, or 73.9% rated the manager as more autocratic, 14, or 15.9% rated him more democratic than he rated himself, and nine, or 10.2% rated the employer the same as he had rated himself. 50 When employees were matched with their own manager and a mean score drawn, the difference between manager and employee perception of leadership style became more pronounced. Only one employee group rated their manager the same as he rated himself. The other 20 groups all gave him a higher rating, indicating that they thought he was more autocratic than he thought he was. The mean differences ranged from a high of 5.40 to a low of .25. Over the ten employee groups with the greatest differences the mean difference was 4.0. The five employee groups with the greatest difference had an average difference of 4.64. On the other end of the scale, the five employee groups with the smallest difference had a mean difference of 0.12. This included the group with no difference. The tabulated data suggests that in most instances, the manager may be misperceiving his style of leadership, believing himself to be more democratic than his employees see him, or than he really is in his managerial role. The fact that employees would see their boss as more authoritarian in his methods of Operation than he sees himself should not be surprising. It bears out Likert's (1968) findings concerning differences in manager-employee relationships mentioned earlier. The table in Appendix C gives the comparative ratings of the manager, the employees who work for him, and the mean of the employee group scores for each of the 21 managers. It should be emphasized again that the analysis of the 51 hypotheses is both informal and exploratory, especially in View of the fact that it was not possible to rate the managers on their leadership style, and break them into distinct style groups. Testing the Hypotheses The results of the tests of the hypotheses are as follows: H : The manager of a radio or TV station will perceive 1 a difference between members of the organization employed in the sales department and those employed in the program department, such differences based on the high-creative and low-creative nature of the work done in each department. In considering the first main hypothesis, correlations were run on each variable (items 8 through 16 of the question- naire) as it related to each other variable. Difference scores were drawn on each item for all managers, the differences being between the manager's rating of sales and his rating of program personnel. The correlation tables are found in Appendix D for both the manager subjects and for the employee subjects. Table 8 lists the data on the mean differences on each question over all managers, the standard deviation for each mean, the ”t" of the mean and its significance level. A difference was found in questions 8 and 9 of the instrument, significant at the .001 level, indicating that managers do perceive a difference where salary and other forms of motivation are used, either monetary, as in item 52 8, or satisfaction in the work, as in item 9. TABLE 8.--Mean differences, All Managers, Each Variable L . —’\. Standard ”t" of the Significance Variable X mifference Deviation Mean Level PS Dif 1 0.76 0.70 4.98 (.001 PS Dif 2 0.52 0.74 3.20 (.001 PS Div 3 0.14 0.57 1.14 .261 PS Dif 4 0.38 0.86 2.01 (.05 PS Dif 5 0.05 0.66 0.32 .75 PS Dif 6 -0.14 0.57 -1.14 .27 PS Dif 7 -0.05 1.07 -0.20 .84 PS Dif 8 0.10 0.44 1.00 .33 PS Dif 9 0.14 0.91 0.72 .48 PS Dif 10 -O.lO 0051+ ‘0080 oLl‘2 PS Dif 11 0.14 0.65 1.00 .32 PS Dif 12 —-.10 0.30 -1.45 .16 N=2l SC The differences were created by scores from programming scores. subtracting the sales It had been predicted that sales personnel would be more motivated by the financial and status rewards offered, and that programming personnel would be motivated by the satisfaction in achievement. The data in this instance would appear to support these contentions. Significance was also achieved at the .05 level for item 4, having to do with the production in the departments. The manager, as eXpected, sees sales as a more productive department than programming. This is in line with the hypothesis that managers, many of them sales oriented in their broadcasting background, see the immediate results of a sales tabulation sheet as representing successful production more than the work of the programming department where high- creative individuals usually make advances in sporadic, though large, strides rather than in steady, day-by-day progress. 53 The other questions did not produce significant differences between the manager's ratings of sales and program personnel. The general feeling is that managers do see a difference between employees in the two areas, but only in certain, specific ways. It becomes difficult to generalize and say flatly that managers do see a difference. The difference needs further defining. H2: The employees of a radio or television station will recognize a greater difference in the manager‘s perceptions of employees in the sales and programming departments than the manager himself perceives, based on the low-creative and high-creative nature of work on which the two departments Spend most of their time and energy. The number of items which produced significant results in the tests of the differences for sales and programming was five, two more than for the managers. 0n the basis of this it is possible to say that employees see a difference in more items than the managers. However, the magnitude of differences between managers and employees on comparable items is not significant. Table 9 gives the means of the 88 employees on each item, the standard deviations, the ”t” of the mean and the Significance level. The first variable and the second matched those of the managers, salary and self-satisfaction, and were in the same direction as the managers'. Programming personnel seem to be motivated by self satisfaction in work done more than sales personnel, who in turn are more motivated by the financial and status rewards to be gained in the company. 51+ TABLE 9.--Mean Differences, All Employees,Each Variable ___L Variable 3 Difference Standard "t" of the Significance Deviation Mean Level PS Dif l 1.11 0.95 10.97 (.001 PS Dif 2 0.43 1.00 4.03 (.001 PS Dif 3 0.09 0.81 1.05 .29 PS Dif 4 0.35 0.95 3.44 <» 001 PS Dif 5 0.01 0.87 0.12 .90 PS Dif 6 0.01 0.87 1.51 .13 PS Dif 7 0.19 0.96 1.86 .06 PS Dif 8 0.20 0.98 1.94 {.05 PS Dif 9 -0.09 0.94 -0.90 .36 PS Dif 10 -0.02 0.93 -0.02 .82 PS Dif 11 0.07 0.78 0.81 .41 PS Dif 12 -0.33 0.87 -3.56 (.0001 N=88 In addition to the two items, the employees also saw the manager as Seeing a significant difference in the area of productivity in the two departments as did the managers, the employees seeing the manager as perceiving sales as more productive than programming. They seemed to also feel that the manager looks out for the personnel in the sales department more than he does for the personal welfare of programming personnel. This may be drawn from the fact that this greater concern is evidenced in the larger salaries paid, in the minds of the employees. A significant negative difference was seen in the commun- ication or exchange of information on a horizontal level in the organization, indicating prognim department personnel may interact among themselves more than do sales personnel. This holds to the proposition, discussed in Chapter 1, that high—creative personnel have a need for information relevant to their work and will seek it from any and every source. 55 In order to define further the elements which play an important part in determining the differences between sales and programming personnel in the organization a factor analysis was run to determine the dimensions of any differences. A check made of the correlations between each variable and every other variable found some good definers of these dimensions. Correlation tables for the variables may be found in Appendix D for both the manager group and the employee group of subjects. For the Managers, variable eleven, represented by item 15, which had to do with the vertical communication in the organization, was highly correlated with many other variables. The difference in amount of communication between managers and personnel in sales and programming appears to be a Significant variable. Item 10, the amount of freedom to make decisions and choose methods of word produced the highest correlation (r=.69) with the amount of satisfaction members of the department derive from the work they do (variable 3). Those members of the program department who are allowed to handle their own decision making and do their work without undue inter- ference or very close supervision, appear to find more satisfaction in the work they do, as was predicted. Item 10 was also correlated with item 7 (r=.44), the quality control of work done, with item 8 (r=.46), the extent to which the manager looks out for the personal welfare of individuals in the department, and item 9 (r=.48), the extent of criticism of the department made y the manager. 