i I . I,.. ,..V.. ‘_. 7A-_i.__——___‘-~_; ‘1‘, mwv_pr_—n.l.‘~—‘ ‘— ~r .I.‘..»¢‘~_...... ...<. AN INVESTIGATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS IN AN INDUSTRIAL SETTING Thais Im- fho Dogru of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Robert S. Boar. 1957 ""‘h~-|u‘IA This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN INVESTIGATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS IN AN INHISTRIAL SETTING presented by Robert S. Beare has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _Eh_nlln__ degree in mauve 8: Educational ' Services (Guidance & Coun- eeling) 0-169 Dedicated to- My wife and parents AN INVESTIGATION 01' ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS IN AN INDUSTRIAL SETTING By ROBERT S. m AN ABSTRACT submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University d Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements (er the degree of DOCTOR 01' PHILO SOPHI Department of Administrative and Educational Services Guidance and Counselor Training 1957 W 4%; m imam, LIBRARY Michigan State University. :‘a 't! it“! a? .xz'v 59 "t f; ‘I‘ 1 Robert S. Beare Abstract The purpose of this investigation.was defined as an attempt to determine the relationships between supervisory practices and criteria of organizational effectiveness in an industrial setting. Methodologz. A.questionnaire was developed which consisted of 19 dimensions referring to a variety of supervisory practices. The dimensions were designated as ”general" or "specific! depending upon whether they were adapted from a previous investigation or were con- structed specifically for this study. respectively. The questionnaire was administered to a random sample of 296 subordinates of foreman in an automotive assembly plant. under con! ditions designed to assure the respondents of anonymity. The responses were averaged to provide dimension scores for the 82 foremen constituting the sample. A.total of 19 criteria of organizational effectiveness were factor analyzed. The resulting four factors were identified as Superiors' Evaluation. Physical Welfare of Subordinates. Labor Relations. and Satisfaction of Subordinates. Factor scores were determined for each foreman. Dimension scores and factor scores were correlated utilizing epsilon and product moment techniques. Tests of linearity and significance were applied to the obtained coefficients. General and specific dimensions were compared in terms of their relation» ships to the criteria. The investigator'posited the hypotheses that 2 Robert S. Bears Abstract (1) there are no statistically significant relationships between supervisory practices and criteria of organizational effectiveness. and (2) there are no statistically significant differences between relationships of general and specific dimensions of supervisory practices to criteria of organizational effectiveness. The,]gndings. Only two statistically significant coefficients of correlation were obtained between the dimensions and three of the criterion factors. A.tota1 of 15 dimensions were found to be signi- ficantly correlated. in a linear fashion, with the criterion factor, Satisfaction of Subordinates. There was no statistically significant difference between the median correlation coefficients of general and specific dimensions with this criterion factor. A refinement of this factor revealed that the obtained relationships were mainly due to the influence of the variable. Subordinates' Rating. Conclusions. The results of this investigation indicated that there was insufficient evidence to reject the original hypotheses. With respect to the latter of these. the evidence suggests that specific dimensions. constructed especially for the exploration of'problems in a given organization, are as efficacious as dimensions adapted from other investigations. In terms of the first hypothesis. it would appear that the quality of supervisory practices is unrelated to many commonly accepted criteria of organizational effectiveness. Where such a relationship existed, as with Satisfaction of subordinates. the 3 Robert 8. Bears Abstract nature of this relationship to differential employee performance. and thus to the ultimate criterion of organizational effectiveness could only be assumed. geommendations. The investigator recommends that future in- vestigations in this area be concentrated on solving the problem of determining adequate criteria of group performance. Defining the function of a group and obtaining measures more directly related to it's effectiveness would appear to be a more fertile field of inquiry. The results of such an investigation should pro- vide more conclusive evidence concerning the relationship of super- visory practices to organizational effectiveness. AN INVESTIGATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL EFTECTITENESS IN AN INDUSTRIAL SETTING By Robert S. Bears A DISSERTATION Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administrative and Educational Services Guidance and Counselor Training 1957 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Dr. Walter 1. Johnson. Chairman of the Guidance Committee and director of the dissertation. under whose supervision this research was initiated and completed. He is also particularly indebted to Dr. Cecil V. Millard. Dr. Gregory'A. Miller and Dr. Barry W. sundwall, members of the Guidance Committee. for their many helpful comments and suggestions. Special thanks are also due Dr. Carl Frost for his review of the original design. Grateful acknowledgement is given to Dr. Orlo L. Crissey for his permission to carry on the study, and for use of the materials and data upon which the study was based. Many thanks are also due members of the Personnel Evaluation Services for their helpful comments. Robert S. Bears Candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Date of Examination: February 22. 1957. 10:00 a.m.. Room 17. Merrill Eall Dissertation: An Investigation of Organizational Effectiveness in an Industrial Setting Outline of Studies: Major area - Administrative and Educational Services (Guidance and Counselor Training) Minor areas - Higher Education. Educational Psychology Biographical Items: Birthdate - September 19. 1919 - Detroit. Michigan Undergraduate studies - Detroit Institute of Technology. Detroit. Michigan l9h0-l942 Wayne University. Detroit. Michigan. l946-19h8 7 Graduate Studies - Wayne University. Detroit. Michigan 19h8—l950 Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan 1951—195? Experience: William S. Maybury Sanatorium. Nerthville. Michigan. 1948-1950 Senior Rehabilitation Counselor Traverse City State Hospital. Traverse City. Michigan. 1950-1951 Clinical Psychologist. Consultant to Children's Center. Con- sultant to Nurses' Education Center General Motors Institute. Flint. Michigan. 