56 Item 8 was also correlated with item nine (r=.53), the amount of management criticism, with item 10 (r=.46), the degree of freedom for the making of decisions and doing the work, and item 11 (r=.40, the adequacy of vertical communic- ation, from the department to the manager. Thus, some of the best predictors prove to be the vertical communication adequacy, the interest of the manager in the personal welfare of the individual employee, and the degree to which the manager leaves members on their own in getting work done. In the factor analysis, the investigation first undertook to look at the data through the McQuitty Elementary Linkage Analysis. This form of analysis enables one to identify the pairs of variables vhich have the largest correlations. The subsequent linkages of this correlation with other high correlations in each variable involved gives the pattern of relationships. The diagram of linkages for the manager subjects is shown in Figure . Figure l.--Elementary Linkage Analysis: Manager correlations P A. B. 2 1 3f::;3U3fi:; 9:fi:;;5 v/ T 4.2—;11:o 7 8 1 1‘-—_;___, 12 The McQuitty linkages provide a sense of prediction on 8Louis L. McQuitty. ”Elementary Linkage Analysis for Isolating Orthogonal and Oblique Types and Typal Relevancies.” Educational and Psychological Measurements. Vol. 17, #2. 1957. 57 the loadings of variables on factors that were found in the factor analysis. Table 10 lists the variables in rank order by magnitude of factor purity value under the factor on which the variable had its primary loading. In addition, the loading on the next highest factor is also given. Criteria used for selecting the best factor rotation for each group, managers and employees, were: 1. Coefficients of factor similarity across the rotations within the group should Show stability of factors once they have been extracted in rotation. Stability may be defined as showing a coefficient of Similarity of at least 0.50 or greater. 2. The variables which emerge with the highest and purest loadings on factors must form a cluster that is psychologically meaningful, in the judgment of the researcher. 3. The factors in the rotation selected should account for 50 percent or better of the total variance. Using these criteria, a 3-factor rotation was selected for the manager group and a four-factor rotation for the employee group. The McQuitty Linkage Analysis was helpful in verifying criterion 2 above, the formation of clusters that were meaningful as comparison of the linkage patterns in Figure l and the factor loadings in Tables 10 and 11 will Show. The Kiel-Wrigley criterion (Kiel, 1966) was used to seleCt the factor solutions. (Kiel-Wrigley = 2) ———-.— at: 58 TABLE 10.--Factor Structure for Twenty-one Managers g Variables Rotated Factor Loadings on Loadings/Primary Next Highest Factor Factor ,4 Factor 1 10 Independence in -0.82 0.26 work 3 Satisfaction -0.76 0.42 in Work 9 amount of Mgr. 0.76 0.09 Criticism 8 Manager interest -0.71 -0.17 in Employee Welfare Factor 2 4 Productivity 0.91 0.20 2 Motivated by work 0.78 -0.09 satisfaction 11 Vertical Communication 0.72 0.47 Upward 6 Use of Time, talent, 0.56 0.41 Materials Factor 3 1 Motivation by 0.85 0.47 Econ./Status rewards 12 Horizontal communication -0.66 -0.21 Adequacy 7 tuality control of -0.54 0.50 Work Proportions and Total 0.25 0.23 0.15 Total = 0.63 Variance accounted For F For the employees, there were fewer high correlations in the matrix. (See Appendix D) The highest (r=.56) came between items seven and six. Seven, the quality control of work was correlated with six, use of time and talents, and was also correlated (r=.42) with variable four, productivity. 59 The three would seem to logically relate to one another. Variable four was also correlated (r=.41) with variable six, which in turn was also correlated with variable three (r=.49), the amount of satisfaction gained from work done. Looking at the matrix through the Meduitty Linkage analysis once again, variables 6, 7 and 4 form the core of the linkage pattern with other variables grouped about it. Figure 2.--E1ementary Linkage analysis: Employee Correlations A A. 11 B. J 2 12 1 11:; 12 2:, 1 J l J is ‘9 Generally correlations among all variables for the employee sample were lower than those for the sample of managers on the same variables, indicating that employees perhaps do not see the manager as perceiving as great a difference than the manager seems to see himself, but seeing differences in more areas than does the manager. The McQuitty linkages are an indication of relative strength of loadings of variables on factors found in the factor analysis. Table 11 lists the variables for the employee subjects in rank order by magnitude of factor purity value under the factor on which the variable had its primary loading. It also lists the loadings on the next highest factor for comparison's sake. 60 Table ll.--Factor Structure for Eighty-eight Employees Variables Rotated Factor Loadings on Loadings/Primary Next Highest Factor Factor Factor 1 5 Absence d 0.87 0.12 Turnover 4 Productivity ~0.54 0.40 Factor 2 8 Manager interest 0.78 -0.23 in Employee Welfare 9 Extent of Mgr. 0.71 0.21 Criticism Factor 3 12 Horizontal Comm- 0.77 0.18 unication 11 Vertical Communic- 0.74 0.20 ation 7 quality control of —0.58 —0.34 work 1 Motivation by 0.35 0.26 economic/status rewards Factor 4 3 Satisfaction from 0.81 0.15 work 2 Motivation by 0.75 -0.10 work Satisfaction Proportions and total 0.12 0.13 0.17 0.17 Total = 0.59 Variance accounted For 35* 4d ‘— Again, using the criteria for selecting the best factor rotation for each group, a four factor rotation was produced using the Kiel-hrigley criterion (Kiel, 1966). Nature of the Factors and factor Structures A comparison of the variables in the factor structure table for managers indicates two strong factors, and a third that is perhaps not as strong. The three factors account for 61 63% of the total variance, while the addition of a fourth factor accounted for only 9% more, or a total of 72%. The dimensions which emerged for the managers were: (1) the dimension of self satisfaction, or what might be termed independence; (2) an efficiency dimension; and (3) a work satisfaction dimension. A discussion of each follows. Dimension 1: The combination of variables in this factor seem to point to a dimension of satisfaction within the individual with his job, company and the work he does. The manager may see this as one form of his democratic makeup as a leader, allowing freedom of decision making and doing work at one's own pace, where the employees may feel it's a measurement of the independence to which he is entitled. The variables of this dimension go together well when considered in this framework. Independence in making decisions, choosing work pace and so forth, as long asthe employee meets overall general eXpectations, ought to lead to a high amount of satisfaction with one's work. In essence the employee is his own boss and therefore should be satisfied with the work he is doing. As indicated, this received the highest correlation (r=.69) on the matrix. But the degree to which the manager criticizes the department and its personnel should also lead to a certain amount of job satisfaction, low criticism equaling work being well done, thus more freedom and independence of working conditions, and finally greater job satisfaction. The fourth variable, the manager's interest in perainal welfare should add strength to the belief that the m ‘A‘AJ 1175-2931" (I } 62 trusts you and is willing to give the added room for independent decision making. These variables go together logically as well as mathematically. And referring once again to McQuitty's Linkage Analysis, we find the four variables, 3, 10, 9 and 8 forming the center of the linkage pattern with only 5 and 7 not showing up strongly on the factor table. Variables 5 and 7 do have relevance to the independence dimension, however, as logically there should be less turnover and absence under a situation of job freedom, where the work is enjoyed and where the quality of work is high because of the conditions described above. Dimension 2: The variables which make up this factor seem to lead to an efficiency, or perhaps to the qualification or eXpertese factor. Consisting of productivity levels, work satisfaction as a motivating force, the adequacy of upward communication and the use of time, materials and talent, the combination seems to relate well, or hang—together well. It makes up the major portion of the secondary hcauitty Linkage patterns too. An employee, motivated by work satisfaction, is very likely to produce at a better rate than one who is not happy with his work. He will also make better use of his time, talents and the materials provided by the company for the performance of his work. Relevant to this is the openness of communication upward 63 to the manager, a sign that the manager trusts the employee's judgments and/or respects the employee's knowledge or expert- ese in his field. This particular variatle relationship bears out one of the premises of this thesis, that good communication between management and subordinates will ease tensions, produce greater production quotas and will, in general, create more harmony within the organization. Again, referring back to the McQuitty Linkage Analysis, variables four (productivity) and eleven (vertical communic- ation) form the core of the linkage pattern. Dimension 1: Hanging together a little more loosely is the third factor, one that might be labeled work satis— faction. Made up of the three variables, motivation by economic or status rewards, horizontal communication adequacy and the quality control of work, this dimension would appear to point toward a satisfaction with the kind of work the individual employee does. Satisfaction is eXpressed in the kind and size of salary and/or status rewards received, and also in the fact that communication among the members of the department is good, open and free. Both these should lead to an improved Quality of work accomplished by the members of the department. Therefore this dimension might be referred to as a dimension of work satisfaction, highly important to the successful Operation of the organization. The third variable, quality control of work, is somewhat more vague than the other two, being tempered by the fact that the loadings on the next highest factor for this variable 64 were very close (~0.54 and 0.50). But it is still relevant to the dimension of work satisfaction. Turning to the dimensions which appeared for the employee subjects, it would be eXpected that some differences may be found from the manager dimensions. This is based on earlier differences between managers and employees, in the perception of leadership style, strength of correlations and so forth. Dimension 1: This factor consists of the variables, degree of absence and turnover in the department and out, or production. It might be termed an efficiency dimension. It appears logical that less absence and turnover in a department would assist the production of the department's output. The percentage of variance accounted for by this factor was .12. Dimension 2: The second dimension, including variables 8 and 9, might be termed a monitoring factor. Manager interest in the individual employee and his welfare is not highly correlated with the extent of the manager's criticism of work and employees in the department. But together in the rotated factor loadings, there are also moderately high factor correlations on Variable 4, production, and ten, the degree to which employees are left on their own. Both relate to 4 in the Mcwuitty Analysis, but not to variable 10. This dimension accounts for .13 of the variance. 65 Dimensions}: This includes horizontal communication, vertical communication, quality control and motivation by economic and status rewards. This might be termed an aware— ness dimension. Both communication variables indicate that employees are cognizant of what is going on through their own interaction with their peers and through Open organizational channels. buch free exchange of information is certainly a factor which can lead to improved quality of production, eSpecially for program personnel, and which may itself lead to improved salaries and economic rewards. The relationships are there, and have some strong reasons to reinforce the assumptions about such relationships. The percentage of variance accounted for by this factor was .17. Dimension 4: Variables 3 and 2 are veryclose in concept. To be motivated by the work you are doing is to receive some degree of satisfaction from doing that work. This might be termed a dimension of work satisfaction, the second dimension that would match one of the dixensions in the manager’s portion of the study. However, there are none of the same variables repeated in the two dimensions, from group to group. another high loading is found on variable six, the use of time, materials and talents which relates to work satisfaction as a dimension. This factor also accounted for .17 of the variance, the same amount as did variables in dimension three. 66 One noticeable feature of the dimensions of the results of the present study is the strength of the dimension of the type of work that is done by the employees. This, of course, is one of the key points of interest in this study. Behind the hypothesis is the assumption that people are different because of the type or kind of work they do, and the things within the organization which relate to this kind of work. This concept appears to play a part in all three of the factors produced by the factor rotation in the manager group. It does not appear so strongly in the factors uncovered in the employee group, a fact which, again, would appear to H.“ support the main hypotheses of the study which had to do with the manager group in broadcasting, and their perceptions of differences in employees caused by the type of work they do, or the position they occupy in the company. In testing some of the assumptions of the study, it is interesting to look at other portions of the questionnaire. Items 17 through 23 of the instrument were designed to help investigate the dimensions of the differences, if any differences were found. Instead a test of the means of the raw scores on each question was made. Using a mat,hed- pairs design, the means were tested for significance by a ”t" test for equality of m ans. This was done for both the manager subjects and the employee subjects. The categories ~ I x of autocratic and democratic styles of lendersnip we H m k drOpped and a single "manager” category was used. in, results of the tests on the assumptions follow: 67 1. Monetary and status rewards will be higher and more frequent for sales department personnel than for program department members. For managers, the mean score was 4.24 for sales. For programming personnel it was %.38. The ”t” of -l.3l was nnt significant, an indication of little difference in this area. Yet, this contnidicts some of the information found earlier in the analysis. In addition, further strength for this finding was present in a comparison of salaries for programming personnel in the station, and for sales, as reported in the demographic section of the instrument. A test for significance was made of the mean salary of both sales and programming personnel. Table 1? lists the information from the salary comparisons. Table 12.--Mean Salary, bales vs. Programming, Employees only.v Eategory Freq. Mean Std. Dev. F. Stat. Probability Sales 30 1.80 0.76 0.00 1.00 Programming 35 1.80 1.08 N=65 There was no difference found at all. However, it should be pointed out that the divulging of the individual's salary category was the one area that received a great many ”no reSponse” checks. Fifteen sales personnel declined to reveal their salary category and 8 programming personnel would not reveal theirs, a total of 26.1% of the subjects in the employee study. 68 It becomes difficult to accept this information as reasonable or logical, and to seek explanation for it. A number of variables have likely had impact on this finding. One, the categories for salary range were large, $10,000 for each step. Second, a few of the programming personnel were the on-air talent which is highly paid, above $60,000 per year. These few members of the talent pool are non- representative and may have overloaded this one category. Further investigation is called for here. 2. Written memos, reports and other highly structured forms of communication will be rated more effective for getting information to the sales department personnel than to program department personnel. For the managers, sales department mean was 3.71, the program department mean 3.57. The ”t” was 1.31, and again significance was not obtained. For the employees the sales mean was H.01, the program department mean 3.82. This gave a ”t” of 2.35, which would be significant at the .02 level. In explanation, the employees appear tosee the effectiveness of memos and written reports as more a function of the sales department than of the program department, which is in line with the direction of the hypothesis. 3. Informal reports, staff meetings and other verbal (oral) forms of communication will be rated as somewhat more effective in getting information to program department personnel than to sales department personnel. This is an attempt to say that programming, or the high-creative personnel seek ano use more face-to-face 69 interaction with other members of the organization. This did not hold up for the managers who rated sales and programming exactly the same, each with a mean of 4.33. Results were not significant for the employees either. The sales mean was 4.07 and the programming mean 4.00. This produced a ”t” of .84. 