1951-1953 Psychology Instructor. Referral Counselor Michigan State University. East Lansing. Michigan. l953—l95h Graduate Assistant. Reading Improvement Clinic General Motors Institute. Flint. Michigan, l95h—present Psychology Instructor. Consultant to Reading Improvement Program. Industrial Psychologist. Personnel Evaluations Services Membership: American Psychological Association American Personnel and Guidance Association Michigan Industrial Psychologists TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER _ PAGE H I. Imom-ICTIONOOO0.00.000.000.00.0000000000000000COOO Nature of the Problem.............................. Statement of the Problem........................... Related Research..............o......o..........o.. Limitations Of the Studyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeo “finition Of Terms”.....s........o...........”so Organization of the Study.......................... II. METHODOLOGY OF INVESTIGATIONQQOOsooeeeoeaeeeeeeaaO. Introduction....................................... Construction of the Questionnaire.................. Administration Of the Questionnaire................ Development of the Criteria........................ Statistical Techniques Employed in the Investigation................................... sumaryerOeOOOOOeOeoneaeaeeaeaeeoeoeeeeeaeeeeaso. P‘h‘ «strv>oa a) ONU‘UthADFJ RDA) O\MJ h) (D III. PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA........ Analysis of Survey Results......................... Analysis of Criteria Data.......................... mysis Of validation mtaOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0....O... 58% Iv. WYAND CONCLUSIONSa.eooooee.ooooeoeoeeeeeaaeee Thehablemo.00......00.000000000000000 00000 0...... Findlngs......o.......o..........................oo Conclusions..o....o..o..o.......................... Implications and Recommendations................... E$£&.5 BIHJIOGR-Apmoaooooeeeeoeoeeeaeeeeeaaoeeoeaa0000000000000... SP ”WIxOIOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOOOOOQOOOOOQOCOOO0.00.00.00.09.O... TABLE I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. LIST OF TABLES Identification of Questionnaire Dimensions....... Dimension Intercorrelations. Means. Standard Deviations and Median Correlations.. ....... .... Comparison of General Dimension Reliabilities.... Reliabilities of Specific Dimensions.. ....... .... Reliabilities of Criteria Data.......... ........ . Criterion Correlation Matrix. Residual Matrix.... Unrotated Orthogonal Factor Matrix and commlities...OOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.0..00.... Rotated Orthogonal Factor Matrix and comt16.000000000000 0000000 0.0.0.0...00000 Epsilon Correlations Between Dimensions and Criteria Factor Scores......................... Product-Moment Correlations Detween Dimensions and. criteria Mtor scores.-eeeeeaeoeeeeeonOOe Page 16 30 32 33 35 37 #1 43 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. NATURE OF THE PROBLEM The problem of effective supervision in industry has been a matter of concern to progressive organizations for some time. Numerous studies have been conducted. with varying degrees of success. to determine the personal characteristics related to the quality of supervision. Most of these have been in the nature of efforts to develop valid predictors of supervisory success. Inherent in this approach is the a priori postulation of the Job requirements. which have determined the selection of the predictive instruments. A somewhat unique approach to this problem has recently been the subject of investigation. In effect. the actual nature of supervisory practices has been investigated in terms of various criteria of organizational effectiveness. Thus. the behavior of the supervisor is being viewed in the manner in which it is related to performance of the group fer which the supervisor is responsible. The implications of this approach are many. Determination of successful supervisory practices may provide information that will be of value in both.the selection and development of predictive instruments. In addition. the nature and content of induction and training programs for supervisory candidates may be suggested. Tinally. this information would be valuable in contributing to the development of a realistic Job performance evaluation system. B. STATEMENT OP THE PROBLEM This study has been designed to investigate further some of the behavioral characteristics of supervisors in relation to several criteria of organizational effectiveness. More specifically. the investigation is designed to determine the quality of various super- visory practices by obtaining opinions from a sample of subordinates for each foreman. utilizing the questionnaire technique. A.maJor aspect of the investigation concerns the developing of appropriate criteria of organizational effectiveness and attempting to discover any possible underlying communality. The major hypotheses to be tested may be stated in the following manner. (1) There are no statistically significant relationships between supervisory practices and criteria of organizational effectiveness. and (2) there are no statistically significant differences between relationships of "general" and "specific" measures of supervisory practices oto criteria of organizational effectiveness. C. RELATED RESEARCH One of the early studies conducted in this area was reported by E. A. Pleishnan (9). The author constructed a questionnaire devised to describe the leadership behavior of supervisors. A total of #8 items resulted which purport to measure ”Consideration“ and "Initiating Structure.” This was administered to foreman who rated. or described. 3 their supervisors on a five point scale with respect to their behavior in each of these categories. The sample of supervisors consisted of 23 general foremen. The criterion consisted of the number of griev- ances per worker for each of the 23 departments. Correlations of -.h3 for Consideration and .26 for Initiating Structure with the criterion were obtained. Only the first coefficient was found to be statistically significant. In view of the small sample and the limited nature of the criterion. the author states that the results are purely suggestive. and emphasizes the need fer a more highly controlled criterion study before these scales can be adequately evaluated. A more comprehensive investigation in this area was conducted. under a contract between the Office of Naval Research and the University of Southern California. by Conroy. A. L.. Pfiffner. J.M.. and High. w. s. (8). This project consisted of the investigation of a total of forty dimensions of organizational behavior comprised of supervisory Self Evaluations. Situational Evaluations. and Evaluations by subordinates. Extensive studies employing itempanalysie and factor analytic techniques were conducted to refine the questionnaire. .A series of eight validation studies was undertaken and utilized various criteria of organizational effectiveness. Three of these studies were conducted in an aircraft plant where four different criteria were employed. These consisted of ratings by a staff executive. two quality control measures. and production data. One of these studies involved the survey of hourly rated employee. and is particularly pertinent because of the similarity of the population to the one comprising the sample of this investigation. A.total of twentybfour dimensions were found to be indicative of valid measures of effective organizational behavior. It was of particular interest to note that the objective criteria yielded more impressive correlations than the