4. Bonuses and Special incentives will be offered more frequently to sales department personnel and will be higher than for program department personnel. The managers mean for sales was 2.42, and for programming 1.81. The "t” was 2.91, significant at the .01 level. This appears to uphold the contention of the hypothesis that sales is favored in the monetary reward area in the form of Special incentives and bonuses. For the employee group, means of 2.98 for sales and 1.97 for programming were produced. The ”t" was 5.90, highly significant beyond the .001 level. In this at least, it appears the two groups are in agreement, though once again, it should be pointed out that the employees see greater differences than do the managers. 5. Members of the program department will feel more free to discuss matters about their jobs and its aspects with the manager than will members of the sales department. The managers saw little difference in sales and programming on this question. The sal—s mean was 4.61, the programming mean 4.42. The ”t” was .97, which is not significant. For the employees, the sales mean was 4.25 and the program department mean was 4.23, producing a ”t” of 0.14, certainly not significant. 70 The high means from the above data seem to indicate that both sides, sales and programming, generally feel free to discuss matters about their work with the manager of the station. 6. The manager of the station will find more time to listen to and interact personally with members of the program department than he will the sales department. The managers' mean for both sales and programming was 4.76, giving no difference at all. The employee mean for sales was 4.17, for programming 4.09. The ”t” was .92, not significant. The overall iapression gained from the tests of the assumptions is one of little difference between the members of the programming and sales departments in the eyes of the manager. The only significant difference showed up in the areas of bonuses an0 Special incentives given to members of the two departments. however, the ea;1ier test of the main hypotheses did not indicate quite that narrow of a range of differences. The non—significant items, it should be pointed out, on the assumpitons were on items that did not include the leadersiip variable. The area of leadership style needs to be more closely defined in order to obtain differences in styles before a test may be made on the original hypOtheses. Summary The leadership style variable of the study was drOpped because of the inability of the instrument to distil'uish . .. A.— - O 7l adequately between autocratic styles and democratic styles of leadership. This led to a general analysis of the data skirting the direct teSting of the assumptions which concerned the leadership style variable. One difference was noted between manager perceptions of self in leadership style and the perceptions of the employees on the same variable. Employees generally rated the manager as much more autocratic than the manager rated himself. Factor analysis was used to further analyze the data for the study in an attempt to determine the dimensions of the differences identified. It provided three factors for the manager group and four for the employees group. In testing the hypotheses, portions of the first main hypothesis were found significant, but some portions were not. In general, only part of the first hypothesis proved to be in the direction predicted, but enough did not so that all considered, it is difficult to say that managers do perceive any significant difference between high-creative and low—creative individuals who work for them, or such a difference in the jobs which are classified as high-and low—creative. The second main hypothesis produced more that was of interest. More items were rated as having significant differences, waichlends support to the prOposal that there may be some sort of perceived difference between sales and 72 programming personnel in a broadcast station by the manager. However, managers may not be willing to admit to such a difference, or may be unable to recognize it for what it is. The employees, from their position within the organization, do perceive that the manager recognizes some differences. The factor analysis rotations brought out the dimensions of satisfaction with self, efficiency, and satisfaction with work from the manager group. Employee group dimensions were efficiency, more monitoring by the manager, awareness and work motivation. dimilar dimen- sions were the efficiency and work satisfaction dimensions from both groups. The assumptions were tested by a matched pairs design using the "t" test for equality of means. Significant differences were found only in the dimension of economic rewards and bonuses as incentives for sales and programming. all others proved to be non-significant. Despite the number of non—signifiCant results in the study, some areas for future consideration and eXploration were Opened up, some strong indications given in the direction of the perceived differences hypothesized by the study and some of the methodology needs refining and modifying for future study in this area. This area of findings will be discussed in Chapter 4 which follows. ChapThfi 4 DISCUSSION Most of the rationale for this study came from the research conducted by the author for a Masters thesis study made in 1969. At that time, reason was found to believe that there were ways to discern a manager's leadership styleo The fact that the present study did not delineate strongly between the autocratic and democratic styles should not be taken to indicate that such a distinction cannot be made. Indeed, with the results of the present study, there is reason to believe that it is simply a matter of more time and study to refine the instrument for making the distinction. It may, however, be an uphill battle since the process of integration of the various styles is being Speeded up by the managerial schools and the broadening asyects of the - manager's position in today's world. It would now appear that the manager of the future will be an individual in whom is combined traits of the autocrat, the bureaucrat and the democrat, and with training advanced to the point where he possesses the capabilities of using that talent which is needed at a Specific time and in a particular situation. This is not to say that an individual‘s personality may no longer dominate the manager's actions, or influence him on the job, but rather that he will be much more highly trained 73 71+ and skilled in the managerial skills and these skills will subordinate the individual personality. The day of the strongly individualistic manager is likely nearing its end. There remains, however, a need to understand the ways in which the manager's individual personality is likely to influence the way in which he interprets the difficult roles he plays. The characteristics of the factor structures for the group of subjects in the study had high similarity to the Verbalization of the categories used as a guide in preparing the instrument and develOping the rationale for this study. The dimensions produced by the factor analysis are like the concepts which the questionnaire was designed to find and bring into the Open, the degree of satisfaction with the job as seen by the manager the emgloyee, the efficiency of the employees as they work in the two areas, and so forth. Although the factor analysis produced meaningful 3-factor solutions they were not strongly consistent from one group to the other. It appears that the nature of the work the indiv— idual does is highly related to his other perceptions and eXperiences in the broadcasting organization, which is in line with the statement of the hypotheses. Most of the factors were moderately strong, accounting for good portions of the variance. This is esyecially true in the manager's group, where the first factor, the dimension of self-satisfaction, accounted for 25% of the variance, and the second, an efficiency factor, accounted for 23%. 