ratings. and that these relation— ships were found to exist at such a low organizational level. In the discussion the authors of this phase of the project state. “Thus. with the introduction of new kinds of criteria. some rather substantial relationships have appeared which lend concrete support to what everyone knows intuitively to be true. namely. that what the first line supervisor does in relation to his employees is important." (3). Subsequent related research was conducted by H. O'Neill. This investigator utilized many of the dimensions developed by Comrey. Pfiffner and High (8) in a study of organizational effectiveness in an automotive plant. No attempt was made to replicate the previous study. or to determine the validity of the questionnaire for this population. Only the dimensions that were appropriate for the situation were utilized.. This application provided an excellent opportunity to assess the merit of several of the dimensions. and thus served as a.pilot study for this investigation. Since the study was not published. the results were made known to this writer by means of personal communication with Mr. O'Neill. The initial studies in this area. represented by these reports. have been suggestive of a promising area of research. However. the need for a more comprehensive and controlled investigation of criteria 5 is rather evident. The lack of this investigation has constituted a common limitation of previous projects. It is hoped that this study will be of some contribution to the growing literature in this field of inquiry. D. LIMITATIONS 01‘ THE STUDY Some of the limitations of this study may be readily apparent. A major restriction to this study pertains to the manner in which the descriptions of supervisory behavior was obtained. The survey tech.- nique was employed. and was based on a random sample of subordinates. The assumption is made. however. that the responses that would have been made by the total population would not be sigificantly different from those made by members of the sample. since the latter was selected on a random basis. Also. some limitation is imposed upon this study by the subjective determination of the relevancy of the criteria. Exhaustive efforts have been made to obtain criteria that are believed to be related to the ultimate criterion of organizational effectiveness. The extent to which this has been accomplished is indeterminant. Many potential criteria were not available for various reasons. As it is frequently true of theoretical concepts. limitations are imposed by the practical situation. Hence. many of the theoretically attainable criteria were Just not available. Further discussion of the difficulties encountered in obtaining criteria will be discussed later in this report. E. DEFINITION OF TERMS A number of terms will be used in this report that will be more 6 meaningful when defined within the frame of reference of this study. The term “dimension“ refers to a specific type of supervisory behavior. Ier example. the activity concerning a supervisor's be- havior in Communication Down constitutes a dimension as used here. A.dimension will consist of from four to six items of activity. The reference to ”general“ measures or dimensions pertains to those that have been found to be suggestive of being a valid variable by other investigators. Most of these dimensions have been con— structed previously by Ccmrey. Pfiffner. and High in their investi- gation. "specific" dimensions are those that were constructed for this investigation. The basis for the content of these dimensions was determined by the results of’a preliminary investigation. involving interviews with several members of all supervisory levels of manage- ment. and observations during labor-management grievance negotiations meetings. The reference to the “original investigation” in this study per- tains to the investigations conducted by Comrey. Pfiffner. and High (8) who were the senior investigators on the project.. or by their colleagues. I. ORGANIZATION or THE STUDY In Chapter II the methodology of the investigation is presented. This includes a presentation and discussion of the techniques and statistical design of the study. Construction of the questionnaire. the development of the criteria. and the administration of the questionnaire are discussed in this chapter. 7 Chapter III is comprised of the presentation and interpretation of the statistical results obtained in the investigation. This chapter includes tables of results of the statistical analysis of data concerning the questionnaire construction. the development of the criteria. and the relationships between the dimensions and the criteria. The siaificance of these results are discussed and related to previous investigations in this area. Chapter IV is devoted to a summary of the findings and the author's conclusions. The implications of this investigation and recommendations concerning future studies are also included in this chapter. CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY'OF INVESTIGATION A. INTRODUCTION The inspiration for this investigation deve10ped as a result of a.practical need manifested by an assembly plant of a large auto- mobile manufacturing corporation. This industrial organization had. at one time. been rated at the top of its division in over—all efficiency. During the past few years. however. it has gradually diminished in efficiency and labor—management disputes have tended to increase. A.variety of other problems in organisational effect- iveness were also noted by Central Office divisional personnel. This writer was assigned to investigate the causes for the lack of organi- zational effectiveness at the request of the local management and the Divisional Personnel Director. Early in 1956. the writer and a colleague began the investigation. .A series of interviews. nonpdirective in nature. were held by the writer with various members of supervision to determine the nature of the problems confronting the organization. Concurrently. the other staff member attended several labor relations grievance negotiations meetings to ascertain the problems in this area. ‘Lt a predetermined time both investigators met to compare notes con- cerning their findings. Considerable agreement was attained conp cerning the questionable nature of the current supervisory practices. The decision to employ the questionnaire to further investigate the problems had been independently reached. Consequently. it was decided 9 to develop a questionnaire to explore the problem areas more ade- quately and to attempt to validate it against criteria of organi- zational effectiveness. The project design included a survey of the literature for apprOpriate techniques. Some familiarity had already been attained with the instrument devised by the original investigators. It was decided to utilize as many of their findings as seemed pertinent. and to construct other variables as seemed necessary. The methodology of this investigation comprises this chapter of the study. B. CONSTRUCTION or THE QUESTIONNAIREI A comparison of the findings reported by Comrey. Pfiffner and High (8) in their studies. with the apparent problem areas uncovered by the interviews and observations during the grievance negotiations meetings. suggested that many of the dimensions developed by these authors were appropriate. A total of twelve of their dimensions were employed in the questionnaire. Seven additional dimensions were constructed by this writer. A total of 19 dimensions and six indivi- dual items comprised the completed instrument which consisted of 92 individual items or questions in booklet form. A rating scale followed each of the items. It consisted of five descriptive words. preceded by an identifying letter. The respondent thus could select the one choice which best represented the degree 1 See Appendix 10 of satisfaction. frequency. or certainty that reflected his opinion of the particular situation. The corresponding item number and choice could be marked on a separate answer sheet. that was pro- vided. to indicate his choice. .L second answer sheet was provided for any general comments the respondent cared to make concerning the improvement of teamwork at the plant. his opinion of the questionnaire. and a five point scale whereby he could rate the questionnaire. In order to preserve anonymity of responses and to insure candid answers. a minimum of identifying information was required on the answer sheet. The following discussion will be concerned with a brief des- cription of the dimensions that comprise the completed questionnaire. Communication.§g!p is concerned with the supervisor's communi- cations praotices. and particularly the extent to which he passes on to his subordinates infermation that he receives. from.higher levels. Planning refers to the supervisor's ability to perceive future needs and emergencies. and whether or not he prepares for them as much as possible. Items were selected from the Global Planning dimension of the original investigation. Receptiveness Lg,§gggestiogg suggests that the effective leader is willing to listen to ideas submitted by his subordinates; he tolerates those who disagree with.him. and is willing to put meritorious employee suggestions into practice. Orggpizigg assumes that in effective units. the supervisor establishes clear-cut lines of authority. avoids giving conflicting orders. and designates the job duties of subordinates. There is no 11 question about who is running the group. and orders are given solely by him. Human Relations was specifically constructed for this investi- gation. and refers to the supervisor's human relations practices. It is hypothesized that the effective supervisor is interested in his people. makes it easy for them to talk to him. lets them know when he is satisfied with their work. and is fair in his use of criticism. gudgpgnt is concerned with.whether the supervisor is regarded by his subordinates as being a good decision maker. He does not make costly mistakes and his decisions do not result in wasted effort. Relations with Other Units is a general dimension composed of questions taken from the Public Relations dimension of the original investigation. The frame of reference was changed from relations with the public to the supervisor's relations with other units. It is suggested that the effective leader will deal forthright with difficulties concerning people outside of’his area. He is not likely to become angry or sarcastic in relations with others but will practice tact and diplomacy at all times. Egrsonal Balations gighi§uborginates refers to the supervisor's counseling practices; that is. whether or not he is willing to listen to their personal problems. and is interested and sympathetic. Treatment qt 13211.; is concerned withthe degree of satisfaction of subordinates with the manner in.which they are treated by their supervisor. and.whether or not he permits his personal feelings and moods to affect his relationships with them. 12 Adequate.Authqgigz is a general dimension adopted from the original investigation. The title is identical and the general wording is similar. However. in the previous investigation this was a Supervisory Selfbmvaluation dimension. In other words. the supervisor rated himself concerning the adequacy of the authority he possessed. In this study the frame of reference was changed to inquiring of the subordinates whether or not they think he has sufficiently authority to make the necessary decisions. and to handle emergencies and problems that might arise. Consistency 2;,Digcipline is concerned with the consistency with which the supervisor employs disciplinary action. and his willingness to handle situations that necessitate the use of discipline. Decisiveness refers to the extent to which the supervisor is overly cautious about making decisions. procrastinates when a decision is necessary. and avoids the decisionemaking process when he should not. Iggy Competence refers to the degree to which the subordinates feel that the supervisor knows how to perform the work that they are required to do. and his ability to solve production problems involving technical knowledge. Distribution 2; Eggk_was designed to determine the extent to which.the subordinates believe that work assignments are equitably distributed by the supervisor. Recognition g§_Leadershfp is rather broad in nature and refers to the amount of confidence the subordinates have in their supervisor 13 as the leader of the unit. and whether or not he is the individual to whom they turn when problems occur. Confidence ig;ggmpggy‘was developed to determine the confidence that the subordinate has in the organization. the assumption being that the effective supervisor will engender this confidence. Adaptability pg,§hgggg refers indirectly to the manner in which changes are introduced by the supervisor. Members of effective work groups are less likely to be resistant to changes. primarily because of the methods used by the supervisor in acquainting the employees with new methods and procedures. Cooperation 3392 m 9.22% refers to the cooperation the supervisor receives from other units. An.effective supervisor is more likely to secure Optimum cooperation from others. mainly be— cause he is likely to cooperate with them. Qggup_ggigz refers to the "team" feeling of’members of effective work units. They may be assumed to be more likely to talk over mutual problems. go out of their way to help each other and generally function as an unified group. The supervisor plays a major role in establishing this group unity. Individual Items - In addition to the dimensions of behavior. six individual questions were included in the questionnaire. Two of these items constitute one of the criteria of organizational effect- iveness. and will be discussed in the unit entitled Development of Criteria in this chapter. The remaining four items are not pertinent to this investigation and may be ignored. 