75 The efficiency factor, which also accounted for 19% of the variance in the employees group, was the lowest of the four factors there. The last two variables, awareness and work satisfaction, each accounted for 17% of the variance among the employees. Even though there are differences between the twoggroups the results of the factor analysis have indicated some of the areas of commonality between managers' and employees' perceptions of the superior/subordinate relationship for future study. Of the concepts hypothesized as components of the manager's perceptions, theadeeuacy of communication between levels of the organizational hierarchy, especially upward communication from employee to manager, and the degree of trust shown by the manager in allowing employees freedom to make their own decisions and work at their own pace, appear to be the best predictors for other concepts. Both scored high correlations in the manager's group. Item 8, the extent of the managerial interest in the employee, should also likely be a good predictor, generally rating high correlations. For the employee group the picture was less clear. highest correlations Came in the arga of use of time, talent, and materials, guality control in work, and production. None of these three items had :ore than two high correlations and appear as only fair predictors of the other items. The employees seem to see the difference between the departments as centering on the amount of production that 76 the manager perceives and the motivational rewards given because of this production difference, perceived or actual. The manager, as might be expected, is more concerned with progress that can be measured on a day-by-day basis, rather than on the sporadic, though perhaps larger leaps of progress which may come from work by high—creative people. The steady, consistent progress is typical of that which is put forth through the efforts of the sales department, the area classified as low-creative in the present rationale. In this reSpect, the contention of the hypothesis is upheld. The Hypothesgs, Claim for support of the hypotheses could conceivably come from the few significant items which were produced in the comparison of differences on each item and the analysis of the factor structure. The first main hypothesis cannot be rejected because parts of it, at least, were upheld. Managers appear to see a significant difference as demonstrated in the way they see low-creative personnel as motivated by the reward system of the organization, by the extent the high-creative individual is motivated by greater satisfaction in work done, and in the Opportunity to create something new and different. There appears to be also an apparent perceived difference in the two departments in the area of productivity, possibly the productivity of income for the station. again, it was hypothesized that the manager is more impressed by the ability 77 to measure the work done on a more regular basis, and that a sales chart is a more definitive measure of where the company is today in comparison with yesterday, last month or last year, than is the untested program or new advertisement. The question that did more to show this was the question number ll—a of the questionnaire. What makes this area interesting and a little confusing is the fact that the low-creative sales area needs the product of the high—creative program department in order for the sales department to be successful. UnpOpular, i.e., poor, products out of the program department do not generally sell well in the advertising marketplace. as predicted, the employee sees the manager as perceiving greater differences than the manager says he perceives. Five of the twelve items produced significant results for the employee group, including the same three that were significant for the manager group. The other two items, 3 and 12, concerning the interest in the individual by the manager and the adequacy of horizontal communication would appear tobe natural areas of interest to employees. hour of the five were significant at the .001 level for the employee group. Confidence in the validity of the hypotheses is gained from a comprehensive look at the results of the tests of the data. The first main hypothesis cannot be said to have been strongly supported, but the null hypothesis can likely be rejected. For the second main hypothesis, on the strength of the ‘78 number of significant items, we can reject the null hypothesis and say that employees do see the manager as seeing greater differences between sales and programming than the manager says he perceives. It is unfortunate that the lack of definitive measrements in the leadership style variable made it impossible to follow through with a test of the assumptions for the main hypotheses. The tests that were run on the results were mostly non- significant and did not give the sense of completion that had been intended. There appears to be some need and Oppor- tunity for further study among the assumptions, but further work should be attempted at testing the prOposals as they were originally written for the study. More effort is needed to refine the instrument to measure leadership style. It would have perhaps helped if the size of the sample had been larger. The questionnaire needs further refining to provide items that are more definitive on the Specific concepts. If differences can be discovered in future approaches, a factor analysis of these differences would enhance the possibility of identifying areas which need continued study and attention. Much of the basis for develOpment of the instrument came from studies done at Ann arbor and Columbus, Ohio. But the subjects used for at least some of these studies did not particularly fit the pattern of the business executive. Some studies were conducted with members of the armed forces, a very authoritarian organization which would seem almost sure to produce the autocratic style of leadership. 79 There was a tendency in the answers of the managers of the present study to be too much middle-of—the-road, or to provide answers which are ideal solutions rather than a description of existing or actual conditions. The possibility exists, of course, that the managers may tn playing ostrich in their assessments of their own organization. Indeed, the data from the employee subjects would seem to indicate that they may be miSperceiving their own role and their relation- ships with the subordinates in the company. This is an area that needs much more attention in future studies. Implications The findings of this study seem to point in the direction of need for further study in management perception of company personnel. But additional work appears needed prior to undertaking so broad a study. For example, future studies need to concern themselves with an assessment of a manager's perception of creativity, what is creativity in the mind of the manager, how does it Operate, what are some of its dimensions? Then it shouldte established whether or not the manager feels given positions within the organization are positions involving high— or low-creativity for their output. It is possible that there are some very creative peOple in low-creative positions, and low-creative individuals in positions which should be or demand high-creativity. As the study should indicate, an attempt to avoid this problem was 80 made when it was decided that larger stations, in larger markets, should provide the subjects for this study. This was done in the belief that such stations are much more likely to hire qualified individuals for the various station positions, first because they can afford to specialize, and second because they would need to do so to meet the higher competitive aspects of the market in which they are operating. In too many small markets and in small stations, individuals are asked to do a broad variety of things in the course of their work day, and do not normally specialize in just one kind of work. Greater attention needs to be paid to this variable in future studies. There have been a number of works written on management of the creative individual and/or creative departments or areas in organizations. Perhaps, too, the use of the broadcast station is too confining and a look should be made at managers in other industries where the possibility of high- and low-creative divisions in work are likely to occur. The findings of this study have provided the beginning of a set of dimensions which may be used in future research for determining where differences might occur between groups of personnel in organizations. These dimensions need more refining, further study in order to provide evidence that is more definitive, but, hopefully, this study is a start. With the differences proposed in this study between manager perceptions of high-creative and low-creative 81 personnel in programming and sales departments of a broad- casting organization, another direction in which the work should be expanded, is to include the other departments of the company, specifically the financial function, the promotion or advertising (marketing) department, continuity as a special area, news, engineering and so forth. There are three primary departments in a broadcasting station, each of them necessary for the proper functioning of the station. These are the engineering, or technical department, programming and sales. All other departments are service units to these three primary departments, and may be absorbed into the primary departments, exist autonomously, as separate and distinct departments, be handled outside the station entirely, or be handled in other ways. A manager's perception of the roles these service departments play, their relative role importance and thus the importance of the individuals within the department offers another dimension into which the study could be broadened. Future research needs to be done on leadership style, on the content of ”creativity” as defined in this study, on perception or creativity, and on perceived differences based on a variety of dimensions, including those identified in this study. and most important, some definitions of comm- unication in these situations needs to be established. The findings here seem to support the broad, theoretic framework for approaching difference perception on a managerial level. If so, the established framework may fruitfully be used to explore other questions of communication in organizations. BIBLIOGBAPHY Argyris, Chris. Personality and Organization. New York: Harper, 1957. Aurner, 3.3. Effective Communication in Business. Cincinnati: Southwestern Publishing Co. 1958. augrist, A.h. “A Study of the Communications of Executives in Business and Industry.” Speech Monographs. Vol. 21, 1953. Barnard, Chester. The functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Mass.: Harvard University Press. 1933. Bavelas, Alex and Uermott Barrett. ”an Experimental Approach to Organizational Communication." Personnel. Vol. 27. 19MB. Berlyne, D.E. Structure and Direction in Thinking. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1965. Birdtwhistell, hay. (In Sebeok, hayes, Bateson, Eds.) Approaches to Semiotics. The Hague: Mouton. 196M. Burns, Tom. ”The Directions of activity and Communications In a Departmental Executive Group.” Human Relations. Vol. 7. 1954. Broadbent, U.E. ”Information Processing in the Nervous System.” Science. October, 1965. Carlson, 8. Executive Behavior. Stockholm: C.A. otromberg, 1951. Chapline, J.n. (Ed) The Manager's hole in Organizational Communication. Procedures of the 1963 IEEE/MSU Colloquium. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. 1964. Chase, Stuart. ”Executive Communications: Breaking the Semantic Barrier.” Management neview. Vol. #6. Christie, Lee S. "Organization and Informational handling in Groups.” Journal of Operations Research: Society of America. Vol. 2. 195E. Cohen, A.h. ”a Model of Group adaptation to Organizational Change in CommuLiCation networks.“ In Thayer (ed) Communication: Theory and nesearch. Springfield, 111.: Chas. 0. Thomas. Communication in Or anizations. foundation for nesearch on Human behavior. Ann arbor. 1959. n5 83 Cooper, E. ano M. Jahoda. ”The Evasion of Propaganda: How Prejudiced People despond to Anti-Prejudice Propaganda.” Journal of rsychology. Vol. 23. 1947 Cort, nobert F. Cpmmunication with Employees. Waterford, Conn.: Prentice hall, Inc. Davis, Keith a. ”A Method of Studying Communication Patterns in Organizations.” Personnel rsgchology. Vol. 6. 1953. 'earden, J. and P. w. McFarlan. Management Information Systems. Homewood, Ill.: nichard U. Irwin, Inc. 1966. Dooher, M.J. Effective Communication on the Job. New York: American management association. 1955. Cover, O.J. Mona ement CommuniCation on Controversial Issues. Washington,D.C.: BEA, Inc. 1965. Urucker, Peter F. The Practice of Management. E.Y.: Harper and Brothers. 195%. George, E.H. The Brain as a Computer. London: Pergamon. 1962. Gibson, J.J. The Senses Considered as a Perceptual S stem. Boston; houghton, nifflin Co. 1966. -- z * I". a d ”"m . an a o" 7‘ a1 7 1111:"' - Guet kow, h n n Si on ”I port nce 1 text lI C01 unic ation hetworks upon Organization and Performance in Task Oriented Groups.” management Science. Vol. 1. 1955. Hall, M.P. ”Communication within Organizations.“ in Hill and agan, eds. headings in Organization Theory: a Behavioral Approach. Boston: allyn and Bacon, Inc. 1967. haney, William. CommuniCation -nd Organizational Behavior. nomewOOd, Ill.: nichard U. Irwin, inc. 1967. hefierline, d.f. ”Communication Theory: 11. Extensionio Intrapersonal neha ior.” atrly. Jrnl. of Speech. Vol. 41 1955. Hill, Walter A. and Douglas n. Egan. headings in Organizational Theory: a Behavioral Approach. boston: allyn and Bacon, 1966. Hoslett, S.L. “Barriers to Communication.” Personnel. Vol. 2“. 19510 ”Improving Management Communication.” General management Series. #145. n.r.: american Management assoc. 1950. 84 Jackson, J.M. “The Organization and Its Communication Problems.” advanced Management. bebruary, 1959. Jennings, nugene. The Executive: autocrat, Bureaucrat, Democrat. N.i.: narpers and now, Pub. 1962. Katz, Daniel. ”Psychological Barriers to Communication.” annals oi the american academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 250. 1947. , B. and n.L. Kahn. The Social Psychology of Organizations. n.1.: John Wiley and bons, inc. 1966. Lee, Irving and Laura L. Lee. handling Barriers in Communication. n.i.: harper and Bros. 1957. Likert fiensis. flew Patterns in Management. New York: ",fi 'r"~- . ‘1 —. ' Mouraw-nill Book Co. 1961. ,h. The human Organization. New York: McGraw—hill book Co. 1968. Lirham, J.M. and U.C. Prancke. ”Non Verbal Behavior of administrators.” aduCational administration anrlm. Vol. 2. 1966. Lippitt, h. ”administrator Perception and administration approval: a communication Problem.” oociatry. Vol. 1 1947. Lyle, J. ”Communication Group atmOSphere, Productivity and Morale in email Task Groups.” human nelations. 14. 1961. Maier, Norman A.r., John hooven and william head. ”Superior- subordinate Communication in Aanagement.” aha desearch study ho. 52. Personnel Psychology. Vol. 16, 1963. , et a1. Communication in Organizations. ann arbor: Foundation for desearch on human behavior. 1959. narch, J.d. (ed) Bandoook of Organizations. Chicago: hand McNally, inc. 1965. , J.G. and a.n. bimon. Organizations. R.i.: John Wiley and dons, Inc. 1959. McCall, G.J. and L.J. bimmons. Identities and interactions. hew Xork: Free Press. 1966. McGuire, J.w. Theories of Business Behavior. nnglewood Clifis, New Jersey: Prentice—hall, Inc. 1964. 85 McMurray, R.N. ”Clear Communications for Chief Executives.” Harvard Business devieu. April, 1965. McQuitty, Louis L. ”Elementary Linkage Analysis for Isolating Orthogonal and Oblique Types and Typal nelevancies.” Educational and Psychological Measurement. Vol. 17, 2. 1957. g D Merrihue, Millard V. Mana in Communication. N.i.: McGraw- Hill Book Co., Inc. 1969. Mesarovic, M.D. (ed) Views on General Systems Theory: New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1964. Nichols, nalph G. ”Listening, What Price Inefficiency?” Office mxecutive. April. 1959. Nilsen, Thomas h. “desearch Problems in Communication in Industry.” Journal of Communication. Vol. 4. 1954. Pierson, U.T. ”Communication Practices of Supervisors in a Midwestern Corporation.” Advanced Management. Vol. 23. 1958. Pope, J.B. ”Communication: The Mystery of Management.” The Controller. January. 1956. Read, h.U. ”Communication in Organizations: Some Problems and MiSConceptions.” Personnel Administragion. 26 1963. hedfield, Charles a. Communication in Management Theory and Practice. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. 1953. noethlisberger, F.J. ”Barriers to Communication between Men.” In 8.1. hayakawa's Language, Meaning and Maturity. N.i.: narper and BrOthers. 1954. , “.J. Management and Morale. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Lniversity Press. 1941. noss, daymond S. ”Using Communication nesearch in Industry.” Personnel. Vol. 13. 1957. Schein, ndgar a. Or anizational Psvcn lo M.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc. 1965. . Englenood Cliffs, Simon, h.a. Administrative Behavior. M.Y.: Machillan Co. 1961 Smith, a.C. Communication and Status: The O namics of a nesearch Center. Eugene, Ore.: Center for the advanced Study of fiducational administration. Univ. of Oregon Press. 1966. 86 Shepherd and Lechsler. ”The Relation Between Three Inter- Personal Variables and Communication nffectiveness: A Pilot Study.” Sociometry. Vol. 18. 1955. Sexton, nichard and Virginia Staudt. ”The Communication Clinic: A Proposed solution to the Business Communication Problem.” Journal of General Psychology. Vol. 60. 1959. Steiner, Gary A. (ed) The Creative Or Univ. of Chicago Press. 1965. ‘anization. Chicago: Thayer, Lee 0. Administrative Communication. Homewood, Ill.: hichard D. Irwin, Inc. 1961. , L.O. Communication and Communication Systems. Homevood, Ill.: nichard D. Irwin, inc. 1963. Thompson, Victor a. Modern Organization. h.l.: Alfred A. Knopf, rublisher. 1961. Zaleznik, A. and D. Moment. The Dynamics of Interpersonal Behavior. h.i.: John tiley and Sons. 1962. Zajonc, n.B. and L.M. Wolfe. ”Cognitive Consequences of a Person's Position in a bormal Organization.” mech. deport #24. Ann arbor: Institute for Social hesearch. 1963. APPENDIX A Instrument for Manager Subjects Broadcast Leader survey This questionnaire was develOped for the purpose of describing the management of broadcast stations in the United States and the relationship of managers to their personnel. In completing this questionnaire, it is very important that each individual answer each question as thoughtfully and frankly as possible. This is not a test. There are no right or wrong answers. It is important that you answer each question the way you see things or the way you feel about them. Please follow instructions at the beginning of each section of questions closely. FORM M 1970 INSTRUCTIONS: On the line below each item place a check ( L/') at the point which, in your experience, best describes the form of management which you practice in your organization. 