1% Reference to Teble I will disclose the source of each of the dimensions. and the items that constitute the dimension on the questionnaire. The actual wording of each item may be determined by examination of a copy of the questionnaire which is included in the Appendix. C. .ADMINISTRATION or THE QHESTIONNAIRE The problem concerning the population upon which.the questionnaire was to be validated was resolved.by selecting foreman from the five production departments of the plant. It was believed that thus would minhmize any variance that might be due to differences in Job content. This procedure also tended to reduce the effects of situational variance upon the criteria. .Accordingly. the production foremen were chosen as the population. In effect. this limited the size of the population to 82. The practical limitations involved in administering the questionp naire to all of the hourly rated employees dictated the necessity of sampling. The optimum sample was obtained and amounted to approxi- mately 20% of the labor force. The number of subordinates that were selected depended upon the size of the foreman's group and varied from two to five. The payroll sheets for these departments were consulted and potential respondents were chosen on a random basis. Since the survey was entirely voluntary. it was anticipated that some would decline to participate. Consequently. alternate respondents were 'also selected on a random basis. On the day preceding the administration. members of the sample on both shifts were contacted. They were informed of the purpose of 15 of the study and their cooperation was solicited. It was further explained that they would be required to stay overtime. for which they would be paid. Approximately ten per cent declined and the appropriate alternates were chosen. The major reason given for not wishing to participate was the fact that these employees were members of car pools. The location of the plant would have caused some hardship for many of these people and was considered a legitimate excuse. A,total of 296 employees. from both shifts. agreed to parti- cipate and arrangements were made for them to be conducted to the cafeteria for the purpose of answering the questionnaire. Local union officials were notified of the project at the same time and their cooperation was obtained. Administration of the questionnaire proceeded according to schedule. The selected employees were conducted to the cafeteria and seated at the tables. The administrator introduced himself and briefly stated the purpose of the survey. They were assured of the anonymity of their responses. The only identifying information required on the answer sheets was their supervisor's name. their department. shift. and classification. The instructions for answering the items were printed in the booklet. These were read aloud by the administrator and the groups were informed that there was no time limit to the questionnaire. The total time consumed in administering the questionnaire was about two and one-half hours. divided equally between the two shifts. The mean number of respondents per foreman was 3.6. The employees reaction was generally favorable. In response to the question "What is your opinion of this questionnaire?". the WI IDENTIFICATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE DIMENSIONS l6 mung... ItemW 1. Communication Down General 2. 22. 1+2. 62. 82. 88 2. Planning General 3. 23. 1+3. 63. 83. 89 3. Recqptiveness to Suggestions ’oneral h. 2h. an. 6“. 84. 90 h. Organising General 5. 25. #5. 65. 85. 91 5. Human Relations Specific 6. 26. #6. 66. 86. 92 6. Judgment General 7. 27. 1+7. 67 7. Relations with Other units General 8. 28. #8. 68 8. Personal Relations with subordinates General 9. 29. M9. 69 9. Treatment of People Specific 10. 30. 50. 7O 10. Adequate Authority General. 11. 31. 51. 71 ll. Consistency of Discipline Specific 12. 32. 52. 72 12. Decisiveness General 13. 33a 53a 73 13. Job Competence General 1h. 34. 5h. 7“ 1“» Distribution of Work Specific 15. 3#. 55. 75 15. Recognition of’Leadership Specific 16. 36. 56. 76 16. Confidence in Company General 17. 37. 57. 77 17. Adaptability to Change Specific 18. 38. 58. 78 18. CoOperation from Other Groups Specific 19. 39. 59. 79 19. Group Unity General 20. #0. 60. 80 Individual Items ‘ 1. 21. 1+1. 61. 81. 87 NOTE: General dimensions refer to those adapted from the investigation by Comrey. A. L.: Pfiffner. J;M.: and High. v.5. (8). were constructed for this inrestigation. may be found in the Appendix. Specific dimensions A.copy of the questionnaire 17 mean rating was 3.8. on a five point scale with choices ranging from Very Poor. with a scale value of one. to Very Good having a scale value of five. There was no statistically significant difference be- tween the values obtained for each shift. in this respect. Many emp ployees stated. in the space provided on the sedend answer sheet for general comments. that they were of the opinion that the survey was an excellent idea. The enthusiasm with which the project was received lends support to the assumption that the respondents were sincere in completing the questionnaire. D. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CRITERIA This phase of the investigation involved the development of appro- priate criteria of organizational effectiveness. Approximately forty variables were examined to determine their utility as standards of group performance. Many of these were found to be unsuitable. for various reasons. and had to be rejected. The major shortcomings of these variables included insufficient data. limited variance in the variable. the presence of contaminating factors. the difficulty in trying to compensate for unequal opportunity in contributing to the variable. and the general impracticality of obtaining the necessary data. Ideally. measures of productivity-would constitute desirable criteria. However. in the modern automobile assembly plant. pro- ductivity is largely predetermined by the speed of the assembly line. Since the quantity of output is fixed. it would also appear logical that the quality of the product could be used as a criterion. UB9 fortunately. the development of measures of this variable as a 18 criterion was prevented because of the aforementioned shortcomings. An elaborate discussion of the problems encountered in investi- gating the original forty variables. to determine their acceptability as criteria. need not be made. Suffice it to say. that every con- ceivable measure of performance was examined and evaluated as potential criteria. This effort resulted in the retention of 19 variables as criteria for this investigation. Eleven of these are based on sub- jective ratings and the remaining eight are objective measures. A brief description of each of these criteria is indicated at this time. Superior's 3513335 91122;; LEL- Nine of the subjective ratings were obtained by the use of a check list. which is comprised of a des- cription of the Production lbreman's job in terms of his duties and responsibilities. This form is divided into eight categories. each consisting of one or more statements defining the job requirements in that category. A.five point scale followed each statement and was used by the General Ebreman to indicate the level of performance by their respective foreman in the given area. This check list was originally developed for a different project. Formally an intensive training program. designed to develop skill among supervisors who might wish to employ this technique. precedes the use of this check list. In this investigation such.a procedure was not possible. primarily because of the limited