1. To what extent do you attend to a wide variety of details personally, exercising most control and making most decisions? I I I I To great extent Fairly much To some degree Seldom Never 2. To what extent do you feel your employees can influence the goals, methods and work patterns of the station, especially in their own departments? I I I I I I A great deal Fairly much To some degree Seldom Never 3. To what extent do you feel you are concerned with employee needs and personal values in the operation of the station? I I I I I I A great deal Fairly much To some degree Seldom Never 4. To what extent would you say you act in managerial capacity without consulting the group of employees? I I I I I I Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never 5. To what extent would you say goals in your organization are set through orders from the top echelon? | I I I I I Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never 6. How often would you say organizational goals are set or established by means of group participation of your employees? I I I I I J Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never 7. To what extent do you let your subordinates do their work the way they think is best? I I I I I I A great deal Fairly much To some degree Seldom Never ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS PLEASE PLACE TWO MARKS ON THE SCALE BELOW EACH ITEM. To rate personnel in your Program Department, place a "P" on the scale at the point where you believe they should be rated. Place an "S" on the scale at the point where you believe your Sales Department personnel should be rated. EXAMPLE: Q. To what extent do you feel you should look out for the personal welfare of members of your sales/ program department? 8 P Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never The marks may be at the same place, or they may be placed at different locations. Remember, what is important is that each department should be rated independently of the other. Do not rate the difference between the two departments. 8. To what extent are personnel in your sales/program department motivated by financial, economic or status rewards? J I I I I A great deal ‘ Fairly much Some 'Comparatively little None ' 9. To what extent do you believe personnel in your sales/program department are motivated by self satisfaction in work done, participation in company activities and social activities and needs? I I I I I I A great deal Fairly much Some Comparatively little None 10. How much satisfaction do you believe members of your sales/program department derive from the work they do? I I I I I I A great deal Fairly much Some Comparatively little None 11. How would you rate the following performance characteristics of the personnel in your sales/program department? A. Productivity. I I I I I I High Fairly high Medium Somewhat low Very low B. Absence and turnover. L I I I I I High Fairly high Medium Somewhat low Very low C. Quality control of work done. I I I I I I I High Fairly high Medium Somewhat low Very low D. Use of time, talents and materials. I I I I I | High Fairly high Medium Somewhat low Very low 12. To what extent do you feel you should look out for the personal welfare of members of your sales/program department? I I I I I I Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never 13. To what extent do you criticize work or practices in the sales/program department of your organization? I I I I I I Very frequently Often Occasionally Seldom Never ' 14. To what degree do you leave members of your sales/program department on their own in getting decisions made, work done, etc.? I I I I I I A great deal Fairly much To some degree Comparatively little Not at all 15. How would you describe the adequacy of communication, information, received from the sales/program department? Very good Fairly good Adequate Limited None/extremely little 16. How would you describe the communication (exchange of information) among members of the sales/program department in terms of adequacy? Very good Fairly good Adequate Limited Not good at all INSTRUCTIONS: On the following items, place an ”S” on the scale at the point which best describes your relationship with members of the sales department. Place a "P" at the point which describes best your relationship with program department personnel. 17. To what extent do you generally try to get subordinate ideas and opinions and make constructive use of them from the sales/program department? I I I I I I Always Usually Sometimes Seldom Never 18. How effective w0uld you say formal, written memos and reports are in getting information £2 members of your sales/ program department? I I I I I Very effective Fairly effective Adequate Limited Not at all effective 19. How effective would you say informal reporting, oral reports, staff meetings, etc., are in getting information £2 members of your sales/program department? Not at all effective Very effective Fairly effective Adequate Limited 20. How great do you feel the need is in your sales/program department for structured methods, e.g., suggestion boxes, Very great 21. How often do you feel it necessary to offer special incentives, e.g., bonuses, prizes, etc., for members of your to get information to you from and about the department. Fairly great Moderate Occasionally Not needed sales/program departments? Very often Often Moderately often Seldom Never 22. To what extent do you feel members of the sales/program department feel free to discuss important things about their jobs with you? Very free Fairly free Somewhat free Not very free Not at all free 23. How often do you find time to listen to your subordinates in the sales/program department? Always Often Oscaaionally Seldom Never The following is general information on broadcast personnel. Please fill in the blanks. what is your present position? Your age? Age at time of first full-time employment in broadcasting? Length of time in broadcasting ? length of time in present job? What job did you,hold before the present one? Reason for leaving previous job? Reasons for entering broadcasting in first place? Your present reaction to your decision to enter broadcasting? Good decision It's a job Wish I hadn't No specific reaction High School Vocational School or Technical school. College Post Graduate work Your educational level? Present weekly compensation for your job? Very satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Do you feel your present compensation is: From your observations of the promotion policies of your present employer, would you say promotions are handled on the basis that is: Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory with reservations Unsatisfactory What kind of broadcasting experience or background would you recommend for people interested in entering the field? APPENDIX B Instrument for Employee subjects Broadcast Leader survey This questionnaire was developed for the purpose of describing the management of broadcast stations in the United States and the relationship of managers to their personnel. In completing this questionnaire, it is very important that each individual answer each question as thoughtfully and frankly as possible. This is not a test. There are no right or wrong answers. It is important that you answer each question the way you see things or the way you feel about them. Follow instructions at the beginning of each section of questions carefully. FORM E 1970 INSTRUCTIONS: 0n the line below each item place a check ( L/’) at the point which, in your opinion and experience, best describes the manner in which the manager of your station acts in doing his work and in his relationship to his employees. 1. To what extent does he attend to a wide variety of details personally, exercising the controls and making most decisions? I I I I Always gfir Often ' Occasionally ' Seldom '7 Never 2. To what extent do you feel you can influence the goals, methods and work patterns of the station, especially in your own department? L A great deal - Fairly-much ffii To some degree Seldom - Never 3. To what extent do you feel your manager is concerned with employee needs and personal values in the operation of the station? I I I I I I A great deal Fairly much To some extent Seldom Never 4. To what extent does the manager act without consulting his employees? I I I I I I Always Often Occasionally if Seldom '7 Never 5. To what extent would you say goals in your organization are set through orders from the top echelon? I I I I I I Always Often Occasionally V Seldom Never r 6. How often would you say organizational goals are set or established by means of group participation of the employees I J I I I I Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never 7. To what extent does the manager let his subordinates do their work the way they think is best? I I I I I I f A great deal Fairly much To some degree Seldom Never ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS PLEASE PLACE TWO MARKS ON THE SCALE BELOW EACH ITEM. To rate personnel in your program department place a "P" on the scale at the point where you believe the manager's perception of department personnel would be. Place an "S” for the same perception of personnel in the sales department. EXAMPLE: Q. To what extent does the manager look out for the personal welfare of members of the sales/program department? I I? IS I Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never The two marks may be at the same place, or they may be placed at different locations on the scale. Remember, what is important is that each department should be rated independently of the other. Do not rate the difference between the two departments. 8. To what extent are personnel in the sales/program department motivated by financial, economic or status rewards? I | I I I j A great deal Fairly much Somewhat Comparatively little None 1 9. To what extent are personnel in your sales/program department motivated by self satisfaction in work done, participation in company activities and decision making and social activities and needs? L | I I I I A great deal Fairly much Somewhat Comparatively little None 10. How much satisfaction do you believe members of the sales/program department derive from the work they do? I A great deal Fairly much Some Comparatively littler None 11. How would you rate the following performance characteristics of the personnel in your sales/program department? I I High Fairly high Medium ' Somewhat low 1 Very low A._Pr9ductivity. db— B. Absence and turnover. | I I l l | High Fairly high Medium Somewhat low 41 Very low C. Use of time, talents and materials. I I I I L I High Fairly high Medium Somewhat low ' Very low D. Quality control of work done. I I I I I High ' Fairly high 1 Medium T Somewhat low ' Very low 12. To what extent do you feel the manager looks out for the personal welfare of members of your sales/program department? Always If Often . Occasionally ' Seldom . Never ‘ 13. To what extent does the manager criticize work or practices in the sales/program department of the organization? I I I I I I i very frequently V Often Y Occasionally Y Seldom Never 14. To what degree does the manager leave members of the sales/program department on their own in getting decisions made, work done, etc.? I I I I I I A great deal Fairly much To some degree Comparatively little Not at all 15. How would you describe the adequacy of communication, information, from the sales/program department to the manager? I I I I I I Very adequate Fairly good Adequate Limited None, extremely little 16. How would you describe the communication (exchange of information) among members of the sales/program department in terms of adequacy? L L I I Very good Fairly good Adequate Limited Not good at all INSTRUCTIONS: On the following items place an ”S” on the scale at the point which best describes the relationship of the manager with members of the sales department. Place a "P” at the point which you feel best describes the manager's relationship with the members of the program department. 17. To what extent does he try to get ideas and opinions and make constructive use of them from the sales/program department? I I J Always Usually Sometimes Seldom Never 18. How effective would you say formal memos and reports are in getting information to members of the sales/program department? . I | I Very effective Fairly effective Adequate Limited Not at all effective l9. How,effective‘ would you say informal reporting, oral reports, staff meetings, etc., are in getting information from the manager to members of the sales/program department? Very effective Fairly effective Adequate Limited Not at all effective 20. How great do you feel the need is in your sales/program department for structured fonns of communication, e.g., suggestion boxes, to get information about the department to the manager? Very great Fairly great Moderately great Occasionally Not needed at all 21. How often are bonuses or other special incentives offered to members of the sales/program department? Very often Often Moderately often Occasionally Never 22. To what extent do members of the sales/program department feel free to discuss important things about their job with the manager? Very free Fairly free Somewhat free Not very free Not at all free 23. How often does the manager find time to listen to the subordinates in the sales/program department? Always Often Occasionally Seldom ' Never THE FOLLOHING 15 GENERAL INFORMATION ON BROADCAST PERSONNEL. PLEASE FILL IN THE BLANKS. what is your present position? Your age? Age at time of first full-time ,‘ , in ‘ ’ ‘ a 7 ’ 1 " Length of time in your present job? length of time in L a What job did you hold before the present one? Reason for leaving previous job? Reasons for entering broadcasting in first place? Wish I hadn't Your present reaction to your decision to enter broadcasting? Good decision It's a job. No specific reaction High school Vocational or Technical school College Post graduate work Your educational level? Present weekly compensation for your job? Very satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Do you feel your present compensation is: From your observations of the promotion policies of your present employer, would you say 'promotions are handled on the basis that is: Very Satisfactory _ Satisfactory Satisfactory with reservations _____ Unsatisfactory ’ J ‘ or L ‘0 ‘ would you recommend for people interested in entering the field? What kind of ‘ a . / APPENUIX C Comparative Kitings: Leadership Style Managers vs. imployees Table 13.--Comparative hatings, Leadership Style 98 Manager vs. Employee, Mgr. Sglf Emp. dir- Dept Mgr. Self Emp. Dir- Dept. mating Rating ection Rating Rating ect. 1 17 15 - S 12 17 15 - S 19 + S *20 + P 27,_ . + S 17‘_ O P 20 X=20.25 + P 16 X=17 - P 2 15 2% + S 13 15 *14 - S 16 _ + P 19 + S *19 X=19.66 + P 1% __ - P 3 17 24 + b 21 XP17.00 + P 18 _ + S 14 16 22 + S 23 K=21.66 + P 21 + S A 18 22 + S 20 _, + P 22 _, + S . l6 X=19.75 o P 20 A221.33 + P 15 18 23 + S 5 14 21 + S 23 + S 16 _ + S 23 + S 19 leb.66 + P 19 + P 6 15 16 + s 20 _ + P 15 o b 23 1:21.83 + P 18 + o 16 13 13 o S 18 + P 14 + S 18 _ + P 22 _ + S 17 X=17.00 + P 16 X=16.25 + P 7 15 15 o d 17 18 20 + S 20 + S 17 - S 21 + 3 l9,_ + P 14 _ , - P 17 K218.25 — P 19 X=17.b0 + P 18 15 15 o P 8 15 2 + s 19 + P 18 + S 20 _ + P 25 + P 19 X218.25 + P 20 _ + P 19 17 20 + S 14 X:ZO.HO n P 22 + S 9 15 *13 - u 24 + S *16 _, + S 13 - P 15 K215.33 o P 18 _, + P 10 15 17 + 5 lb K=l9.17 + P 18 _ "I’ 5 4:0 lo .17 + 5 16 X217.OO + P 18 + S 11 lb 20 + o 17 _ + P 2 + d 16 K=17.00 o P 20 + S 21 2O 23 + b 20 + P 18 — 5 lb _ o P 19 _ - P 11 X213.83 + P 16 £219.00 — P *Score does not include all questions. No response guestions not tallied. SZSales P:Program APPENDIX D Correlations lOO HmeONHHon oo.a wa.- mo.- mH.- so. :a. wo.- mo. m:.- om.- Ho. mm.- .aosasmea goo ma Hmoasam> oo.a mm.- aw. 01.- m:. mm. mo.- om. as.. m:. ma. assesses .soo as oo.a m:.- 0:. j:.. om.- mm.- mo.- mo. HH.- so. m>flpsflpaco :30 OH onEpnsme 63m oo.H mm.- mm. mm. mm. AH. m .. mo. mo. saosao amaoapaau m Samoooo .pwz oo.H om.- :m.- mo.- oa.- :m. OH.- :m. .masaams aseomama m oo.a Hm. 00. mm. Hm.u ma. :m.- Honpnoo assassy a psmasaxmasflampaa oo.H No. as. wo.- om. mm. .msHE so was s oo.a ma. Ho.- :a. ma. sm>ozasa\moammnu m oo.a mm. ow. no. aoflsozeosm : moon Mao; oo.H mm. aw. an eoflpoasmapsn m Soapomwmfipmn oo.H mH.oI an eoaos>fipoz m Soaps>asofl ooofi maps93\asfloqqua A we as 0H m. w a o m s m m H mapafiams II I all mwowssszumanmfiemb Hosea %mo>m spas mmaomflms>aaa .mdoapsammmooll.ia manna lOl awesomflaom II oo.H mm.- Ho. AH. om.- mm.- mm.- no. mm.- as. as. ow.- assasseu .300 NH maoasam> oo.a as.. as. ma. Hm. om. m .- no. wo.- mo. AH. assayed: .200 as oo.H oa.- ma. 0H»- mm.- wa.u wo.- mm. mm. HH.- msflssasaaa e;o OH SHOE oo.H mN.- ow. 0H. mo.- mH.- NH.- SH.- 00.- mo smaoapflao m someday .owz oo.H oa.- ma. HH.- :m. AH.- so.- 0H. masaam; assemamm w oo.H om. ma. m:. :m.- wa.- ma. dosages spasms? a masflumpsanpcoama oo.H mo. as. om. os.- om. .mgfla as an: o pm>0§ufia oo.H mm. mo. mo. mo. \moesmsn m oo.a mm.- oa.- Hm. cossossoai : OHHOD 3.9.4.0 I oo.H om. Hm.- an soasosamfipso m SOHpomHmeum oo.H ma.- as soapssasoa m SOHO. .3 WHO. 05M oo.H mapspa\asfloqaaaa H NH as OH 0 m a o m J m m a mapsaas> Imooxoagsalmaisflws> amspo hmm>fl Qua; mmaasfims> Has ammofiwmampmoonl.ma magma I. l\_f. APPENDIX E Participating Stations r_______f 103 PARTICIPATING KCBSRadiO.....o. KID Radio-Television O O O WFLD Television . . . . WXYZ Radio 0 O C I O O I WJRT Television . . . . WGN Radio . . . . . . . WMAQ Radio . . . . . . . WSB Radio o o o o o o o WMAL Television . . . . WTOP Radio . . . . . o . KLZ Television . . . . . WHAS Radio 0 O O C C O O KHJRadiOooooooo O WLS Television . . . . . 0 KRON Television . . . . WFAA Television . . . . KRLD Television . . . . O KYW Television . . . . . KDKA Television . o . . WISN Television . . . . WJAR Television . . . . STATIONS San Francisco, California Idaho Falls, Idaho Chicago, Illinois Detroit, Michigan Flint, Michigan Chicago, Illinois Chicago, Illinois Atlanta, Georgia Washington, D.CL Washington, D.C. Denver, Colorado Louisville, Kentucky Los Angeles, California Chicago, Illinois San Francisco, California Dallas, Texas Dallas, Texas Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Milwaukee, Wisconsin Providence, Rhode Island . 1 ‘1 J 41 1., glui‘i: ‘11.;1cuq 11‘“. 11.1 .1141 v :1 I ‘1‘)“ “