availability of the General lbreman. Consequently. a brief meeting was held with these supervisors to acquaint them with the form and to explain the system of rating their 19 subordinates. Initial rating was accomplished in June. 1956. Scores were obtained for each category on the check list by assigning numerical values. ranging from zero to four. to the scales following the statements comprising a given category. All of the eight category mean scores were averaged to provide a single score designated as Overall. Distributions of the foremen's scores. by individual departments. disclosed the presence of rater bias. This effect was minimized by ranking each foreman within a given department according to his score on each of the nine categories. Normalized. standard scores were obtained by reference to a table in Walker and Lev (18). These scores were the bases for the following nine criteria scores. merall M was obtained. initially. by averaging the mean scores of the following eight categories which comprise the check list. As previously mentioned. these resulted from ratings of the foremen by the General Ibremen. their immediate supervisors. Quality has reference to the degree tO‘VhiCh the foremen meets established quality requirements for work:performed in his section. gauntity refers to the foreman's ability to meet established schedule requirements for his group. Qggg,Control consists of duties involving the minimizing of manpower. material. salvage and equipment costs for production. Organization,agg,Planning pertains to the ability of the foreman to plan the necessary adjustments in his section to accommodate pro— duction changes and emergencies.cor to improve quality or efficiency. It also involves necessary administrative duties and maintaining 20 required records. Employee Relations is composed of statements concerning his ability to maintain a cooperative. well-trained. and well—disciplined work force. Qoopgration.ggppigppgp_Sppgrvision is an essential characteristic of an effective supervisor. It refers to his ability to take the necessary action within his section or provide personal assistance in helping other members of supervision to meet their responsibilities. Sggppy refers to the extent to which he minimizes safety hazards. and enforces correct safety practices within his group. ‘Hpugekeepimg is concerned with.his ability to maintain a neat. orderly section through the proper planning of operations. provision of facilities. and enforcement of good housekeeping practices among his subordinates. Objective fipcords. The following criteria were developed from objective records that were available at the plant. With the exception of the first of these. Efficienc'. they all refer to behavior of members of the work unit believed to be a manifestation of the degree of effectiveness of the group. Unlike many of the other criteria. however. these are indirectly related to the ultimate criterion of organi- zational effectiveness. Efficiency scores were developed from records maintained by the Work Standards Department. The original data consisted of the average number of minutes of assigned work for the #80 minute work day. for the productive operators in a given fomeman's area during July. 1956. 21 This figure. expressed in perventage. was converted to an Efficiency Index Score by subtracting it from 150. an arbitrary constant. Thus. the more efficient work groups. by these standards. resulted in higher scores for the foremen over these groups. ébgenteeism concerned the degree of absenteeism of a work group. These data consisted of the mean percentage of manhours lost by absenteeism for each fereman during the first two months of 1956. These values were converted to standard scores for each.department to minimize interdepartmental differences. The resulting figures were subtracted from 100 to give the section with the lowest absentee rate the highest index. Data was not available for seven feremen in one department. In order that this criterion could be retained. the mean value was assigned to these individuals. Grievance Index wastobtained by consulting the Grievance Register to obtain data fer this criterion. A.formula was developed to assign scores to the foremen in the samples which.minimized the influence of malcontents among the employees. and equated for the size of the group. The resulting index gave the highest scores to the foremen with the least absolute number of grievances and grievers. Resulting scores were based on grievances filed during the first half of the year. Committee figp,Contact refers to the number of formal contacts made by the union Committee Man with the foreman. during the first quarter of 1956. usually'at the request of’a disgruntled employee. An index was developed to equate for the number of people in the foreman's section. and to give the foreman with the least contacts the highest score. 22 Disciplinary éption concerns the action that a foreman may take when an employee refuses to do his work. or violates a rule or regulatidn. The foreman may discipline him by a reprimand or by a temporary lay-off. both of which will be recorded on the employee's record in the Personnel Office. Records for the first half of the year provided the source for this criterion. Again. allowances were made for the number of’people in the section and the resulting index assigned more favorable scores to the supervisors with the fewest discipline actions. §ggg§stions is a criterion that was developed from records main— tained by the Suggestions Department. A formula was developed which equated for the size of the group and scores were obtained for the first quarter of 1956 for each foreman. Hospital Passes—Industrial refers to the number of times employees in a given section reported on sick call because of industrial accidents. The resulting index was equated for the number of people in the section. Data was obtained for the month of February. 1956. and appropriate scores assigned to each foreman. Hospital gasses-Personal is based on the number of visits to the dispensary because of physical complaints of a personal nature. An index was developed which took into consideration the sedtion size. and which gave the foremen with the fewest sick calls of this type. the highest score. Scores were based on sick calls during February. 1956. §3pgrdinates' Rating. This subjective criterion was based on items numbered 1 and 87 of the questionnaire. The questions were identical and were phrased. "How satisfied are you with your supervisor?" The following choices were available. a. Quite dissatisfied b. A little dissatisfied c. Reasonably satisfied d. Quite satisfied e. Very satisfied Scores for each foreman were obtained by averaging the responses to these questions by the respondents sampled from his section. Superiorig Ratipg_!§gm. This criterion was based on the standard rating form used by the plant. It consisted of a four point rating scale. refenmng to the foreman's Job perfbrmance. Ratings were obtained for the two periods preceding administration of the question- naire. and were averaged to provide a single score. The criteria that were developed for this investigation were classified in the three following categories. Superiors' Ratings. Subordinates' Rating. and Objective Records. A total of 10 criteria were of the first type and included nine from the Superiors' Rating Check:List and the Superiors' Rating Form. The subordinates' Rating consisted solely of the degree of employees' satisfaction with their supervisor as expressed in response to the two items on the question- naire. The remaining eight criteria were obtained from. and designated as. Objective Records. E. STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES EMPLOYED IN THIS INVESTIGATION Means and standard deviations were computed for the 19 dimensions of the questionnaire. This procedure made it possible to compare the general and the specific dimensions. and thus determine the merit of using readyamade as opposed to specially constructed items on the 24 dimensions of the questionnaire. It also provided data for the analyses of apparent problems in the production department which were valuable for a separate phase of the total project. although not pertinent to this investigation. Intercorrelations between the dimensions were obtained for the purpose of determining the degree of relatedness between the dimensions for the population. In the original investigation a modified Wherryh Gaylord iterative technique was employed. This procedure refined the dimensions leaving a small number of homogeneous items with minimum correlations among the dimensions. The authors state "Despite these steps. however. substantial correlations between the purified dimensions will often remain. -- The fact that the dimensions remain correlated after this process is not necessarily to be considered a defect. In actuality. there is certainly no reason to suppose that important supervisory and group behavior traits go together and the correlations between dimensions will reflect this" (8) . Obtaining the dimensions intercorrelations permitted a check on the degree of relationships between general dimensions for this population and provided similar information for the specific dimensions. Product moment coefficients of correlation.were utilized for this procedure. Coefficients of reliability were determined for the dimensions and the criteria. The purpose in obtaining these statistics was two- fold. The reliability coefficients provided a basis for a comparison of these variables. for the specific population employed in this in- vestigation. with the findings reported by the original investigators. Further. it is possible to estimate the accuracy of a measurement instrument. as in this case the dimensions. and the representativeness of the criteria observations by means of the reliability coefficients. 25 The numerical value of a reliability coefficient is directly related to the variance attributable to true differences between individuals as compared to any error variance introduced by the inaccuracy of the measuring device. or by the lack of representativeness of the criterion observation. This relationship has been expressed by the formula ::-W .. 1 - gez . where r is the reliability coefficient. a” e2 d" 2 is the error variance. and. ae— 2 is the true variance (1?). Obviously. the greater the error variance. the less is the value of the reliability coefficient. Conversely. a low reliability coefficient may be assumed to have greater error variance. In this investigation. appropriate formulae were employed for determining the reliability coefficients for the dimensions and criteria. Intercorrelations among criteria were computed as the first step in the factor analysis. Factor analysis was accomplished by the com- plete centroid method. Orthogonal factors were obtained to maximize the independence of any relationships that might exist. Communalities were estimated by using the highest coefficient among the columns of correlations for a given criterion. Completeness of extraction was determined by observation of the residual matrices. and by employing appropriate statistical checks. Significance of each factor was determined by Tucker’s method (16). The surviving factors were orthogonally rotated in an attempt to achieve simple structure with positive manifold. The resulting factors were analyzed in terms of the most significant variables and weighted according to the magnitude of their loadings. lactor scores were determined on this basis for the foremen comprising the criterion group. 26 The final step in the statistical treatment of the data consisted of correlating dimension scores for each fereman with his criterion factor scores. Both the corrected epsilon (15) and the productnmoment techniques of correlation were utilized. The former technique was found to be valuable by the original investigators who stated. ”This statistic gives a measure of correlation between dimension and criteria without assuming a linear regression; epsilon.proved to be a happy choice in that some curvilinear relationships appeared which might well have been lost if a conventional analysis had been employed. such as testing the difference between 'high' and 'low' groups“ (8). Product-moment correlations were obtained in order that the linearity of the relationships might be ascertained by comparing the two sets of coefficients. The obtained coefficients were compared to ”t" tables to determine whether or not they could have arisen.by chance fluctuation in sampling. Only values that exceeded the five per cent level of confidence were considered acceptable. This permits one to state that the probability of such a relationship occurring due to chance is one in twenty. The final analysis consisted of breaking down one of the factors to determine the influence of one of it's variables on the obtained coefficients of correlation. This process consisted of correlating the dimensions. found to be significantly correlated with one of the factors. with the factor minus the variable believed to be most inp fluential in contributing to the obtained. significant coefficients. Product-mmment correlations were utilized for this analysis. 1% SUMMARY This chapter has been devoted to a discussion of the methodology 27 of the investigation. The procedures involved in the construction and administration of the questionnaire. and the development of the criteria have been discussed. The rationale for the particular statistical techniques employed in this investigation was presented. The next chapter will be concerned with the presentation and inter- probation of the data. CHAPTER III PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA A. ANALYSIS OF SURVEY’RESULTS Means and standard deviations for the 19 dimensions are reported in Table II. It will be noted that most of the dimensions have moderately high means and standard deviations. Both general and specific dimensions compare favorably in this respect. with two exceptions. Communication Down and Planning dimensions have low means and standard deviations. The range of responses to these dimensions is quite restricted since two-thirds of the scores fall between a plus and minus one standard deviation from the mean. With respect to Communication Down the range of responses. within which two-thirds of the sample would fall. is 2.23 to 3.23. In other words. 66 per cent of the cases selected the response that was scaled at the three point position. In terms of Planning the range is even more restricted. with limits of 2.51 and 2.99 (in rounding the latter value would be 3.00). There are three hypotheses that could be posited to explain these phenomena. Iirst. the restricted range might be due to the inaccuracy of'measurement of these two dimensions. Another possibility would be that the subordinates have little opportunity to accurately evaluate the foreman in this respect. The final hypothesis. which this writer tends to favor. is that the foremen are. generally speaking. quite similar in respect to the behavior being evaluated by these two dimensions. Evidence to support this view is mostly subjective. based on the writer's knowledge of the average foreman's behavior 29 in these areas. Intercorrelations of the dimensions are also reported in Table II. The median correlation is given for each dimension in terms of'itlg correlations with the other 18 dimensions. This was calcuated as the most representative correlation coefficient for a given dimension. Mention was made earlier of the technique used by the original inp vestigators to obtain minimum correlations between the dimensions. In interpreting the median correlation for each.dimension as a basis for determining the extent to which the dimensions overlap or account for similar variance of the supervisor's behavior. according to their subordinates. two standards may be posited. Correlations of .30 and .50 would account for nine and twenty-five per cent of the variance. respectively. since the coefficient of determination is a function of the correlation coefficient squared. The former value is a rigorous standard of acceptability of the uniqueness of a dimension while the latter is considerably more liberal. Only two of the dimensions were found to meet the former standard and nine had a median correlation of .50 or less. Thus. even when allowing a liberal standard of .50. less than half of the dimensions may be considered relatively unique. However. of these nine dimensions. seven.are general and two are specific. which amount to 58 and 29 per cent. respectively. of the total dimensions of each type. Applying a test of the significance of the difference between these two per- centages (ll-é) it was determined that the difference was significant at the 1% level. It may be concluded that this difference could have arisen. due to chance. only once in 100 times. It would appear that 30 UHSmSm UHSosmHos H m u H. coasanomdwo: boa: M t m. pHmssHsm Ho x w. woomdecdsoeHfim wH mm mm‘ HH. oosmwmdmmow.owiUHmoHVwao mo mm ole Hm. doowmwdmsomm on Hwy mm Hm. Lou ooawoamdoo iiww mm mm, Hr. UHmdeHUcdeo: ow Eowx mt ma ow Hm. monombwdwoa ow Homaoemeri, or Hm «a Hm“ oosmHaosoo Ha 003mm:% um‘ mm‘ mm HQ. >ampddeHHaw ao osmsmo \ro Hm law Haw aoopoedeos macs oases muocmm MH ww \rH Hw. 080cm deak, Ho rm ow . ZomSm m.ww m.~o u.mo wu. mammamea Uoo ma new 06 on cowpwmoa a aw uwv asap adnm.oasvosOm madmacwmz om omcowasadwmpsm vmuuuonm you mmcmuua on cowaom unsoun moxwa on ovwshomcw :MEmnoh‘Hmumnmo «mama can acm5¢nmaon Hawpmpwz saw: hHomoao q: mzoaaoh omwwmphogm wanoami mmpmawowpsd co ommfipH:OAMMflv and mo vomw>ca qaaouom kumcmo mammu oucmaafisdm vnm naoop Mo magnum camsdmcw mafidacwms cam wwnw>0hm om .owmuo>ooxxuoz oHnwwmon pump now on non mcwwmmmwh mamfimmaummfiu no pco>o one mm o« mqflcaapmv Annowvomm was pom mpamEoum5vmu madcwsom cmnmwfipaamo mammxv «weHazoauw mmpmmwamm>nH .m oucowpoaoum vcm ‘mswphm>o .mmocm>owhw .mcwaawomwo mcwdcnmn cw mucos@wuma Hmooa was Hauowpm: mo encamfi>opq mzoaaom van among .w w~~ fl.;t. a: .oucwsuomuoa noon penance anon on aoapoo m>wposupmzoo moxma .oonmeuouu a voow nonwnmooom .wcaoo ohm mwna so: socx mmmoagso mama .h .nohoaaso Haw saw: pomuaoo acoscmum unampcaaz .m .muovho and .ncowpaasmou .mmadh you mcommmu mcwcamxm cacao aoomum hmevanp cowpmeuomcw mam «whonEo oa uo¢woacdssoo .a emanauwfiunu VA on sm>ouq omega so cowpom unsouq magma .oocmauomuoa no haonoao.o:OHHom .nanwn no: you mawndauu nan nmdouona novfi>oum. .u .amwnocowumawu voow nmwapmaao on uaqeu»¢4_ .musvmooumwcuwncwpu o» weavuooow Hmccomuma 2mg uponvcH .m oDODOHHOQNO.UCd IOHHHHHDG HHDfiQ O“ vfiflfilfl ”DOW flU H0§§OOHOQ.30§ MOONHQ 0‘ + mnwuaaauaso mo , ‘ hhoauauuagumA .uouom guo:.vonwfln«oonw 235: 8.35. .33 «not 6052??» mgmafifios .— unflaiv 58233 ESE s 9% no .59 «a. , : .. m on.“ '|'-'-I'-l-'l'--.l'"-- can: n.:ua§hoh """I|"ll. ‘ "'|'-'I'|"l|-‘l'--l'|'l‘l§l"I'l' n01 ‘»c I n 11'1" 1| cauuuun nnnnnnnnnn «menmzzao - , o ‘26. ,::1;.: . . . v . ooaaul-pounlu canvavuou no season aoouuoo o» ., g m m _ _ :oavou unloun sonny .ononawvnoo moans-3onoon no guano oooHo onion. .1 my 2'41; ‘\ \- \. . . mafia-a8 _ k ooo hwmaouuuapam M _ . Aauooa»0uun madnooxonpon voow Mfl unavnaoo vohwuoutzoaom m anunuououno can nonwwawouu no nownwboun .onowpuuuno no mnaaqaan no“ no anon mom honoun on» swoouav :owvoon hauowuo «van: a acmuaowazy «ozunmmummoom OHHHb uuuuu u u + e-ilnana..noouuenuuauassooouaauoaoouuouoouno «mags m 111+--zz :1 oncompaonoa H . uaoooh «an cw houcamcm huouam nafln.mamafiaaw3 monsoonoou onowpoa o>wp _ fl ouhuoo anaohn umxap vow nouauan haemaa you ahead nH cocoapoaun soouuoo 4,-.\ -. txn..;\u4a:s¢ cw donoonuon ucwuua opcoanwdvo haomuo mo ammo: moouomdo can uoowbopn ed mafipufio . _ _ _ voow _ huopoaMuwuam- Aonowuoon awn unawauon vouwmoo soaom swan“: uoowpumun uoohuoo moonomcu was nopauan hummus noswawafizv «flywhdm 0HH> can me flag aoz 0000'eu'i'fila--l"0'-'°-flunon-l""‘90'en‘ii-"'aE"-'-asefl--‘e'gua'o .0“"flu"ir'""l'-'a-"esgg"'-"'5'-“3-9909'"0-u'°a'ioae'900'lo-'n 0"---e'a'oi-'lun'n----""""-I"uog---"e"fla""'-". ' .mazmzsco _ capaaofiMMdo mod>an uaowuoou umaao moaofla a“ d 4‘. opauanuwow woman oooumoddok non: cowawpumnsm henna spat ooaauonoou o< mswcadnnnmm \fi \fl coco . huouoamuavam - , €33: cannon s38, A.gofifiofinfififi .323 «8.. Ewugogm new no unun.a.z uoavo mnnnHon nu noose-«ans Hanoouon noowhoun ho cognac. own 55:. 822. 58.8: .375 ”Saga 3.8 SE images. a: .5. iv o oman s uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu oeuz n.cmaouon FOREMAN'S *3 ‘9’,/..'__;,§If.f-ff.l‘9{5L3 DMMAR Y Sit-1337‘ Fore man’s Name Dej‘va' n'zmzz‘ Section Aooraisal Pe nod: From To A j')j/)'rais ed B y .' E2 (1,7 50:70.22 R: is ed By : R6126. Zl‘é’d 24‘2'17‘7 7“ r; 1. r', ‘_/\“’s (F ore-imam lo .sz'g? .ch 2's) ...... . .. V ......-.,... o..- .o _. ..-_ No: «Dari ofjob Be (4024 dzszmdsianda'rd Saiz'sfacior} ood v Outs faigfi if- 1. Quality II. Quanlziv 111. Control of Costs I V« Organizatzon and Plannmg V. Employe Relatzons VL Cooperation with other Supervision VII. Safety VIE Housekeeping i COM’MENTS: Foreman's Name PLANS FOR IMPROVING PERFORIMANCE Suggested Steps: List here the speczfic steps this man can take to improve his effectiveness on the job. Specific Things - that will be done to aid his development. Comments by Man Appraised: (Write in any comments or additions you wish to make.) Signature Summary Statement: To be completed after follow-up discussion with the man. Any changes recommended? Any significant interview reactions 7 Etc. P383? USE GELY Borneo-293 —~—.___--.-..- .. _ _.--... MITITIWWHHWIWWWITIHYH WVBIIFWITIR 3 1193 03082 8903